Opening Statement and Introduction: Harvey Schwartz and Hanna Ratjen with Robin Deutsch

This Round Table on “Variations on the Eitingon Training  Model” offers us all an opportunity to learn more about the most common training model in the IPA and about how it is implemented throughout the IPA world.  For many of us it has not been clear that there are in fact variations on the Eitingon model. We know that as of 2006 there is a French model and a Uruguayan model – though the details of these other models are for many members shrouded in imaginings. This gathering of discussants from all three regions of the IPA will familiarize us with the variations on Eitingon and allow us to consider how we can improve upon our own versions of Eitingon.

Max Eitingon (1881-1943) was known as a quiet behind the scenes diplomat of the early psychoanalytic world. He was fiercely devoted to Freud, a founder and benefactor of the Berlin Polyclinic in 1920, and an early affirmer of the requirement that all analysts must be analyzed. According to Abraham he was the “driving force” behind the establishment of the Berlin Training Commission which established the tripartite essentials of psychoanalytic training that are in place today – training analysis, theoretical instruction and treatment of analysands under supervision.

There are many particulars that need to be fleshed out regarding the variations on Eitingon.

Some of these include-

What frequency is required both for one’s training/personal analysis and in one’s work with control cases as an analytic candidate.

If a candidate has two cases at 4-5 times weekly, can a third and fourth cases be seen with supervision three times weekly?

What is the nature of the Eitingon variations that institutes apply throughout the IPA world?  

What are the differing requirements to become a training analyst and how are they instituted variously around the world.

What can we learn from the fact that outside of APsaA there is seemingly no requirement to have a supervised training experience analyzing both male and female analysands.

Our discussants are -


Madeleine Bachner, Swedish Psychoanalytical Association (SPAF)

Marta Badoni, Italian Psychoanalytic Society (SPI)

Angelika Staehle, German Psychoanalytic Society (DPV)


Latin America:
Roosevelt Cassorla, Brazilian Psychoanalytic Society (SBPSP)

Maria Cristina Fulco, Uruguayan Psychoanalytic Association (APU)

Jorge Lievano, Colombian Psychoanalytic Society (APC)


North America:
William Glover, San Francisco Centre for Psychoanalysis (APsaA)

Robert Paul, Emory University Psychoanalytic Institute (APsaA),

Rose Vasta, Canadian Psychoanalytic Society (CPS)


Our discussants provide us with a rich variety of meditations on the Eitingon model as they represent all three regions of the IPA world. A sampling of their considerations include -

Some consider that  institutional structures such as Eitingon serve a paternal function, a 'third space', separating the supervisee from their supervisor/institute. It is stressed that this function must be libidinally endowed in order for it to inspire respect rather than mere compliance.

Regulations that are commonly attributed to the IPA turn out in fact to be the prerogative of the local institute. What factors lead to this "projection of the superego" and how do we balance the need for local autonomy with the need for professional consensus?

How should training analyses that are much longer today than they were in the 1920s accommodate to the greater mobility in lifestyles of patients and candidates? How do we make training more portable without requiring stricter IPA regulations?

Are there operational differences among institutes who see their function as "teaching" psychoanalysis versus "transmitting" psychoanalysis.

What are the variety of methods by which institutes fulfill the IPA requirement that TA appointment requires "a presentation of detailed, in-depth clinical material as evidence of the quality of work."

Are there unique aspects to training analyses that require additional vetting of graduate analysts? Are we unable to be sufficiently confident that our graduates are competent to analyze all patients including candidates?

Reading through all these contributions, I am struck by the common challenges that we all face throughout the psychoanalytic world. While acknowledging our cultural differences it is clear that in sharing many of the same difficulties and opportunities in 2015 psychoanalytic education that we also share the possibility of deep collaboration.

I look forward to our online conversations.

Harvey Schwartz

We are excited to announce the new debate on Variations in the Eitingon Model. In anticipation of the upcoming Boston Pre-Congress and Congress, the Website Editorial Board and the Education and Oversight Committee have joined together to begin a discussion on topics in psychoanalytic education that is of interest to the analytic community. This is now the second joint venture. We invited this time 9 participants representing the three regions, Europe, North America and South America to an online roundtable discussion. The debate will be chaired by Harvey Schwarz (APsaA). 

Each participant outlines his view on Variation of the Eitingon Model via a position paper.

Following their initial statements, the panel will continue to discuss this important topic. We invite IPA members, and candidates to join the conversation by replying to the statements anytime they wish during the debate.

The debate will be running from April-June 2015.

Hanna Ratjen
Robin Deutsch