Stephen A. Mitchell, Relational Psychoanalysis, and Empirical Data.

Abstract

Stephen A. Mitchell's theoretical writings are examined, with particular emphasis on his differences with drive theory, the consequences of his recommendation for greater involvement by the analyst, his (naive) trust in psychoanalytic self-correction, and the problems that follow from his belief that empirical data have little to contribute to psychoanalysis.Stephen A. Mitchell died unexpectedly on December 21, 2000, at the age of 54. It was a tragic loss because he was already one of the most influential and articulate leaders in psychoanalysis and he had a great deal more to contribute. His book with Greenberg Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory (Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983) sold 44,000 copies in the English edition alone (Spezzano, 2001, p. 10) and was instrumental in catapulting object relations theories into a leading place in American psychoanalysis. It was followed by Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis (Mitchell, 1988), Hope and Dread in Psychoanalysis (Mitchell, 1993), and Influence and Autonomy in Psychoanalysis (Mitchell, 1997).His obituary notices described a man of enormous enthusiasm, discipline, and intelligence, whose caring and warmth attracted huge numbers of students and followers, making him "the most sought after teacher at NYU and at White, a mentor beyond parallel" (Ghent, 2001, p. 7). A founder of the relational school in psychoanalysis, he was a thoughtful (and persistent) critic of the psychoanalytic drive model. In contrast to a good deal of psychoanalytic writing, so often turgid, tedious, and impenetrable, Mitchell's prose is so well written it looks effortless. Friends and critics alike would have to agree that few have had such powerful influence on contemporary psychoanalysis.I am indebted to a number of colleagues for their counsel in the preparation of this essay. Drs.

Thirty Years of Explicitly Integrative Scholarship: Comparing Phd and Psyd Contributions

“…As for PhD students in clinical psychology, it is an open secret that most aspire to clinical practice, even when they are in prestigious secular programs that are heavily oriented toward research. Masling (2003) complained that students and faculty engage in what he called a "charade" and a "cozy arrangement" that is ubiquitous in researchoriented programs:…”

“…PhD and PsyD degrees were created with different foci. The PhD, according to the Boulder model, was designed to produce students who were both scientists and practitioners; the PsyD degree was created in reaction to the shortcomings-if not the outright failure-of the Boulder model as it was typically applied, something Masling (2003) characterized as an institutional folie à deux between faculty and PhD students in research-oriented programs. The PsyD degree, born of the Vail model, has produced and will continue to produce students who are competent clinicians.…”

The Ego Impairment Index and the Reality–Fantasy Scale: Comment on Viglione, Perry, and Meyer (2003)

“…It therefore strongly advocates the current integrative approach to Rorschach interpretation and fits into the view of psychoanalytic psychologists vigorously arguing that empirical research is needed as a necessary component of psychoanalytic theorizing (Masling, 2003).…”

A Critique of Relational Psychoanalysis.

“…You have split my word 'penis' into syllables and now it has no meaning. Masling's (2003) claim that clinical data is "not empirical" (p. 597) since it relies 16 on the qualitative enactments and analysis of experience, not merely culled from the analyst's clinical phenomenology, but also empirically investigated by psychoanalytic psychotherapy researchers including Gill, Hoffman, Luborsky, Strupp, and Safran, just to name a few.…”