Contenu du sommaire : (Se) former aux psychothérapies

The term “training” seems to be linked to a technical and pedagogical discourse, and it is this discourse that is radically challenged by psychoanalysis. It is therefore essential to reconsider, as if for the first time, what one is training for when one “trains” a psychoanalyst. To this end, it is essential to rediscover the concept of Bildung, in its cultural sense. Freud invented the analyst, as an entirely new role, with his slogan Psychoanalysis farà da se, so that it has nothing to fear from the world of the university and has its rightful place there... especially as it could manage without it. He also only adopted the legacy of psychotherapy by de-forming it in order to confront the unconscious real. In order to conceive of Ausbildung, in the sense of “professional” training, it is therefore necessary to distinguish the question of knowledge from that of the acquisition of knowledge—a problem that the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute faced just a century ago. Lacan, whose institutional disputes on the question of training are well known, pursued Freud's approach further by making the analyst themselves a symptom, an unconscious training. It is then necessary to rediscover the idea of the “psychoanalytic movement” as a cultural as well as a clinical act. The analyst is the best placed to confront the Kultur`np pagenum="021"/b with the real of its unease, which is attested by the symptom. This makes it an “impossible profession,” as Freud put it, and therefore an irreplaceable one.

Since its inception, psychoanalysis has been situated in a very particular field since its therapeutic action depends directly on the subjective position of the therapist. This consideration makes the systematization of a single process of training problematic, and requires that this subjectivity be recognized. Furthermore, the singularity of the approach requires a distancing both from established knowledge and a rigid technique. Only on this condition can the analytic act retain its specificity.

We analyze the place of theory in psychoanalysis, which, in Freud's view, constitutes one of the pillars of the psychoanalyst's training, but which also has an active role within the practice of psychoanalysis. The place of theory in psychoanalysis, particularly in its relationship to its practice, differs from the use of theory in medicine and psychology, especially because, in the discipline invented by Freud, theory is distinguished from knowledge.

This paper aims to examine the characteristic aspects of the training of analysts. To this end it analyzes their theoretical training, distinguishing the accumulation of knowledge from “training effects,” clinical training from its relation to personal analysis, and subjective transformation from the production of the analyst's desire. This work emphasizes the importance of analytical associations for the training of psychoanalysts, as well as the role of specialized schools in psychotherapy, which psychoanalysts must attend in order to practice in Italy. The article then examines the relevant parts of Freud's and Lacan's works, along with the theoretical advances developed by some Lacanian psychoanalysts. We consider the paradoxes and impasses inherent to training and participation in analytical societies, and “work transference” is proposed as a way to curb the symptomatic drifts of the psychoanalytic collective.As a consequence, participation in an analytic community is indispensable to the ongoing training that psychoanalysts are required to undergo. The relation between the analyst's unconscious and their participation in the psychoanalytic community allows the production of new knowledge in psychoanalysis.

A monitoring analysis, commonly referred to as supervision, is an integral part of the training of analysts.Through this text, the author offers a reflection on the development of this practice of monitoring analysis in psychoanalytic circles.

Even if it seems incompatible with a personal process, evaluation in analytical training is necessary.The author describes the questions that it raises and the answers that can be provided in order to preserve the personal path of each analyst in training.

Different aspects of the training of systemic psychotherapists are discussed, such as the reasons for wanting to be trained, the resources provided by group training, and the isomorphisms between therapy and training.

Reading Lacan's teaching, the author attempts to identify the desire of the analyst, which he believes to be the most important element of analytic treatment. This informed, mitigated desire, marked by symbolic castration and restructured by personal analytic treatment, is the result of a confrontation of the going-becoming analyst with the original Hilflosigkeit and its being-toward-death. It presupposes the healing of the transference neurosis, and the overcoming of alienating identifications and of beliefs in a sovereign Good valid for all, in fully satisfying sexual relations, and in the existence of a Master who would know what is for the best. This desire is stronger than other desires that can inhabit the analyst as a person, a desire that is willing to embody, in a semblance, the object that causes the desire of the analysand, and renounces making the analysand the object of the satisfaction of his own enjoyment. It is the result of a personal analysis conducted to a sufficient extent, complemented by a clinical experience developed through professional monitoring or supervisions and other clinical meetings with the analyst's peers.

The pillars of the psychoanalyst's training are: a completed personal analysis, supervision analysis, and the teaching of theory. The experience of the transferential dialectic, in its dual dimension, constitutes an indispensable tool and, at the same time, an act of resistance. The knowledge that is revealed in treatment is a new form of knowledge in which the unconscious plays a role, and this raises the question of what kind of knowledge is taught, whether at university, in psychoanalytical institutions, or in the media. What kind of knowledge is taught, and how? What are the pitfalls of work transference? In order to continue their training throughout their practice by means of a psychoanalytical dialog, it is essential for every analyst to be a member of a psychoanalytic association. This institution also has the task of transmitting the clinical and theoretical body of knowledge that is necessary for this permanent training. Another function is the creation of sites for reflection and questioning, in order to respond to the challenges that societal changes pose to Freud's innovative thinking, with regard to both clinical practice and theory. This work needs to avoid, as much as possible, the alienating phenomena that any human group encounters.

Drawing on the writings of Donald Winnicott, this article proposes an analysis of the concept of the “capacity to be alone” from the place of the therapist. I will introduce my contribution by returning to the 1958 text dedicated to the capacity to be alone. This theoretical development will allow me to articulate this notion to the presence that is its foundation, and to examine what Winnicott himself says about the presence that accompanies his practice of psychoanalysis. Next, drawing on a clinical case, I will explore the mobilization of the therapist's capacity to be alone in the therapeutic process. This clinical part will, in turn, allow me to consider this capacity of the therapist in its dimension of supporting the development by, and in, the child of its own capacity to effect, and know, an acceptable, meaningful, and fruitful experience of solitude.

This article considers the journey undertaken by the author as a systemic psychotherapist, from the earliest stages of training to acting as a trainer in systemic therapy. The continual to-ing and fro-ing between Homer's Iliad and Odyssey and the path of the therapist and trainer, through encounters and case studies, illuminates this journey. Homer serves here as a landmark, a metaphor, and a support for the author's thinking.

Psychoanalysis and psychoanalytical psychotherapy refer to the same theory but their technical approach is different. A prior experience of practicing psychoanalytical psychotherapy complicates the acquisition of a specific analytical counter-transferential position. This article presents the complexity of the situation of supervision

This article attempts to examine the ethical question which played, and still plays an important role in the definition of the psychoanalytical act, since the ethical questioning undertaken by Freud with regard to the responsibility of the analyst and how the latter responds to the transference of the analysand. In order to address this ethical question, we highlight the desire of the analyst and the analyst's relation to the ethical question.

IIn this article, we retrace our journeys to becoming psychotherapists, from the emergence of a desire for clinical psychoanalysis at university until today, ten years after our first encounter in the Faculty of Psychology. We have chosen to write this article as a dialog, which is an extension of our exchanges throughout the years regarding our impressions, thoughts, and contrasting feelings about our paths to becoming analytical psychotherapists. We have chosen to address four fundamental pillars that have been milestones on our journey: from our university training, to our postgraduate education in psychotherapy, our supervised clinical practice, and the experience of our personal psychoanalysis. A “four-handed” writing, but certainly with “two voices”.In presenting our two paths, we have tried to emphasize not only the points that appeared to us to be important, but also what has been lacking and what made us question ourselves. Finally, we would like to draw attention to some elements that, at this stage of our journey, we consider essential in our psychotherapy training.

In this article, the author offers us a reflection on her experience as a system therapist and her position as a trainer in intervention and systemic family psychotherapy. This reflection is related through a metaphorical story, through the highlighting of elements that promote transmission, and by means of a tool offered in post-training that allows therapists to deploy their therapeutic style.