Response to Björns Sahlberg’s article

Abstract

I find many of Sahlberg’s (2018) contributions to be both insightful and convincing enough that they could easily suffice as an argument for the discontinuation of the training analyst system (hereafter abbreviated TA). Yet at the same time I notice that very few of his arguments appear to speak to the case for maintaining the TA. I initially wondered about Sahlberg’s detailed description of the French OPLF ‘The Quatriéme Groupe’ which counts Piera Aulagnier among its ranks. An organization that appears to be somewhat exemplary by Sahlberg but which is notably not affiliated with the international psychoanalytic association (IPA). In that, and later in other French associations affiliated with IPA, there has been a concerted effort toward anti-hierarchical structure and democratization. More so, the OPLF has taken the lead in a refusal to have a specialized group of training analysts. Arguably it is just such a democratization that is one of the defining features of the French model. Sahlberg makes reference to the historical background of TA as described in Harold Blum’s contribution to Peter Zagermann (2017) The Future of Psychoanalysis – The Debate About the Training Analyst System. Blum (2017) describes how Ferenczi worked to ensure that only a small selected group, analyzed by Freud, would have the authority that he felt was needed to guarantee ‘pure analytical theory’. Jones subsequently proposed the formation of a secret committee ‘... to protect the kingdom of their master...’ (p. 37) which Freud, perhaps understandably, then approved. Freud’s interest in the formation of this secret committee was to ensure that he retained his most faithful disciples. The committee, which preceded the formation of the Eitingon model in 1920 by a number of years, can in the words of Blum best be described as an something of an aristocratic family romance; there was a significant pride and status in being able to show a direct connection to Freud, who in turn gifted ornate signet rings to pioneers, such as Ferenczi, Abraham, Jones, Rank and Sachs. The rings were engraved with ancient symbols representing fealty to the father figure. The privilege of having had access to the individual arguments of the long line of experienced colleagues featured in Zagermann’s book, 15 in total from Israel, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Germany and England, has only further reinforced my conviction of the need for the abolition of the training analyst system. The vast majority of the volume’s collected authors, almost all in fact, argue convincingly for the need for its discontinuation. Yet the discussion concerning the merits of the training analyst system continues unabated within the IPA. Piles (2017) writes that Eitingon, who joined the committee in 1919, and had been analyzed by Freud, was so fanatically devoted to Freud that he himself never authored any articles due to the fact that he believed all that was worth saying had already been said by Freud. Pyles continues that it is indeed very likely that this compliant, idealized transference was in effect when Eitington, with a missionary zeal, took it upon himself to spread the masters word during the installation of the Berlin Institute. It does not require a great stretch of the imagination to see that the training analyst system has from its very beginnings been a physical embodiment of this idealization of a group of selected analysts. This, in essence, is the real tradition that is mediated. Yet it is precisely the argument of mediation of tradition that is raised in defense of TA. In another book on the subject, Kernberg (2016) points out that the construction of a training analysis that includes identification with the training analyst – the ‘tradition mediation’ – if the purpose of psychoanalysis is to dissolve the transference, contains a nigh on insurmountable contradiction.