ABSTRACT
The work of Masud Khan has been discussed by others, although all before 2001 when Wynne Godley’s account burst on the world. Hopkins asserts that Khan’s work in his prime period until 1971, when Donald Winnicott died, has to be separated from his subsequent work. It is surprising that Godley did not lose confidence in psychoanalysis, but later in his life found a more orthodox experience with another analyst in Canada that may have repaired the harm done in his first analysis. From a psychoanalytic point of view, it may be important to think about how, in his countertransference, Khan succeeded in reenacting the abuses of Godley’s childhood, as Godley himself noted. There are quite cogent comments, raising questions about whether psychoanalytical explorations are therapy at all, or are simply ways of exploring the foundations of personality without any therapeutic consequences.
