思想起心理治療中心 (松德院區) ------ Taipei Psychotherapy Center
  • 124051


  • 2




Formosa Model: An Emerging Tradition of Developing Psychoanalysis in Taiwan (劉佳昌)

The IPA first psychoanalytic conference in Asia will take place in Beijing from 21 to 24 October 2010. The conference is organised by the IPA China Committee, the IPA Centenary Committee, the China Allied Centre and the China Association for Mental Health, on the occasion of the 100th Anniversary of the foundation of the IPA. The conference is part of the IPA commitment for the diffusion and development of psychoanalysis in Asia. It is also the first step in getting together on a scientific project psychoanalytic societies and groups working in Asia: IPA China Allied Centre, Israel Psychoanalytic Society, Indian Psychoanalytic Society, International Psychoanalytic Studies Organisation (IPSO), Japan Psychoanalytic Society, Korean Study Group, Mumbai Psychoanalytic Group, Psychoanalytic Institute for Eastern Europe (PIEE), Taiwan Centre for the Development of Psychoanalysis and Australian Psychoanalytical Society. 劉佳昌醫師代表臺灣精神分析學會發表論文 時間:FRIDAY 22nd OCTOBER , 11:10—12:25 AM Room: Tower C, 3/F, Auditorium, South Hall Major Lecture/ Special Lecture Chia-Chang Liu (Taiwan Centre for the Development of Psychoanalysis) Formosa Model: An Emerging Tradition of Developing Psychoanalysis in Taiwan Chair: Alain Gibeault (Paris Society) 摘要: Formosa Model: An Emerging Tradition of Developing Psychoanalysis in Taiwan Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis (TCDP) was founded in Nov 2004, and became an IPA Allied Center since 2006. The TCDP has set an ultimate goal of becoming an IPA-approved institution to train psychoanalysts in Taiwan. To attain this goal demands not only hard work but also thoughtful communication and cooperation. People from different quarters, clinicians or not, had been much interested in psychoanalysis for decades before the TCDP was founded. The diverse background of the initiatory members with regard to psychoanalysis has become more assets than deficit in term of the promoting of psychoanalysis, because we have made good use of the diverse connections to international psychoanalysis as our valuable resource. In the past five years, in additional to regular seminars led by senior members, we have invited more than a dozen of groups of IPA analysts from societies of Argentina, France, German, UK, USA, and Belgium. In several events, guests from different countries had interesting and enriching encounter. In some other events, analysts from the same country but different schools had the experience of talking and listening to each other with fruitful discussions. The main themes of the international events over the past five years include “The Front of Psychoanalysis”, “Witch Metapsychology: Psychoanalysis in France and Germany”, “Taiwan 2005 Christmas Banquet of Psychoanalysis: Intersection of Theory and Practice”, “British Perspectives on Narcissism: Contemporary Freudian and Kleinian”, “Taiwan 2006 Summer Banquet of Psychoanalysis: From the Couch to the Way Home”, “Infancy Terminable and Interminable”, “Fantasy, Conflict, and Intervention: Perspectives of Contemporary Ego Psychology”, “The Reminiscence of Mourning—Childhood Depression and Adolescent Identification”, “A Story for Our Time: Trauma and Depression”, “Remembering, Repeating and Working Through”, “A Hospital Based Treatment for Personality Disorders” , “Spontaneity and Impingement: Winnicottian and Bionian Ideas and Techniques”, “When a Patient is Leaving”, “Phantasies of Our ‘Beginnings’ (And Their Impact on Daily Life)”, and “Sex and Language in Psychoanalysis”. We believe such a wide range of teachings can give us an panoramic view of psychoanalysis and give us best chance to form our own view. This is one of the key building blocks of the Formosa Model, which I will discuss in more detail in the paper. Author: Chia-Chang Liu, Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis Address: 309 Songde Road Taipei, Taiwan 110 Brief Resume: Chia-Chang Liu, MD, MSc Taipei Medical College MSc in Theoretical Psychoanalytic Studies, University College Lodon President, Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis Consultant Psychiatrist, Taipei City Psychiatric Center, Taipei City Hospital 全文: Formosa Model: An Emerging Tradition of Developing Psychoanalysis in Taiwan Chia-Chang Liu Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis Address: 309 Songde Road Taipei, Taiwan 110 Email address: catcher_liu@yahoo.com.tw ◎Taiwan: Formosa Taiwan is an island of 36 thousand square kilometers with the current population of 23million. The island is of a slender shape, 4 hundred kilometers long, and it’s quite mountainous, with the Central Mountain striding from north to south and the famous highest peak, Jade Mountain, nearly 4 thousand meters high. The government has established 6 national parks and 12 national scenic areas to preserve Taiwan’s best natural ecological environment and cultural sites. As for the cultural aspects, the blending of aboriginal, Hakka, Taiwanese, and mainland Chinese cultures has produced a glaring cultural and social scenery. Its religions, architecture, languages, living custums and food show that Taiwan is a lively melting pot. In 1542, Portuguese sailors on their way to Japan came across an island not identified on their maps. Amazed at the forest-cloaked land, they shouted, "Ilha Formosa," meaning "Beautiful Island." The island had thus come to be known as Formosa, which was to become what we know today as Taiwan. During the past four hundred years, different political powers have ruled Taiwan. In 1624, the Dutch came to occupy and rule the island. Between 1661 and 1662, the Ming loyalist Cheng Ch'eng-kung expelled the Dutch and established on the island an independent kingdom. In 1683, the island was brought under the control of the Ch'ing dynasty until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan. Japan had occupied Taiwan for 50 years until it failed in the World War II in 1945. ◎TCDP: The Historical Background Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis (TCDP) was founded in Nov 2004, and became an IPA Allied Center since 2006. This paper will be focused mostly at what happened after the TCDP was founded, but a survey of the historical background in terms of psychoanalysis may help to make more sense of the point I am going to make. Psychoanalysis has been drawing much attention from the intellectuals in Taiwan since about four decades ago. It was a time when translations of various western classical and contemporary works abounded. Among the psychoanalytic works translated into Chinese then are Freud’s An Autobiographic Study (1969), The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1970), Three Essays on Sexuality (1971), An Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (the Dora Case History) (1971), The Interpretation of Dreams (1972), Totem and Taboo (1975), Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1985), New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1985), and so on, as well as various works by the neo-Freudian authors, especially Erich Fromm and Karen Horney, and also by Alfred Adler and Carl Jung. Many of the translators at that time were medical students or young psychiatrists. Psychiatry in Taiwan after the World War II has been influenced first by Japan and then much by the United States. Psychodynamic thinking has thus been one of the ongoing psychological components in Taiwan's psychiatry. Unfortunately, a formal system for training psychoanalysts has never been able to realize. In the recent two decades, biological psychiatry has gradually become the mainstream in Taiwan psychiatry, although there are still quite a few psychiatrists, especially those linked to the Taiwan Center, have persisted in taking account of a psychoanalytic point of view in their clinical work. As for psychotherapy, there had been an increasing interest in, and need of, psychotherapy in general in Taiwan in the past decades. After the withdrawal of the martial law in July 1987, all kinds of workshops and training courses had become quite popular, and systems of qualification were being established in various schools. Organizations of psychotherapy were founded, including Taiwan Association of Psychotherapy (TAP) in August 2001, and Taiwan Institute of Psychotherapy (TIP) in November 2001. However, they were not exclusively meant for psychoanalysis. Taipei City Psychiatric Center (TCPC), one of the leading psychiatric hospitals in Taiwan, had been playing an important role in Taiwan psychoanalysis before the founding of Taiwan Center. Dr. Jung-Yu Tsai, the founding President of Taiwan Center, and Dr. Chia-Chang Liu, the current President, were both consultant psychiatrists there. They had inspired and encouraged many psychiatric residents in the field of psychoanalysis. They had been to London for studying psychoanalysis. Dr. Tsai had studied in the Tavistock Center. Dr. Liu has also studied in the University College London. Dr. Tsai had been especially creative in promoting psychoanalytic thinking. He initiated the “To Think” group in the hospital, which was to become the precursor of the Taiwan Center. He had also been teaching widely in different places, and had cultivated a number of counseling psychologists, who were also to become members of the Taiwan Center. In addition, there were individuals who had made great investment to go abroad and train in psychoanalysis. For example, Dr. Ming-Min Yang had stayed in Paris for many years, and had been a candidate of L'Association Psychoanalytique de France (APF). Besides, Dr. Teresa Pai, Prof. Yu-hua Clare Lin, and Dr. Jen-Yu Chou were all pioneers who had gone abroad for psychoanalysis. In sum, there had been a growing interest in psychoanalysis. Different generations of psychiatrists, psychologists and other clinicians with diverse training backgrounds had been drawn to this field when the Taiwan Center was founded. ◎TCDP: The Institutional Work Taiwan Center is characteristic of it diversity, which can be understood on several levels. First, its senior leading members have different training backgrounds. Many of them have studied in London and have connections with British psychoanalysis. Some others have trained in France, and still others in North America. It’s challenging to integrate the different approaches and make a balanced arrangement in its scientific activities. Secondly, the members are of different professional disciplines. The initiatory members of the TCDP were mostly psychiatrists, but it was mainly resulted from historical reasons. Many people of other disciplines soon joined the Taiwan Center and became active members. Now, we have around one hundred members. Besides psychiatrists, there are many counseling psychologists, clinical psychologists, nurses and others. Thirdly, the members vary in their relations to psychoanalysis. By the time the TCDP were founded, some had already been quite experienced clinicians and basically wanted to enrich their clinical work, whether in the hospitals or in private practice, with psychoanalysis, while others were more junior and just starting their clinical professions. In time, more people had increased international connections and became more determined to train to be analysts in the long run. How to lead such a diverse group has been quite challenging to the Administrative Team. Right from the start, we made it clear that we agree with Freud’s opinions on lay analysis. We don’t think the psychoanalytic practice should be restricted to the psychiatrists. We believe it is the training instead of the background of the trainee that is the most important determinant to make a good psychoanalyst. So, despite the shortage of a formal training system, we set high standards and encourage our members to try their best to meet them. We made the trinity of personal analysis, case supervision and coursework as necessary ingredients of a good training for a psychoanalyst. With such high standards in mind, we then took into account the reality. Thus, whatever we do in teaching and learning can be seen as adaptations and preparations for the standard training and people can have a clearer view of where they are in terms of psychoanalysis and decide to move on at their own paces. To overcome the shortcomings due to the lack of a formal training system, we have to make the most of the current resources. Crucially, we have made use of the international connections of the diverse members. Since 2004, we have invited more than a dozen of groups of IPA analysts to Taiwan to teach, including those from the societies of Argentina, France, German, UK, USA, and Belgium. The way the teaching activities were arranged will be described in more detail later. In order to meet the need of the diverse members and to promote psychoanalysis in general public, we have tried very hard to build up a multi-layer network of teaching and learning. First, there are regular Internal Seminars offered by the Academic Committee members, who are the most senior and experienced in the Center. There are eight such seminars, each of which takes place on a monthly basis. The themes are varied, from the classical to the modern and from theory to technique. These seminars take place basically as small discussion groups and are for the members only. Second, there are the International Discussion Groups. With the aid of internet, three groups have been able to meet the analysts on-line to discuss theoretical or clinical issues on a monthly basis, with French, British and US analysts, respectively. They are also for the members only. Third, there is the Introduction to Psychoanalysis Lecture Series. It consists of open lectures to the general public and is meant for promoting the psychoanalytic message in the society and to recruit potential future members. This series takes place in a university on weekly basis. In recent years, we have based each lecture on one piece of Freud’s shorter work to initiate the audience. The lectures were initially given by senior members, but gradually the younger generation is taking over. The audience includes mostly young people in mental health field and postgraduate students in counseling, psychology and other human sciences. Fourth, there are the Psychoanalytic Workshops. Taiwan Center regularly organizes three one-day workshops yearly. In the morning, one member of Taiwan Center presents a case (with short history and process note from one session), while two senior members give comments after the presentation. In the afternoon, two talks, addressing the major issues shown in the case material, would be given by two other senior members. This activity is open to people in the mental health field, and is a way to have deeper discussions of our own clinical work with local mental health colleagues as well as our own members. Fifth, there are Conferences with International Guest Analysts. Taiwan Center regularly organizes three or two international conferences yearly. In each conference we invite IPA psychoanalysts from other countries to spend a week in Taiwan. During the week of the conference, generally there are three kinds of activities: 1) small lectures and case discussion for members of Taiwan Center only, 2) interdisciplinary activities collaborated with other institutions (hospitals, universities, associations, etc) open to related professionals, and 3) lectures open to the general public. Through these activities, we keep connections with both the psychoanalytic thoughts and with IPA psychoanalysts who are supportive of Taiwan Center. Members also benefit from these activities by being exposed to the most recent psychoanalytic discussions in the world. Through these activities, the members have frequent interactions and extensive discussions. In order to keep the momentum of the Center, we have paid special attention to the following points. First, we try to recruit new members through all possible routes, including the open activities as described above. Second, we have been emphasizing both the ideal and practical aspects of psychoanalysis in Taiwan to our members. As an IPA Allied Center, we set as our ultimate goal to become an IPA Component Society, which is able to train local analysts independently. To those members who aspire to become an analyst, we are supportive and will try to pave the way for them. On the other hand, we are realistic about the current difficulties in our way to that goal. Still, we emphasize that there is a wide range of work to be done in addition to becoming a psychoanalyst and that everyone can have its own pace and goal in the psychoanalytic journey. This leads to the third point we make, i.e., although we try to construct the subjectivity of psychoanalysis, especially the professional identity of our Center in the Taiwan society, we also respect the individual differences within the Center. This means we have to both emphasize the common devotion to psychoanalysis and to acknowledge the individual differences and even the internal conflicts between his or her original background and psychoanalysis. For example, in current psychiatry, it’s common practice to emphasize descriptive psychopathology in diagnosis and the control of symptoms in treatment, and its clinical logic is very different from that of psychoanalysis, which is primarily concerned with the understanding of the unconscious meanings of the symptoms, and the tolerance of the unknown. It’s understandable how confused a young psychiatrist can be if he or she is to become one of our member. Similar conflicts can happen in people with other professional background as well. The more supportive and problem-solving appeal of counseling psychology can also clash with the abstinent and interpretative stance of psychoanalysis. Regarding such problems, we believe that the best policy is to understand and tolerate the conflicts between the values behind different disciplines, and keep thinking and discussing them in our group, thus providing a space for the integration to take place. ◎TCDP: The Scientific Work Given that there are great varieties among our members in terms of the familiarity to psychoanalysis and the preference to the different schools of psychoanalytic theories, we have deliberately emphasized the idea of “Starting from Freud” in our scientific work. We carry out the idea by making the reading of Freud’s work a significant part of many different levels of activities. From the start, we arranged Freud reading seminars led by senior members. Later on, they were combined with case conferences and turned into the Psychoanalytic Workshops as described above. Among the Internal Seminars, Dr. Chia-Chang Liu (the author) has been leading a reading seminar on the instinct theory, in which many of Freud’s papers on metapsychology have been closely studied in a small group. As mentioned above, each lecture in the Introduction to Psychoanalysis Series is based on one of Freud’s shorter works. Last but not least, we regularly ask the international guest analysts to give talks on particular works by Freud. As such, we have had the chance to hear the opinions of different analysts on the classic works by Freud. The emphasis of Freud reflects our central notion of acknowledging both the commonality and the differences. We know very well how wide a range of ideas there is in today’s psychoanalysis, and we respect everyone’s preference to the schools of psychoanalytic theories. However, “starting from Freud” means our respect to the origin and the history, both of psychoanalysis and of the mental life of human beings. There can be all kinds of differences and conflicts among people’s opinions, not unlike the internal conflicts in one’s mind, but it will be a relief when all the differences are shown to come from the same origin—or rather, belong to the same family. Although this idea is not at all surprising, it is surprising how bad the conflicts of opinions can be in the history of psychoanalysis. Against the background of the emphasis on Freud, Taiwan Center has organized a wide range of teachings. The main themes of the international events over the past five years include “The Front of Psychoanalysis” (2004), “Freud in Latin America” (2005), “Witch Metapsychology: Psychoanalysis in France and Germany” (2005), “Intersection of Theory and Practice” (2005), “British Perspectives on Narcissism: Contemporary Freudian and Kleinian” (2006), “From the Couch to the Way Home” (2006), “Infancy Terminable and Interminable” (2006), “Fantasy, Conflict, and Intervention: Perspectives of Contemporary Ego Psychology” (2007), “The Reminiscence of Mourning—Childhood Depression and Adolescent Identification” (2007), “A Story for Our Time: Trauma and Depression” (2007), “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow in Psychoanalysis: Remembering, Repeating and Working Through” (2008) , “A Hospital Based Treatment for Personality Disorders” (2008), “Spontaneity and Impingement: Winnicottian and Bionian Ideas and Techniques” (2008), “When a Patient is Leaving” (2008), “Phantasies of Our ‘Beginnings’ (And Their Impact on Daily Life)” (2009), and “Sex and Language in Psychoanalysis” (2009). Geographically, we have invited Latin American (Argentina), Continental (France, German, and Belgium), British, and North American analysts. Conceptually, the subjects of teaching have included Freud’s metapsychology, the relevance or not of neuroscience to psychoanalysis, the contrast of the Kleinian view of narcissism to attachment theory and the idea of mentalization, the comparison between the French emphasis on the unknowable infantile and the Self-Psychological emphasis on empathic understanding in clinical thinking, the messages from contemporary Ego Psychology, the French emphasis on sexuality and language, and the more clinical themes of trauma and depression, the contrast of Winnicottian and Bionian points of view on technique, and the themes on beginning and termination. It is clear that the nowadays theoretical pluralism in psychoanalysis have been vividly replicated in the past five years in Taiwan Center’s activities. Taking the diversity more as strength then a flaw, we have encouraged our members to take an open-minded and respectful attitude to different schools. Many controversial issues have been touched upon by way of the wide variety of teachings, and some of them are very relevant in our current context. For example, the comparison of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy has been the theme of one international conference. It was very relevant for many members because their daily practices were mostly psychoanalytic psychotherapies. In that conference, Professor Daniel Widlocher distinguished three different kinds of realities, external, psychic and subjective realities, which proved very helpful in considering the priority in different clinical settings. Another example is the relevance of psychoanalysis to contemporary psychiatry. Many of us in the Taiwan Center agree that psychoanalysis as a frame of reference has proved to greatly enrich the psychiatric clinical work in an era dominated by biological psychiatry and descriptive psychopathology. According to Freud’s definition1, there are three levels of psychoanalysis, that is, a way of investigating the unconscious, a way of treating the neuroses, and the body of knowledge accumulated through such investigations and treatments. Although it is quite unlikely to offer psychoanalysis to today’s psychotic patients, both the way of understanding the unconscious and the knowledge obtained by the analytic tradition have greatly helped us understand and help our psychotic patients, especially those in the rehabilitation wards. Still another example is the different points of view on transference interpretation. Through the close encounter of analysts from different schools, we had the chance to think in more depth about it. The priority of interpreting the resistance before the content in ego psychology seems to be based on a belief in the analyst’s relatively clear awareness of his own actions. It is believed that with the removal of the resistance, the transference will be more likely to reveal itself for further interpretation. By contrast, the Kleinian view of the transference as the total situation may be seen as putting the analyst in a more “helpless” position. No less than the patient, the analyst is also under the sway the unconscious which is the real source of the countertransference. The transference interpretation is therefore a much more complicated process than a clearly sequential one. There is much to be learned through such a comparison. The differential focuses on what one knows and what one doesn’t may lead to quite different clinical guidelines. To use an oversimplified metaphor, if we liken the psychoanalytic process to a journey and the theory, a map, it follows from the above realization that there can be different kinds of maps for people with different interests. For those travelers who are more concerned with the attractions already found and named, a map with clear designation of the known will be most helpful. For those who are more fascinated by the no-man’s lands, a map which indicates the unknown territories may be more relevant. There are many more vital issues that have been treated in the many-folded scientific activities of the Taiwan Center. They include the infantile sexuality, the death instincts, the controversial notion of the transformation in “O” of later Bion, the powerfully formulated theory of mentalization, etc. It is an interesting observation that some of the most controversial concepts in psychoanalysis, such as the death instinct and the mysterious “O”, seem not to have stirred up so much doubt in the audience in Taiwan. This has inspired further thinking about the possible cultural influences. ◎Formosa Model: An Emerging Tradition Is there an intrinsic logic underlying the kaleidoscopic scene of the activities in the Taiwan Center over the years? Will it be too “Freudian” if the answer is a wish? It is the wish of setting up a sound and lasting scientific community of psychoanalysis in Taiwan, in which we can train our own analysts, we can offer analyses to those who need them, we can work with and support the clinical colleagues in mental health field, and we can bring about mutual enrichment between psychoanalysis and other disciplines, especially art, literature and other human sciences. In order to fulfill that wish, we have tried hard to bring together a diverse group of people. When the IPA Allied Centre Review Committee made it first visit to Taiwan in 2007, Dr. Jung-Yu Tsai, the founding President of the Taiwan Center, through intensive discussions with the core members, proposed the Formosa Model. It was summed up as, “Let every tree in the forest grow,” just like all the different plants are allowed to flourish in the highly varied environment of Taiwan. It has meaning on two levels. One is to encourage every form of psychoanalysis for now, until at some point in the future the most suitable form takes shape in Taiwan. Until then, we try our best to make room for all approaches. On the more personal level, this model means supporting each member to pursue his or her own study of psychoanalysis in whatever form makes sense to each individual. In fact, it is a challenging task to understand the diversity of ourselves. It is one thing to conceptualize how we put all the differences together, but it is quite another to really get along as a group. The contrast between theory and practice may remind us of what happened in the contemporary debate on theoretical pluralism2, 3. Although it’s still hard to draw any definite conclusion from that debate because of the respective emphasis on the “common ground” or the peculiarities of different schools4, 5, it may be fair to say that all analysts are more alike in their practice and more different in their own general theories, or metapsychologies. One unsettling point in psychoanalysis has been the questionable link between its theory and practice6. But the fact that analysts tend to differ in theory but converge in practice may be able to teach us a lesson in dealing with the differences among us. Whatever metapsychology one has in mind is a conscious one, and should always be ready to be revised on facing the obscurity of clinical material. By the same token, whatever view we have to understand our own diversity is always tentative and biased, just like a metapsychology. What is more important is the actual experience of getting along with such a diverse group of people, which is more akin to clinical practice. It’s crucial not only to tolerate the differences but also to acknowledge the existence of what is still unknown, just like waiting for something to emerge from the unconscious in the analytic space. More specifically, the value of psychoanalysis has helped us work together and go through hard times. With the aid of the enormous legacy of psychoanalytic literature, let along the contemporary lively input from our international connections, we are luckily equipped with countless possibilities to think of ourselves. We believe in the unconscious and we know the possible underlying destructive forces. When we have debates, we have learned to tolerate each other and try to reflect the deeper meaning of the differences, just like a good analyst would do on facing a conflict between him and the patient. Furthermore, we are friends. We believe the friendship and our common belief in analysis is of greater importance than any difference or conflict of whatever nature. By corollary, different points of view in theoretical issues are unlikely to be so important to cause a split in human relations. As long as we remember that theories are only precipitants in the conscious mind of deeper obscurities, the realization of differences will be more likely a reminder to how much we still don’t know about a particular issue and an initiative to further study than a source of conflict and split. Repeatedly, we have heard our guests from abroad saying how impressed they had been by our passion to psychoanalysis and the joy they saw among us as a pioneering group. People were also impressed how we had been able to hold so many different people together in a group. We are happy to hear that but we are not conceited. A respectable friend has once made a comment which is hard to forget. He was impressed that we were able to make our colleagues laugh in a serious discussion and we were pleased to do so. Maybe we do have more fun than we know in our diverse group. ◎Reference 1. Freud S (1923). Two encyclopaedia articles. S. E. 19 2. Wallerstein RS (1988). One psychoanalysis of many? Int J Psychoanal 69: 5-21. 3. Wallerstein RS (1990). Psychoanalysis: The common ground. Int J Psychoanal 71: 3-20. 4. Wallerstein RS (2005). Will psychoanalytic pluralism be an enduring state of our discipline? Int J Psychoanal 86: 623-6. 5. Green, A (2005). The illusion of common ground and mythical pluralism. Int J Psyochoanal 86: 627-32 6. Fonagy, P. (2002). Reflections on psychoanalytic research problems--an Anglo-Saxon view. In An Open Door Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis, 2nd revised ed, (Ed.) P. Fonagy. International Psychoanalytic Association, pp. 10-29. ◎Acknowledgement The Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis wants to say thanks to the following international friends who have been invited to Taiwan to help and teach: Dr. Teresa Yuan (Argentine Psychoanalytic Association), Dr. Alf Gerlach (German Psychoanalytical Association), Mme Gilberte Gensel (APF), Prof. Daniel Widlöcher (APF), Dr. Helene Trivouss Widlöcher (APF), Dr. Monique Serebriany (Buenos Aires Psychoanalytic Association), Dr. Mary Target (BPaS), Ms Nicola Abel-Hirsch (BPaS), Mme Corinne Ehrenberg (APF), Monsieur Alain Ehrenberg, Mme Laurence Kahn (APF), Dr. Ann De Lancey (APsaA), Dr. Lorna Rhodes, Dr. Nina Schorr (ApsaA), Dr. Michael Gundle (ApsaA), Dr. Erik Gann (ApsaA), Dr. Jean-Claude Arfouilloux (APF), Mme Françoise Neau (APF), Ms Caroline Garland (BPaS), Dr. David Taylor (BPaS), Dr. David Sachs (ApsaA), Ronald W. Levin (ApsaA), Prof. Maggie Mills (BPaS), Prof. Rudi Vermote (Belgian Psychoanalytical Society), Dr. Dominique Vanwalleghem, and Mme Jocelyne Malosto (APF). ◎Brief Resume of the Author Chia-Chang Liu, MD, MSc Taipei Medical College MSc in Theoretical Psychoanalytic Studies, University College London President, Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis Consultant Psychiatrist, Taipei City Psychiatric Center, Taipei City Hospital