I might be one of the few people who ever actually enjoyed writing my doctoral dissertation. Why? Because it gave me a chance to think about what sensibilities, knowledge, skills, and perspectives it took to be a good psychoanalyst and how these could be cultivated. Now that my own career has turned to clinical work, I find myself even more preoccupied with these questions. So when I was asked to write an eForum column for early-career professionals, I embraced the invitation as an opportunity to speculate out loud and solicit the opinions of those who had clearly excelled. I hope those of you who, like me, are just beginning to grapple clinically with self psychology and what it takes to do clinical work from this perspective will consider this column a place you can turn for the wisdom of those who have led efforts to advance the research, theory, and clinical practice of self psychology over the last forty years.

Breaking the Mold: The New Faces of Psychoanalytic Training

When an instructor at the University of Chicago’s social work school asked me to talk with my classmates in our psycho-dynamic methods class about how they might go about acquiring advanced clinical training in psychoanalysis, it did not feel like much of a challenge. He felt the path toward formal training, beyond the occasional professional development workshop, was far from clear to students and figured he could prevail on me because my doctoral dissertation had addressed the history of the American system of educating psychoanalysts.

So when I decided to reprise that brief talk as the maiden article in this eForum column for early career professionals, I figured the piece would largely write itself.
On the surface, little about the core components of full psychoanalytic training had changed, I reasoned, since the first training institutes opened in the 1930s in the United States. Candidates seeking this intensive training culminating in a formal credential must still take four years of classes, undergo a personal analysis meeting at least four days a week, and see three supervised clinical cases.

It turns out, though, that my instructor was not wrong. After soliciting the advice of a number of self psychology’s leading thinkers and surveying both the classical as well as the more relational training institutes, I discovered that there really is no road map for those seeking more training in self psychology. Seasoned analysts and leaders from training institutions around the country differed considerably not only on what “full” training should consist of, what components of training are most critical to absorb a self psychological orientation, and what forms these parts and others might take. Or as the Columbia University psychoanalyst Robert Glick put it some years ago in making a plea for greater emphasis on the didactic aspects of training, “Analytic training can feel like a bizarre mix of mind reading, mind exploring, and mind changing.”

To be sure, it has gotten to be a lot easier either to dip your toe into self psychology or to jump in up to your shoulders. While the so-called “un-affiliated institutes” whose educational programs are not overseen by the American Psychoanalytic Association (APSA) have historically been more hospitable to self psychology, until relatively recently it was rare to find even an elective class on self psychology in the standard curriculum of the more traditional training institutes. Now, however, even the most classical psychoanalytic training institutes, like the stalwart New York Psychoanalytic, offer some elective coursework that addresses self psychology.

Clinicians and researchers looking for a more thorough immersion in self psychology — to be surrounded by what Los Angeles analyst Estelle Shane referred to as a self psychology sensibility — also have a variety of intensive options that did not exist until about three decades ago. So if you ask most of the field’s eminences how they initially cultivated their interest in self psychology, you will probably get as many different answers as people. That’s good news, but the growth of learning opportunities ranging from dedicated training institutes to Skype-based supervision, presents the early-career professional with a bewildering number of choices.

If you are thinking about specialized psychoanalytic training in self psychology, you will need to start by asking yourself two basic questions in order to start sorting through the options:

      How much training?
      What type of certification, if any, you want?

Programs differ considerably in their admissions requirements, the content of their curriculum, their assessment mechanisms, and their credentialing.

Sheepskin or Not?

No one really talks about it, but if you are contemplating making the intellectual, emotional, and financial investment in training in psychoanalysis, it’s probably best to ask yourself what professional credential, if any, you really want at the other end.

When I attended my first IAPSP meeting in Los Angeles and scanned the program brochure, I was surprised to see so many presenters with double doctorates. At the time I wrote it off to the avuncular observation of one conference attendee who spotted me as a “newbie” and informed me without a hint of irony or self-consciousness that the self psychology community was the “smartest” group of analysts.

But when I started comparing training programs for this article, I discovered another equally plausible explanation. While most four-year training programs continue in the long-standing psychoanalytic tradition of conferring certificates on graduates, the California institutes are currently permitted to offer the Ph.D. and PsyD. degrees. (This is currently under review by the state of California.) The “doctor” lock on psychoanalytic training is long over, but if a degree is important to you, you may want to ask yourself whether you want that through a program at a university or professional school, or though an institute.

Any doctorate will require you to complete a culminating written project, which can take a number of different forms depending on your interests. So if a degree matters, training institutes such as the Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles (ICP), which offers both a doctoral degree and an intensive focus on self psychology, might represent an attractive option.

Experiencing The Pure Alloy of Self Psychology

One enduring theme in psychoanalytic training that unites all of the theoretical camps is the centrality of supervision in the transmission of psychoanalytic knowledge. Although a number of analysts, such as Dick Geist from Boston and David Terman from Chicago, pointed to the formative role of didactic experiences such as a chance encounter with the writings of Heinz Kohut or a class with him, for most, supervision provided the window into understanding working with self psychology. If you are in formal training, it will probably be easier to get a sense of the clinical orientation of various supervising analysts. You may have more choices than you think so do your homework. If you prefer a supervisor outside the institute where you live, some institutes, such as the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, will permit you to make your own supervision arrangements. But the requirements differ among the institutes, so it’s best to check if you hope to use a supervisor not formally affiliated with an institute you plan to attend.

Even if you are not in a formal training program, locating a self psychologically oriented supervisor may be a good educational starting point and place to familiarize yourself with the self psychology community. Many institute web sites have faculty rosters and if you want to get a preliminary sense of someone’s perspective, you can easily cross-check names on the membership roster of the International Association for Psychoanalytic Self Psychology (IAPSP). One of the best ways to get a sense of how potential supervisors present clinical material is to attend the IAPSP conference, which is the largest convening of clinicians interested in self psychology and this year will be held in Boston.

Whether it is essential or even advantageous to have a self psychological personal analysis either as a prelude to training or as one of its cornerstones, remains a matter of debate. Few of the analysts interviewed for this article said they thought it was crucial for the analysis to be conducted by someone with a self psychological orientation. Generationally, most did not have that option, themselves and discounted its value relative to other parts of training. More critical in the development of a self psychological sensibility, in New York analyst and author Frank Lachmann’s view, is empathy. “You can have an empathic Freudian and an un-empathic self psychologist,” he insisted. Indeed, during his analysis, David Terman, former head of the Chicago Institute and one of Heinz Kohut’s earlier protégés, said he often criticized his analyst for being overly empathic.

Fortunately, selecting a personal analyst with a compatible orientation may become a lot easier for some candidates, especially at institutes affiliated with the American Psychoanalytic Association. After decades of acrimonious debate, the seemingly inviolable requirement that candidates in training undergo analysis with a designated “training analyst” has undergone some relaxation. If you are one of those people who was deterred by the prospect of having to switch analysts because of this requirement, considered archaic by some, your options may be improving.

Although “independent” training institutes have generally allowed candidates more latitude in the selection of their own analysts, some American-affiliated institutes, like the Institute for Psychoanalysis in Chicago and the William Alanson White Institute, have relaxed their rules considerably and permit candidates to pick from a broader pool than just “training analysts.” Still, the dust remains unsettled about the long-term implications of some of these moves — including whether an analyst could become a training analyst if he or she was not analyzed by one. So it is best to check an institute’s requirements carefully against your own goals.

Starting Small

A lot of psychoanalytic ink has been spilled on whether psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are just a question of degree. Wherever you stand on the issue, there is probably training that will suit you if you are eager to strengthen your clinical skills in self psychology but not ready to dive headlong into a four-year psychoanalytic training program. Starting small has become easier.

Study groups can provide a way to dip your toe into the water, meet local professionals, and test the more comprehensive educational offerings. But there is no central listing of study groups either nationally or locally, so locating a study group with openings may entail some sleuthing. Some institutes, like the Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis in Washington, sponsor an array of ongoing study groups, ranging from inter-subjectivity theory to couples therapy. They are open to new participants but are available only as space allows. Some like the Midwest Study Group, which has been running since the early 1970s and meets twice a year, are open by invitation only. Senior training analysts from self psychologically oriented institutes can often help identify existing study groups.

Some institutes permit students from both clinical and academic backgrounds to pursue specific courses of interest “cafeteria style” through student-at-large or extension programs. Many, such as the Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles, the Institute for Psychoanalysis in Chicago, and the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, now offer one-year “fundamentals” or “fellowship” programs with differing combinations of theory and clinical case conferences. For the most part they are open to both licensed and pre-licensure participants. Although they generally require an application, they offer you some freedom without making either a two-year or 4-year training commitment.

A word of caution: while fundamentals programs may cover similar historical and theoretical terrain, they are not all alike, especially when it comes to continuing with further training. Some are designed as standalone programs. They may even offer a customizable second year, like the program at LA’s ICP. Others, however, were designed with the long view and also can serve as a gateway program for subsequent study.

If you suspect you might continue, it would be a good idea to determine whether participation in the foundation year program will eliminate the first year of a lengthier program as it does for the two-year psychotherapy program and the four-year psychoanalysis program at Chicago’s Institute for Psychoanalysis. Not so in its four-year program or at the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis where the meter for the full four year program starts only after the foundational fellowship.

Geography is No Longer Psychoanalytic Destiny

As has always been the case with psychoanalysis since the first training institutes were established in the 1930s, professionals in the large eastern cities may have the clearest path toward formal training in self psychological and inter-subjective approaches. New York, Boston, and Baltimore/Washington all have institutes with formal training programs lasting four years.

Institutes such as New York’s Institute for the Psychoanalytic Study of Subjectivity, the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, and Washington’s Institute for Contemporary Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis, all offer a full four-year training program with a possibility for immersion in self psychology. Training centers, such as the Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles, have also sprung up outside of the traditional centers of clinical psychoanalytic training on the East Coast and in Chicago.

Geography, however, is no longer psychoanalytic destiny. You don’t even have to live in or around Los Angeles to attend ICP, which offers a weekend program for candidates able to travel six times a year to Los Angeles. The program, which draws candidates from around the country and from abroad, hosts the didactic portion in LA while candidates arrange for approval of their personal analysis and supervision individually with the Institute.

Technology has not just expanded the options for supervisors and, in some instances, supervised cases, it has also given clinicians to a broader range of online courses offered by individual analysts and by institutes. Many offerings are listed on the IAPSP listserv, so keeping your eye on that — and keeping your membership current so that you receive it — is one of the best ways to stay abreast of what is available.

Revisiting the Question of Lay Analysis

Over Freud’s early and unambiguous objection, for the first half century after the formation of the American Psychoanalytic Association as the initial organizing entity for clinical psychoanalysts, training at American psychoanalytic training institutes remained closed to anyone but medical professionals. Psychologists, social workers, and others seeking training were welcome at some institutes operating independently of APSA, but non-medical professionals had to pry their way through legal action into the affiliated institutes. The opportunities for non-medical clinicians have widened considerably since the American Psychological Association law suit in the mid-80s. However, even though social workers have now entered the ranks of training analysts and institute leadership, some institutes, such as the Columbia Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, do not admit candidates without a doctoral level degree.

Somewhat paradoxically, scholars without clinical training in some instances fare better than clinicians without doctoral level training. At places such as the Institute for Psychoanalysis in Chicago, scholar candidates can pursue full clinical training. The Scholars Program at the Chicago Institute, for example, has enrolled candidates from linguistics and comparative literature, among other fields. Programs elsewhere have admitted scholars from sociology, women’s studies, English literature, and art history. Many have gone on to make distinguished clinical contributions in the field. Chicago analyst Bonnie Litowitz, a linguist, is the first non-clinician to assume the editorial helm of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association.

Whether you will also be able to obtain a license if you have not had prior clinical training depends on where you live. New York, for example, now offers a clinical licensing exam for non-clinicians who complete psychoanalytic training and other mandatory clinical training. So if you are thinking of building a private practice and and want to be able to bill insurance companies, you should probably investigate the opportunities for those without academic clinical degrees to obtain a mental health practitioner license.

The Old Battle with the University

If you have not progressed too far already in your basic clinical training and want to compress your psychoanalytic training into your formal program and just want to focus on the didactic work, you have some solid choices that may help you bypass some of these arcane institute rules. You will most likely have to obtain the clinical supervision later, unless you’re strategic about how you select your internships and externships, and you won’t get a formal credential as a psychoanalyst. But you may get solid basic training nonetheless and there’s nothing to stop you from getting involved with an institute concurrently. As you think about programs, you will almost certainly have to ask some careful questions to size up the clinical orientation of the program, and the American Psychological Association’s survey of psychoanalytically-friendly psychology programs is a good place to start. Some universities, such as the University of Chicago’s School of Social Service Administration, also offer self psychology workshops and lengthier certificate programs in psychoanalysis more broadly.