Abstract
The educational and clinical effects of the process of case writing during analytic training have not been extensively studied, even though the case report, as a product, has prompted attempts to make it a more revealing and accurate document. Countertransference experiences during an analysis can constrain both the candidate’s writing and the analytic work, while examining them during the writing process can deepen the candidate’s analytic work. Three overlapping resistances to the writing, and their underlying anxieties, are described. These are publication resistances: concerns about the anticipated reception of the candidate’s work by potentially critical readers; transference resistances: feelings toward the analytic institute that requires the writing; and countertransference or reimmersion resistances: fears of reawakening reactions from the analysis. These can interfere with finding a safe internal space in which to write. Examples are given of writing through of these resistances during case supervision, resulting in more open writing and in a deepening of the analytic work. As the case writing process can have direct and potentially profound effects on the candidate’s current and future analytic work, it is proposed that the process of case writing is a fourth pillar of analytic training, in addition to the candidate’s personal analysis, case supervision, and didactic seminars.