On the institutional dialectic between unity and diversity in psychoanalytic education

The aim pursued by Freud and Ferenczi in 1910, when they founded the International Psychoanalytical Association-to establish a regulatory body for the safeguarding of psychoanalysis-was supported by the international 'Guidelines for Psychoanalytic Training' developed by Max Eitingon and adopted in 1925. However, resistance to this centralised conception of psychoanalytic training soon emerged. This resistance grew as psychoanalysis spread worldwide across different cultures. The fact that differing approaches and regional autonomy in psychoanalytic training were able to gain a foothold under the umbrella of the IPA was demonstrated by the 2007 decision-still in force today-to grant equal recognition to the three training models: the Eitingon model, the French model and the Uruguayan model. A tension has arisen between central and local authorities regarding the organisation of psychoanalytic training within the IPA, which, depending on its intensity, can be either paralysing or creative for the further development of psychoanalysis. In the author's view, different translations into English of the German term 'Gleichgesinnte' used by Ferenczi highlight these contrasts. "Gleichgesinnte", who form the IPA as "people who think in the same way" (Haynal's translation), may leave less room for cultural differences than "Gleichgesinnte", who form the IPA as "like-minded people" (the author's translation). The author emphasises the value of a democratically legitimised, central authority, which must, however, remain in dialogue with local authorities within the IPA.