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.
My decision to interrupt the analysis with my first analysand has made me more and more interested in and aware of what happens in the encounter between an analyst and an analysand. I have also come to wonder what might be meant by the concept of analysability and its antipole unanalysability.
As I have understood it, the analysand is the one in focus when you talk about analysability, meaning that the stalemate of an analysis could be explained in a way like “the patient was unanalysable”. In the literature on analysability, there is seldom any thorough emphasis on the analyst's participation in that analysis which seems doomed to failure, that is when the unconscious conflicts of the analysand cannot be made conscious and worked through by way of transference neurosis. One has to turn to literature on, for example, countertransference to find a profound focus on the analyst.
With this paper, I would like to ask the question of whether one could talk about analysability/unanalysability without considering the participation of the analyst as well as the analysand in the psychoanalytic encounter which is the foundation of any analysis. This encounter is influenced by the personality of the analyst, his theoretical perspectives and his experiences as an analyst, and by the personality of the analysand and his idea of psychoanalysis. I believe that certain aspects of the psychoanalytic encounter could be helpful in illuminating the concept of analysability.
As a candidate, I am aware of my limited experience as an analyst. However, this cannot stop me from reflecting, and I would like to quote Freud (1926) when he says, “Wenn wir nicht klar sehen können wollen wir wenigstens die Unklarheiten scharf sehen” (“If we cannot see things clearly