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 the history of psychoanalysis the process of transmission has been handled chiefly in two ways: (1) through a network of institutions that define the field, set standards, devise curricula, and monitor the quality of training, and (2) through the provision of the experience of personal analysis. While these two modes of transmission are not independent of one another, each has been differently emphasized, with different consequences. Freud was intent on developing a reputable and loyal institutional network. Lacan also developed institutional structures but was emphatic that ultimately an analyst becomes an analyst not through some type of external validation, but through the personal commitment involved in declaring oneself ready: an analyst is ultimately authorized only by oneself. The institutional emphasis risks losing the dimension of inquiry (see Kernberg, 1986), while the personal emphasis risks autistic chaos.
Lacan's concern about the transmission of psychoanalysis extended throughout his career as a psychoanalyst for whom the dimension of inquiry was always salient. He was, to be sure, especially concerned about how his own thought would be transmitted.