The Future of Psychoanalysis: The Debate About the Training Analyst, System by Peter Zagermann, a collection of essays about the category of training analysis, pro and con, tackles one of the oldest problems in the education of candidates. It is a debate that has been going on since its beginnings and one that should be resolved once and for all. Unfortunately, the title of ‘training analyst’ holds great appeal because it worn by those who seem to need a special title.

In actuality the designation involves both politics and a willingness to jump through hoops that harken back to an orthodox approach. It is also a title bestowed on some who have produced erudite books thereby making a name for themselves.

True, there are fine people who apply and who do fine work but there are many fine analysts who are not interested in hoop jumping.

In any case, this book and the entire topic have been shunned by the field by those who arrange conferences and aside from one meeting at an IPA conference in 2019, which was a disappointment to this writer, no space has been given to address the topic openly. The thinking seems to be that if we ignore it, it will go away.

The review by Alan Karbelnig and its publication in IJCC shines new light on the topic and hopefully it will attract a forum of discussants. Otherwise, as Noam Chomsky said: “The intellectual tradition [of the training analyst system in this case] is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself.”