And here an answer disliked by many may appear: “it depends.” Disliked because it adds no certainty at all at the very moment when certainty is wanted most.
Often this is the moment when, in the sessions, exactly what the client suffers from in life and came to analysis to get rid of has played itself out. And now the analyst is an active figure in the real scenario.
A repeating scenario in relationships
The client*, for example, came because he cannot find a partner. Or rather, he can find one, but not someone he would want to stay with for a long time. Every partner for him is a compromise between the fear of loneliness and the possibility of tolerating what he does not like in the other person. And what he does not like, for example, is being told things that are “already obvious” to him, that “this is all primitive and has been known for a long time.”
And then either the client himself leaves such a partner, “because it is boring,” or “they are going nowhere,” or “they say banal things,” or even “they do not notice me at all and do not value me.” Or the partner leaves the client, saying that he is always slipping away somewhere.
Sometimes breakups are accompanied by moving to another city or country. If the scenario has been repeating for long enough, moves even to places where the chances of meeting a suitable person are very low are not uncommon.
But often there is a real reason that logically explains both the breakup and the move.
These people suffer greatly from loneliness. And they may make enormous efforts to avoid it. They may constantly look for a partner, activities, or any other opportunity to make themselves more valuable.
For example, they may go to therapy. And sometimes such clients evoke genuine sympathy in the therapist.
When the life scenario repeats itself in therapy
And sometimes an analyst of one approach** does not consider it necessary or useful to show this sympathy openly. At some point, the client begins to feel that more is happening with the therapist than he is saying. That is, the analyst knows something but does not share it, keeps silent about it. And over time this may begin to feel like “he is not going anywhere in his work with me,” “he only says banal things,” or even “if he does not share things with me, then he does not value me at all.” And the client may begin to miss sessions or stop the work altogether.
But sometimes an analyst of another approach** begins to become emotionally involved in the client’s situation and shows his sympathy to an acceptable degree. And at some point the support begins to be perceived as telling the client things that are “already obvious” and that “this is all primitive and boring.” And in this case the client may also begin to miss sessions or stop the work.
What is common in both cases
In both cases, regardless of the approaches of the analysts mentioned above, one can assume that the same configuration of relationships, intolerable for the client, arises—the one he is used to leaving through distancing or rupture.
Both situations could happen with the same client. For example, with someone who deep down feels insignificant and weak and cannot bear the thought that someone might notice it. Then the analyst who hides his thoughts “makes” the client feel insignificant by not sharing. And the analyst who offers support with genuine sympathy becomes a stronger figure who sees the client’s weakness. In the client’s perception, the support begins to feel like being looked down on and patronized.
Running away is a way that helped him cope with pain.
In any of these cases, the client’s life scenario has repeated itself with the analyst.
“Is this the end of therapy or the beginning of something new?”
The client’s feelings in both cases are very strong—everything has repeated itself. He may be angry, furious, or deeply disappointed. He was paying the analyst so that all of this would stay in the past. Instead, it has not simply happened again, but now it is happening directly for his money—before, all of it was “free.”
It is very difficult for him to hold on to the thought that this time there is at least a chance that what is happening may end differently. Again, the anger and disappointment are great.
If the client decides to stay and look at what is happening, it costs him enormous effort. He is still drawn to run away, and the uncertainty remains. And its outcome depends especially on what happens next between him and the analyst.
Can the life scenario end differently?
The analyst may see and acknowledge his own role in the scenario that has repeated itself, without explaining everything only through the client’s characteristics or transference, and without distancing himself in response to the client’s anger or disappointment. After all, the analyst’s reaction is also part of how this scenario played itself out between them.
Then the familiar scenario may end differently than before. What used to end in distance, escape, or rupture can now be lived through together and continue differently. How exactly? There is no certainty here.
* This is a composite case; any similarities are coincidental.
** I am writing here about two approaches, but there are many more.