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.
It did not start out that way, Jan. As you would remember, it was back in the early fifties, in the days when the President of the psychoanalytic society, the author of the paper to be presented at the scientific meeting, and the formal discussants all wore black tie. Yes, New York—not Vienna. In keeping with the atmosphere, by tacit agreement, we psychoanalytic candidates sat well to the rear, and to my recollection, rarely if ever spoke up during the discussion.
It was thus the more remarkable when, during a supervisory session, Dr. Jan Frank said to me, “We are, after all, colleagues. So, call me Jan.” And somewhere around that time he also said, “Why don't you write a paper on scientific versus artistic creativity? Sure, you.” He dismissed my mumbled demurrers airily with affectionate insults.
He thereby doubly violated what came to be Rule 29 of Dr. Otto Kernberg's (1996) seriohumorous paper, “Thirty Methods to Destroy the Creativity of Psychoanalytic Candidates.”
29.… The more the body of training analysts maintains itself apart and cohesive as the holders of authority and prestige, the more the inhibitory effects of the selection process will influence the entire educational enterprise. This is your most reliable and effective tool for keeping not only candidates but the entire faculty and the entire society in line.… Always keep in mind: where there is a spark there may develop a fire, particularly when this spark appears in the middle of dead-wood … [p. 1039].
It was heady stuff—a different perspective on “training” and being “trained.” More like permission to use your own head, think