Are waves of relational assumptions eroding traditional analysis?

Abstract

The author designates as 'traditional' those elements of psychoanalytic presumption and practice that have, in the wake of Fordham's legacy, helped to inform analytical psychology and expand our capacity to integrate the shadow. It is argued that this element of the broad spectrum of Jungian practice is in danger of erosion by the underlying assumptions of the relational approach, which is fast becoming the new establishment. If the maps of the traditional landscape of symbolic reference (primal scene, Oedipus et al.) are disregarded, analysts are left with only their own self-appointed authority with which to orientate themselves. This self-centric epistemological basis of the relationalists leads to a revision of 'analytic attitude' that may be therapeutic but is not essentially analytic. This theme is linked to the perennial challenge of balancing differentiation and merger and traced back, through Chasseguet-Smirgel, to its roots in Genesis. An endeavour is made to illustrate this within the Journal convention of clinically based discussion through a commentary on Colman's (2013) avowedly relational treatment of the case material presented in his recent Journal paper 'Reflections on knowledge and experience' and through an assessment of Jessica Benjamin's (2004) relational critique of Ron Britton's (1989) transference embodied approach.

Working in the borderland: early relational trauma and Fordham's analysis of ‘K’

“…In contrast to the thread evidenced in the work of some practitioners (and argued for passionately by K in his papers) that it is the patient seeing evidence of the analyst's warmth, humanity, and ability to be open and self‐critical that carries the analysis through, I would suggest that the expression of the analyst's attunement and care is in staying exactly with what the patient brings, even though this may take the analytic couple to apparently ‘inhuman’ places mirroring the patient's early relational trauma. For me this demonstrates the limitation of a relational approach such as Benjamin's () which apparently aims to counter the patient's negative self‐feeling primarily through the analyst's positive disposition (see also Meredith‐Owen on this point ). Rather, as relational analysts Davies and Frawley point out:

The patient must recognize and come to terms with the finality and irreversibility of the traumatic loss.

…”

“…Whilst I espouse many of the principles of relational psychoanalysis concerning the central significance and nature of the analytic relationship and of the actual interactions between patient and analyst (for example, Davies & Frawley , Boston Change Process Study Group , Bromberg ), I am critical of the practice of some relational practitioners who attempt to counter the patient's negative self‐feeling through the analyst's positive disposition, enactment of certain positively‐toned roles, or self‐disclosure; see for example Benjamin (), Beebe & Lachmann (, ) and, to some extent, Colman (), and as recommended in an informal way by K in his papers; (Meredith‐Owen [] makes a similar criticism to my own). I will explore this further below.…”

Influences on my clinical practice and identity. Jungian analysis on the couch–what and where is the truth of it?

“…Many Jungians in North America have embraced this relational model which is endorsed by British analysts such as Warren Colman () and Jean Knox. By contrast, William Meredith‐Owen () fears relational assumptions are eroding traditional analysis and espouses correspondence theory by claiming, as Freud did, that there is a singular objective truth to be revealed in analysis. He argues that analysis requires the maintenance of an analytic attitude which contains and informs transference interpretation using the classical landscape of symbolic reference such as the primal scene and Oedipus complex.…”

“…By contrast, in object relations theory: ‘There is an important taken as given assumption…that there is such a thing as an objective world (‘reality’ or ‘truth’) which is vulnerable to distortion. The attainment of the ‘third position’ expresses the capacity to realize just that’ (Meredith‐Owen , p. 598).…”

“…Research into the efficacy of psychological therapies demonstrates that many therapeutic approaches work and that no specific practice is best (Roth & Fonagy ). Meredith‐Owen questions these findings and adds: ‘The self‐centric epistemological basis of the relationists leads to a revision of the ‘analytic attitude’ that may be therapeutic but not essentially analytic’ (Meredith‐Owen , p. 593). This is a curious statement because it could be misconstrued as suggesting that maintaining an analytic attitude is more important than helping people.…”