The Learned Analyst (or Everything an Analyst Should Know)

The answer is relatively simple. If one wants to be a true analyst….he must be interested in sociology, in religion, in history, in literature….because otherwise his vision and comprehension of the patient will be incomplete.

In a recent essay (Jachim, 2017) I referred to the term “Analytic Personality”, an amalgam of factors that include the personal and technical dimensions needed within the analyst to provide optimal, analytic effectiveness. I am certainly not the first to suggest that the analyst's personality in particular is a critical component in promoting quality work with patients. Schafer (1979) alluded to the significant impact of the analyst's personal attributes upon the analytic process. Rieman and Cheney (1968) went even further in categorizing analyst personality types and their influence on the course of treatment. Indeed, one could even make the case for comparing Winnicott's (1971) “good enough mother” concept to those of the “good enough” personal qualities in the analyst or therapist.

Nonetheless, I would like to suggest an additional Analytic Personality factor, an element that has to do with the analyst's awareness of the world, particularly its social and cultural dimensions. Eisold (1994) has written about the unacknowledged aspects of psychoanalytic culture, a culture that tends to devalue the larger world, to which it sees itself as opposed and superior. He refers to this opposition as a defense against the analyst's own ambition, envy, competition and turbulence in the world. He even mentions Freud as an icon who himself repeatedly described his isolated opposition to the world. Taking Eisold's concepts in mind, I would propose an additional, if not critically needed component of the analyst's personal competence, a factor I will call Socio-Cultural Acumen (SCA).

SCA includes the analyst's awareness, if not emersion and participation in social and cultural life (e.g. politics, art, social trends, sports etc.) and integration of these vagaries into analytic work. After all, our patients bring the effect of these aspect on their lives to us every day. It make sense to me then for us to not only to understand the significance of these effects for our patients but also to be actively involved as analysts in the real world outside of our consulting rooms.

SCA also includes, in my mind, “action along with analysis.” Our work primarily focuses on our patients' inner world, eschewing premature action. While cautioning our patients from “acting out” we can perhaps at times fall into “analysis paralysis” and not sufficiently support effective self-agency in their lives. Here I am reminded of an incident many years ago when I was consulting with a senior analyst regarding an important business decision I was wrestling with. Together we reflected on the conscious and unconscious determinants in my decision or, in my case, the delay in making one. After a time of proper exploration, the consulting analyst finally said, “analysis and action should go hand in hand”. I am often reminded of that encounter (or confrontation) and think it particularly relevant for the analyst within the political atmosphere of our day.

Benveniste (2018) has recorded the history socio/political consciousness and action of many past analytic icons such as Jones, Erickson, and Bettelheim etc. However, I believe that this interest and effort in political climate has not carried over into the collective conscious of analysts today. There are many causes of this deficit as a component of SCA. Eisold (1994) has illuminated some of the causes of this absence, including the analyst's sense of immunity to instinctual influences, the destructiveness of “analytic pairing” promoted in many institutes and the intolerance of differences in analytic organizations. Jacques (1955) has referred to the “social system defenses” within analytic training organizations that promote the analyst's isolation. Certainly individual defenses against a fear of the world enter here as well.

The effect of SCA deficit can be seen in many psychoanalytic institutes where group/organizational/cultural/political seminars/classes are

glaringly absent. This omission fostered by the reasons cited earlier promote a “head in the sand” motif and implicitly suggests that we, as analysts, do not need to deal with issues outside of our consulting rooms. An attempt to break this attitude is highlighted in Lee's (2017) recent publication calling for mental health professionals to become involved and alert the public of the perils of a destructive president. However, this alert is an anomaly in the literature and within analytic training programs. Most of us go on in the privacy of our consultation rooms, avoiding the impact of external society on our patients and the analytic work with the excuse that this is not within the analytic domain. This is a defense against our own arrogance. When this occurs we do a disservice to our patients.

The issue of SCA is highly relevant with regard to the political/cultural waves stirred in America today. The dangerous dismantling of democratic processes and structures by a presidential figure has created dividedness and distrust of our government like never before. This destructive behavior has created a negative modeling motif for most Americans, particularly for our children. The spewing, blatant denial of reality and “untruths” has created increased malaise in our society and is manifested in a sense of helplessness in many of our patients. Such an atmosphere can certainly be an anathema to the mission of psychoanalysis which is to promote tolerance of differences and the attainment of truth. The eroding aberrations of those “in charge” are rapidly becoming “normalized” and smell alarmingly familiar to what Albright (2018) recalls of Mussolini's tactics of fertilizing autocracy, “To pluck a chicken, one feather at a time….” so the public will not notice.

All this is to say that a robust SCA might include not only the analyst's commitment to and honing of fundamental psychoanalytic principles but also action within the socio-culture (partucularly political), speaking out and even becoming involved in theses vertices of outer world. Training institutes can fertilize this behavior by building training programs that include organizational/group dynamics seminars as well as community efforts to heighten the public's awareness of psychoanalytic understanding of “worldly business” such as politics, business, sports,

popular music etc.; all components of the the real world. Furthermore, the promotion of diversity of thought, avoidance of “demagoguery” of theoretical positions and having routine “organizational” health examinations within analytic organizations by outside consultants could only help analysts be even more sensitive their patients' social, political and cultural realities.

Finally, the additional benefit of increasing each analyst's SCA would be to heighten the integrity of our profession. After all there is a popular adage that reads, “If we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything.” I believe a high SCA is important because, to borrow a phrase from the current American administration, “It's a matter of national security.”