You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
These two articles are published versions of the papers given by Fordham and Zinkin to the conference, organized jointly by the Society of Analytical Psychology and the Institute of Group Analysis, entitled, ‘Ending or stopping’. Louis Zinkin, who was
responsible for the conception of this conference, and its organization, died a few hours after the end of the event. This fact places the topic itself in a paradoxical frame, which really is a common theme of both papers: just how much control do we have over the process of therapy, and the manner of its ending?
Both authors draw attention to social factors — the expectations of clients, pressures from family (especially in the case of children), limits imposed by the (financially driven) demand for shorter treatment — which constrain the ideal of analysis. But also, there are theoretical considerations. Differing schools set different criteria of ‘success’, e.g., the achievement of the depressive position, in the case of Kleinians; or the notion, offered by Freud, of ‘the capacity to love and to work’; or some indication of the development of ‘individuation’, in the case of Jungians, which would be expected to continue after the analysis, and throughout life, hopefully enhanced through the analytic process. Implicit here are two aspects of the therapeutic process: treatment and cure, on the one hand; and individual ‘growth’ and development on the other. Is termination at the point of ‘symptom relief’ ending, or stopping?
What ‘ideal’ of termination could be extracted from this complex picture? Fordham proposes — approximating to Freud's suggestion — the ideal of a patient for whom ‘relationships have become more enriched, who … no longer suffers debilitating symptoms, work is more satisfying and productive …’. Zinkin offers a less sanguine image. More often than not, ending is arbitrary; it is often painful, and not necessarily mutual. He offers an analogy with the painter, for whom, ‘a painting can always be added t