Rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

I want to speak today about trends in the modes of evaluation of and within psychoanalysis. These arise from admirable wishes for greater objectivity in our assessments of work, of trainings, and of what psychoanalysis is. I will be proposing cautious openness towards such moves, the impetus for which comes both from within and from outside our ranks. To preclude misunderstandings, I start by saying that I am supportive of the British Psychoanalytic Council’s (BPC) efforts towards Registration. Such moves create anxiety, and a propensity for splitting; some are suspicious that the essence of psychoanalysis is lost in this effort, others that stating criteria for excellence is necessary both for us in the profession and to satisfy the proper requirements of people who are not in our field that we have standards and appropriate requirements. My view is that this tension is inevitable and needs to be contained within ourselves and our structures. There is no easy answer. Both points of view are (up to a point) valid; they also express values that are liable to be in conflict. What I have in mind is a cluster of developments involving increased emphasis on evaluation and on criteria for evaluating. The aim is to combat situations in which people have reason to suspect that their work, or their training, or their profession, is being assessed on the basis of ‘feelings’ of either excellence or of shortcoming. There is a desire to get away from clubbishness and oldschool, in-group, methods of selection and assessment. I am reminded here of the importance of the work of the War Office Selection Boards during the War, work that was much influenced by current and future psychoanalysts and psychotherapists, including John Bowlby, Wilfred Bion, Jock Sutherland, Eric Trist, Eric Wittkower and Harold Bridger (King, 2003). The Selection Boards initiated changes in the methodology of the selection of officers, so as to widen the field, thus making an important shift away from the bias towards people from a limited social background. There is a matter-of-fact quality about such aims: if we can state what it is that we are looking for, and pinpoint whether or not these qualities are present, then we have moved from subjectivity in the direction of greater objectivity. One key word, a word to be heard more and more in the ‘corridors’ of our institutions,