On training analysis. Debates

Papers by V. Ungar (Argentina, current President of the IPA) , C. Borensztejn, current President of the Argentine Psych. Association, C. Barredo (Argentina), L. Bleger (France), C. Eizirik ( Brazil) , M. C. Fulco (Uruguay, current President of Fepal), M. Erlich Ginor (Israel), G. Foresti (Italy), J. García (Uruguay), M.Gauthier (Canada), W. Glover (USA), Ch. Levin (Canada,) F. Orduz (Colombia), G. Perdigao (USA) ) G. Spotorno Fornari (London) , and A. Staehle (Berlin, current Chair of the Education Committee of the IPA)... an important contribution in favor of a profound debate at the international level, and I believe that here is where we can find the fundamental value of this initiative. Only an open, honest and inclusive discussion will allow that such an important topic as the training of future psychoanalysts can help to the development of psychoanalysis regarding the future of our practice and the validity of our discipline. Training is a complex yet exciting subject. V.UngarTo what extent is critical and independent thinking welcomed? To what degree do procedures and rules become a type of fetish that must be obeyed just because?Do institutions revise and modify their curricula, procedures and manner of understanding analytic training overtime, as new national and international ideas on the subject and the learning process itselfemerge? In my view, these and other questions are helpful for evaluating how each analytic institution is dealing with the never ending process of analytic training. Claudio Eizirik.The fundamental question is, what of psychoanalysis do we want to transmit to the new generations, and how?The coming generations live in an interdisciplinary and constantly changing world. For the future and the survival of psychoanalysis, we must offeran education that they are passionately committed to, that includes high but achievable standards, and that is open enough to take into account different cultural and social conditions. Angelika StaehleEvery training system is (and should be in my view) ongoing work in progress. If it is not, it becomes set in stone and petrified. The main components of the training must be periodically rethought, critically reviewed, and either reconfirmed or transformed. Past debates should not be a deterrent to present considerations. Discussions about training are often emotionally charged, suggesting that the issues at stake are beyond those openly stated, probably containing the insecurities of our field. M. Erlich Ginor