Auchincloss Elizabeth L, Michels Robert
Department of Psychiatry, Neill Cornell Medical College, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Int J Psychoanal. 2003 Apr;84(Pt 2):387-403. doi: 10.1516/002075703321632973.
To understand the many controversies surrounding psychoanalytic education, it is necessary first to understand the unique role played by education in our field where control of educational structures remains the most important measure of professional success for the majority of psychoanalysts. To keep debate about educational policy focused on the task of strengthening the intellectual basis of psychoanalysis, it is also necessary to understand that forces affecting education arise from at least three different domains which can too easily become confused with one another: 1) the domain of knowledge--intellectual, scientific and clinical; 2) the domain of the organized professional community; and 3) the domain of local institutional politics. The authors explore controversy arising within and among each of these domains. They also explore the major alternatives proposed to the Eitingon model of psychoanalytic education, arguing that excessive authoritarianism in education arises not from the existence of hierarchical structures per se (as suggested by the 'French model'), but from two other factors: the condensation of all important professional functions into the single 'monolithic' position of the training analyst, and the lack of agreed upon methodology for determining the validity of theoretical propositions. The solution lies not in obliterating all gaps in expertise and status by doing away with hierarchical structures altogether, but rather in strengthening the intellectual, scholarly and research context within which psychoanalytic education takes place. We must attempt to relocate our experience of a gap where it belongs: not between those who are training analysts and those who are not, but between what we feel we already know about mental life and what we do not yet know.
要理解围绕精神分析教育的诸多争议，首先必须理解教育在我们这个领域所扮演的独特角色，在这个领域中，对教育结构的掌控仍然是大多数精神分析师职业成功的最重要衡量标准。为了使关于教育政策的辩论聚焦于加强精神分析知识基础的任务，还必须明白影响教育的力量至少源自三个不同领域，而这三个领域很容易相互混淆：1）知识领域——学术的、科学的和临床的；2）有组织的专业团体领域；3）地方机构政治领域。作者探讨了这些领域内部及相互之间产生的争议。他们还探讨了针对艾廷根精神分析教育模式提出的主要替代方案，认为教育中过度的威权主义并非源于等级结构本身的存在（如“法国模式”所暗示的），而是源于另外两个因素：将所有重要的专业职能集中于培训分析师这一单一的“整体”职位，以及缺乏确定理论命题有效性的公认方法。解决办法不在于通过完全消除等级结构来消除专业知识和地位上的所有差距，而在于加强精神分析教育所处的知识、学术和研究背景。我们必须尝试将我们对差距的体验归位：不是在培训分析师和非培训分析师之间，而是在我们自认为已经了解的心理生活与我们尚未了解的心理生活之间。
