Valabrega J P
Rev Int Hist Psychanal. 1989;2:403-17.
I/A local history of analytic training in France must first of all be placed within the context of the evolution of psychoanalysis from its origin (Freud, Vienna, 1900) and as it spread from there throughout the world (the International Association, 1910) and pursued its activity through two World Wars. II/The waves of emigration of Jewish populations on the one hand, and a law of alternating expansion and rejection on the other left an important mark on this evolution. III/In France especially, and in the post-war period (in the 50s), a great number of scissions took place: a scission with the International Psychoanalytic Association to start with, and then within the renewal initiated during this period by Jacques Lacan; problems linked to analytic training having always been the cause and the main issue of these separations. IV/At present the Group whose theoretical positions we are presenting has provided the following conceptual foundations to the question of training: 1/The unification of analytic practice and formative practice within the theoretico-clinical field. 2/The redefinition of the unit formed by Transference/Counter-transference/Transferred materials as a central element in both these practices. 3/The definition and theory of the "Analyse quatrième" as the basis of the training process. 4/The definition of the interanalytic session that evolves into a habilitating session, as an authority determining the critical and collective elaboration of analytic and formative practice considered as a whole.
一、法国精神分析培训的本土历史首先必须置于精神分析从其起源(弗洛伊德,维也纳,1900年)开始演变的背景之中,它从那里传播到世界各地(国际精神分析协会,1910年),并在两次世界大战期间持续开展活动。二、一方面,犹太人群体的移民潮,另一方面,扩张与排斥交替出现的法律,在这一演变过程中留下了重要印记。三、尤其是在法国,以及在战后时期(20世纪50年代),发生了大量分裂:首先是与国际精神分析协会的分裂,然后是在雅克·拉康在此期间发起的复兴运动中出现的分裂;与分析培训相关的问题一直是这些分裂的起因和主要议题。四、目前,我们正在介绍其理论立场的团体为培训问题提供了以下概念基础:1. 在理论 - 临床领域内将分析实践与形成性实践统一起来。2. 将移情/反移情/转移材料所构成的单元重新定义为这两种实践的核心要素。3. 将“第四次分析”的定义和理论作为培训过程的基础。4. 将演变为资格认定会议的分析间会议定义为一种权威,它决定对作为一个整体的分析实践和形成性实践进行批判性和集体性的阐述。