PSYCHOANALYSIS - TREATMENT OF CONFLICT OR DEFICIT

Recent years have seen an increasing polarization between relational m odels and the classical-structural model in psychoanalysis. Indeed, ma ny relational thinkers argue that the two models are inherently incomp atible. In this article, I suggest that such models are more usefully viewed as complementary. Thus, I critique relational models to demonst rate the clinical losses caused by the deletion of structural construc ts. Jettisoning these constructs leads to different analytic technique s that seem to lack the depth offered by classical analytic technique. I suggest that the structural model and its technique are based on an emphasis on internal conflict being pathogenic, whereas relational mo dels and technique arise from an emphasis on deficit. Consequently, cl assical analysts emphasize the role of interpretation of conflict as c urative, and relational analysts emphasize the external interaction be tween patient and analyst. Likewise, relational analysts interpret tra nsference rapidly, forestalling the emergence of a full-fledged transf erence neurosis while emphasizing the analyst's role in stimulating tr ansference reactions. In contrast, classical analysts allow a transfer ence neurosis to develop, believing that it offers the best opportunit y to analyze internal conflicts as they operate in current-day mental functioning. Exploring the analyst's role in stimulating transference is only the first step toward analyzing the more essential internal co nflicts causing the transference perceptions.