Should There be a Training Psychoanalyst Status?1

This question has no relevance in absolute terms; it only pertains within the frame-work of institutionalized psychoanalysis, founded on what some call Freud's second fundamental principle, stating that anyone who wants to practise psychoanalysis must undergo (or have undergone) psychoanalysis him- or herself.

The question then is: should the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) institute the status of training psychoanalyst? (See Dewald, 1973.)

Given that the analytic community has been divided ever since its inception on the issue of what constitutes psychoanalytic training, the question could seem naive, or even sardonic. While analysis of a future analyst as a sine qua non has never been brought into question, its status within institutional training has remained a source of opposition and even conflict. Through the decades, and in the various psychoanalytic societies, the range of positions on this question extends from ‘the recommendation to have undertaken analysis’ (without mention of where, when or with whom) all the way to the requirement that this analysis be or has been under-taken with a specifically designated psychoanalyst, accountable to the institute for this period of training. We all know how much individual experience influences the convictions held in these matters.

As it is not my intention to review the history of these discussions and the arguments used by opposing sides, my discussion of the question will be based on my own experience in the society to which I belong. The Paris Psychoanalytical Society (Société Psychanalytique de Paris, SPP) is among the associations which are strongly in favour of a necessary separation between so-called ‘personal’ analysis and the actual training process, entrusted to training institutes. Given that the IPA has recently accepted the idea that there could be other training models than the one proposed by Eitingon, we must reorient reflection on what a training analyst should be, in memb