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 Training Analysis (TA) has been an issue of dispute practically since the beginning of psychoanalysis. There are those who have firmly believed that the TA was primarily educational and secondarily personal. Others have regarded the TA as primarily “personal” or “therapeutic and secondarily as part of the educational process.
The International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) and through its regional representative, the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) regarded the TA as an aspect of the training program. Independent freestanding institutes not affiliated with the APA or the IPA have almost universally adopted the concept of the TA, if not its substance or technical mandates. Through the years there has been continuous disagreement as to the nature of the training analysis, and there have been panels and articles published expressing one or another point of view as to the aim and nature of the TA.
When the State Education Department (SED) of New York State developed a licensing law and the TA was stipulated as part of the educational or training process, there was an overwhelming professional objection. Individual analysts and a considerable number of institutes objected to this mandate, declaring it to be an intrusion on the analytic process. It has been pointed out to the State, by many of those who objected, that the TA is essentially a “personal” analysis and, as such, is differentiated from a distinct educational or supervisory process. It has also been pointed out that the TA has historically been protected and regulated by the profession of psychoanalysis. The SED, however, has academic mandates which, from their point of view, overrule professional