|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
Decentering Relational Theory: A Comparative Critique invites
relational theorists to contemplate the influence, overlaps, and
relationship between relational theory and other perspectives.
Self-critique was the focus of De-Idealizing Relational Theory.
Decentering Relational Theory pushes critique in a different
direction by explicitly engaging the questions of theoretical and
clinical overlap - and lack thereof - with writers from other
psychoanalytic orientations. In part, this comparison involves
critique, but in part, it does not. It addresses issues of
influence, both bidirectional and unidimensional. Our authors took
up this challenge in different ways. Like our authors in
De-Idealizing, writers who contributed to Decentering were asked to
move beyond their own perspective without stereotyping alternate
perspectives. Instead, they seek to expand our understanding of the
convergences and divergences between different relational
perspectives and those of other theories. Whether to locate
relational thought in a broader theoretical envelope, make links to
other theories, address critiques leveled at us, or push relational
thinking forward, our contributors thought outside the box. The
kinds of comparisons they were asked to make were challenging. We
are grateful to them for having taken up this challenge.
Decentering Relational Theory: A Comparative Critique will appeal
to psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists across the
theoretical spectrum.
Self-examination and self-critique: for psychoanalytic patients,
this is the conduit to growth. Yet within the field, psychoanalysts
haven't sufficiently utilized their own methodology or subjected
their own preferred approaches to systematic and critical
self-examination. Across theoretical divides, psychoanalytic
writers and clinicians have too often responded to criticism with
defensiveness rather than reflectivity. De-Idealizing Relational
Theory attempts to rectify this for the relational field. This book
is a first in the history of psychoanalysis; it takes internal
dissension and difference seriously rather than defensively. Rather
than saying that the other's reading of relational theory is wrong,
distorted, or a misrepresentation, this book is interested in
querying how theory lends itself to such characterizations. How
have psychoanalysts participated in conveying this portrayal to
their critics? Might this dissension illuminate blind-spot(s) and
highlight new areas of growth? It's a challenge to engage in
psychoanalytic self-critique. To do so requires that we move beyond
our own assumptions and deeply held beliefs about what moves the
treatment process and how we can best function within it. To step
aside from ourselves, to question the assumed, to take the
critiques of others seriously, demands more than an absence of
defensiveness. It requires that we step into the shoes of the
psychoanalytic Other and suspend not only our theories, but our
emotional investment in them. There are a range of ways in which
our authors took up that challenge. Some revisted the assumptions
that underlay early relational thinking and expanded their sources
(Greenberg & Aron). Some took up specific aspects of relational
technique and unpacked their roots and evolution (Mark, Cooper).
Some offered an expanded view of what constitutes relational theory
and technique (Seligman, Corbett, Grossmark). Some more directly
critiqued aspects of relational theory and technique (Berman,
Stern). And some took on a broader critique of relational theory or
technique (Layton, Slochower). Unsurprisingly, no single essay
examined the totality of relational thinking, its theoretical and
clinical implications. This task would be herculean both
practically and psychologically. We're all invested in aspects of
what we think and what we do; at best, we examine some, but never
all of our assumptions and ideas. We recognize, retrospectively,
how very challenging a task this was; it asked writers to engage in
what we might think of as a self-analysis of the
countertransference. Taken together these essays represent a
significant effort at self-critique and we are enormously proud of
it. Each chapter critically assesses and examines aspects of
relational theory and technique, considers its current state and
its relations to other psychoanalytic approaches. De-Idealizing
Relational Theory will appeal to all relational psychoanalysts and
psychoanalytic psychotherapists.
Decentering Relational Theory: A Comparative Critique invites
relational theorists to contemplate the influence, overlaps, and
relationship between relational theory and other perspectives.
Self-critique was the focus of De-Idealizing Relational Theory.
Decentering Relational Theory pushes critique in a different
direction by explicitly engaging the questions of theoretical and
clinical overlap - and lack thereof - with writers from other
psychoanalytic orientations. In part, this comparison involves
critique, but in part, it does not. It addresses issues of
influence, both bidirectional and unidimensional. Our authors took
up this challenge in different ways. Like our authors in
De-Idealizing, writers who contributed to Decentering were asked to
move beyond their own perspective without stereotyping alternate
perspectives. Instead, they seek to expand our understanding of the
convergences and divergences between different relational
perspectives and those of other theories. Whether to locate
relational thought in a broader theoretical envelope, make links to
other theories, address critiques leveled at us, or push relational
thinking forward, our contributors thought outside the box. The
kinds of comparisons they were asked to make were challenging. We
are grateful to them for having taken up this challenge.
Decentering Relational Theory: A Comparative Critique will appeal
to psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists across the
theoretical spectrum.
Self-examination and self-critique: for psychoanalytic patients,
this is the conduit to growth. Yet within the field, psychoanalysts
haven't sufficiently utilized their own methodology or subjected
their own preferred approaches to systematic and critical
self-examination. Across theoretical divides, psychoanalytic
writers and clinicians have too often responded to criticism with
defensiveness rather than reflectivity. De-Idealizing Relational
Theory attempts to rectify this for the relational field. This book
is a first in the history of psychoanalysis; it takes internal
dissension and difference seriously rather than defensively. Rather
than saying that the other's reading of relational theory is wrong,
distorted, or a misrepresentation, this book is interested in
querying how theory lends itself to such characterizations. How
have psychoanalysts participated in conveying this portrayal to
their critics? Might this dissension illuminate blind-spot(s) and
highlight new areas of growth? It's a challenge to engage in
psychoanalytic self-critique. To do so requires that we move beyond
our own assumptions and deeply held beliefs about what moves the
treatment process and how we can best function within it. To step
aside from ourselves, to question the assumed, to take the
critiques of others seriously, demands more than an absence of
defensiveness. It requires that we step into the shoes of the
psychoanalytic Other and suspend not only our theories, but our
emotional investment in them. There are a range of ways in which
our authors took up that challenge. Some revisted the assumptions
that underlay early relational thinking and expanded their sources
(Greenberg & Aron). Some took up specific aspects of relational
technique and unpacked their roots and evolution (Mark, Cooper).
Some offered an expanded view of what constitutes relational theory
and technique (Seligman, Corbett, Grossmark). Some more directly
critiqued aspects of relational theory and technique (Berman,
Stern). And some took on a broader critique of relational theory or
technique (Layton, Slochower). Unsurprisingly, no single essay
examined the totality of relational thinking, its theoretical and
clinical implications. This task would be herculean both
practically and psychologically. We're all invested in aspects of
what we think and what we do; at best, we examine some, but never
all of our assumptions and ideas. We recognize, retrospectively,
how very challenging a task this was; it asked writers to engage in
what we might think of as a self-analysis of the
countertransference. Taken together these essays represent a
significant effort at self-critique and we are enormously proud of
it. Each chapter critically assesses and examines aspects of
relational theory and technique, considers its current state and
its relations to other psychoanalytic approaches. De-Idealizing
Relational Theory will appeal to all relational psychoanalysts and
psychoanalytic psychotherapists.
|
|