Abstract
“There is no such thing as a relational analyst; there are only analysts whose backgrounds may vary considerably, but who share a broad outlook in which human relations—specific unique human relations—play a super ordinate role in the genesis of character and of psychopathology, as well as the practice of psychoanalytic therapeutics” (Ghent, 1992b). Attempting to capture the historical and theoretical underpinnings of what over the next 25 years was to become a relational psychoanalytic tradition. Ghent, in his foreword to Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis (Skolnick & Warshaw 1992), also articulated the idealistic goals and spirit of those who were central contributors to what is now an acknowledged psychoanalytic perspective. Central to the spirit of “relationalism” as a “movement” was the desire to move beyond the “idiosyncratic languages and conceptions, of extant traditions, to push beyond political polemics” and to explore the commonalities and differences of the analytic traditions from which the perspective was emerging (Ghent, 1992, p. xx).
The developmental theories, research and clinical work of a host of historically prominent child clinicians, were to have a major shaping influence upon the evolving relational tradition. Those who were early contributors to relational thought, integrated the work of Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, Margaret Mahler, Daniel Stern, John Bowlby, as well as numerous other parent/infant researchers into their clinical formulations and evolving theory. It was, of course, possible to discern the historical roots of each of the dominant theorists who identified with the emerging relational perspective. Thus, some were more clearly rooted in contemporary ego psychological perspectives, and others were decidedly of Kleinian origin; a significant number were interpersonal, and others clearly self-psychological. Emerging findings in the neurosciences, as well as nonlinear dynamic systems theory, and eventually attachment research, were to enliven the thinking of all, though each theorist’s work bore the decided imprint of his or her ancestors.
It seemed that most of the discourse, the in-depth theoretical explorations reflecting the relational ideal, the excitement and innovative approaches to technique, were being explored with respect to implications for adult treatment and reported primarily within the adult literature. Though much exciting data were continuing to evolve from developmental research and child clinical work, there were within the emerging relational group few voices seeking collaborative/comparative discourse within child psychoanalysis. Essentially, within child work each of the then dominant psychoanalytic traditions seemed to be evolving along traditional lines, with distinctly different points of view as to the theories of mind which informed the work, and beliefs about the locus of change in treatment.
Over the past 25 years, an increasing number of clinicians, including those who work with children and adolescents, have begun to self-identify as relational. Ironically, however, it was not until a decade after the publication of the following book chapter, that a book emerged which attempted to articulate an overarching approach towards “relational” child treatment, per se (Altman et al., Citation2002). Silber (this issue) makes note of this in her article “View From the Margins: Children in Relational Psychoanalysis.”
In 1992, mindful of the significantly different traditions that were contributing to emerging relational perspectives, I sought to delineate the mutative factors in child treatment, within the dominant child analytic traditions which were contributing to relational child work.
We reprint the 1992 book chapter here today in an effort to consider some of the historical antecedents, as well as current theoretical perspectives which inform the work of those of us who consider ourselves to be “relational” child clinicians. We hope also to stimulate further discussion of our contemporary approaches and to consider the extent to which emerging findings in the neurosciences, infancy research, and attachment theory have perhaps brought us somewhat closer to a capacity to explore our differences and commonalities.
A great deal has changed since 1992. Approaches to child treatment rooted in attachment research were literally and metaphorically in their infancy, existing largely in areas related to mother/infant interaction and treatment of very young children, Data derived from the neurosciences have brought us new understanding and additional approaches to intervention, that is, “mentalization” theory. The work of the intersubjectivists had yet to capture our awareness as a perspective within child training, and interpersonal approaches to child treatment, while discussed in the following chapter, had to that point been minimally present within the literature or developed as training models.
Stimulated by the work of Silber (2015, this issue) and the discussions of Starr and Aron (this issue), Jacobs, (this issue) and Chazan (this issue), we offer this article as a benchmark from which to consider the current state of relational child work and training.
REFERENCES
- Altman, N., Briggs, R., Briggs, J., Frankel, D., & Gensler, P. P. (2002). Relational child psychotherapy. New York, NY: Other Press.
- Ghent, E. (1992). Foreword. In N. J. Skolnick & S. C. Warshaw (Eds.), Relational perspectives in psychoanalysis. New Jersey, USA: Analytic Press, now Taylor and Francis.
- Warshaw, S. C. (1992). Relational perspectives in psychoanalysis (N. J. Skolnick & S. C. Warshaw, Eds.; pp. 147–174). New Jersey, USA: Analytic Press, now Taylor and Francis.