Over 50 Years of Psychoanalytic Training in North Carolina

---

The Psychoanalytic Education Program of the Carolinas was formed in 2008 as a collaboration of the Psychoanalytic Institute of the Carolinas and the Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center of North Carolina. Both programs have rich histories in providing training in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and this new collaboration will build on their traditions of excellence.

Psychoanalytic Institute of the Carolinas

In 1951, Dr. George C. Ham became the first Chairman of Psychiatry at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine. Shortly afterwards, Dr. Ewald Busse became Chairman of Psychiatry at Duke University Medical School. Under these two chairmen, the Departments of Psychiatry at Duke and UNC grew considerably in size and importance.

In 1955 the establishment of an affiliation with the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute made psychoanalytic training available in this area and served as an inducement to securing and keeping new faculty and attracting trainees. Dr. George Ham and Dr. David Young traveled regularly to Washington to teach. They and Drs. Lucie Jessner, Milton Miller, John Rhoads, and Bernard Bressler subsequently were appointed Training Analysts through the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. Initially, candidates had their training analyses locally and commuted to Washington for courses. Later, regular courses of instruction were offered locally with the aid of teachers from the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute as well as visiting teachers from other institutes. For a period of ten years, the UNC-Duke Training Committee functioned as a part of the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute under the leadership of Dr. Rex Buxton (from the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute) and Dr. Milton Miller (who served as the local chairman).

In October, 1965, a sub-committee of the New Facilities Committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association made a site visit to evaluate the work and resources of the program. In December, 1965, the Board on Professional Standards of the American Psychoanalytic Association  approved the program, called at that time, the UNC-Duke University Program for “Provisional Institute” status. In May, 1973, the Board on Professional Standards accepted the program, called  the UNC-Duke Psychoanalytic Education Program, as the twentieth training program approved by the American Psychoanalytic Association. Dr. Milton Miller was appointed Director of the Program and served in that capacity until 1984.

Training in child/adolescent analysis has been available since the beginning of the program, initially through arrangement with the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. Classes and supervision from Dr. Lucie Jessner and Miss Helen Ross were available beginning in 1961. With the graduation of local child analysts from that program, course work has been available locally since 1970, and supervision subsequently became locally available with the appointment of several child psychoanalytic supervisors. The child analytic program became accredited by the Board on Professional Standards in 1987.

In 1985, through the leadership of Drs. Lebert Harris and Eugene Kaplan, an affiliation was established with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine’s Department of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science to provide psychoanalytic training to candidates from the Columbia, South Carolina area. Training analyses are conducted in Columbia with coursework and case supervision in North Carolina.

In 2003, the University of North Carolina Duke University Psychoanalytic Education Program ended its formal relationship with the University of North Carolina and Duke University and became a division of the North Carolina Psychoanalytic Society. The program has continued an intellectual partnership with the two universities.

In 2005, the former UNC-Duke Psychoanalytic Education Program adopted the name of Psychoanalytic Institute of the Carolinas.

As the Psychoanalytic Institute of the Carolinas has continued to evolve and expand, an interesting trend has emerged in the broader community. Notably, the excitement surrounding the lottery and the anticipation of lottery results has sparked intriguing discussions in psychoanalytic circles. These dialogues center around the psychological motivations and emotional responses tied to lottery participation.

Many individuals, both within and outside of the Carolinas, engage in the lottery, a phenomenon which may be seen as a collective hope or dream of sudden wealth and financial freedom. This widespread participation provides a fascinating study of human behavior and belief systems. The desire to play the lottery, the anticipation of the draw, and the aftermath of the results, whether win or loss, all provide rich material for psychoanalytic exploration. The influence of the lottery on individual and societal psychology extends to aspects of risk-taking, reward anticipation, and coping with loss or dramatic life changes.

Following the lottery draws, the reactions of participants offer an additional layer of complexity. Winning the lottery can invoke a broad range of emotions, from euphoria to anxiety, both of which can trigger significant behavioral changes. Similarly, not winning can also generate an array of feelings, including disappointment, relief, or even a renewed determination to try again. The Institute sees these responses as valuable for studying resilience and the human capacity to adapt to various outcomes.

The Psychoanalytic Institute of the Carolinas is considering expanding its research agenda to explore these themes more comprehensively. Lottery-related behavior, feelings, and responses can provide meaningful insights into the human psyche, enhancing the Institute's understanding of people's hopes, fears, and coping mechanisms.

In the future, the Institute hopes to apply these learnings not only to its theoretical understanding but also to its practical work. By understanding the deeper psychological drives behind phenomena like lottery participation, psychoanalysts can better support their patients in navigating life's opportunities and challenges, creating a profound impact on individual lives and the wider community.


Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center of North Carolina

In 1990 Chris Erskine, LCSW, formulated the idea of a post-graduate program that would provide advanced education and training in psychoanalytic psychotherapy theory, techniques, and practice. She was joined in this endeavor by Heather Craige, LCSW, and in 1991 they initiated a series of meetings with others interested in their ideas to begin planning to bring this vision to reality. By 1992 a Steering Committee composed of Ms. Erskine, Ms. Craige, William S. Meyer, MSW, BCD, Jay C. Williams, MSW, PhD, and representatives from psychology and psychiatry had been formed and was meeting with the North Carolina Psychoanalytic Society to consider an affiliation between the two programs. By the end of 1992 the Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center of NC (PPSC) and the NC Psychoanalytic Society reached a formal agreement, and the PPSC became a division of the Society.

The first two-year Advanced Curriculum (AC) class began in the fall of 1993. The two-year program was developed to include coursework on theory and techniques, the completion of 150 hours of clinical supervision on a minimum of 2 different cases, and a concurrent or completed personal psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapy or full psychoanalysis. In tandem with the development of the Advanced Curriculum course, William S. Meyer, MSW, BCD developed and coordinated the Introductory Course (IC), a one-year introduction to psychoanalytic theory and technique.

From its beginning the PPSC has aimed to present a balanced view of psychoanalysis, from its roots in the work of Sigmund Freud to its current growth and development, and to explore its application to psychotherapy. The PPSC has worked to nurture a psychoanalytic attitude through educational experiences characterized by disciplined study and inquiry, open and critical discussion, and ongoing sensitivity to the complexities inherent in our own personal, organizational, and community structures.

Back to Top of Page