CRITICA

During the 2021 IPA Congress, which took place virtually, IPSO (the International Psychoanalytical Studies Organization) an organization for the IPA Analysts-in-Training) had a program containing a discussion on the different training models contained in the IPA and some current issues in training. Here I will try to summarize some of the main points that were presented prior to the discussion.

Psychoanalytical training within the IPA is primarily based on what we call the Eitingon Model, the first to offer a structure based on the “tripod”: personal analysis, supervision, and theoretical seminars. Two other models have been accepted since, the French and the Uruguayan model, but it is important to stress that they can be considered more as variations of the Eitingon model than models that offer a different basic structure. I will try to offer some basic comparisons between them.

The Eitingon model is the classic institution of the tripartite model, comprising personal analysis, supervision and theoretical seminars. It is by far the most widespread model. It is also subject to some smaller or larger differences between individual Institutes, in the sense that we could almost talk about Eitingon “models” in plural, more than a single structure. The so-called French model is also based on the tripartite model, however with a key difference: that is, that personal analysis is required but “outside” the boundaries of training. The Uruguayan model is also based on the tripartite model, and it was conceived as a reaction to the concentration of power in Psychoanalytic Training Institutes, attempting a more egalitarian approach.

On the theme of Personal Analysis, within the Eitingon model it is considered an important part of the training process. It must be conducted by a Training Analyst, and should start some time prior to Seminars. Apart from that, there are requirements for duration and frequency mandated by the Education Committee.

In the French model, personal analysis is to be conducted entirely or mostly before the admission; there is no Training Analyst requirement (although in some cases there are requirements for the analyst to be an IPA member); and there are recommendations for length and frequency, but actual arrangements are between the analyst and the analyst in training.

As for the Uruguayan model: personal analysis is recommended to have started some years before admission; it is conducted by a member of the Analyst Group (different structure than Training Analyst, more on that later); and there are also recommendations for length and frequency but arrangements are made privately.

Considering Supervision. In the Eitingon model, Supervisors can be chosen among the Institute’s Training Analysts; one must be supervised in at least two different cases; the frequency requirements usually follow those of Personal Analysis; and there are also some individual requirements as to in which “stage” the analysis must be for the supervision (depending on the Institute).

Within the French model, supervision is a particular focus (and subsequently a center of power); supervisors are also Training Analysts; the minimum frequency of supervised cases is three sessions, but other arrangements are made upon clinical indication; and one must go through at least two supervisions, one of them being a group supervision.

In the Uruguayan model, supervisions work mostly according to both previous models, with the small difference that the supervisor is chosen from the Group of Supervisors.

I would also like to say some words about Power and Institutes. In the Eitingon model, Societies have an Institute of Psychoanalysis and an Education Committee within that Institute. The status and power of the Training Analyst role is a source of conflict, due to their central roles in the Analysis and Supervision of Analysts in Training. In the French model, there is no independent Institute, the Training Committee is a part of the Society. However, there are still Training Analysts, and so there is still some concentration of power. It is important to notice that in many institutes following the Eitingon and French model, the Training Analyst position is being abolished. In the Uruguayan model, and this is what it offers as the most different, training functions are organized as “groups” (e.g. Analysis Group, Supervision Group), not as an individual status or function. Analysts request admission to any one of them, but can be members of only one group at a time.

There are many other issues to be taken into account, and in my presentation I tried to offer some questions regarding the different models and other difficulties that Analysts in Training go through that are not necessarily related to the models per se, but this short account could help to raise curiosity in Societies and Institutes about the theme of Psychoanalytical Training.