Mapping the Mind of a Relational Psychoanalyst

Psychoanalysis has fallen out of favour as a primary modality generally replaced by cognitive-behavioral and other evidenced based programs that now dominate and influence the practice of psychology. This has occurred for many reasons but in part, psychoanalysis has been remiss in explaining itself to the larger psychological community, leaving bookshelves rather bare of texts that describe the core fundamentals of psychoanalytic practice.

Consequently, I began “mapping” my mind as it operates within the clinical hour to assist in the discovery and articulation of the primary fundamentals of an analytic model. In this mapping I began to see a pattern in how theoretical constructs occurred in actual practice with my patients. The pattern went something like this. The patient would stimulate some thought and/or affect in me. I would begin to consider this stimulus from developmental, early object relations, affective and cultural perspectives while also considering defensive structures, interpersonal relations and how the narrative unfolded. I metabolized these relational and affective complexities with questions such as, “what the hell is going on here anyway,” or “what is the feeling or thought trying to express.” Furthermore, I attended to countertransference reactions, understanding them not only as something of my own, but as access to the inner workings and interpersonal world of the patient. I simultaneously imagined ways I could articulate my experience to the patient, mindful of the possible effect it may have upon our relationship. Holding to a particular stance of courageous speech/disciplined spontaneity, I spoke honestly and openly about what I was experiencing, aware of the cost of entering into possible ruptures and enactments and the effort required in “working through” difficult dynamics. Having mapped my own mind and finding it useful, I decided to advance the study of my own “map” by constructing a qualitative study “mining the minds” of seasoned analytic clinicians. I did so by conducting in-depth interviews of psychoanalysts who, on average, had over twenty-five years of experience and who identified with contemporary theories of relational psychoanalysis. To analyze the data, I utilized Grounded Theory Analysis (GTA). Compatible with psychoanalysis GTA lets the data speak, while recognizing the researcher and participant co-construct the data. In GTA the researcher repeatedly asks, “What is going on here?” “What are the core issues that are at stake?” “What is trying to be worked out?”

To enhance confidence in my discoveries from the Grounded Theory Analysis, I compared my findings to a.) a literature review of fifteen articles where seventy-five students were assigned to locate practices within theory, b.) a review of the 2008 Symposium on Relational Psychoanalysis sponsored by the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and c.) a review of the landmark meta-analyses research conducted by Blagys and Hilsenroth on defining techniques in psychoanalysis. What emerged from the data was the following core competencies:

• Therapeutic Intent
• Therapeutic Stance
• Deep Listening/Immersion
  
• Relational Dynamic: There and Then and the Here and Now
  
• Patterning and Linking
  
• Repetition and Working Through
  
• Courageous Speech/Disciplined Spontaneity
  
• Love
  

No two analysts work in the same fashion and given the uniqueness of each relationship and the working through of what happens in that relationship, it must be so. However, how we position ourselves (therapeutic intent and therapeutic stance); how we reflect (deep listening; attending to the there and then/here and now and patterning/linking) and how we engage (repetition/working through and courageous speech/disciplined spontaneity) appear to be universal practices that can serve as a helpful “map” for conducting our practices while acknowledging and appreciating the intuitive, organic nature of our work.

Dr. Barsness holds a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology – Los Angeles, an MA in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Postgraduate Certificate in Family Studies from the Los Angeles Family Institute, and has completed an intensive training program in Psychoanalytic Theory from the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Studies. Dr. Barsness also holds a Clinical Associate Professor appointment at the University of Washington in the Department of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences. Prior to coming to The Seattle School, Dr. Barsness was Director of Clinical Training at Seattle Pacific University. He has also taught at Fuller Theological Seminary and Antioch University. His primary interest is in the intersection of psychoanalytic thought and theology. He is a member of the American Psychological Association, the Christian Association of Psychology, the Center for Object Relations, and the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Studies. He also enjoys forays into acting and played the part of Creon in Oedipus at Colonus.

Writings

Core Competencies of Relational Psychoanalysis

“Anger and Angst: Understanding Teenage Hostility,” in The Comprehensive Guide to Youth Ministry Counseling

“The Changing Culture of Faculty Work: A Pedagogy of Cultural Dignity for Engaging the Diverse Other,” co-written with Richard Kim in Journal of Theological Education

“Playing Our Cards Face Up: The Positive Power of Arousal and Disclosure in the Therapeutic Setting,” co-written with Brad Strawn in Journal of Psychology and Christianity

“You, Me and Thee: A Look at Christian and Psychoanalysis,” in the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study’s quarterly newsletter

“Surrender and Transcendence in the Analytic Encounter” in Journal of Psychology and Christianity

Dissident Discipleship — A Spirituality of self surrender, love of God and love of neighbour

“The Relational Turn in Psychoanalytic Supervision” in Journal of Contemporary Psychoanalysis