My Experience of Analysis with Fairbairn and Winnicott—(How Complete a Result Does Psycho-Analytic Therapy Achieve?)

It does not seem to me useful to attempt a purely theoretical answer to the question forming the sub-title.
Theory does not seem to me to be the major concern. It is a useful servant but a bad master, liable to
produce orthodox defenders of every variety of the faith. We ought always to sit light to theory and be on the
look-out for ways of improving it in the light of therapeutic practice. It is therapeutic practice that is the real
heart of the matter. In the last resort good therapists are born not trained, and they make the best use of
training. Maybe the question ‘How complete a result can psycho-analytic therapy produce?’ raises the
question ‘How complete a result did our own training analysis produce?’ Analysts are advised to be open to
post-analytic improvements, so presumably we do not expect ‘an analysis’ to do a ‘total’ once for all job. We
must know about post-analytic developments if we are to assess the actual results of the primary analysis.
We cannot deal with this question purely on the basis of our patients’ records. They must be incomplete for
the primary analysis and non-existent afterwards. As this question had unexpected and urgent relevance in
my case, I was compelled to grapple with it; so I shall risk offering an account of my own analysis with
Fairbairn and Winnicott, and its after-effects: especially as this is the only way I can present a realistic
picture of what I take to be the relationship between the respective contributions of these two outstanding
analysts, and what I owe to them.