Characteristics of and Prospects
for the Developing Group in 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 me begin 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 UK analysts 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 been an 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
1
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 program me of “postgraduate 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 equally acceptable 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.
2
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.
3