There are other problems with the nomenclature. Some people pass through
the accredited institutes and get their certificates or whatever and then
they practise an idiosyncratic form of treatment(e.g., "I believe in the
here and the now; the past is irrelevant") that in a sense is a
repudiation of their own training and the original principles of
psychoanalysis. My concern is for the patients who don't know what they
are getting into, become dependent and leave unanalysed and even in some
cases still ill. What is their final impression of a psychoanalyst?

Is it not time that there be some specific information given to the
public about what to expect from a psychoanalyst? Just as heart
patients are told about infarctions and cholestrol shouldn't
psychoanalysts indicate that they will deal with unconscious phantasy and
early memories, resistances etc,; perhaps a statement from the
psychoanalyst's institute with a full description of all these issues
would be beneficial for the patient who frequently doesn't receive what he
signed on for.

Norman Rosenblood

----------------------------------------
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Eddy Carrillo wrote:

>
>
>
> Bob:
> The situations I know most about in terms of who can call him-herself an
> analyst are the cases of Argentina, Mexico and Costa Rica. First though, I
> wanted to mention that I do know that the Boston Graduate School of
> Psychoanalysis certifies analysts (like the Allanson White Inst) although
> they are not IPA, and seem to be OK with that, just to add to your list.
> Moving on to Latin America, Mexico and Argentina share a similar history, at
> different times, in terms of who can be an analyst and who can be called an
> analyst, so I’ll just mentioned what happened in Argentina. Before 1973
> only the Argentinean Psychoanalytic Association (APA) existed, and they only
> accepted medical doctors. It was with the surge of Lacanian analysts, and
> without the “consent” of the APA (the IPA affiliate), that non-medical
> professionals, psychologists mainly, could access training. The loss of the
> monopoly, and therefore of almost unlimited income and work, forced the APA
> to change their rules and accept psychologists. Currently there are dozens
> of training centers in Argentina, both IPA and otherwise, and the popularity
> of Lacanian analysts has reached such a peak that I have met Argentinean
> friends who think that only lacanian analysts are “real” analysts. I’m not
> sure what that means, but I think on one hand it indicates that non-IPA
> analysts, in some countries, are at the very least at the same level of
> recognition as their IPA colleagues. On the other, it does indeed seem that
> we make a fuss over these things, and are quite sectarian, as in any other
> latitude.
> Another important event took place around the same time (1971) when Marie
> Langer created the Plataforma movement and the Grupo Documento. They
> separated from the official IPA group and to this day, the “group”, although
> scattered throughout Latin America, continues to train analysts (one of the
> founding members of Plataforma is my control analyst). I'm pretty sure that
> anyone trained by Langer, during or after her IPA days, will be regarded as
> a psychoanalyst, no matter what the IPA says.
> In Costa Rica, getting to the point of your question of who can calling
> oneself a psychoanalyst, we have two training groups, non of which are IPA
> related. These are not institutes per se, but associations. One, ASPAS,
> was started by a Swiss trained analyst from the independent group of the
> Zurich Psychoanalytic Seminaire (the ethno-psychoanalytic school). The
> other, ACIEPS, created mostly by Argentinean Lacanians who immigrated to
> Costa Rica in the mid eighties, and is now supported by Mexican Lacanian
> analysts who frequently visit Costa Rica.
> Both these groups are currently training a small number of analysts and
> although there is much debate and not enough good will between the groups,
> there is an explicit norm to which we all adhere when deciding what criteria
> (as obvious as they may be) are necessary to call oneself an analyst:
> 1). A solid background in psychoanalytic theory (metapsychology and
> clinical theory).
> 2). Training analysis.
> 3). Case supervision (control analysis).
> We may disagree in terms of weekly and total hours required, who decides
> the candidate is ready, (Lacanians use “el pase” or the pass, decided by the
> training analyst, while ASPAS makes it a decision reached by candidate,
> analyst and supervisor), and so on. Nonetheless, we all agree that IPA
> certification has nothing to do in terms of who may or may not call himself
> an analyst. If someone meets these criteria, that person will be considered
> a psychoanalyst.
> I’m sorry if I provided more data than you requested but I felt it was
> important to provide a context before explaining how we see things in this
> part of the world. Hope it helps.
> Eddy Carrillo
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The only fruitcake at overstock.com is our manager.
> He’s giving away a $20 coupon, plus our everyday Free Shipping.
> Take advantage of the savings and selection now.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/342/3/_/11032/_/945992613
>
> eGroups.com Home:
http://www.egroups.com/group/psychoanalysis-and-psychotherapy/
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>

============================================================================

Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Analyst
c/o Chester New Hall, Room 415
McMaster University
1200 Main Street West Telephone (905) 525-9140, Ext. 24495
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L9
Canada
=============================================================================