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.
Looking back at the papers in this issue, we find certain characteristics traditionally attributed to the termination phase confirmed, and elaborated. We see that termination constitutes a unique period at the end of an analysis, in which there tends to be a revival of old conflicts in a last attempt to attain an infantile resolution, as well as the introduction of new material around separation. Moreover, there is usually a shadowy continuation of the termination phase after termination.
If we take a macroscopic view of the papers (to borrow a phrase from Rangell), we are impressed with the incomplete resolution of conflict in general and the transference neurosis in particular at the termination of an analysis. Rather, the patient's state of mind at the end of an analysis reflects improved tolerance for conflictual experiences, greater synthesis, and freer interchange between the agencies of the mind. If this impression is not simply based on a peculiarity of the papers in this issue, then it is fitting to reconsider the meaning and place of resolution of conflict in the clinical theory of psychoanalysis.
Another consideration emerges from Limentani's, Firestein's and Viorst's descriptions of the effects that termination has on the analyst. Their contributions suggest a more complex analytic relationship for the analyst than has been included thus far in the clinical theory of psychoanalysis. The application of this insight to countertransference, neutrality, and analytic interaction should prove valuable in any further inquiry of the psychoanalytic relationship.