Relational models in psychoanalytic theory

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 1995

highlighted issues at the cutting edge of psychoanalytic thinking, but evidences certain misunderstandings of the contemporary classical tradition that warrant clarification. Gill characterized the differences between the classical and relational points of view largely as attributable to differing hierarchical emphases on innate as opposed to experiential factors. What Gill calls the "innate" is not defined, however, with some resulting confusion of what he is trying to clarify. We believe his article leaves the reader with serious misconcep-Requests for reprints should be sent to

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 1990

's book, Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis, is a landmark statement for psychoanalytic theory, and especially of the place of relational theory. It stands outside and above the field, viewing developments over the century since Freud began his explorations. Mitchell has his own point of view, one introduced in the earlier book he co-authored with Greenberg, Object Relations in Psychoanalysis (Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983). Building on that previous scholarly statement and contrasting of the positions of many psychoanalytic theorists, he now compares each of the major positions of psychoanalytic theory specifically to the new model he proposes, which he calls a "relational-conflict model." This model is neither the "drive-conflict" model derived centrally from Freud, nor the "developmental-arrest" model that Mitchell associates with Winnicott and Kohut. Mitchell's model is closest to those proposed by Fairbairn and Racker, but he also relies heavily on Sullivan, Loewtild, Schafer, and other modern writers who have contributed to a view of the individual as centered in the human environment and interactive with it. Mitchell has put himself squarely in the middle of a position that many of us emorace. He describes the situation of many analysts who feel their work to be imprisoned in a procrustean bed of "classical theory." The theoretical bed w. 11 not stretch to fit the expanding data about human development, while the patients will not shrink to fit its limited framework. Psychoanalysis is now consumed with the task of locating a new theoretical core. Psychoanalysis struggles with whether to center on a relational core of human motivation or Requests for reprints should be sent lo David E. Scharff, MI),

2008

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2010

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 1995

The special section entitled "Contemporary Structural Psychoanalysis and Relational Psychoanalysis," in Psychoanalytic Psychology 12(1) was a fertile, highly informative collection of papers dedicated primarily to explicating, comparing and contrasting, and often defending the views of the contributors who, for the most part, would designate themselves as classical, in opposition to relational. Although the volume was an exciting, interesting, and important contribution, it raised far more questions for me than it answered. Above all, it highlighted a problematic tendency much too prevalent in our field, among clinicians who would rigidly encamp themselves around particular claims of allegiance in variously defended quarters, declaring (either explicitly or implicitly) exclusive possession of the genuine article of psychoanalytic knowledge in toto. In presenting this ongoing observation, my criticisms lay not with one particular group or another, but rather with our field as a whole. As psychoanalysis undergoes continued assaults upon its integrity as a bona fide intellectual discipline and practice, by persons and forces largely outside our field, it seems that we continue to induce a greater ongoing trauma upon ourselves from within. For however fruitful the genuine exchange of psychoanalytic ideas may be when undertaken with the open mind that Freud considered the sine qua non of any psychoanalytic endeavor, we seem as individuals and as a group to be constricted dialogically by the most primitive forms of defensive splitting and infantile rivalry that make true exchange an impossibility. Many of the "classical" contributors unfortunately betrayed such tendencies along with an arrogant dismissiveness, a contentiousness that Requests for reprints should be sent to Anthony Christiansen, MA,

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association , 1996

This paper reexamines within a contemporary context an essential foundation of classical technique, the psychoanalytic situation. Defined in terms of basic elements of psychoanalytic relatedness which make possible the most profound exploration of human motivation, its core structure is viewed as an extraordinary interpersonal arrangement anchored by two clearly differentiated yet complimentary ways of relating: free-association and analytic neutrality. The patient's role, organized by the prerequisites of expressive freedom, is counter posed with the psychoanalyst's, which is structured to empower listening and understanding. Elaborating the parameters of this unique relationship, the authors emphasize the synergic effects of each participants' activity in creating a vehicle for destabilizing neurotic equilibrium. An extensive discussion of analytic neutrality, conceived as guiding ideal that informs all the analyst's attitudes and actions in the exploration of psychic reality, is presented. Specifically, the authors distinguish three essential dimensions which bear upon the interactive process: neutrality with regard to conflict, neutrality with regard to sequence, and neutrality with regard to transference. In contrast to the rigid constraint on human responsiveness often caricatured in the literature, this vision of technical neutrality establishes its vital contribution to the integrity, depth, and tone of any analytic process that unfolds.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 2003

Within the many streams of thought contributing to this effort, we single out systems views as providing a critical dimension of this expansion. The "dyadic systems view" is our particular contribution to the relational turn in psychoanalysis. Although systems views have been evident in both psychoanalysis and infant research, each field has come from the opposite bias (Beebe & Lachmann, 1988, 2002). Centrally concerned with interactive regulation in the dyad, infant research on face-to-face interaction has only in the past decade seriously begun addressing self-regulation (Beebe, Jaffe, Chen & Cohen, 2002; Gianinno & Tronick, 1988; Fox, 1994; Thompson, 1994; Tronick, 1989). Similarly, originally centrally occupied with the organization of inner states, psychoanalysis has only in the past decade accorded interaction in the dyad a central place. Mitchell (1993, 1997, 2000) was a key player in this shift within psychoanalysis. However we believe that currently there is a discernible theoretical shift away from inner processes toward relational processes, both in relational psychoanalysis and child development research (see Miller, 1996; Overton, 1997, 1998; Ghent, 2002), perhaps as a reaction to an historical over-emphasis on inner processes (see Beebe & Lachmann, 1998). In contrast, in our dyadic systems view, inner and relational processes are co-constructed and equally important (Beebe & Lachmann, 1998). Self-regulation processes, and otherregulation processes, emerge together in a reciprocal, inter-penetrating way (see Overton, 1997, 1998). Inner and relational, or self-and other-regulation, are "points of view" on the same whole (Overton, 1997, 1998). A dyadic systems theory of interaction must specify how each person is affected by his own behavior-that is, self-regulation-as well as by the partner's behavior-that is, interactive regulation (

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2013

The first aim of this article is to report a newly developed measure of therapeutic process, the Dynamic Interaction Scales. When combined with the Analytic Process Scales (Waldron, Scharf, Crouse, et al., 2004; Waldron, Scharf, Hurst, et al., 2004), the two instruments permit a reliable and fine-grained assessment of technical and relational aspects of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic psychotherapeutic process. The Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure and Psychological Health Index (Westen & Shedler, 1999a, 1999b; Waldron et al., 2011) permit a reliable and fine-grained assessment of the changes during treatment. The second aim is to demonstrate how combining results from these instruments permits exploring the relationships between processes and outcomes of treatment. We illustrate the utility of this approach by a demonstration project, applying the instruments to two treatments started 21 years apart. The results show different relational and classical approaches of the analysts and different outcomes. Both patients had a similar level of psychological functioning at the outset of treatment, but one made a much more extensive recovery than the other. The difference in outcomes may reflect different patient pathology, in spite of their initial level of functioning, but it may also reflect the impact in the better outcome case of a more relational approach, combined with a more extensive use of classical analytic interventions judged to be of higher quality. We then present quantitative results applying the same instruments to 11 additional patients. Technical and relational differences are found between good and poor outcome cases in this group, similar to those found in our two demonstration cases. Ongoing evaluation of an additional 18 cases will permit further study of these differences

Ata: Journal of Psychotherapy Aotearoa New Zealand

This review essay examines relational psychoanalysis by looking at examples from clinical practice and commenting on its relationship to other forms of therapeutic work. It does this through a discussion of individual and group work and by exploring the complex background out of which the relational paradigm has emerged.

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2019

perspective on the nature of psychoanalysis. All of these trends, called for throughout this volume, are evident today. This book is written for a psychoanalytically sophisticated audience. Some of the difficult theory (Jurist, Naso, Lichtenstein) and research (Graf and Diamond; Waldron et al.) material is unlikely to find a readership among nonanalysts, but the ideas and information the book contains must be circulated beyond analytic circles. It is important for the larger world to know that psychoanalysis has changed, and that analysts have changed. We might suggest that progress begets progress (unless it doesn't), but that at least we can mark as progress whatever makes further progress more likely. And the attitudes presented by the contributors to this book are welcoming of new theory and applications. This is a crucial message to convey to analysts and nonanalysts alike.