Those of us who have been candidates or faculty members in an Institute are quite familiar with the tripartite concept of psychoanalytic education, comprising the personal analysis, the didactic courses, and the supervised clinical work. Recently I have realized that there is actually a fourth dimension that is extremely important for the development of the analyst in training. Our candidates, as well as faculty, in recent discussions have made me aware of this fourth significant area, namely meaningful contact with graduate analysts other than Institute faculty and meaningful involvement in activities that are relevant to the application of psychoanalytic learning.
Included, therefore, in this fourth sector are:
The various scientific meetings and social events of the Society, allowing interaction and providing individual models for the candidates.
Teaching in the Extension School or other equivalent teaching, providing interaction with other disciplines, as well as with the professional community at large.
Giving lectures, participating in radio or T.V. programs, or writing material for other disciplines, as well as for the public.
Participation in the functioning of the Psychoanalytic Clinic, regarding availability of patients for analysis, conferences on analyzability, research, etc.
Participation of interested and qualified candidates in the work of committees, such as the Curriculum Committee, scientific programs, symposia, etc.
For advanced candidates and younger faculty, leading small group discussions, following conferences or lectures.
Mingling and socializing of first and second year candidates with advanced and recently graduated candidates.
Formation of small study groups by candidates wherever they work, particularly if connected with a medical school faculty.
In a recent meeting with candidates at our Institute, where considerable free discussion took place, it became quite clear to me how important the above opportunities are in the total training and development of the candidates. After all, knowing who the practicing analysts are after completing training, what they do, and their attitudes towards the training that they have had, helps them in their modeling as they establish their own identity as analysts. Naturally, negative models can bring about discouragement.
It is interesting and relevant that the recent questionnaire from the Association on psychoanalytic practice highlighted the correlation between the health of an Institute, including its recruiting new candidates, and the vigor, quality, and interest of Society members in their Society's scientific programs, etc. Therefore, in my role as Executive Director of the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute, I am making increasing efforts to bring about greater coordination between the various activities that constitute this fourth important sector. To concentrate only on the actual teaching of the faculty and the curriculum of the training program, itself, is insufficient. Hence the concept of this additional vector and the idea of a quadripartite training structure.
O. Eugene Baum, M.D.
Philadelphia