Abstract
The increasing prolongation of the didactic analysis and supervisory hours that has occurred in most psychoanalytic institutes over the past several decades has not only failed to guarantee a better trained and more scientific group of psychoanalysts, but, because of the unhealthy and authoritarian hegemony of training analysts over their candidates, may be having a contrary effect of fostering rigidity and dogmatism. If psychoanalysis is to remain vital, it must be open to growth and change like any other branch of science and its practitioners must be flexible and open to new vistas of knowledge from whatever source. A suggestion is offered that would enable psychoanalytic candidates, in most instances, to complete their training within a four-year period.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
