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.
I was invited to discuss Rachel's case from a relational perspective and in so doing I must begin with some clarification. From the outset it is important to understand that there is no single relational perspective, but rather a variety of theoretical orientations that can be subsumed under the rubric of what is currently being called relational. This presentation affords me the opportunity to delineate the ways in which my particular relational orientation differs from Dr. Doctors Self Psychological perspective, which some might also consider to fall under the broad relational umbrella. Once I have positioned myself theoretically, I will discuss the clinical material that Dr. Doctors has so generously shared with us, and which clearly demonstrates aspects of her technique, her theoretical formulation, and, most importantly, her presentation of a patient who appears to be growing in desirable ways.
The term relational has come to be utilized by a variety of individuals who in one way or another identify with a shift in emphasis from the primacy of drives in the shaping of personality to the primacy of relatedness. Neil Skolnick and I, in the introduction to our book Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis (1992), note that some who identify with this perspective have their roots in interpersonal theory, others in British Object Relations Theory, still others in contemporary Ego Psychology and others in Self Psychology. All have a common concern with the centrality of relationship in the development and structure of personality, as well as its significance in the psychoanalytic situation.
Ghent, in the foreword to Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis