You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
(Accepted for publication 20 September 2013)
To answer the questions: why don't more people enter analysis and how do we get more people to do so? Attention is drawn to anxieties in the analyst that become obstacles to the initiation of analysis. The main focus of the paper is how to understand why analysts, irrespective of patient characteristics, seem to have resistances against embarking on analysis. Being a meeting between strangers the consultation activates strong emotional reactions in both parties. One way of coping is defensively to diagnose, assess and exclude instead of being present as an analyst. The analytic frame of a consultation is ambiguous, and a secure analytic function is needed in order to meet the openness and unpredictability of this frame. A fragile psychoanalytic identity is seen as central to analysts' failure to create an analytic practice; it takes years to develop and maintain a robust analytic function, and analytic work continues to cause disturbing emotional reactions in the analyst. Analysts' vulnerable identity is also linked to the history of psychoanalysis that has fostered an ideal of analytic practice that is omnipotent and impossible to reach. Therefore it is no wonder that attempts to reach a convinced recommendation of analysis can become diverted in the process of consultation. Confronting these inner impediments in order to strengthen the analytic identity is suggested as a better way to get more analytic patients than to keep looking for so-called analysability in patients.