Is Psychoanalysis Unteachable?

Irwin Hirsch appears to be on a mission—to interview famous senior analysts and ask them to tell the truth about how they really work. The underlying assumption, of course, is that the secrets of the great analysts can be teased out, and perhaps duplicated by those who seek mastery. I applaud Hirsch's efforts and admire his tenacity. I do not sense any intention other than an honest desire on his part to discover more about how master analysts work, and to pass this information on to the next generation. Easier said than done. This interview with Edgar Levenson is his second in what I hope will be an ongoing series, in spite of the fact that the subjects are impossibly elusive on the topic of how they work.

Hirsch's first published interview was with Benjamin Wolstein and appeared in this journal five years ago (Hirsch, 2000). I participated in the discussion of that interview (Maroda, 2000) and was bowled over by Wolstein's easy commentary on himself and the analytic world, even if he did resist Hirsch's repeated attempts to talk about what he actually says to patients. I had found Wolstein's writing to be difficult to read and understand. So I was very pleased and grateful for Hirsch's eye-opening interview with him, which demonstrated a clarity of thought and purpose that, to my mind, never evidenced itself in his writing. He was so present and engaging that I found myself developing an attachment to him as I read the interview and wishing I had met him before he died.

So when Donnel Stern asked if I would participate in discussing this interview with Edgar Levenson, whose work I have read, studied, and cited over the years, I jumped at the chance. Given how readable his writing was, I eagerly anticipated getting a candid and personal reflection by Levenson. I have never met him, so I looked forward to “meeting” him in the way I met Wolstein—through the medium of Hirsch's interview. I expected an in-depth and revealing portrait of him would emerge from the question