Writing and the Analytic Process
In two important articles, Martin H. Stern discusses why some analysts write and why some do not.
Martin H. Stein, M.D., Writing About Psychoanalysis: I. Analysts Who Write And Those Who Do Not," vol. 36, no. 1, 1988, pp. 105 124.
_____________, Writing About Psychoanalysis: II. Analysts Who Write, Patients Who Read," vol. 36, no. 1,1988, Writing pp. 393 - 408.
Stein's motivation for writing these articles comes from frustration over the inadequacy of most psychoanalytic writing. He says:
Much psychoanalytic writing is not of very high caliber, being all too often poorly organized and stylistically clumsy, rarely succeeding in conveying to the reader the beauty and complexity of psychoanalytic theory as we experience it in our daily work with patients.
(p. 105)
Yes, indeed. Writing that purports to discuss what occurs in the therapeutic setting ought to reflect the magic that often takes place there. Words on the page should enhance the analytic experience, create a clearer vision of the analytic relationship, promote a deeper understanding of the dynamics that develop between analyst and analysand so as not to transform the analytic relationship into a sterile/barren textbook examination of an individual's mind (by a cold/uncaring and removed technician). Stein suggests that it is most important for psychoanalysts to write well because they, more than most, use words - hear them/speak them - as primary tools for uncovering patient distress.
He admonishes analysts for not writing clearly or convincingly. I suggest that
the absence of writing in analytic communities, or its deficiencies when present, reflect deficiencies in analytic training and that within learning environments neither candidates nor teachers/supervisors are encouraged to incorporate their learning into beingness. Rather, there is too much emphasis on pouring material into people as if the human being, mind and body, is like a funnel; but the funnel's purpose is to allow liquid to pour through, not stay in.
Stein lists obstacles in the way of writing a worthwhile psychoanalytic paper. He says that "the stickiest and the most familiar [obstacle] is the need for professional discretion." Analysts are at a disadvantage, he says, due to sensitive and intimate material gathered in the therapeutic environment. Analysts' observations must be filtered out into the world beyond the therapy room with utmost discretion.
What price do analysts and patients pay for publishing findings that occur in the analytic setting? [Was I asking this question, or was the question Stein's. It is certainly one that I asked from the beginning of my association with psychoanalysis.]
It seems to me, Stein is taking a wrong tact, the same that leads to poor psychoanalytic writing. He is not, for instance, asking the question: what impact does writing have on the analyst in terms of his observations of the patient? What is the listening like as, say, compared with an analyst who is not planning to write up the patient's case/story? Is writing up a case for presentation to the analytic community, either via the page or the oral presentation, not like taking notes during a patient's session, which is according to many, a most disagreeable circumstance, as Edith Buxbaum and others have suggested. I agree.
The listening experience changes if the analyst is thinking about writing a paper on the patient's experience in analysis. Imagine analyst A, let us make him male for this exercise, listening to a patient. Call the patient female, for this exercise. What is happening in the analyst's mind? What are the burdens case presentations place on the analyst? How is the analyst's listening impaired? And what damage is done to the analytic relationship? This, because the analysand is no doubt affected by the analyst's inability to listen freely, that is, unencumbered with an agenda beyond enhancement of the analytic relationship.
Read: Stephen M. Sonnenberg, M.D., To Write or Not To Write: A Note on Self-Analysis and The Resistance to Self-Analysis, vol. 30, number 2, Psychoanalytic Association of New York, Summer 1992, pp.5 . Important article; an especially interesting aspect: the fear a Jewish analyst has of a non-Jewish analysand/transference to her as a Nazi. Fascinating material.
copyright2005Esther Altshul Helfgott
