Joseph Schachter on post-termination contact: presented at NYPSI, June 5, 2013
Reported by Nathan Szajnberg, MD, Managing Editor
Joe Schachter asks analysts questions and gets answers, which provoke us to think further.
Wednesday night he presented his study of contacts with analysands after termination, a paper in the current (100th- year anniversary
issue) of Psychoanalytic Review that he co-authored with Horst Kachele. Schachter recently published and presented two papers on training analyses: an empirical study of analysands who had both training analyses and “regular” analyses and compared their experiences. But, this evening was on what happens after what happens in treatment.
issue) of Psychoanalytic Review that he co-authored with Horst Kachele. Schachter recently published and presented two papers on training analyses: an empirical study of analysands who had both training analyses and “regular” analyses and compared their experiences. But, this evening was on what happens after what happens in treatment.
Briefly, Schachter describes three types of post-termination contacts: those done as part of a research study (such as Leutzinger-Bohleber and colleagues, or his studies); those initiated by the analysand and those inititated by the analyst. But, he began with the troublesome term, “termination,” a term that Schlesinger tackles in his Endings and Beginnings Click Here to Read This Review . Not only is the word problematic (is termination something one does to someone; something one does; or both), but he found that mutually-agreed upon termination occurs in only fifty percent of analyses. (Training analyses have mutually-agreed upon termination in eighty percent of cases.) In discussion, one audience member noted that if this were an oncology meeting and we had a fifty-percent success rate, we would prod ourselves to learning from our failures and successes about what we could do differently.
Schachter gave a vignette from his research study, in which one analyst agreed to contact a former analysand and had feedback several years later from the analysand. He was grateful for the meeting and found that he could both summarize what he had achieved and move forward in some decisions about life.
The audience presented thoughtful and engaging questions. Frank Baudry raised several points in his comments, including the nature of the analysand’s fantasies about what will happen after termination. Joe Reppen mentioned the dilemma of graduates who have unbidden contact with their analysts in the Institute. Nava Kaplan presented another perspective, asking not only why do some analysands leave, but also why do some stay. Arnie Richards suggested that when writing case material, the analyst should contact the analysand not only for permission, but also to respond to the formulation.Michelle Press spoke of the dilemmas in contact after termination.
This was the final program for WIP this year, and Frank Baudry reports that we are filling next year’s schedule.