The Analyst's Work

The daunting task of describing what constitutes the psychoanalytic endeavour of an analyst at work leads us to often speak in generalisations about analysis itself. What we define as evidence or ‘selected fact’ and what we consider to be the data from which we develop our theories is determined by the different analytic languages we speak as well as by not learning the language of others.

Inspiration doesn't come to the lazy, as the artist David Hockney (2012) observed. Analysts are working and at work when they are in their consulting room, when they write about theory and clinical work, when they are in their own analysis, and in supervision. They work when they teach and when they dream. When we aren't thinking and working we do get lazy. We rely on theories and ideas that are not generative. We stop listening to ourselves, our patients, and our colleagues. Psychoanalysis is a generative field where we are fortunate enough to be able to apply creative inspiration and intellect and study together in the psychoanalytic endeavor.

When asked to follow Professor Dominique Scarfone as the editor of the Analyst at Work section of the Journal I questioned how one might continue the efforts he made at “providing a space where differences and commonalities are brought to the fore for the benefit of learning from another analyst's experience” (IJP 2008, p. 5). I reviewed segments of the ‘Analyst at Work’ back to the 1984 paper, “The Analyst at Work”, by V. Spruiell, noticing in particular how we have altered the way we present clinical material to each other: the shift in certainties and theories both implicitly and explicitly. This reveals a shift in culture and the emergence of discussions across our theories, as well as the mutual influence of Klein, Lacan, Bion, Kohut and others on the ongoing dialogue that now encompasses our field.

The elements of our work, however, often remain fragmented and they are not easy to discuss. Analysts interpret transference, but we can't s