{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015302218821729151, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.443349753694581, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Danger and safety: The analyst as analytic subject

Abstract This paper considers questions of danger and safety in the analytic relationship in light of the contemporary recognition of analysis as a co-participatory process. In the interest of safety, the psychoanalyst has the responsibility to be persistently curious, particularly about the problems derived from his contact with the analysand. Information about the analyst's impact must be taken to heart; it must be experientially considered. As the process unfolds, the analyst presumes that a portion of its effect will be negative. The analyst aspires not to preempt all negative impact but to create an analytic environment in which the analysand's conscious and unconscious communications about impact may be attended to. The analyst's ability to receive such information is crucial in the establishment of a reliable process capable of addressing and surviving the unanticipated dangers that inevitably emerge and securing the analysand for further self articulation. The analyst can simultaneously attend to being the analyst and being a subject of analysis by regarding all communications from the analysand as representing, at least in part, interpretations of the analyst and the analyst's participation. Illustrative material is presented.