I want to start with a bit of a disclaimer.

There are some psychoanalytic theories I know a lot about and some I know less about. Relational theory is definitely in the latter group. It is a theory that I've only dabbled in but I have not spent nearly as much time with as I have in interpersonal theory, self-psychology, object relations, classical Freudian, or Lacanian schools of thought.

Additionally, relational psychoanalysis is a very new theory. It is probably the youngest theory we will be studying in this class.

Be that as it may, I've spent some time exploring relational psychoanalysis, and I'm going to do my best to share what I've learned. I hope this will be a good supplement to the content in what you all read for class this week.

What is relational psychoanalysis?

It is a school of psychoanalytic thought that was largely created in the United States in the 1980s and focused on integrating the interpersonal style of Harry Stack Sullivan (and to a lesser extent Sandor Ferenczi) with the theory of Object Relations focus on the roles of real and imagined relationships with others on individual psychological functioning. Clinicians who subscribe to relational theory would say that personality emerges from the matrix of early formative relationships with parents and other figures.

The theoretical ancestors of the relational theory are

The work of Ferenczi.
The interpersonal theory of Sullivan
British Object Relations theories, in particular, the theories of Winnicott.
The Self Psychology of Kohut

Is it more of a style than a theory?

I tend to think that it is more of a style, or perhaps a framework, which pulls from several theories, rather than a theory. A style of what, exactly?

A style of what I'd call psychoanalytic psychotherapy or applied psychoanalysis,which places the relationship a the core of the psychotherapeutic work. (i.e., The therapeutic work is done through the relationship between the patient/clinician or analyst/analysand.)

Relational Psychoanalysis is the term that has evolved in recent years to describe an approach to clinical work that attracts many practitioners in different parts of the world. Although not a hard and fast set of concepts and practices, one core feature is the notion that psychic structure–at the very least, those aspects of psychic structure that are accessible to psychotherapeutic intervention–derive from the individual’s relations with other people. This, of course, is intended as an alternative to the classical view that innately organized drives and their developmental vicissitudes are, at root, the basis of psychic structure. (Source--IARPP, who we ware)

A shift to being in relationships

According to the relationalists, the psychoanalysis that comes before the relational turn is focused on the drive (or the drives), and the effects of the drive on how we live, work, and love. Desires and urges cannot be separated from the relational contexts in which they arise. This does not mean that motivation is determined by the environment (as in behaviorism), but that motivation is determined by the systemic interaction of a person and her environment.

I would say that this earlier style of psychoanalysis was and is concerned with relationships, but it uses relationships that a person has to understand the ways that the drive and jouissance are playing out in a person's life.

The relational psychoanalysts tend to look more at relationships for their own sake, they examine relationships as what matters. Relational psychoanalysts and psychotherapists tend to stress the importance of

Using their own feelings (countertransference) to understand what is unfolding between them and the patient
Being authentic and spontaneous
They strive to create a feeling of connection with someone who cares as opposed to a more transferential relationship that can be used to uncover unconscious desires via interpretation

Some important thinkers in Relational Theory

⌬ Lecture №10 | The Relational Turn