Edwin Fancher has responded to No one owns psychoanalysis (the first editorial posted on August 7th). He addresses the issue of times per week by giving us his history of Freudian psychoanalytic training starting with the Eitington model in Berlin. Mr. Fancher’s contribution is presented as an opinion piece rather than a comment because of its substance, as was Jennifer Harper’s piece, NAAP and Licensing: Fact and Fiction, (August 28th) because of its depth and breadth.

There are many schools of psychoanalysis. This Editorials section of the blog is open to all who are interested in writing Op-Ed articles and comments on them.

The Op-Ed format gives us a forum for exchanging ideas with each other and expressing opinions. The blog form is not impeded by space requirements so all opinion pieces and comments can be posted. Analysts have a tendency to talk past each other instead of listening with open minds. Vehemently defending our beliefs affects our ability to see beyond them. Civil dialogue leads to growth.

Write soon.
Jane S. Hall, Op-Ed Editor

——————–

An editorial by Edwin Fancher
a founding director, Washington Square Institute for Psychotherapy and Mental Health founding president, New York School for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis

I would like to support Rick Perlman on the issue of the inadequacy of the standards of training for the New York State Licensed Psychologist status, which are based on standards promoted by the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP). I have many disagreements with the NAAP standards, but believe that the most important issue is the lack of a frequency in the requirements for psychoanalytic training, which I will address.

Frequency has a long and complicated history in psychoanalysis, but I believe it is worthwhile to review some of that history, and I will touch on a few points in regard to how the issue of frequency influences: 1, the definition of psychoanalysis itself, 2. the distinction between psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, 3. the controversy over lay analysis, 4. scientific research into clinical technique, and 5. political controversy between organized professional groups on a state and national level. Continue reading Training Standards and the NAAP