Agape as A Therapeutic Factor in Analysis

The Fifth International Congress of Analytical Psychology on ‘Success and failure in analysis’ raised important questions about the relationship between psychotherapy and analysis together with the problem of assigning a precise meaning to the words success and failure.

In the group discussion that followed the opening paper on ‘Failure in analysis’ by Michael Fordham (1) two issues emerged. They were first, the failure of analysis, which can be described exactly, and secondly, the failure of therapy, which is less easily assessed. The analytic failure described in the paper was to enable the patient to respond to the analysis of a projective identification that was central to her personal relationships. Her block was judged unshiftable after many years' work, and the treatment, after good notice, was terminated. In other respects the patient's fulfilment in her life had improved considerably—as well as her general capabilities and success in her profession. This, however, could not with certainty be attributed to the analytical treatment, though to the onlooker it appeared as if successful psychotherapy had taken place.

The subsequent group discussion extended to speculation about the future growth of the patient, and also was troubled over the function type of her analyst and whether an analyst with a different superior function might have done differently with the patient. This finally caused a group analyst present, Harold Kaye, to suggest that the group was grappling with the problem of wishing to deny the fact of failure. Despite this, some members thought that the termination of the analysis in the end represented good feeling on the part of the analyst and even wondered whether the ending of the analysis under such circumstances was not therapeutic in its own way.

Personal Qualities in the Therapist

During the year following the Congress, the Analytic Group in London has continued to discuss the issues raised. Papers by Fordham, Strauss