In this article I track the shift in my practice from the ‘analytic’ towards a ‘relational’. I contrast the positivist stance of the classical analyst with a post-modernist stance of the relationist. I argue that whilst the ‘analytic’ norm requires the therapist to be opaque and detached, the ‘relational’ stance requires the therapist to be involved and transparent. I suggest that a form of radical uncertainty is at the heart of the therapeutic process. I argue for the therapist navigating the turbulent waters of radical uncertainty not through composed neutrality, but through a value-laden commitment to their partial sense of things in the moment.
DalalF. (2011) Thought Paralysis: The Virtues of Discrimination. London: Karnac.
2.
FairfieldS.LaytonL.StackS. (2002) Bringing the Plague: Toward a Postmodern Psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press.
3.
ForsterE.M. (1927) Aspects of the Novel. Florida: Harcourt Inc.
4.
FoulkesS.H. (1984) Introduction to Group-Analytic Psychotherapy. London: Karnac.
5.
FoulkesS.H. (1986) Group Analytic Psychotherapy, Methods and Principles. London: Karnac.
6.
GarfinkelH. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
7.
GreenbergJ. (2002) ‘The Analyst’s Participation: A New Look’ in FarifieldS.LaytonL.StackC. pp. 325–48. New York: Other Press.
8.
GreenbergJ.R.MitchellS.A. (1983) Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory. London: Harvard University Press.
9.
HinshelwoodR.D. (1991) A Dictionary of Kleinian Thought. London: Free Association Books.
10.
HoffmanI.Z. (2002) ‘Toward a Social-Constructivist View of the Psychoanalytic Situation’ in FarifieldS.LaytonL.StackS. pp. 33–68. New York: Other Press.
