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.
It is a fair assumption that readers of this Journal will be steeped in the object relations tradition of psychoanalytic theory and practice. Object relations theory, relational psychoanalysis, and attachment theory have in common the core assumption that human behaviour is driven by an innate need for others. Relationships shape our affective experience and provide the primary conduit through which it is shared with others, providing a critical pathway for development. So it follows that couple and family therapies focus on what goes on between people, believing that relationships have the power not only to transform relationships, but also to develop bodies, minds, and communities. What distinguishes psychoanalytic therapies from other approaches is the attention they pay to the role unconscious relational processes play in shaping our social world.
Many of the controversies within psychoanalytic circles have revolved around how much weight and primacy to give to endogenous and exogamous factors in explaining the human condition—sometimes pitting drive and environmental theories against each other. Despite his psychoanalytic credentials, Bowlby was, for a time, shunned by the psychoanalytic community for emphasising the role of the environment—specifically the