Relational Lacunae: Gaps in the Relational Literature and Clinical Practice? Commentary on Paper by Paul Wachtel

I question whether Wachtel’s assertion that there are gaps in the relational literature and residues of a one-person psychology is little more than a reflection of the relational tradition, which encompasses a multiplicity of perspectives. This notwithstanding, his paper helpfully addresses a neglected dimension of clinical practice and provides the opportunity to explore the evolution of Stephen Mitchell’s thinking about the baby as a psychoanalytic metaphor. In doing so, I briefly, if somewhat tangentially, discuss the structure of the inner world, the role of memory in psychoanalysis, the nature of transference, and the extent to which early experiences with caregivers influence adult intimate relationships. To further illuminate Wachtel’s theoretical and therapeutic model, I summarize Mitchell’s (2000) case study of Connie, focusing on his detailed inquiry into her everyday relationship with her husband.     

The activation of maternal representations

While a mother watches her infant or toddler during everyday life, there is a moment-by-moment triggering of thoughts, feelings, memories, and trajectories into the future. To access this inner experience as it emerges, a micro-analytic interview technique was devised. Through a series of probes this interview repeatedly guides the mother between the concrete details of her child's behavior and the subjective responses evoked by these observations. This window to the mother's subjective world allows a rich scrutiny of its architecture and dynamic process, permits cross-fertilization with recent developments in cognitive science, and serves as an entry point for therapeutic efforts.     

Field of Vision: Radical Uncertainty and the Analyst's Conduct: Commentary on Paper by Donnel B. Stern

There is a relationship between biography and theory. The analyst's ideas or formulations about his patients—theories really—must be determined, to some degree, by the certain and uncertain impact of his own history. Harry Stack Sullivan brought psychoanalysis squarely into the ambit of the relational/historical world by insisting that the mind is thoroughly and inherently social. In doing so, he staked a claim for the link between history, that is, social experience, and personhood. Our personalities and our theories are social-historical constructions. In relation to this, some differences between the interpersonal/relational and Bionian concepts of field theory are provided. One important difference pertains to the role of the analyst's conduct. Two meanings of conduct—to behave or to organize behavior—are at the center of what distinguishes the interpersonal/relational view of the analyst's position in the field from the Bionian view. For the relational analyst, action in the analytic field, including enactment, is conduct, and conduct is always bidirectional. The analyst, then, is a medium to alter, to reconstruct the self. He does not provide experience, he is experience. The form of an analytic exchange gives shape to the field and its content.     

The preconscious and potential space.

Greenberg and Mitchell (1983) have suggested that the drive/structure model and the relational/structure model are mutually exclusive models of psychic life. We regard their contribution as an invaluable one, which makes explicit the fundamental divergences in psychoanalytic theory. We have examined a derivative tendency in the field, for drive and relational theorists alike, to present psychic life as a dichotomy between inner experience and outer experience. We see a tendency to equate the drive model with unconscious motivation, and to the primacy of internal experience. There seems to be an equivalent tendency to equate the relational model with conscious perception and motivation, and to the primacy of external experience. We are advocating, for drive and relational theorists alike, greater focus on the process of intermediation between internal and external experience in the psychic life of the individual. Within the context of the drive model, precedent for such a focus is found in Freud's conception of the preconscious, an essential third dimension whose function was to mediate between the conscious and the unconscious. Within the context of the relational model, Winnicott's notion of potential space serves as a bridge between interior experience and external reality in the life of the individual. Finally, we have argued that by constructing three-part models of psychic life, these theorists have laid the groundwork for a synthetic theory. Though for Freud the drive state is primary, and for Winnicott the relationship between the infant and its environment (mother) is primary, each theorist posits an intermediating zone that fulfills a similar function in the psychic life of the individual. Whether we choose to call that zone the preconscious or potential space, its function is to translate bidirectionally between the infinitely dimensioned realm of interior, or unconscious, experience and the time-and space-bound realm of external, or conscious, experience. By highlighting the parallel constructs, we are not claiming to have created a synthesis between the theories. Our claim is that the eventual road to synthesis appears to reside in the direction of a movement away from the dichotomy between the primacy of inner or outer experience, and toward the common meeting ground of the primacy of an intermediating function.     

The Coparticipant Field: Commentary on a Paper by Juan Tubert-Oklander

Psychoanalytic field theory is integral to relational praxis. In his study of the analytic field and its interpersonal complexities and relational intricacies, Tubert-Oklander emphasizes its clinical promise. Tubert-Oklander's field orientation, however, is a conservative and limited one. This commentary proposes a new, more radical coparticipant theory of analytic praxis.

As a unique form of clinical participation, coparticipant inquiry is marked by an emphasis on patients' and analysts' relational mutuality, coequal analytic authority, and dyadic uniqueness. Coparticipant inquiry represents both a one-person and two-person psychology—an integral of classical individualism and the social emphasis of the interpersonal/relational viewpoint. Coparticipant analysis calls for a new, multidimensional concept of the self that reconciles the seeming paradox that we are simultaneously communal and individual beings—from birth embedded in a series of social field, yet always uniquely individual. This psychoanalytic dialectic between personal, nonrelational selfic “I” processes and an interpersonal “me” pattern brings into relational play such concepts as will, self-determination, and agency. Coparticipation promotesatechnically freer, more self-expressive, and spontaneous inquiryandemphasizesthecurativeimmediacyofnewrelationalexperience.

I have believed for a long time that human

nature is a reciprocity of what is inside the skin

and what is outside; that it is definitely not

“rolled up inside us” but our way of being one

with our fellows and our world. I call this field

theory.

—Gardner Murphy     

Attachment and Relational Psychoanalysis: Bowlby According to Mitchell

In our contribution we would like to highlight that the model formulated by Mitchell in his last book entitled Relationality seems to suggest that he had come to realize that he could not exclude attachment theory entirely from his theoretical framework. Some of the most interesting interpretations of it—post-Bowlbian interpretations—regarded the dynamics of early attachment as a fundamental model of emotional regulation. We think that in Italy there has always been a significantly widespread sensitivity toward developmental and attachment themes also in more strictly psychoanalytic contexts, hence the specific slant of our reading of the most recent developments in relational psychoanalysis.     

日常经验研究：一种独具特色的研究方法

日常经验研究是一种通过研究日常生活中各种事件发生时人们的瞬时感受而在自发、自然的情景中对人的心理现象、过程进行探索的方法。其目的是通过获得关于个人日常生活中某些特定事件或特定时刻的详细描述,来提取有关思维、情绪、行为的持久性、周期性、变化以及时间结构等方面的信息,并确定上述因素之间的情境性以及倾向性相关。日常经验研究的价值和意义在于在方法论三角互证原则的指导下,与其他各种方法结合起来,帮助研究者从不同角度理解心理现象及其过程,从而达到最大限度地探索、了解人类心理世界的目的     

A Girl's Loyalty to her Mother

This paper explores the alliance between the analytic couple and the analytic process. The patient doesn't ally only with the analyst, but also with the unfolding of an experiential world. The developmental origins of this alliance are described in terms of infant and child being inside a forming intelligence; womb, mother and family—transforming the mental state of the subject. The structure of the experience is pictured by the resemblance to a simple—experiencing—self being inside a dream, and a rhetoric “I” speaking in an internal dialogue to an unanswering, but present, “you”. The writer describes the negative therapeutic reaction as an attempt to break into this forming intelligence; as an attempt to see who is the creator of the experiential universe. Staying inside the unfolding process is further investigated through the experiences of aloneness and presential immediateness.     

“Of Course All Relationships Are Unique”: How Co-creative Processes Generate Unique Mother–Infant and Patient–Therapist Relationships and Change Other Relationships

The question of the uniqueness of relationships is examined: How do relationships come to be unique? What are some of the features of their uniqueness? And how can relationships, be it the mother—infant relationship or the patient—therapist relationship, have unique rather than archetypical effects on other relationships? A model of relationship uniqueness is presented that argues that mother and infant, and patient and therapist, co-create dyadic states of consciousness—states of making implicit and explicit sense of the world—out of their normally messy exchanges of age-possible meanings. These co-creative processes lead to change in the infant's and child's state of knowing the world, and also change the way the patient makes sense of the world and ways of being with others. Additionally presented are (I) a critique of attachment theory's assumption that the mother—infant relationship is the prototype of later relationships; (2) a critique of models of therapeutic change that see adult analysis as working primarily in the same domain as the workings of the mother-infant relationship; (3) a brain model of co-creative relational processes, Relational Activation Patterns (RAPs); and (4) possible psychodynamic processes in infants.     

Personality and Daily Experience: The Promise and the Challenge

This special issue of the Journal of Personality is devoted to personality and daily experience. Through historical analysis of the daily event literature, empirical inquiry, and methodological and statistical commentary, the contributors to this issue convey both the possibilities and the problems of studying everyday life. These articles demonstrate how people's dispositions, goals, and commitments can influence daily emotional well-being and health, their inner experience, their reactions to events, and perhaps even which events they encounter. The introduction of personality to the study of daily experience holds the promise of enriching our studies of both.     

Bringing It All Back Home: How Outside Stressors Shape Families' Everyday Lives

ABSTRACT— Families are dynamic systems that are permeable to influences from the outside world, such as daily stressors at work and at school. Our research uses naturalistic methods to investigate how family interactions change in response to such experiences and how other family members contribute to that process. We argue that the short-term effects of daily stressors on family dynamics can have cumulative, long-term implications for family health and functioning. Naturalistic studies that incorporate daily diary, observational, and physiological measures can offer new insights into families' everyday stress responding and coping processes.     

Building on Wachtel’s Points About Implications of Mitchell’s Ideas: Suggestions Based on the Participatory Philosophical Perspective for Locating the Person in the World of Practical Activities

In his paper “The Relationality of Everyday Life,” Wachtel (this issue) successfully moves us further along the path of the “unfinished journey” (p. 509) of Mitchell’s work. I begin my comments by pointing out how Wachtel identifies the importance for both theory and practice of focusing on everyday life in addition to early parent–child interactions and what transpires in psychoanalytic/psychotherapy sessions. His points about everyday life include rejecting one-person notions of internal processes that are “frozen” in time and offering a way to understand the vicious circles that are a prominent part of most clinical problems. My comments also include suggestions about how we can take another step along the path Wachtel has encouraged us to pursue—which he aptly describes as treating the person as a “self-in-context” (p. 507)—if we approach basic issues about the person’s relationship to others and the world at large along the lines of the participatory philosophical perspective (e.g., Westerman, 2005, 2013, 2014; Westerman & Steen, 2007). That perspective takes as its cornerstone idea the view that from the outset the person is a participant in practical activities. Guided by the participatory perspective, I add to Wachtel’s suggestions about how a focus on everyday life can enter into therapeutic work; present a different view of what are typically called “inner” processes and discuss some of the implications of that view for clinical work; and, most important, put forward an alternative account of vicious circles.     

Theory of mind: The state of the art*

Abstract

In this article, I reflect on theory of mind as a field (ToM), how it has developed over the years, and focally on the state of current research and theory. Having begun with preschoolers’ understanding of beliefs and desires, the field now includes research from infancy through late life, contributions and contributors from around the world, research on behavior, conversation, neural correlates, gene-environment contributions, evolution, and the social-behavioral antecedents and consequences of the unfolding trajectories of ToM understanding. Several topics in particular portray the current state of the art and my sense of where theory-of-mind research is likely to head in the near future: progressions of theory of mind achievement; cultural experiences plus experiential influences that shape developmental trajectories; developmental cognitive neuroscience; infant ToM insights; research on ToM developments beyond preschool, including children’s increasing interest in and wrestling with extraordinary minds, such as those of God and super-heroes.     

The dynamics of owning and disowning: psychoanalytic and family perspectives.

The dynamics of owning and disowning one's inner life have both intrapsychic and transactional or interpersonal dimensions. Freud opened new vistas on our inner world using psycoanalysis as a tool. Although not unaware of the effects of family members upon each other, Freud's rejection of the seduction theory of neurosis in 1897 fatefully influenced the future course of psychoanalysis, placing the primary focus on intrapsychic relations. Until today, it has remained the task-perhaps the principal one--of psychoanalytic theorists to do justice to the interpersonal and family realm that Freud neglected, without sacrificing the enormous insights we owe to Freud. Three conditions for successful inner ownership are described: a capacity for self-object differentiation; tolerance of ambivalence; and a sense of physical integrity, of having a cohesive, nuclear ego. The pathology of inner ownership is related to a pathology of interpersonal ownership as transacted on the family level. One form of such relational pathology--parental overowning, as revealed primarily in families with schizophrenic members--is discussed, with a case example.     

Relational Psychoanalysis and the Tragic-Existential Aspect of the Human Condition

I suggest we may benefit by opening relational thinking to a certain aspect of a classical psychoanalytic worldview. Opening to what we can call the tragic and existential dimensions of the human condition: the universal experience of a certain inner dividedness, hiddenness, and self-deception—a strangeness within the “otherness” that constitutes ordinary, good-enough human environment; as well as the equally universal experience of impermanence—lack, inevitable loss, and finitude. Such openness entails listening to themes we hear in many critiques of relational thinking—critiques that often devolve into caricaturing relationality as avoiding the dark, internally divided side of our nature. It entails listening well enough to these universal themes in ourselves and in our patients so that we can radically reframe them—without recourse drives—in expanded, relational terms. As in Mitchell’s words, “dialectical tensions not taken as polarities … but rather as interpenetrating and, in some sense, as mutually creating each other.”     

Innen, Außen, Zwischen

The so-called “intersubjective turn” (or “relational turn”) in psychoanalysis is closely associated with the work of Winnicott. It was him who added a new dimension to the psychoanalytic theories of a separate inner world, a dimension focussing on the mediating processes between the separate spheres of psychic and external reality: a space between subject and object, drive and civilisation, Ego and reality — the “potential space” that unconsciously connects our self to the Other as well as to a shared physical and social world we live in. Winnicotts paradoxical notions of the self are traced in this paper and unwrapped from their often enigmatic, developmentally and epistemologically confusing veils: the infant who does not exist without a holding mother; who is not aware of his/her being held because of its evidence, and only has an experience when falling; who him-/herself creates that reality which is already there; who must destroy the object in order to use it; who can only be alone when another person is present. The author, starting from apparently narcissistic phenomena of the media society, rehabilitates the term of “in-between” in contemporary psychoanalytic discussion which for a long time was considered as suspect, as being part of a “non-psychoanalytic” superficial social psychology (as the intersubjective, the interpersonal or the interactive). Under the strong influence of Winnicott, and overarching the different schools, contemporary psychoanalysis is focussing on intersubjectivity and relationality. The paper is an appeal for reformulating classical intrapsychic concepts — including the theory of the unconscious—in intersubjective terms, thus unfolding a relational approach inherent in Freud’s metapsychology.     

Relational ecologies of psychotherapy: The influence of administrative attachment on therapeutic alliance

There is now vast and multi-faceted empirical literature on the impact of relational dynamics in psychotherapy, and relationality is a central theme within contemporary psychoanalytic theories. Yet, there is virtually no literature addressing the relational dynamics around outpatient psychotherapy that influence the wider therapeutic alliance, that is the relational dynamics that unfold between clients and administrative office staff in making initial contacts and appointments, completing paperwork, negotiating payment, discussing insurance coverage, working through crisis calls, and the myriad of other forms of interaction which serve to form the relational ecology of psychotherapy. Milieu therapy or the use of supportive and structured therapeutic environments has been given significant attention in inpatient settings; however, administrative relational factors or administrative staff characteristics have seemingly been ignored in outpatient psychotherapy and psychoanalysis literatures. Many outpatient clinical practice settings involve multiple levels and dimensions of relationality between clients, administrative personnel, and therapists which shape the potential for secure continuous containment and various forms of attachment to psychotherapeutic space. In this paper, we describe several clinical illustrations of relational dynamics between clients and office staff which influence therapeutic alliance and outline the contours of our emerging idea of administrative hospitality based on relational psychoanalysis, attachment theory, symbolic anthropology, and stigma research. In doing so, we draw on our collective experience working in several outpatient clinics and insights from our current context in an urban outpatient training clinic which emphasises psychodynamic practice. Our goal is not a comprehensive analysis of the relational ecology of psychotherapy but to offer an initial exploratory account of some of the administrative relational dynamics in and around outpatient psychotherapy which go beyond the therapist-client dyad. The anthropological concept of liminality is connected to relational psychoanalytic theories to describe the important dynamics of transitional space in an overall process of relational transformation.     

The development of the still-face effect: Mothers do matter

The Face-to-Face Still-Face paradigm (FFSF) has been used to investigate how infants react to stressful events. However, there is little developmental data on the FFSF effect, and whether it connects to a specific relationship (e.g., to a mother versus a stranger). This prospective longitudinal study aims to evaluate developmental changes in infant reaction to the FFSF presented by the mother or a stranger at 2, 4, 6, and 8 months of age (n = 39). Results show that infant negativity was expressed less in relation to a stranger, the identity effect. Results further suggest that from 6 to 8 months of age, stranger induced protest flattens out; whereas mother induced protest decreases. The results are discussed in relation to different theories regarding infant responsiveness.     

Contexts,Polarities, and Pluralism. Discussion of Slochower’s “Going Too Far: Relational Heroines and Relational Excess”

In her searching paper “Going Too Far: Relational Heroines and Relational Excess,” (this issue) Slochower finds the potential for excess as inherent in any psychoanalytic theory. I argue that context is key in understanding this phenomenon within relational psychoanalysis; what she describes may not be the case for other theories. The beginnings of relational theory as a movement, generational and radical, could lead to therapeutic overconfidence or certainty around countertransference insights and disclosures. Slochower sees an abundance of certainty in this stance, as well as pressure for premature mutuality. As a complement or balance to this intense mode of interpersonal engagement, Slochower elaborates her own work on holding, wherein the analyst “brackets” her experience and respects the patient’s need for privacy and nonimpingement. Uncertainty is an affirmative stance in letting the patient’s inner life come into being. There are a number of polarities in Slochower’s paper—between mutuality and privacy, certainty and uncertainty, and in the origin story of relational psychoanalysis between relational and classical theories. I argue that pluralism offers a path forward from polarities to a rich complex world of multiple possibilities and recognition of different minds and theories.