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.
In this vigorously argued polemic Andrew Samuels proposes a fluid training model. He suggests examining analytic themes by reviewing theoretically competitive publications rather than seeking dogmatic coherence. And he advocates a non-linear syllabus, organized around contemporary debate. Jungians, he argues, are already pluralistic, and so his proposal is timely. Especially so since the psyche is naturally pluralistic, and analysts always argue, within themselves as well as with each other, and aggressive debate is creative. He pits the pluralist who embraces different positions as imaginative wholes against the piecemeal eclectic, and the passively intolerant believer in diversity. Dispatching a number of enemies of pluralism in training, he focuses especially on consensus, of which he notes two kinds: first, that in which the areas of conflict are shaded out of training; second, that in which the anxieties of the group are alleviated by the conviction of a charismatic leader. He touches on the regression of the candidate, and the fragmentation and anxiety pluralism evokes. Examples are familiar concerns of his: the role of the father, morality, gender identity.
This is his response to the ‘politics of depth psychology’, in the individual and between schools, including the psychoanalytic. Since the ‘Golden Age’ has passed, and we must do better than institutionalize ourselves, we need to reflect on the meaning of the existing conflicts. He ends with pleas for spontaneity, encouraging ‘valuing the gnostic and revelatory capacity of images and experiences’ coming from the fluid feminine rather than the bureaucratizing masculine, and for a state of continual ‘reform’ in training.
To note the most obvious problems of this packed polemic: organizing training solely around immediate debate might lead to faddishness and a deterioration in vision. It would be interesting to hear him address the influence of training analysis and supervision, which may be decisive. It also r