You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The American invited ambassadors of the relational perspective—who challenge accepted models of thought and action in psychoanalysis and in the larger world as a matter of intellectual self-definition and are, accordingly, barred from membership in the host organization—to share their views in an all-day presentation. Steven Cooper, the chair of the proceedings, began by paying tribute to the late Stephen Mitchell, whose development of relational theory directly questioned the authority of psychoanalytic cannon. Recalling Mitchell's passion for a two-person model of analysis, Cooper indicated that each of the panelists would continue to ask the difficult questions that had become a hallmark of the relational reexamination of time-honored analytic concepts.
The first speaker was Lewis Aron, who sought to clarify some prevailing misconceptions regarding relational theory. He identified the relational trend in psychoanalysis as “more a sensibility than a school,” and, while acknowledging Mitchell's seminal contributions, explained that relational theory did not develop exclusively around a single leader as previous analytic schools (Freudian, Kleinian, and Winnicottian) did, but rather thrived on pluralistic voices, sometimes at odds with each other (see Mitchell and Aron 1999). Tension, ambiguity, and paradox are key concepts for relationalists, Aron went on, defining them as dynamic, shifting forces moving forward a conversation that is not bent on seeking resolution or consensus.
Addressing the putative fundamentalism (Greenberg 2001) and heresies (Busch 2001) of relational technique, Aron objected to “uni-dimensional characterizations” whereby critics of relational psychoanalysis have attended to controversial or dramatic elements and “taken