12
The implementation of these evaluations as currently organized can engender a feeling that one has never arrived. The major steps in this system which contribute to the present state of affairs include: 1) an evaluative process, certifi cation, is a requirement for appointment which is based, in the end, on far less information about the analyst as compared to the ana- lyst’s training evaluations and supervisory reports used to determine gradu- ation; 2) an extensive evaluation process (CNSTA) following graduation and including certifi cation, in which there are additional assessments for becoming a training analyst, that can implicitly and subtly undermine the analyst’s sense of competence; and 3) in the context of a pluralism of models in contemporary psychoanalysis, diffi culties can emerge when the examiner evaluates using one model (most often the ego psychological model) and the examinee espouses another model to be more salient. I will examine these three critiques of the evaluation process in greater detail and then propose an alternative.
Certifi cation and Assessment by CNSTA Committee
Ironically, while supervisors spend hours reviewing a candidate’s weekly case material and process notes, somehow three such experiences of super- vision of control cases are adequate for graduation but are not suffi cient for certifi cation. If one is fortunate or perseverant enough to mount these two hurdles (graduation and then certifi cation), there is yet a fi nal rite of passage, the assessment of the Committee for Nominating Supervising and Training Analysts (CNSTA) which the desirous training analyst-to-be must convince of his/her worth as a training analyst. In its role the CNSTA can recommend additional supervision or courses of supervision and additional case presen- tations before making a fi nal decision, a process which can take years.
Shane and Shane ( 1995 ) speak to the importance of privileging the educa- tional process with an emphasis on “fl exibility and contextual understand- ing in the application of standards” (p. 238) as an analyst goes through the evaluation process. They provide numerous examples in which a candidate or by extension a training analyst-to-be is instructed, more or less openly, by well-meaning supervisors, themselves caught in a bind, to distort, edit or leave out data because they know from their experience that the candidate will be penalized for his/her candor. This systemic problem can all too easily lead to suppression and compliance, certainly qualities that we would all agree is not what we want to foster.
Continual testing of the analyst maintains the hierarchical structure among analysts that can subtly undermine the analyst’s achievements and confi dence.
In an informal inquiry of fi ve recently appointed Training Analysts from dif- ferent institutes who were asked about their experiences going through the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
fi nal phase of the process, which involved making presentations of cases to the CNSTA Committee, each became visibly uncomfortable and did not want to discuss it. My speculation is that the silence was related to shameful or humili- ating aspects of these experiences, which understandably but regrettably intensifi es the desire to avoid further discussion. On the positive side, those who have experienced these steps as problematic may feel greater empathy for those going through it and speaking about it could provide a level of understanding and responsivity that would serve as an antidote. Of greater concern is the potential for re-enactment, consciously or not, depending on the experiences of the particular analyst, and infl uences within the group, that is the history and culture of the particular institute and the patriarchal legacy of the American Psychoanalytic Association (Mosher and Richards, 2005 ).
Pluralism of Models
Currently, a pluralism of models in contemporary psychoanalysis and an explosion of research in related areas have made the evaluative process far more complex and diffi cult. For the most part, institutes under the umbrella of the American Psychoanalytic have continued emphasizing Freudian and ego psychological models in training. The evaluators may not really under- stand, no less believe, in an alternative model and they may feel with emo- tional conviction that their model is correct. The result for the analyst who endorses a different model could easily be to feel pressured to comply or to suppress his or her independent creative direction and differing theor- etical framework. The consequences of this situation leave the prospective training-analyst-to-be struggling with a confounding, potentially irrecon- cilable dilemma: If an analyst accepts that the accomplishment of the devel- opmental task in one’s training analysis is as Edith Weigert ( 1954 ) wrote,
“daring to relinquish a dependent identifi cation for a mutually respect- ful differentiation” (p. 637), then the analyst may be in trouble if he or she embraces the practical application of Weigert’s clearly stated goal. For example, when one adopts a different theoretical position that entails a dif- ferent technical stance or view of therapeutic action, an analyst likely risks being judged, usually from the more traditional position, as unacceptable.
It is the rare analyst who moves through each step without having to repeat some part of the process, leading inevitably to feelings of incompe- tence, defl ation, or humiliation about having been considered inadequate in some part of the process. This struggle can induce compliance with a sense of shame or rebellion with a sense of alienation (Buechler, 2008 ).
Autonomous Psychoanalytic Institutes
While dissatisfactions with the current system have grown, or, perhaps, been more openly expressed, more substantive systemic changes are necessary to
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
promote an institute environment that rewards independent creative think- ing. In my view, we would benefi t from looking at the experience of autono- mous psychoanalytic institutes (for example, the Institute for the Study of Subjectivity in New York, the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles, and the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis in Boston), in which a greater degree of independent thinking and writing is encour- aged and has fl ourished, while standards remain high and candidates are not infantilized. In a number of these institutes, after graduation, which involves case write-ups and often presentations to other analysts, analysts are requested to continue to present and discuss their clinical material in groups and may or may not continue to receive other forms of supervision.
A customary practice among these institutes is to accept each graduate ana- lyst, after fi ve years of postgraduate experience of carrying and discussing analytic cases, as a Training Analyst. In such an ambience the developmental arc of the analyst following graduation and into maturity can be respectfully and proudly encouraged rather than potentially constrained by repeated evaluations that can all too easily create a protracted period of adolescence.
Searching for a Psychoanalytic Home Which Appreciates and Fosters the Developmental Progression of the Psychoanalyst (and Training Analyst)
In a sense many of us are psychoanalytic immigrants arriving from other psychoanalytic homes, traditions, and personal experiences. Laub’s ( 2013 ) description of the emotional terrain of the psychoanalytic immigrant who searches for a sense of home captures an aspect of the feeling that we are each, in our own way, seeking:
For an analyst to do the work, he must reside in his emotional home … a space where an inner truth can be safeguarded and protected, as well as shared with others who are receptive to it. Only in such a privileged space can processes of association, symbolization, and creative insight fl ourish … Forced assimilation is inimical to the preservation of such internal protected space, to the safeguarding of personal truth.
(pp. 475–476) I did not realize that I was really seeking and would fi nd a clinical and theoretical home that would become a mainstay of my personal and pro- fessional growth over the ensuing years. In 1992, a study group consist- ing of graduate and senior analysts from local institutes (Joe Lichtenberg, Curtis Bristol, Floyd Galler, Fonya Helm, Liz Hersh, Fred Hilkert, Susan Lazar, David Levi, Charlie Olsen, Betty Ann Ottinger, Stefan Pasternack, Joe Silvio, and myself) met in Joe Lichtenberg’s home. We were surrounded by iconic images of famous fi gures of the twentieth century taken by master
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
photographers, dramatic photographs of African scenes, and, in addition, a breath-taking Burtynsky image of mined resources in China. These images provided an aesthetic sensibility, which, for me, elevated our endeavor as we communed with them and whose familiarity provided a visual backdrop that lent to the excitement and pleasure of our project.
We read various papers from the burgeoning self-psychology litera- ture. We grappled with this new theory trying to understand concepts of empathy, self-object, and intersubjectivity, and attempted to make these ideas our own, as well as to challenge them when they did not fi t our clin- ical experience.
After a few years of participation in the study group, Joe raised an expan- sive and innovative idea. He wanted us to consider joining forces with Rosemary Segalla, an esteemed psychologist with particular expertise in group psychotherapy, to form an Institute with a self-psychological/rela- tional orientation. Our analytic study group (and Joe’s other supervisees) would combine with a large group of therapists taught and supervised by Rosemary and her colleagues, Damon Silvers and Bruce Wine (leaders of the Group Psychotherapy Training Program at the Washington School of Psychiatry). As a result, the Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy (ICP) was born.
Building a New Psychoanalytic Home
The motivation of the group of founding analysts in ICP was rooted in our collective desire to build a psychoanalytic training program that was different from the kinds of experiences we had each encountered as can- didates and afterwards in the more traditional institutes. We wanted to fashion the following: 1) an environment that privileges creativity and inquiry rather than imposed accommodation and compliance; 2) encour- age independent thinking and scholarship while standards remain high and candidates are not infantilized; and 3) be a generative group, assist- ing candidates with needed teaching and supervision and simultaneously encouraging scholarship in exploration of one’s own creative theoretical and clinical ideas.
The impetus for creating a psychoanalytic training program came from a few members within ICP who had completed advanced psychotherapy training programs at other institutes and wanted to participate in a psycho- analytic training program with a self-psychological theoretical and clinical focus. The Board ultimately approved the launching of a psychoanalytic training program within ICP. 2 At this point ICP was re-named the Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis (ICP&P). I became the Director of Psychoanalytic Training.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
My Role as Director of Psychoanalytic Training
The experience of creating a psychoanalytic training program from scratch is an exciting and daunting undertaking. All of us discussed the initial scaf- folding for structuring this program that refl ected the sensibilities of the core group of founding analysts. Looking back, I imagine Joe had thought about this project based on the evolution of his values and long experience in trad- itional institutes, and also, informed by his relatively newer knowledge of the differences in training and requirements in autonomous psychoanalytic institutes. These factors, I believe, led to a number of proposals during ini- tial discussions, of establishing an innovative structure for psychoanalytic training.
These included re-naming Candidates to be Members-in-Training to acknowledge a more egalitarian, democratic, and respectful status. The training period would not be open-ended but would be a fi nite period, gen- erally from fi ve to seven years. To that end, Members-in-Training would be informed specifi cally as to where they stood in regard to their progression so that there would be few surprises along the way, unlike more traditional institutes where trainees could continue for decades. In the last year of for- mal curriculum, the Members-in-Training would participate in designing the curriculum along with the Director of Training to include areas about which he/she would like to learn. Finally, the designation of Training and Supervising Analyst would apply more broadly to include analysts who were fulfi lling those roles. How graduates would advance to a more senior status was touched upon only in a most general way. Those in the fi rst few classes moved fairly quickly into positions of responsibility for teaching and supervision at a time of rapid expansion of the Institute. Later on we thought more about the consolidation of an analytic identity postgradua- tion where the graduate would be encouraged to develop in a looser, but supportive structure to promote greater individual development, clinical expertise, and expansion of one’s own ideas and interests. More specifi cally in the three years post-graduation, graduates were encouraged to continue analytic work, participate in peer group presentation of cases, and partici- pate in courses such as one on supervision. Many taught in the psychother- apy program.
Our aim in changing the structure involved a continuing effort to be aware of and address subtle and not-so-subtle idealizing and devaluing patterns of interactions to provide an open and democratic structure and to recognize and support opportunities for candidates during and after their training. We all hoped that this alternative model for psychoanalytic training would be devoid of a hierarchical bent. While the faculty worked very hard to dimin- ish this feeling, perhaps, and not surprisingly, there was a residue of themes that are inherent in any family system, themes organized around dominance and submission, competition, envy, idealization, and sibling rivalry.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
In reflecting on the 14 years that I have been the Director of Psychoanalytic Training I am aware how the sense of community and the commitment of the faculty facilitate each candidate’s (and faculty mem- ber’s) individual developmental trajectory. For example, when a candi- date I supervised indicated an abiding interest in intersubjectivity theory and formulating a treatment manual for the military, I strongly encour- aged him to seek out Bob Stolorow as a supervisor, which helped forge an important personal and professional relationship. When another can- didate who began her training with a weaker theoretical and clinical background was offered additional tutorials to supplement her learning, she became better equipped to work clinically.
For me, taking on this position of leadership and responsibility pre- sented a wonderful opportunity for personal and professional maturation.
I became more actively engaged and dedicated to developing myself as a contributor to the psychoanalytic literature, a teacher, an accomplished ana- lyst, and a leader.
Concluding Remarks
How does one move into that professional sense of self, as a psychoanalyst with the feeling that “one has arrived”? I would suggest that the develop- mental arc is different for each analyst, and optimally includes a personal feeling of safety and excitement provided by the psychoanalytic home (insti- tute) that the analyst chooses. Here, the analyst’s creative sense of self is protected, shared, and valued by receptive others. All analysts in this home have in common intellectual curiosity, spirit of inquiry, need for dialogue, community, support of initiative (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, and Fosshage, 2015 ) and like-mindedness helping to create a collaborative climate, that can embrace challenges and appreciate difference. In the larger psychoana- lytic community the respect for a range of theoretical models and integra- tion of research in neuroscience, infant studies, and changing ideas about therapeutic action encourages revitalization of the fi eld of psychoanalysis as a whole.
Notes
1 I wish to thank Linda Gunsberg, Ph.D. for her careful reading of the text and valuable suggestions for improving the manuscript.
2 Previously a training program in psychoanalytic psychotherapy existed.
Subsequently a couples training program was instituted.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
References
Buechler , S. ( 2008 ). Shaming psychoanalytic candidates . Psychoanal. Inq. , 28 : 361 – 372 .
Laub , D. ( 2013 ). On leaving home and fl ight from trauma . Psychoanal. Dialogues , 23 : 568 – 580 .
Lichtenberg , J. , Lachmann , F. & Fosshage , J. ( 2015 ). Enlivening the Self . New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis .
Moraitis , G. ( 2014 ). Personal communication, March 25.
Mosher , P. and Richards , A. ( 2005 ). The history of membership and certifi cation in the APsaA: Old demons, new debates . Psa. Rev. 92 : 865 – 894 .
Shane , M. and Shane , E. ( 1995 ). Un-American activities and other dilemmas experi- enced in the supervision of candidates . Psychoanal. Inq. , 15 : 226 – 239 .
Weigert , E. ( 1954 ). Special problems in connection with termination . J. Amer.
Psychoanal. Assn. , 3 : 630 – 640 .