J. L. Henderson, San Francisco

At The C. G. Jung Institute in San Francisco, a two-year period of control analysis with two different analysts ends with the candidate's presentation of a written case study. Following this, the candidate is examined in an oral interview with six members of the certifying board in a group composed of three from San Francisco and three from the Los Angeles training centre. At the last general meeting of the year, the local board announces the new members, and there is usually some discussion concerning the experience of the board members in affirming or criticising the value of this method of examining candidates in training.

At a recent meeting, someone asked what attitude on the part of the control analyst or the candidate should determine the choice of a case for presentation. I quote a passage from the minutes of that meeting to give some idea of the content of that discussion:

One member stated he feels there is much ambiguity concerning what sort of case is to be presented. Another said he felt that we should distinguish between a judgment from the soul versus ‘bureaucratic hassling’. Still another said he felt it would be inflated to think we can judge the soul, and we should be satisfied with more mundane criteria.

Having been a control analyst for many years, I have gone over these conflicting viewpoints, asking what my attitude in these matters has been, what it is now, and how it may be changing.

Working with a candidate is always an interesting and stimulating experience for me, but there are times when it becomes tiresome, because I do not have a sense of watching two people in a process with symbolic content, but two people in a power struggle where purely psychodynamic ‘mechanisms’ are being discussed. But this does not mean that I would want my candidates to choose only cases that would interest me. A purely clinical approach is indicated in some cases, but if conducted in such a way that basic resistances are removed with understanding of their inner na