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 this paper I will try to underline some peculiar situations that the candidate, in his so called ‘Training Analysis’, has to handle, when he meets some difficulties that analysands, with no training projects, usually do not meet. I will further point out some other difficulties that also trained analysts have to face in their psychoanalytic (this term, from here on in the text, will be replaced by the Greek symbol ) activity. I would like to investigate how these situations, peculiar and problematic both for the candidates and the analysts, are strictly connected with the particular ‘status’ of the theory and of the training system, as well as with the relationship that they, candidates and analysts, may develop towards such ‘status’.
I will start by taking into consideration the pre-analytic, analytic and post-analytic attitudes that candidates may possibly assume towards the situation, compared with the attitudes assumed by the analysands who are not involved in training programs.
Which differences may we find in the motivations to begin a treatment in those who have and in those who do not have a project of training In which way may this particular project influence the beginning of the experience, its ending and the whole in between process? Which will be the characteristics of the post-analytic ties with their own analysts and with the internalized function that may be found in the two groups of analysands?