The relational turn in psychoanalysis: Revolution or regression?

European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 217-224

  Carmeli, Zvi ^a   Blass, Rachel B ^b  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cartesian worldview; Freud; Psychoanalysis; Relational psychoanalysis; Relationship; Traditional psychoanalysis; Two person psychology

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960421137     PISSN: 13642537     EISSN: 14695901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13642537.2010.516067     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Brandchaft, B., & Stolorow, R.D. (1994). The difficult patient. In R.D. Stolorow, G.E. Atwood, & B. Brandchaft (Eds.), The intersubjective perspective (pp. 93-112). Northvale, NJ and London: Jason Aronson.
2. Greenberg, J., & Mitchell, S.M. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Hoffman, I.Z. (1991). Discussion: Toward a social-constructivist view of the psychoanalytic situation. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 1, 74-105.
4. Hoffman, I.Z. (1996). The intimate and ironic authority of the psychoanalyst's presence. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 65, 102-136.
5. Mitchell, S.A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
6. Mitchell, S.A. (2000). Relationality: From attachment to intersubjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ and London: The Analytic Press.
7. Stern, D.B. (1997). Unformulated experience: From dissociation to imagination in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
8. Stolorow, R.D., & Atwood, G.E. (1992). Contexts of being: The intersubjectivist foundation of psychological life. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
9. Wallerstein, R.S. (1998). The new American psychoanalysis: A commentary. Journal of The American Psychoanalytic Association, 46, 1021-1043.