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.
Relational analysts know that their experience feels private and contemplative during a significant portion of their working hours. A consideration of the inner life, both the analyst’s and the patient’s, is part of relational praxis. Yet relational analysts also recognize that they are continuously involved with their patients, even at those very same quiet moments. Cooper, Corbett, and Seligman recognize both these parts of relational clinical work and argue that both are necessary. Making this argument explicit is important for its own sake, but also because analysts from other schools sometimes write as if there is no place in relational clinical practice for a quiet consideration of the inner life. Two examples of such criticism are offered, in both of which relational analysts are described as being too focused on social interaction and too little on the inner life. I offer my own version of the kinds of arguments about privacy and contemplation offered by Cooper, Corbett, and Seligman. I then make the case that all psychoanalytic theories come with risks of excess. Relational and interpersonal theories come with the risk of an overenthusiastic embrace of clinical interaction, whereas more intrapsychic theories carry the risk of attending too little to the impact on their patients of present-day relatedness—which is just as likely to have unconscious roots as the inner life.