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.
I value Hillman's statements because certain principles of training in analytical psychology are for the first time made public and can thus become subject to review. Like my own brief remarks, published in the last number of this Journal , Hillman's more extensive statement is presumably designed to define areas of training which are part of a larger pattern. My impression is, however, that he has difficulty in getting away from global concepts and from the grand design of broad, cultural, adult education which in London we tend to take for granted.
I completely agree with Hillman about the inevitable development from a prehistoric phase to a historic one. However, if habits which have been in practice simply become institutions, e.g. that each candidate has to analyse with two analysts (one of each sex), then this development is impeded. If no questions may be asked about the rationale of such procedures, inevitably there can be no experimental attitude, and without the latter one gets stuck in “prehistory”. In order to “get at the archetypal pattern for training an analyst” every step and assumption must be open to question and discussion. If I am told that the quality of candidates is to be assessed by moral integrity, psychological gifts, cultural level, and sense of vocation, I am none the wiser. Who is going to assess these obviously desirable virtues? How? When? One knows that candidates' judgement and even the analysts' mature judgement are liable to be influenced by transference phenomena. If unchecked I should therefore regard these as unreliable criteria. In the present state of our ignorance on the whole subject of selection (i.e. how to spot those who are “called”) one could do worse than make long-term follow-up studies. Even then one would have to rely on imprecise criteria, such as the general opinion of colleagues about a particular analyst.
My general criticism is that Hillman does not add to our knowledge by the use of powerful words (sometimes in