Preserving the Gap between Freudian and Relational Psychoanalysis: The Case for Maintaining the Clarity of Difference

Relational psychoanalysis represents the composite of contributions from a variety of psychoanalysts, all of whom found dissatisfaction in their clinical work with patients where the restrictions of the classical psychoanalytic approach led to unsatisfactory or less than optimal outcomes with their patients. While some have emphasized the technical limitations of classical psychoanalysis, others have rejected the classical theory of causality and the central role of insight and interpretation. Whether on the basis of technical or theoretical differences, relational psychoanalysts have placed greater emphasis on the role of the relationship between analyst and patient in accounting for the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis. What has evolved is distinctly different from, indeed, oppositional to, classical psychoanalysis. Therefore, the attempt to homogenize relational and classical approaches risks the possibility of obscuring the significant differences between them. If such a homogenization occurs, psychoanalysis loses the status of a clinical discipline that must stay open to changes in practice that reflect the experience of those who employ it in their clinical work.