Meaning and Metaphor in Psychoanalytic Education

It is more than an academic question if we ask, in the tradition of Theodor Reik, whether we can train someone to be a psychoanalyst or whether psychoanalysts are, in fact, born. Since we generally act as if we can train an individual to competently, and even occasionally to creatively practice this art form, I would like to focus on the latter alternative—namely, psychoanalysts are born. (This position might endanger the financial viability of most psychoanalytic training institutes, but for the present I leave such a consideration aside.) If we speak of analysts as born to be such, I am not implying some divine election or a mystery cult priesthood. What I am wondering about is the implications, for our field, if we say that the capacity to practice analysis precedes any formal training, as such, and is, actually, a prerequisite for effectively and creatively using the training at all. By training I include the personal analysis, which although vital for any psychoanalyst to experience, is nevertheless subordinate to certain individual qualities: primarily, a capacity for personal honesty, a desire for crossidentification issuing in compassion and civility, and the possession of what we may call a playful intelligence. Unfortunately we have no way of guaranteeing the acquisition of these qualities, despite the length of any analysis.

The quality that I am going to emphasize today is the need for a playful intelligence; I mention these other qualities, however, as a context for understanding my reflections. Much of psychoanalytic education has undervalued the need for these overall character