On the Teaching and Learning of Termination in Psychoanalysis

The teaching and learning of termination in psychoanalysis are most important and complex tasks. Yet only rather recently have most institutes given the study of the terminal phase of psychoanalysis the proper emphasis that it deserves in their curriculum planning and teaching.

Early in the history of psychoanalytic education it was taught that the analysis “just dies of exhaustion” (Ferenczi, 1927, p. 85). It was also assumed by many psychoanalytic educators that anybody who could conduct a proper analysis could surely terminate one. In fact, many institutes did not require a terminated case for graduation, and termination was not taught in specific courses or even given special attention in supervision. The American Psychoanalytic Association, however, was aware of the educational advantages of supervision during the termination phase of analysis and believed that an applicant for membership should demonstrate an ability to conduct at least one analysis to a reasonably successful termination. However, if the membership application was sufficiently strong in other areas, the requirement for a terminated case was often waived.

The uncertainty about the significance of the termination phase in psychoanalysis may be traced to Freud's 1937 paper, “Analysis Terminable and Interminable.” Freud stated that “I am not intending to assert that analysis is altogether an endless business. Whatever one's theoretical attitude to the question [of termination] may be, the termination of an analysis is, I think, a practical matter. Every experienced analyst will be able to recall a number of cases in which he has bidden his patients a permanent farewell rebus bene gestis [things having gone well]. In cases of what is known as character analysis, there is a far smaller discrepancy between theory and practice. Here it is not easy to foresee a natural end, even if one avoids any exaggerated expectations and sets the analysis