Introductory Memorandum by Edward Glover 1: Chairman of the Training Committee – September 21st, 1942

Some of the confusion arising out of the present discussion might be reduced if preliminary agreement could be reached on as many points as possible. There are three main problems to consider. (1) What to teach, (2) Who should teach, (3) How they should teach. In order to facilitate possible agreement along these lines I have set down what I personally regard as essential points in any training scheme. I would suggest that all other members of the Committee should follow suit.

1 What to teach. There is to my mind only one answer to this question, viz. the main body of psychoanalytic knowledge, in a word mainly Freud. This should be, indeed must be, in future expanded in every possible and legitimate direction to include contributions by any other analytic worker provided these are generally accepted by the competent authorities. Controversial views should also be put before candidates but only in an advanced course. This course should be comprehensive and include all varieties of controversial view, not just a few mutually opposing or exclusive views. Reasoned criticism of all such controversial views should be an essential part of this course. Even when a teacher's own views are what might be called ‘legitimately’ controversial (i.e. views and methods which though giving rise to differences of opinion do not appear to contradict any essential Freudian principles) they should not be taught until they have been fully discussed and generally accepted by the Society electing the Training Committee. Candidates should also be orientated as to the most important views running counter to the teachings of Freud, whether these arising within or without the