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.
Nathan Kravis's provocatively titled, passionately argued paper “The Analyst's Hatred of Analysis” reflects the author's diagnosis of a condition that he considers endemic to the practice of psychoanalysis. Kravis's argument is neither clinical (he is not talking about hate in the countertransference) nor personal (he is not describing his own feelings about his work). His target is larger, more distant, and perhaps somewhat more amorphous than the goal of a clinical or personal paper would be: he is describing undercurrents, feelings that he believes all analysts have even if they are obscured by other more comfortable and widely acknowledged feelings.
Because he is talking about what he believes all analysts must feel, because there are no available data to support or refute his assertions, and because his argument touches a chord that will resonate with the experience of many, Kravis's comments deserve serious consideration. And because many will have strong reactions to what he has to say, his ideas require discussion.
Accordingly, I have invited four clinicians to respond to Kravis's paper. Two of them, Theodore Jacobs and Donald Moss, are senior analysts who have thought deeply about analysts' attitudes toward their work. And, because Kravis is particularly concerned about the feelings of candidates and younger analysts, I have invited responses from two clinicians who are beginning their careers. Lisa Robin recently completed her psychoanalytic training, and Nirav Soni has just received his doctorate in clinical psychology and is contemplating analytic training.
Along with a response from Kravis, I hope this section will encourage analysts to think about and to discuss an important and rarely addressed facet of the analyst's experience of doing analysis.
JAY GREENBERG