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.
The complexity of all the issues present in the Controversial Discussions and their repercussions on the future of psychoanalysis are also reflected in the scientific side of the documents concerning the training and the use of psychoanalytic technique. Here the reader will also find echoes of the particular historical situation in which those papers were written. Glover had accused Klein of having tried to take possession of the Society, through the training of the Candidates. Klein's defence of her position constituted one of the most painful and humiliating moments of the whole dispute. At that date Klein could show the groundlessness of the accusations by quoting the actual number of those she had in analysis as Candidates1 and was supported by Sylvia Payne (Section 1, Chapter 7).
Yet what needed still to be clarified were the differences in technique and therefore in the actual practice of analysis and how that would affect the candidates and the future of the discipline. Anna Freud's paper on training is extremely well articulated and, besides describing in detail the ‘classical’ way of approaching the unconscious of the patient through a gradual analysis of the defences and resistances, explicitly touches upon political and educational issues. Here, to my mind, one can observe the repercussions of the particular historical moment I mentioned on page 238. I am thinking particularly of Anna Freud's apocalyptic statements concerning the risk of accepting Klein's views of psychoanalysis and Anna's mention of the situation that arose in Berlin after Hitler's coming to power and the pollution of psychoanalysis due to the introduction of all sorts of heretical schools of thought, such as, for instance, Jung's.
Anna Freud's paper is also important, because in her wise