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.
Much of the time, in order to understand the twists and turns of a debate in some field or another, particularly one that has been raging over years, a reader has either to have been following along from the beginning, or else to be willing to do some dedicated and wide-ranging reading. In this particular case, Debating Relational Psychoanalysis: Jon Mills and His Critics does this work for us. The collection traces the disputes within an American-grown branch of psychoanalysis that sits roughly under the umbrella of the relational school, although even that designation comes into question. Mills - whose dual training is in clinical psychology and philosophy and who has published over 20 books criss-crossing the fields of psychoanalysis, philosophy and psychology - gives himself the role of both the central subject as well as the organizing force behind the collection of papers, responses and counter-responses contained here. This is a bold and interesting move. There is something intellectually adventurous in the gathering of his own thinking to be read alongside that of his critics, and the value of the volume is to bring these debates very much to life for those interested in relational psychoanalysis. Yet, it strikes the reader that what Mills wants to get across is not just about the field, but a robust defence of himself and why and how his thinking has evolved. As he says in the final ‘reply’ to his critics: ‘There is nothing more exciting than a clash of ideas, except for, perhaps, sex. But as psychoanalysis shows, libidinal activity suffuses the very fabric of intellectual passion’ (p. 185). It is clear that Mills does not shy away from this, but rather embraces the clash, the excitement and the conflicts that his interventions have sown.
In the first half of the book, Mills's critique of the relational approach, which seemingly set all of these wheels turning, precedes three separate responses from Robert D. Stolorow, George E. Atwood and Donna M. Orange;