One of the shortcomings of the didactic analysis was that it put itself at the outset in the service of a demand, that of becoming a psychoanalyst, contradicting the principle of a suspension of any objective aim in the experience. The training procedures set up by institutions always run the risk of ratifying this demand and thereby of participating in reinforcing the resistances with which every analyst is confronted when faced with the requirement of examining the unconscious determinations at work in this “desire to become a psychoanalyst” and to “remain” one throughout one's practice. The definition of the conditions most suited to meeting what constitutes the specificity of “becoming an analyst” has been the object of debates and passionate conflicts in the history of psychoanalytic institutions, revealing a compatibility that is still problematic between institutional imperatives and the singularity of the need for each analyst to question the desire that animates his/her practice.