ABSTRACT
During the course of an analysis, it is not uncommon for patients to suggest or demand an end to the work. This chapter deals with the question of how the analyst might make sense of, and respond to, such developments. As is well known, until 1950 the predominant view was that “countertransference was fundamentally pathological, an indication for analyst’s own continuing analysis and self-analysis”. Beginning with P. Heimann’s paper countertransference became recognized as ubiquitous, and the analyst’s feelings began to be viewed as having the potential to be utilized to promote growth and development in the patient. Matters are further complicated by the fact that the subject of ending comes to have crucial meaning in its own right within the transference–countertransference matrix. The received psychoanalytic wisdom is that if the analyst is able to work through his countertransference conflicts and provide an experience thatdisconfirms the patient’s archaic unconscious phantasy, the patient will experience relief and psychic development will be promoted.
