Relational Theory and the Practice of Psychotherapy
In Stock. Raising an Emotionally Intelligent Child. Maps of Meaning The Architecture of Belief. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Dummies 2nd Edition. Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy 10th Edition. Groups: Process and Practice 10th Edition. Art Therapy Sourcebook Sourcebooks.
Mating in Captivity Unlocking Erotic Intelligence. View Wishlist. Our Awards Booktopia's Charities. Are you sure you would like to remove these items from your wishlist? Remove From Wishlist Cancel.
- Relational Theory and the Practice of Psychotherapy on Apple Books?
- What is Relational Integrative Psychotherapy?!
- A Fathers Love (Lost & Found, Book 6) (Harlequin Intrigue Series #498).
- Antarctic Ecosystems An Extreme Environment in a Changing World.
It will be valuable to psychodynamic therapists working towards more effective approaches to intervention, and to cognitive-behavioral therapists who wish to explore the richness of the psychotherapeutic relationship and of inner experience. It would be an excellent text for a graduate seminar exploring contemporary approaches to psychoanalysis or integrative approaches to psychotherapy.
This is a book of utmost importance to the field of psychotherapy, one that will benefit both the beginning student and the most seasoned practitioner. Wachtel elucidates the radical clinical implications of the relational turn in psychoanalysis.https://bardisinachgesch.ml
Relational Theory and the Practice of Psychotherapy : Paul L. Wachtel :
He shows how this emerging contextualist paradigm lends itself to meaningful integration with a range of modern psychotherapies. Wachtel is not only an important clinical contributor; he is also a master teacher. You will want to read and reread this book. He brings together the whole range of relational thinking in psychoanalysis in presenting a fully contextual understanding of human emotional experience and its therapeutic transformation.
In so doing, he spells out in rich clinical detail the implications of a relational perspective and sensibility for the actual practice of psychotherapy. I highly recommend this clinician-friendly book to students, trainees, and seasoned practitioners of psychotherapy. Wachtel has artfully charted the sea change from classical to intersubjective formulations and has made clear what the relational turn means for clinicians. His writing is direct and unaffected, and yet so nuanced that both novice therapists and seasoned colleagues will benefit from his perspective. In a voice that is unfailingly respectful and integrative, Wachtel explores core elements of the contemporary relational movement, ties those themes to relevant clinical challenges, and in the process provides a condensed but remarkably comprehensive course in the history of psychoanalytic ideas.
This book will become a classic; it belongs in the libraries of therapists of all orientations. I am completely delighted that this book has been written, and even more pleased that it was Paul Wachtel who did it. Who else could have brought the ideas and clinical practice of Relational psychoanalysis to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapists? No one. Wachtel has hit the ball out of the park.
See a Problem?
He shows Relational psychoanalysis to be the examination and creation of meaning in its interpersonal context, and illustrates how old meanings, themselves created in the contexts of their times, are recontextualized in the here and now. Rogers had the guts to question to unquestionable, and say that the king was naked. In so doing, he probably overdid, but I would say that it was perfectly understandable at that time and place. He substituted a thoroughly accepting, reassuring, validating stance for the default position: Where a stern father was, a tender mother shall be.
At that time, it was a great revolution, and an extremely brave one the psychoanalytic establishment attacked and derided him for that. A few decades have passed since Rogers' revolution. A father-centered culture has been replaced by and large by a mother-centered one the revolution of which Rogers was an avant-garde has reached its peak in the meantime: l'imagination au pauvoir, it is forbidden to forbid, flower children and so on. It seems to me that the pendulum has swung far enough on the maternal side, and the time may be ripe for a more balanced position.
However, the provision of a secure base, where the patient can feel unconditionally accepted, reassured, and validated, and where he can risk exposure to whatever he is afraid of and explore all his potentialities, seems to be throughout your book the only key to improvement and healing--besides, of course, the recognition of the vicious circles that keep him stuck and their breaking.
Nowhere in the book is a more "paternal" position, challenging and confronting, taken into consideration as a possible choice for a given patient at a given moment. Challenge and confrontation of resistances and renunciation of illusions seem to be anathema to you. It seems to me that the strong maternal bias that characterizes today a great part of the relational field furthers the view of the patient as a small child who basically needs huge doses of acceptance and reassurance and little else, whereas the other child, the Freudian one, who clings to all sorts of illusions thriving on the ground of infantile omnipotence, seems to have completely disappeared from the horizon.
You seem to believe that all attitude of confrontation, all request of renunciation stem from a position of unwarranted suspicion and criticism. My objection is that this might be, but it is not necessarily so. In my experience and in that of many other therapists, a "paternal", confronting vertex belongs to the field of psychotherapy no less legitimately than a "maternal", accepting vertex. A proper dialectic between these two poles is essential for a balanced management of therapy, if the two basic attitudes are seen as the therapist's responses to the two corresponding basic developmental needs, one of finding acceptance and reassurance, and the other of learning to face reality.
Both acceptance and confrontation belong to the logic or the essence of any care giving, to the extent that on one side we all need to find secure bases "from the cradle to the grave", and on the other we all need to learn to face the real, cruel world that is not there to protect, support, and validate us in the first place. If a ruthless, unforgiving world is out there, shouldn't we begin to train to cope with it in the protected environment of the parental or the therapeutic relationship?
You will probably disagree with my statement that there is an intrinsic logic or essence to the care of the self. You would say that I have an essentialist vision, and a developmental one on top of it, both of which you take issue with. In your contextualist view there is nothing like an essence of man, and the very idea that the patient has to "grow up" is another anathema of yours.
Yes, I am both contextualist and essentialist. And I am persuaded that at least in the process-oriented type of psychotherapy the patient has to grow up, as has the therapist along with him. The clarification of these points brings us to a second area of difference between us. The very possibility of objective observation is aggressively challenged by the post-modern Zeitgeist. So, all attempts to "keep out of the way", or "bracket out" one's subjectivity not only miss the aim of producing objective knowledge, but the result is even worse, to the extent that the contribution of our subjectivity is ignored.
For compelling that these arguments may sound, they may be faulty in more than one sense. Firstly, "bracketing out", or "keeping out of the way" does not mean "ignoring". Let us refer to the famous Bion's formula of "freedom from memory and desire", blamed by Wachtel as "utterly and quintessentially a one-person conception" p.
However, the injunction to eschew memory, desire, and understanding is not a call to suppress the flow of memories, wishes, images and thoughts that spontaneously present themselves to the mind of the analyst, as Bion made it clear when he realized that he had been misunderstood Bion, , p. It is not desirable to suppress desires, as it is not conceivable to suppress concepts. Yet it is both desirable and conceivable to be free, i. Bracketing out or suspending is not suppressing, it is just distancing oneself from whatever prevents one from being here and now.
It is freedom from thought, in favor of thinking. Thanks to this freedom, or to the extent of this freedom, the analyst can observe both what belongs to the patient alone, and what belongs to the interaction between patient and analyst beside, we should add, what belongs to the analyst alone "and be able to sort out what belongs to whom. Without this freedom, how could the therapist distinguish the reality of their interaction from their subjectivity? More in general, how could the observer say anything about how things essentially are?
If we were completely incapable of objective observation, we could only speak of the way we subjectively transform things even as we observe them, and say nothing at all of their essence. Ironically, I think that Paul's last book is a great book just because he says many convincing things of how things essentially are. One can read the words in essence, essentially, even quintessentially, almost on every page of the first part of his book, accompanying his accurate and astute observations.
His observations are not empirically supported, because empirical research has nothing to say on the essence of things: all it can say is about the quantitative, measurable properties of things. Galileo, almost four hundred years ago, deliberately renounced to "try the essences", in favor of the quantitative, measurable aspects of things, and the modern science was born. This choice has brought about immense advantages, at the cost of the loss of something essential, the very essence of things.
Therefore, I don't mean at all that empirical science has nothing to contribute to the field of psychotherapy"I only say that it cannot be the only science for psychotherapy. It must be complemented by a descriptive, qualitative science, based on accurate, faithful observations of the essence of things. And Paul is a great descriptive scientist, not an empirical one.
His cyclical-contextual model is thoroughly based on good observations, not on Randomized Controlled Trials or things like that. Why does Paul believe that "the pervasive influence of others in our lives" is something real and indisputable? Because it "is something that can be observed" p. It is not a matter of taste, "It is about whether the formulation is adequate to account for the clinical data. Those data "like the data that derive from more controlled experiments" are always to some degree theory-infused, difficult to disentangle fully from the preconceptions we bring to bear in the process of making observations.
But they are not reducible to those preconceptions" ibid, italic in the text. That's right.
We do have preconceptions, but we are capable of disentangling the objectivity of our observation from them. Not fully, for sure "we must content ourselves of a good enough objectivity. But in principle up to a certain extent, never fully, we can free our attention"our transcendental subjectivity" from our memory and desire, preconceptions and expectations" our empirical subjectivity. Yet this freedom does not come by itself, it cannot be taken for granted.
- Chaos : a program collection for the PC; with many numerical experiments and a CD-ROM?
- Web App Development Book: Guide to Ember.js.
- UXL Encyclopedia of Science (Vol. 2 At -Car)!
- Shadows on the Seine: Paris 1952.
- Relational Theory and the Practice of Psychotherapy.
It requires discipline of attention and genuine dialogue, as said before. Therefore, in the discussion of this case I would call Paul as a witness against his own surprising conviction that we cannot have a good enough capacity of knowing things objectively"unless he is fighting the claim of a perfect, absolute objectivity: but who would be so fool as to put forward such a claim? If it were not so, all Paul's observations would be worthless unless or until they are empirically validated, which means that they would be definitely worthless, because empirical research cannot validate the essentiality of anything.
The logic of the two kinds of research is completely different from one another, I would say opposite. Paul gets to something essential inasmuch as he disentangles it from all theoretical preconceptions that infuse his observational data. It is only thanks to the neutralization of all theoretical preconceptions that Paul can arrive to "more general principles that underlie all good clinical work" and highlight "convergences that have been obscured by political and linguistic divisions" p. This is the very purpose of a general science of psychotherapy: to describe the general principles and patterns that are operating in the practice of all therapists, independent of, or rather obscured by, their theoretical, political and linguistic persuasions and allegiances.
Descriptive research is meta- or trans-theoretical. Instead, hypothetic-deductive research works on the premise that our observations are insuperably theory-laden, i. It takes the theoretical infusion of all our observations as a fact that it does not challenge at all"it rather makes its basic premise of this undisputed fact. We cannot see anything without theoretical lenses, says the ideology of empirical research; but we can find out which lenses work better on our nose.
Empirical research is thoroughly pragmatic, it is completely unconcerned with matters of essence or truth.
What is Relational Integrative Psychotherapy?
It cannot verify anything, but it can falsify wrong theories. Paul Wachtel, October 29, First of all, thank you for all the nice things you say. I really appreciated those comments, especially because it was clear that you had "gotten" what I was saying in so many ways. I also appreciated very much your comments regarding Rogers and Jung. I have never done much reading of Jung, so I can't comment much on what you said other than to acknowledge that indeed I do not cite him and haven't been very aware of where there are overlaps.
With regard to Rogers, whose ideas I am much more familiar with I have only an amateur's understanding of Jung, not the subtleties , I think you are absolutely right. I think I actually became more aware of the convergences with Rogers after I finished the book. Partly it derived from being asked to write a commentary article on Rogers's classic "necessary and sufficient conditions" paper, which led me to immerse myself in his work.
Partly it came from thinking more explicitly about the "fourth" leg of my integrative approach "that is, after first addressing psychoanalysis and behavior therapy, then extending the integration to family systems thinking, I have increasingly been interested in the "experiential" approaches as a fourth dimension to be integrated, and in so doing I have been thinking more about Rogers.
I've also noted, in observing my own comments as a therapist, both for a new book based on a video of my work and some transcripts, and in watching over my own shoulder in my sessions, that a lot of what I do sounds sort of like Rogers, in the sense of restating what the patient has just said. Of course, my aim is more "directive" than his, to promote exposure, lead the patient toward important new patterns of behavior, etc. I disagree with his faith in the "spontaneous growth" hypothesis, because I see things as more complicated than that. But I do find that I have renewed respect for his work, deriving from both the theme of rooting exploration in being supportive and facilitative rather than "suspicious" and simply from watching what I actually do.
Where I think you and I diverge most and I think we have differed in this way before centers on the mother-father distinction. In part, I am not as struck that "A father-centered culture has been replaced by and large by a mother-centered one. And then you've got this guy Berlusconi over there, also not quite Mother Teresa. I do understand the kind of balance you are asking for.