Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To share an article on social media…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

If you find an article or content on PEP-Web interesting, you can share it with others using the Social Media Button at the bottom of every page.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Gill, M. (1995). Classical and Relational Psychoanalysis. Psychoanal. Psychol., 12(1):89-107.

(1995). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 12(1):89-107

Classical and Relational Psychoanalysis

Merton Gill, M.D.

Several of the authors in this special section have emphasized that the heterogeneity of the contending theories poses a difficulty in discussing them. But none of the articles tackles the distinctions among the several theories head on. Neither will I. In broadest terms, the opposition is between the mainstream of classical analysis and some variety of object relations theory. As for classical theory, a distinction is made between past classical and contemporary theory. As for object relations theory, distinctions are made among English object relations, Kleinian, interpersonal, and relational theories; some authors class self psychology as a relational theory as well. It is relational theory, as opposed to classical theory, that is primarily discussed.

Relational theory is discussed almost entirely according to the views of its foremost proponent, Stephen Mitchell. I see relational theory as an offshoot of interpersonal theory. A discussion of how the two differ would be useful, but it would carry me away from my present purpose. I will say, however, that my reading of Herbert Zucker's (1989) article differed from Mitchell's. Mitchell (1993) said that Zucker's article “has an extremely narrow way of delineating the interpersonal perspective, making it incompatible with any theorizing about what is traditionally termed the ‘intrapsychic”’ (p. 478). On the contrary, I read Zucker's article as arguing that the intrapsychic is too narrowly defined in relational theory. Zucker likened relational and classical theory in that they both overemphasize a single motivational factor, object relations in relational theory and drive in classical theory. Zucker also believed that the emphasis on the reality of the analyst–analysand interaction is underplayed in relational theory as it is in classical theory regarding the overemphasis on psychic reality in both of them. However that may be, my discussion is essentially confined to the opposition between classical and relational theory.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.