Council for Psychoanalysis and Jungian Analysis

The CPJA is a College of the UK Council for Psychotherapy. It has an individual membership of over 1800 practitioners and brings together 30 Organisational Members, most of which offer training courses. It is the largest organisation of psychodynamic, psychoanalytic and Jungian psychotherapists in the UK.

What kind of psychotherapy do CPJA members offer?

All members of the CPJA believe that unconscious processes shape our behaviour and our lives. Broadly speaking this means that we don’t know as much about ourselves as we think we do.

The unconscious is, as the word suggests, ‘un’-conscious but manifests in dreams, symptoms and patterns of behaviour. Often we know these patterns are damaging to our selves and others, but we feel powerless to change them. More positively, the unconscious is also a source of creativity and imagination.

Members of the CPJA work with people with a very wide range of concerns, such as depression, anxiety, sexual and relationship problems, conflicts at work or in education, and loss of a sense of meaning and purpose in life. However, it is not necessary to have a specific problem but simply desire to undertake a journey of discovery. Read more here.

Are you looking for a psychotherapist?

Our members work with children, adolescents, adults and older people, with people with disabilities, with couples, groups, and families. If you are looking for a psychotherapist, please use our find a therapist page.

CPJA members: for latest news, scroll down …

Dates of CPJA College meetings 2019 and 2020

College meetings will take place from 12.00 to 4pm on the following dates:

26 October 2019: Guild of Psychotherapists, 47 Nelson Square, London SE1 0QA.  The papers are available here:

Agenda

Background paper for discussion      Report from Ethics Committee

28 March 2020 AGM

4 July 2020 College Meeting

24 October 2020 College meeting

Members of the CPJA Executive & Committees

Executive: Sarah Fahy (Chair of the Ethics Committee), Keith Armitage (Chair of Training Standards Committee) plus five Ordinary Members: Katrina Ashton, Andy Cottom, Sarah Fahy, Janet Weisz and Steve Wills.

Ethics Committee:  Sarah Fahy (Chair), Charles Brown, Alf McFarland and Adam Saltiel

CPJA Training Standards Committee:   Keith Armitage (Chair); Katrina Ashton; Alan Lidmila, and Lynsey Hotchkies and Melanie Waddy

Reaccreditation for Direct Registration Sub-committee (RDRS): Alan Lidmila (Chair); Katrina Ashton, Alison Kings and Richard Jones

Members Committee:  Andy Cottom

DISCUSSION PAPER (1) PRESENTED TO THE CPJA ON NOVEMBER 28TH by ALAN LIDMILA ( Executive Committee Member of CPJA and member of The Hallam Institute of Psychotherapy )

Paradigms of Practice/1

CPJA 1

By way of introduction, let me tell you a short tale. Twenty-five years ago today, a few of us were trying to get all the band to play.. So, in this actual venue, a meeting was held, probably long forgotten, with the title: ‘The Making of Analytic Psychotherapy – Varying Perspectives’. H.W (a fellow-conspirator at the time)and I were invited to contribute and my offering was entitled :’ The Emperors Clothes – looking again at analytic paradigms’ At the time, we barbarians spoke for the fringe, unsanctified analytic tribes, those unblessed by metropolitan hegemonic holy waters.
There has always been a debate as to what properly constitutes psychoanalytic practice. In alliance with elements of The Guild, AGIP & other ‘liberal’ organisations, we were trying to widen, indeed diversify the range of organised p-a practice in what were pre-UKCP days, in a field that was very exclusively organised in ritual, incestuous obeisance around The Institute. Hence the sub-title on that day. It is a longer tale, but one not only for the archive: history, like food, repeats.

Now, looking for an apposite phrase in very different times I consider plus ca change , plus c’est la meme chose but, things are not quite the same, even if the comment underscores what is often ironic about apparently progressive change, and signifies the importance of history, taking a ‘ long view’ regarding a current zeitgeist, or any uncritical conformity to the flavour of the day..
At that time, as now, sub-texts,politics, are at play. Then, the ‘radical’ tendency was to widen the net, extend the brief, allow in some of the Barbarians from the outer encampments (not a wholly altruistic move, as this would in turn strengthen a power base, assist economic imperatives, in squabbling London town houses).Yet change is ironic, and dialectic, and often unintended; my comments today suggest other consequences in psychotherapy culture ,and in turn a response that is now, necessarily, more ‘tradical’ than radical !

To briefly explain this shift. Now, we inhabit, in wider culture as it impinges on psychotherapy culture, different, but not necessarily progressively better times. Leaving aside the problematic ‘regulatory mind’, we almost over-subscribe to values of ‘inclusivity and diversity’, which may have undesirable consequences as far as a homogenous, clearly differentiated psychoanalytic model is concerned. Ironically, the old guard, zealous keepers of the flame, upped sticks to form a higher temple elsewhere, leaving a vacuum, fertile for doubters, to ‘develop’, deconstruct, or maybe dismantle the integrity of the model – a model already under external threat in Nice Times. (I note tendencies, by the way, not conspiracies!).

The confidence in the model seems to have wavered for some, who as a result, have experimented, with techniques, derived from other models. This is not necessarily ‘adapt and survive’, any more than any crisis is nuclear – it is more like anxiety, or at worst panic. There are two interacting factors:
Adaptive responses to external pressures in form of NICE, IAPT, contractions in NHS and trainings, coincident with a translation of the ideology of diversity into shifts in practice technique, so as to resemble a more mixed portfolio, some more strings to the practitioner bow, because, well, we need to reflect and embrace diversity, rather than anything that whiffs of exclusiveness, elitism, even specialism. I am suggesting there is evidence of muddled, if well-meaning thinking, which has contributed to doing a disservice to a confidently held psychoanalytic paradigm. Thanks.

A century on, Freud’s melancholia remains the psychological condition of the lost soul. Which is why psychoanalysis has become the modern form of exorcism

” I believe in ghosts. I live with them all the time. But it wasn’t always the case. Foolishly, I used to pretend they didn’t exist, that the dead stayed dead, that they had no purchase on my life. But now I speak to them all the time and they speak to me. I have photographs of them on my study wall. And I have even come to love them, in a strange kind of way. But I don’t call them ghosts. I call them memories, many half buried, many faintly conceived. For one of the surprising things unearthed for me by the extraordinary chemistry of psychoanalysis was the continuing presence of my ancestors. Ghosts are psychological unfinished business, often associated with unprocessed pain.

It is exactly a hundred years since Sigmund Freud set pen to paper to write his ground breaking paper Mourning and Melancholia. Published in 1917, Freud distinguished between two responses to loss: mourning, when the object of loss is clear and obvious, and thus can be emotionally processed; and melancholia, a state of being in which one is affected by a loss that one is unable to name. Melancholia is, as it were, a loss that one doesn’t realise has been lost. And because one cannot properly name this loss, because it exists in the psychic shadows, one cannot go through the process of mourning it properly. The pain goes unburied. So it hangs around and continually haunts you. This state of melancholia is often associated with depression.

It was four years ago last Monday that I resigned from St Paul’s Cathedral. Dealing with the emotional fallout led me back to therapy. Initially, I thought the subsequent depression was to do with something obvious like a loss of ego-status or a life-crisis that had yet to be properly worked through. But as the lens widened, something unexpected came into view. My ancestors came to these shores escaping persecution. Many were central European refugees fleeing tsarist pogroms. And as Jews were being gassed in Nazi Germany, my family were desperately seeking to re-build their lives, searching for normality and acceptance. And for some, the best way to do this was to forget the past and to blend in. My dad became a Christian. I became a priest. Unconsciously, it was the ultimate way not to talk about what had happened. But theologically, it was the ultimate betrayal  not to talk about what had happened. And yet, for me, the dead refused to stay dead. The Jewish talking cure, also invented by a man running away from his religion, returned to me these buried presences and invited me to walk among them again: my great-grandfather Louis, working for the Jewish Board of Guardians looking after “swarms” (cf David Cameron) of desperate refugees in the East End; his brother Samuel, with his Anglican-looking dog-collar, but leading the Princes Road synagogue in Liverpool.

And yet, for me, the dead refused to stay dead. The Jewish talking cure, also invented by a man running away from his religion, returned to me these buried presences and invited me to walk among them again: my great-grandfather Louis, working for the Jewish Board of Guardians looking after “swarms” (cf David Cameron) of desperate refugees in the East End; his brother Samuel, with his Anglican-looking dog-collar, but leading the Princes Road synagogue in Liverpool. They both changed their names from Friedeberg. And, interestingly, they were both of Freud’s generation.  For me, only by re-membering the dead would melancholia be converted into plain old mourning. My healing was to be found among the ghosts.

The year before Freud was writing Mourning and Melancholia, the fascinating ethnographer Shlomo Ansky was writing his own Jewish ghost story called The Dybbuk and subtitled “between two worlds”. In Jewish mythology, the dybbuk is a dark lost soul, suspended in some intermediate state between life and death. For a secular socialist like Ansky, his story was an expression of mourning for a religious culture that was collapsing both around him and inside him. The Jewish faith was something he rejected and yet needed at the same time. “My life was broken, split, torn,” as he put it. Freud invented psychoanalysis and Ansky wrote about ghosts. But they were doing a similar thing: resurrecting the half-dead, thus to give them a proper burial. Freud’s melancholia is the psychological condition of the dybbuk, the lost soul. And psychoanalysis is a form of exorcism. So, yes, I believe in ghosts. My sanity depends upon it. Happy Halloween. ” Giles Fraser

CPJA Position Statement

STATEMENT of GUIDING PRINCIPLES of CPJA

 The Council for Psychoanalysis and Jungian Analysis is an integral element of the UKCP. The College brings the principles of psychoanalysis and Jungian analysis to bear upon developments in the policies and procedures of the UKCP that determine the way in which we function as psychotherapists. Fundamental to this is the principle that individual members carry the responsibility for their work within a relationship with CPJA and the UKCP.

Read this entry →

A Putney debate on changing the constitution of CPJA?

Andy Cottom

Back in 1647, towards the end of the Civil War, members of the Parliamentarian forces met by the banks of the Thames at St. Mary’s Church in Putney to discuss the make-up of a new constitution for England. Many of the speakers there were members of the Levellers movement who sought universal suffrage – One man, one vote. Read this entry →

CPJA Supervision Statement March 2013

CPJA does not hold a list of supervisors.  Please refer to the UKCP Directory of Approved Supervisors at www.psychotherapy.org.uk

 

The CPJA Supervision Statement final version is now available for download,

Read this entry →