The Dilemma of the Analyst in a Troubled World*

The psychoanalyst has a tendency not to become actively involved in “causes.” He may contribute money as his convictions and feelings dictate. He may lend his presence to a meeting, or his name to a list of sponsors. He may even make an occasional speech. But an analyst laboring humbly on the committees and sub-committees of the Lord's varied vineyards is not a frequent sight.

There are good reasons for this. No matter what or how vigorous may be his other interests, the analyst practices analysis all day and teaches analysis all night. This leaves little time or energy for other activities. Moreover, if an analyst's name were to appear frequently in public print, or if his name were to crop up regularly on the letterheads of organizations which deal with controversial issues, he would soon lose in some measure his screen of personal obscurity. Since the analytic incognito is important for the analytic process, a patient should know as little as possible about his analyst, neither his views on literature and the arts, nor on public or private issues, nothing indeed except the fact that he is in truth an analyst. Furthermore, analysts sometimes learn humility with their craft, and acknowledge regretfully that they do not often know enough about the technical aspects of social or political or economic or international policy to justify an active espousal of one side or another. In brief, then, the basic reasons for non-participation are (1) lack of time, (2) the preservation of the analytic incognito, and (3) the ignorance which is the price paid by the analyst for his long years of highly specialized training.

In addition, extra-analytical preoccupations have certain effects upon the analyst himself. These too are relevant to our problem. The more time and attention an analyst devotes to other matters, the greater is the danger that gradually he may short-change his patients in various insidious ways. This may be merely by cutting corners on time. Or the