A Parapraxis for Our Times: A Proposal Designed to Address Our Current Failure to Recognize and Specify Clinical Differences and the Threat to the Training and Future of Psychoanalysts it Poses.

"Pluralism" makes it difficult for psychoanalysts to know how far what they do in their consulting rooms is different or not to what others who call themselves psychoanalysts do. A consequence is that it is now hard for "psychoanalysts in training" to know what they are supposed to do, if they want to practice "psychoanalysis." What will a psychoanalytic training give you that other therapists don't have? This paper responds to these questions and the challenge Alan Sugarman has posed by suggesting a solution is available. In the age of pluralism, Institutes can plausibly provide high-quality psychoanalytic training if they clarify transparently their intentions and relate them precisely to Freuds' defining criteria of procedure, method and theory. Recent research into defining what psychoanalysts do will be presented. If used, they would permit each institute to state publicly which way of doing psychoanalysis they have adopted in which to train their candidates. Informed and disciplined competition between institutes would then become possible alomg with clear criteria for graduation for "analysts in training." Better and more transparent guidelines for adequate practice could follow (with potential gains for outcome research). Patients would also be enabled to know what to expect.