‌‌‌‌　　英：training; 法：formation, didactique

‌‌‌‌　　英文单词“raining”被用来翻译拉康所使用的两个法文术语：“训练性分析”(analyse didactique)与“专业性训练”(formation).

‌‌‌‌　　·“训练性分析”(法：analyse didactique)在1930年代，当拉康开始受训成为一名分析家的时候，在“治疗性分析”(therapeutic analysis)与“训练性分析”(training analysis)之间做出区分便已然变成了国际精神分析协会 (PA)中的既定做法（这一区分仍然被国际精神分析协会维持到现在）。在此一区分的语境下，“治疗性分析”这一术语是指分析者出于治疗某些症状的目的而进入分析治疗的过程，而“训练性分析”这一术语则专指分析者出于受训成为分析家的目的而进入分析治疗的过程。根据管理所有那些隶属于国际精神分析协会的学会的规则，所有的成员在被允许作为分析家进行执业之前，都必须首先经历一个训练性分析。然而，只有当一个分析是由少数被选定为“训练性分析家”(training analyst)的一位资深分析家所操作，且只有当这个分析是出于训练的目的而进行的时候，这些学会才会承认它是一个训练性分析。

‌‌‌‌　　训练性分析与治疗性分析之间的这一制度性的区分，变成了拉康批判的主要对象之一。虽然拉康同意国际精神分析协会的观点，认为如果有人想要成为一名分析家，那么便绝对有必要去经历一个精神分析治疗，但是他坚决反对在治疗性分析与训练性分析之间做出这一人为的区分。对于拉康而言，无论分析者是出于怎样的原因而开始治疗的，分析的过程都只有一种形式，而且此种过程的顶点也并非症状的消除，而是从分析者过渡到分析家的转变 (见：分析的结束[END OF ANALYSIS])

‌‌‌‌　　因而，所有的分析都能够产生一位分析家，而由一些制度宣称哪些分析算作训练，哪些分析不算训练的所有那些主张则统统是假的，因为“分析家的授权只能来自他自己”(Lacan, 1967:14)。因此，拉康便废除了治疗性分析与训练性分析之间的这一区分，所有的分析都是训练性分析，至少潜在地是训练性分析。“只有一种精神分析，即训练性分析。”(S11,274)如今，很多拉康派分析家都已经同时摒弃了“治疗性分析”与“训练性分析”这两个术语，而更喜欢使用“个人分析”(personal analysis)这一术语（这是拉康自己偶尔也会使用的一个术语：见：S8,222)来命名任何分析治疗的过程。

‌‌‌‌　　·分析家的培养 (法：formation des analystes)这指的是人们借以学会如何操作精神分析治疗的过程，即如何成为分析家的过程。对拉康而言，这并不仅仅是分析家们在其职业生涯的开端所经历的一个过程，而是一个不断进行的过程。有两个来源可以让分析家们从中学会如何去操作精神分析治疗：他们自身的治疗经验 (首先作为病人，继而作为分析家)，以及其他人经由精神分析理论而传递给他们的经验。拉康坚持认为，这些来源中最根本的是分析家自身作为病人的精神分析治疗经验。然而，这并未使分析家免除必须学习很多其他方面的知识的责任，拉康给分析家的训练所开设的教学大纲是非常广泛的，其中包括文学、语言学、数学与历史等 (E, 144-5)。正如弗洛伊德所做的那样，分析家必须试图变成“一本艺术与缪斯的百科全书”(E, 169)。这一广泛的课程设置显然存在于拉康的公开研讨班，课程内容对哲学、拓扑学、逻辑学、文学与语言学都有涉猎一所有这些都被拉康看作分析家的训练所必不可少的。

‌‌‌‌　　值得注意的是，英文术语“training”与法文术语“formation”有着相当不同的细微差别。英文术语 (在此理解为“培训”)携带有某种正式程序或某种官僚结构的意涵，而法文术语（尤其在拉康的著作中）则表示使主体在其存在的核心发生改变的一种过程，而且此种过程既无法通过设置各种仪式化的程序来规定，也无法通过某种打印出来的资格证书来保证。

‌‌‌‌　　(formation, didactigue) The English word 'training'is used to translate two French termsused by Lacan: analyse didactique ('training analysis') and formation ('professionaltraining').

‌‌‌‌　　.Training analysis' (Fr. Analyse didactique) By the time Lacan began training as ananalyst, in the 1930s, it had become established practice in the International Psycho-Analytical Association (IPA) to make a distinction between 'therapeutic analysis'and'training analysis' (this distinction is still maintained by the IPA today). In the context ofthis distinction, the term 'therapeutic analysis'refers to a course of analytic treatmententered into by the analysand for the purpose of treating certain symptoms, whereas theterm 'training analysis'refers exclusively to a course of analytic treatment entered intoby the analysand for the purpose of training as an analyst. According to the rulesgoverning all the societies affiliated to the IPA, all members must first undergo a traininganalysis before being allowed to practise as analysts. However, an analysis is onlyrecognised as a training analysis by these societies if it is conducted by one of the fewsenior analysts designated as a 'training analyst', and if it is embarked upon purely for thepurpose of training.

‌‌‌‌　　This institutional distinction between training analysis and therapeutic analysisbecame one of the main objects of Lacan's criticism. While Lacan agrees with the IPAthat it is absolutely necessary to undergo psychoanalytic treatment if one wants tobecome an analyst, he firmly disagrees with the artificial distinction drawn betweentherapeutic analysis and training analysis. For Lacan, there is only one form of theanalytic process, irrespective of the reason for which the analysand embarks upontreatment, and the culmination of that process is not the removal of symptoms but thepassage from analysand to analyst (see END OF ANALYSIS).

‌‌‌‌　　All analyses are thus capable of producing an analyst, and all claims by institutions tosay which analyses count as training and which do not are bogus, for 'the authorisation ofan analyst can only come from himself (Lacan, 1967:14). Lacan therefore abolishes thedistinction between therapeutic analysis and training analysis; all analyses are traininganalyses, at least potentially.'There is only one kind of psychoanalysis, the traininganalysis' (S11,274). Today, many Lacanians have dispensed with both the term'therapeutic analysis'and the term 'training analysis', preferring to use the term personalanalysis (a term Lacan himself uses occasionally; see $8,222) to designate any course ofanalytic treatment.

‌‌‌‌　　The training of analysts (Fr. Formation des analystes) This refers to the process bywhich people leam how to conduct psychoanalytic treatment,i.e.how to be analysts. For Lacan, this is not simply a process that analysts go through at the beginning of theirprofessional life, but an ongoing process. There are two sources from which analystslearn how to conduct psychoanalytic treatment: their own experience of treatment (first aspatients, then as analysts), and the experience of others which is transmitted to them viapsychoanalytic theory. Lacan insists that the most fundamental of these sources is theanalyst's own experience of psychoanalytic treatment as a patient. However, this does notexcuse the analyst from having to learn a lot more besides; Lacan's syllabus for thetraining of analysts is very extensive, and includes literature, linguistics, mathematics and history (E, 144-5). The analyst must seek to become, as Freud was,'an encyclopedia ofthe arts and muses' (E, 169). This broad curriculum is evident in Lacan's public seminarwhich is filled with incursions into philosophy, topology, logic, literature andlinguistics-all of which Lacan regards as essential to the training of analysts.

‌‌‌‌　　It is worth noting that the English term 'training'is nuanced rather differently to theFrench term formation. Whereas the English term carries connotations of a formalprogramme, or a bureaucratic structure, the French term (especially in Lacan's work) connotes a process which alters the subject in the very kernel of his being, and whichcannot be regulated by set ritualistic procedures nor guaranteed by a printed qualification.