A training analysis for psychoanalytic psychotherapists.

Abstract

For historical reasons, psychoanalytic psychotherapy has been regarded as a second-class treatment in comparison with psychoanalysis, and standards for training in it have lagged behind those for psychoanalysis. However, psychoanalytic psychotherapy is the treatment of choice for many healthier (or higher-level) patients who cannot receive analysis for any reason, and also for a large population of more-disturbed patients who are not appropriate for psychoanalysis. Mastering techniques of psychoanalytic psychotherapy may be as difficult as mastering those of psychoanalysis, and should require comparable theoretical training, supervision, and personal treatment. This "development lag" in the training of psychoanalytic psychotherapists has taken place for several reasons: (1) Psychoanalytic ideas first emerged in America in the context of a new movement toward an electric, but dynamic psychiatry from which psychoanalysis had to establish its separate identity. (2) Psychotherapy was associated with techniques of suggestion and manipulation from which psychoanalysis wished to separate. (3) Because psychotherapy was seen as an inferior form of therapy which required little training, institutes were slow in being established, and reluctant to require a "training analysis." It is suggested that with the full training of psychoanalytic psychotherapists, this discipline may be regarded as a profession comparable to psychoanalysis. It is further suggested that the optimal treatment for the full training of the psychoanalytic psychotherapist is psychoanalysis, and that a "training psychotherapy" is not an adequate substitute, but may provide a transitional step to resolve initial resistances and to prepare the therapist for a training analysis.