Characteristics of and Prospects
Characteristics of and Prospects
for the Developing Groupin Analytical Psychology in Russia
Oksana Lavrova, Ph.D., Member of the St-Petersburg DG
Our training began in St-Petersburg with a course on Basic Concepts in Analytical Psychology running between 1998 and 2000. The course was 12 weekends,led by senior analysts from the UK and was funded by the IAAP.
Let mebegin with some details of our project. It is a programme of clinical supervision and shuttle analysis from visiting UK analysts from all 4 Societies in the UK (SAP, BAP, IGAP, AJA). Supervisors come in pairs 4 times a year for a long weekend. Each supervisor supervises two different groups of four routers for 5 hours of group supervision each weekend. When routers have passed their intermediate exam, they are offered individual supervision in addition to group supervision. There are also visits from UKanalysts 5 times a year to offer ‘shuttle’ analysis. Each router has 10 sessions of personal analysis per visit, the equivalent of once a week over the year. For those who do not speak English, the work is undertaken with an interpreter in the room. Jan Wiener and Catherine Crowther from the SAP are our liaison officers and when they visit, there is always a meeting with all DG members. The emphasis in our programme is on clinical supervision and personal analysis and because of this, there is less theoretical teaching. We try to study on our own and there have been extra visits from UK analysts for teaching weekends on particular themes.
I would like to focus in my talk on two specific issues, relevant to the IAAP project in St-Petersburg:
1. Cross-cultural differences: the formal aspects of training and how these are affected by the present attitudes to psychotherapy and analysis in Russia.
2. Mutual Expectations of both sides: similarities and differences
Cross-cultural differences: the formal aspects of training and specific of psychotherapeutic practice in Russia
Since 2000, when the DG was formed, there have been certain observable trends in the communication between DG members and our IAAP colleagues from the UK. These trends are closely connected to the cultural differences between the UK and Russia. There are inevitably conflicts which will arise (W. Bion), a struggle with our shadow (C.G.Jung), narcissistic projections etc. But there has beenan obvious relationship between the quality of our communications with our UK colleagues and the general culture of communication, notwithstanding the parties’ ethnicity.
Sometimes the ethnic specificity of Russian culture is manifestly observable, but it is too often reduced by our UK colleagues to our Bolshevist heritage, and this perception has been strengthened by shadowy myths about Russia. In the context of the training provided by IAAP project, it seems to me that what is most important in Russian culture is not its shadowy past, but rather its spiritual, Self-based specifics connected to suffering, sacrifice and redemption. In fact the latter fits well with Jungian ideas.
In Russia, we have a rather conservative system of higher education and there are so-called “specialist models” which include a list of obligatory knowledge and skills according to a unified state standard. Any educational institution in Russia must comply with this standard if it is to be accredited and licensed by the state that awards its students state diplomas. There is an established post-graduate education system in medicine, finance and law. In psychology, however, there exists no such system as yet, and there is no state license for practicing psychologists. For this reason, Russian psychologists usually have only an informal motivation to join the programme of “post-graduate education” provided by IAAP, because an international certificate gives us no social status benefits. This is one significant difference, with respect to training, between our Russian specialists and our European and American colleagues who have well-established systems of state licensing and formally defined directions for professional development in the community.
Psychotherapeutic practice in Russia is still a marginal activity. On the one hand, there are a growing number of professional psychotherapists and there is plenty of work for them to do; on the other – their activity is compromised by charlatans or amateurs who declare themselves to be psychotherapists and their actions influence negatively the public perception of the profession. In Russia psychotherapists do not yet have a respectable social status, so the choice of this profession is determined by the professionals’ motivation and interest in the unconscious factors affecting illness and their compassion for human suffering.
The potential Integration of different psychotherapeutic communities into international associations has just begun in Russia, and most Russian psychotherapists are excited to acquire a professional analytic identity and acceptance into the community. Our Western colleagues have this motivation, too, but many also have social protection and legal status, acknowledged by their respective governments.
The training provided for us by our London IAAP colleagues meets well our personal needs, for it is generally quite informal and individually-oriented. However, the more formal IAAP requirements towards the establishment of a new group and the examination criteria set by the IAAP are not always clearly defined, and can be frustrating. It would be helpful to have clearer criteria. In addition to clear criteria, the component of dialogue is important for such kind of exam. Dialogue implies that different perspectives and positions are equallyacceptable and discussable.
Mutual Expectations: Similarities and Differences
It seems to me that it is in the more informal and personal area of mutuality and relationship with our UK teachers that there is more reciprocal satisfaction than within the area of formal processes.
There is a satisfaction when a student responds to a tutor who strives to facilitate his professional and personal individuation. Personal analysis suits the Russian psyche with its emphasis on the inner world. Our training has contributed towards the initiation of fundamental archetypal processes in a safe “alchemical retort” and has influenced the development of an analytic and ethical attitude for us.
On closer inspection, the conflicts in our group are often triggered because of incompatible expectations, especially when they are connected to immediate plans for the future.
In December 2008 we initiated and sent out to DG members a questionnaire “On attitudes towards and future prospects of the Russian DG”; we had hoped to get valuable data about what members of our group feel and how they see the future of the group. We were very pleased that 70% of group members responded, indicating the importance of feedback from the individual to the group which had been insufficient in the project. Most respondents answered that they felt that the communication with the group is very important or important for them and they valued the opportunity to fill in the questionnaire.
The main motivations for participation in the IAAP project were, for the most respondents, personal and professional and connected to their wish for education and training specifically in the field of analytical psychology and also for the opportunity for continuing professional development. The generous funding made available to us was much appreciated as well as the high professional standing of most visiting analysts and supervisors.
The negative aspects of our training were thought to be the lack of theoretical education, the lack of cohesion and continuity between the qualified analysts in Russia, members of the Russian Society for Analytical Psychology (RSAP) and those of us in the DG. Some people found the IAAP excessively controlling and our UK colleagues were not sufficiently flexible in permitting changes of personal analyst or supervisor, timing of exams etc. There was a wish for more dialogue and freedom of communication.
According to most respondents, the involvement of DG members is determined mostly by their talents and ambitions as well as by their personal goals. It seems to me that as yet, group processes have not received enough attention, and because of this some destructive aspects of group dynamics have led to various losses and slowed down the integration of the group. When asked about their perception of the future prospects for the group, respondents answered that they are ready to participate in organization of conferences and workshops, to establish and support connections and networking within Jungian community, to participate in courses on supervision, peer group supervision and further training for specialists in analytical psychology. Outside the community DG members plan to continue their professional psychotherapeutic practice as analytic therapists, psychiatrists and scientific researchers, and some respondents mentioned the importance of integration in post-Soviet space.
All DG members feel that it is necessary to clarify the expectations of IAAP towards the new Society RSAP and to know about the functioning of umbrella societies of IAAP in general and to be told by the leaders both of RSAP and MAAP in Moscow how Russian societies are going to consolidate, rather than split, when they graduate from the IAAP program me. It is important to establish constructive and co-operative exchanges between analytical psychologists in St-Petersburg, Moscow, Minsk, Kiev, Vilnius and Krasnodar on the one hand and the IAAP on the other.
I hope that a continuing space for mutual debate and discussion will permit IAAP, RSAP and MAAP and other groups to form a reliable foundation for a Jungian assembly in post-soviet space and to decrease the threat of sibling rivalry and struggling coalitions (to some degree inevitable). This process takes time, but it is vitally important for all participants of the project.
1