Editorial

Among other texts, we publish in the present issue a discussion on psychoanalytic training. In particular, the discussion addresses questions concerning training analyst institution. Björn Sahlberg from the Swedish Psychoanalytic Association has written the target essay, and an analyst from each Nordic psychoanalytic society comments the essay.

In his essay, Sahlberg describes the French training model in which, unlike in the classical Eitingon model, there is no particular training analyst status, nor a training institute. He also presents a number of arguments in favour of the French model. Unlike in other Nordic Societies, in Sweden, at times heated debate on the very issue has been going on during recent years. The positions of the commentators vary considerably and interestingly, conveying notable differences between the Nordic Societies.

In Sweden, the discussions concerning psychoanalytic training have some history. Two decades ago Jürgen Reeder, an eminent Swedish analyst, published the book Love and Hate in Psychoanalytic Institutions. The Dilemma of a Profession. (The Other Press 2004; originally Kärlek och hat i psykoanalytiska institutioner, Symposion 2001) It is a thorough and sharply critical discussion of the Eitingon model of training and its principal dilemmas and problems. Reeder does not explicitly address the French training model, but many of his critical points as well as constructive suggestions remind Sahlberg’s line of thought in his target essay.

Reeder’s central point concerns what he calls ‘the superego complex’. The complex comprises two substructures: ‘the professional superego’ and ‘the institutional superego system’. The first is an intrapsychic and private phenomenon, whereas the latter exists on a group level within psychoanalytic organizations. They mutually reinforce each other and constitute the complex, which has a particular force in psychoanalytic organizations, Reeder maintains. He writes: ‘the complex can be grasped only if we