Webinar on Training Models: January 2018

Discussions on training, as it is closely linked to the transmission, preservation and thus the future of Psychoanalysis, were always the basic debate issue from the very beginning of psychoanalytical institutionalisation, into local or international societies.

Since 1920, the official training model has been the Eitingon one, but in practice, several societies applied their own way of psychoanalytic transmission regarding conditions of training analysis and the number of sessions.

In 2007, following many heated discussions, debates and a large amount of work in almost all IPA societies, two further models were proposed, validated and added to what is now known as the Three Models of the IPA Training Programme: the French Model and the Uruguayan Model.

Recently, additional changes of major importance were presented and voted on, giving rise to some questions that are both well-founded and well-grounded:

  • What are the aims of the psychoanalytical training models? What are the requirements of the educational process? What are the problems raised by the adoption of three training models? What could be the impacts?
  • Is it possible to discuss the training models outside the number of sessions? Can it be dissociated from the philosophy of the models?
  • What are the relationships between the scientific evaluation of the models and the political decisions involved in the modifications of the models?
  • How can we preserve a fundamental psychoanalytical practice and deal with each society’s particularities regarding their own psychoanalytic culture, political situation and social parameters?
  • Can we think that training models are both: the protected area of what we have already gained – our psychoanalytical identity, and the promise of an optimal evolution in psychoanalysis? At what conditions?

Between the Eitingon and the French training models, many questions have arisen during the past and continue to challenge psychoanalytical societies to reflect on the training conditions and the number of sessions, the quality and intensity of treatments.

Two eminent psychoanalysts will give us their understanding and invite us to discuss with them to gain a better understanding of these issues:

Alain Gibeault: SPP Philosopher and Clinical Psychologist, Training Analyst of the Paris Psychoanalytical Society, Past President of the European Psychoanalytical Federation, Past Secretary General of the IPA, Past Director of the E. & J. Kestemberg Centre for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Honorary Professor of the Lomonossov Moscow State University, author of the main key report on Symbolisation at the French-Speaking Psychoanalysts Congress held in Paris in 1989, author of the book Chemins de la symbolisation [paths of symbolisation] and co-editor of an anthology of French psychoanalysis, Reading French Psychoanalysis (2010).

Jorge Canestri: Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, Jorge specialises in linguistics and epistemology, he is training analyst for the Italian Psychoanalytic Association and for the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association, President of the European Psychoanalytical Federation (EPF), former Director of the Institute of Psychoanalysis of the Italian Psychoanalytical Association, Professor of Psychology of Health at the Univerita di Roma 3, Invited Professor to the Nanterre University, co-author of The Babel of the Unconscious Mother Tongue and Foreign Languages in the Psychoanalytic Dimension (1993), author of one of the main reports at the French-Speaking Psychoanalysts Congress held in Milan in 2003 on Psychoanalytical process, Associate Editor of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis.

Please note, this webinar is for current IPA members and candidates only. The webinar will be in English.