On the Fate of Transference after the Termination of Analysis

In order to afford a provisional structure for the discussion, Arnold Pfeffer, Chairman of the Panel, began by posing the following questions: what remains of the transference and transference neurosis after even the most ideally completed analysis? What aspects of the analyst, his interpretations, and all else that goes on in an analysis afterward continue to be psychically represented? What is the nature and function of such remainders in the analytic and therapeutic gains? Do internalized transference conflicts and their resolutions become central elements in the structural changes for which we aim? More particularly, does the psychic representation of the analyst and his interpretations forever continue to play a vital role in the maintenance of such resolutions? If so, how does the analyst develop this important and enduring meaning in the course of the analysis?

Pfeffer has observed that in informal discussions with colleagues on these matters a great deal of interest inevitably is stimulated, and that the responses tend to take the form of subjective, conscious recollections of their analyses. Memories can sometimes be isolated and screenlike, such as those that involve aspects of their analyst's office decorations, the color of the analyst's hair, etc., or, probably more rarely—as occurred in one instance—they can encompass in considerable detail the entire analysis. Many different kinds of situations stimulate such recall, e.g., not infrequently analysts will recall interpretations made by their analysts on the occasion of their having made such an interpretation themselves to a