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.
PSYCHOANALYSIS is currently seeking an expanded theory of interaction. The “relational turn” in psychoanalysis is at the center of current efforts to articulate this expansion (e.g., Aron, 1996; Mitchell, 1993, 1997, 2000; Harris, 1992, 1997; Ghent, 1989, 2002; Benjamin, 1988, 1990, 1995). Within the many streams of thought contributing to this effort, we single out systems views as providing a critical dimension of this expansion. The “dyadic systems view” is our particular contribution to the relational turn in psychoanalysis.
Although systems views have been evident in both psychoanalysis and infant research, each field has come from the opposite bias (Beebe & Lachmann, 1988, ). Centrally concerned with interactive regulation in the dyad, infant research on face-to-face interaction has only in the past decade seriously begun addressing self-regulation (; Gianinno & Tronick, 1988; Fox, 1994; Thompson, 1994; Tronick, 1989). Similarly, originally centrally occupied with the organization of inner states, psychoanalysis has only in the past decade accorded interaction in the dyad a central place. Mitchell (1993, 1997, 2000) was a key player in this shift within psychoanalysis. We believe, however, that currently there is a discernible theoretical shift away from inner processes toward relational processes, both in relational psychoanalysis and child development research (see Miller, 1996; Overton, 1998; Ghent, 2002), perhaps as a reaction to an historical over-emphasis on inner processes (see Beebe & Lachmann, 1998).
In contrast, in our dyadic systems view, inner and relational processes are co-constructed and equally important (Beebe & Lachmann, 1998). Self-regulation processes and other-regulation processes emerge together