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 PRINCIPLE, THERE SHOULD BE NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE HIGHLY personal nature of each practitioner's identity as an analyst and the influence of the structure of psychoanalytic education: the structure of psychoanalytic institutes may either foster that practitioner's development or inhibit it. Carrying out a training analysis in an institutional setting will be influenced profoundly by that institutional setting, most clearly one following the Eitingon model, but also, in more subtle ways, one conforming to the French model.
In the French model, the personal analysis is totally separate from the rest of a candidate's educational experience and, in fact, precedes all other aspects of the educational experience by several years. However, insofar as the supervisory experience in the French model acquires characteristics close to an intimate personal analytic experience, the institutional dynamics operate powerfully. Institutional dynamics are particularly strongly reflected in the inhibited quality of the French candidates operating as an organizational body. At the same time, the relative lack of structure in the curricular experiences and seminar framework of the French system fosters independent learning, although it also determines a certain isolation of the candidates. In the Eitingon system, in contrast, both the transformation of the training analysts' group into an institutional power structure and the modeling of the seminar system after a structured college experience heighten the risk of authoritarianism.
Psychoanalytic institutes may contribute significantly to the creativity of psychoanalytic candidates by adopting a university model