This article outlines and elaborates on the main features of the authors' relational model: a reconceptualization of transference and countertransference, the role of enactments in the clinical setting, the importance of the use of self, and the worker's participation as a change agent. Use of this model will enhance clinical services, reduce failed treatments and therapeutic impasses, and diminish the incidence of boundary violations. This conceptual framework has been used successfully by the authors in residential settings with homeless individuals, persons with chronic mental illness and substance abuse, and ex-offenders. Additionally, the authors have found it useful in child welfare settings as well as in teaching and supervising students and clinical staff. Clinical examples are provided to illustrate the model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronL. (1996). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
2.
BenjaminJ. (1998). Shadow of the other. New York: Routledge.
3.
BordenW. (2000). The relational paradigm in contemporary psychoanalysis: Toward a psychodynamically informed social work perspective. Social Service Review, 74, 352–373.
4.
CooperS. (2000). Objects of hope: Exploring possibility and limit in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
5.
DaviesJ. M., & FrawleyM. G. (1994). Treating the adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse: A psychoanalytic perspective. New York: Basic Books.
6.
EhrenbergD. (1992). The intimate edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
7.
GanzerC., & OrnsteinE. D. (1999). Beyond parallel process: Relational perspectives on field instruction. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 231–246.
8.
GanzerC., & OrnsteinE. D. (2002). A sea of trouble: A relational approach to the culturally sensitive treatment of a severely disturbed client. Clinical Social Work Journal, 30, 127–144.
9.
GanzerC., & OrnsteinE. D. (2004). Regression, self-disclosure, and the teach or treat dilemma: Implications of a relational approach for social work supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 32, 431–449.
10.
GillM.M. (1982). Analysis of the transference. Volume I. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
11.
GoldsteinE. (1995). Ego psychology and social work practice (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
12.
GormanJ. (1993). Postmodernism and the conduct of inquiry. Affilia, 8, 247–264.
13.
HeimanP. (1950). On counter-transference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 31, 81–84.
14.
HoffmanI. Z. (1998). Ritual and spontaneity in the psychoanalytic process: A dialectical-constructivist view. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
15.
MarodaK. (1991). The power of countertransference. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
16.
MarodaK. (1999). Seduction, surrender, and transformation. Hillside, NJ: Analytic Press.
17.
MarodaK. (2002). No place to hide. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 38, 101–121.
18.
MitchellS. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
MitchellS. (1993). Hope and dread in psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books.
20.
OgdenT. (1994). Subject of analysis. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
21.
OrnsteinE. D., & GanzerC. (1997). Mitchell's relational conflict model: An analysis of its usefulness in clinical social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25, 391–405.
22.
OrnsteinE. D., & GanzerC. (2000). Strengthening the strengths perspective: An integrative relational approach. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 7(3), 57–78.
23.
OrnsteinE. D., & GanzerC. (2003). Dialectical constructivism in clinical social work: An exploration of Irwin Hoffman's approach to treatment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 31, 355–369.
24.
RackerH. (1968). Transference and countertransference. New York: International Universities Press.
25.
SaariC. (2003). Editorial. Clinical Social Work Journal, 31, 101–105.
26.
ScarffJ. S. (1992). Projective identification and the use of the therapist's self. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
27.
StolorowR. D., BrandchaftB. & AtwoodG. E. (1983). Intersubjectivity in psychoanalytic treatment: With special reference to archaic states. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 47, 117–128.
28.
TanseyM. J., & BurkeW. F. (1989). Understanding countertransference: From projective identification to empathy. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
