You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It Is the aim of this paper to describe and discuss the training programme at the C. G. Jung Institute, Zürich. I shall set about this from “within”, as it were, by describing what the programme consists in, some of its virtues and difficulties, its justifications and criticisms. To compare from “without” the problems and methods of training in Zürich with other programmes, one might begin with Szasz (1958) and his excellent bibliography, and Ekstein and Wallerstein (1958).
Training is a process which leads to qualification. At the C. G. Jung Institute qualification is signified by the award of the diploma. The training process goes on in three areas and the candidate must prove competence in all to qualify. They are: personal analysis, study, practical casework. Proficiency in the personal analysis is attested to in writing by the training analysts; in study, it is tested by examinations and a diploma thesis; in case work, by case reports and by written recommendations of the supervising analysts who perform the controls. It is curious that these three areas are not necessarily interdependent. Individuals appear in whom learning and knowledge may lag far behind practical ability as evidenced in therapeutic success. Or there may be a long history of personal analysis with extraordinary psychological gifts, wisdom even, coupled with deep learning, and yet little practical ability or a practical sense limited to only certain patients. Therefore, it is probably best to discuss proficiency in these three areas separately, even if in the “ideal analyst” there will be that happy union of maturity, culture, and ability. Whereas the three areas are covered in the training facilities, the interweaving of the three, their integration, is a gift. This gift is, to use a distant analogy from Brahmanism, satchitananda (pure being, consciousness,