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.
Those of us familiar with the work of Stephen Mitchell (1993, 1995, 1997) who died tragically and suddenly in December 2000, looked forward with some anticipation to attending the first Conference for the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in New York City on 18-20 January 2002. Stephen Mitchell has done much to critique traditional psychoanalytic theory and technique, and from this has developed a contemporary theoretical and clinical practice. As part of a small British contingent, it was inspirational to mix with 1200 like-minded colleagues, some of whom came from as far away as Australia.
The remit? To develop our thinking and knowledge of the Relational School of Analysis, as exemplified by a growing number of analytic writers and clinicians. The Conference, entitled ‘Sense and Sensibility’, elaborated this theme with special attention focused on the development of a narrative, during the process of what might be called ‘a sustained empathic inquiry’. As one speaker commented, ‘No stories, no self’. To practise in this way the analyst moves from a ‘neutral’ position to an ‘active’ one, along the lines that Ferenczi wrote about.
Hence there is a shift from an analysis of the intra-personal towards the inter-subjective, making use of the mutuality of the relationship between the analyst and the patient. A consideration of the ‘real’ experience in terms of the patient's history also takes centre stage, and how the original trauma becomes enacted within the consulting room. With the opportunity for opening a new dialogue comes the possibility of repair, as both patient and analyst work with their own and the other's transference and countertransference. This way of working, by implication, confronts the present power relationship, whereby there is an assumption that the analyst knows more, and the patient less. Interpretations are more likely to be seen as hypotheses, rather than ‘ex cathedra’ statements reflecting the analyst's