Relational Underpinnings of Psychodynamics

Critics have long cast doubts on Feud’s emphasis on innate biological drives such as libido and aggression as the primary motivators of behavior and steered towards the relational aspects by positing that psychological development is rooted in early caregiver interactions. Indeed, as social beings, our experiences are perpetually centered in relational dynamics and the broader social structure, shedding light on Mitchell’s perspective that we are fundamentally shaped by early and ongoing relational experiences (1988). In this paper, I will briefly discuss Object Relations Theory, Attachment Theory, Intersubjectivity, and multicultural perspective that contribute to the therapeutic relationship as a vehicle for change.

Object Relations Theory proposes that people develop mental images or concepts of themselves and others based on their early interactions with caregivers and these internal representations then serve as guidance for future relationships and interactions (Mitchell, 1988). Based on this view, Mary Ainsworth and her students delineated four attachment patterns that categorize people’s comfortability of intimate relationships and fear of abandonment. Similarly, this view suggests that though attachment styles emerge and exist most evidently in early childhood, the patterns formed can either continue or change during adulthood, shaping romantic relationships, friendships, and even therapeutic dynamics (Landa & Duschinsky, 2013). These perspectives converge within the relational paradigm, which holds that pathologies do not arise from internal conflicts alone but from disruptions in relational patterns that persist throughout life.

In therapeutic dynamics, the traditional psychodynamic view posits the relationship as a one-sided observation with the therapist being the sole analyst without drawing feedback from how the client interacts with the clinician. Intersubjectivity emphasizes a co-created experience between the therapist and the patient, specifically by delving into the interactive patterns between the two that mirror that client’s own relational patterns in his or her personal life; relational practitioners can then utilize the therapeutic relationship to redress client’s troubled relational or attachment patterns and also acknowledge their subjectivity and its impact on transference-countertransference dynamics and allow for a more egalitarian alliance, where the therapist’s vulnerabilities and cultural biases are also openly discussed (Aron, 1996).

It is also important to note that clinicians should view relational theory through a multicultural stance as it adopts a social-constructivist lens, recognizing that individuals internalize cultural narratives, power structures, and societal norms. For instance, Tummala-Narra (2015) highlighted how clients’ Indigenous narratives are shaped by race, class, and migration, which intersect with therapeutic dialogue. This framework challenges Eurocentric diagnostic systems such as DSM-5 that pathologize non-Western expressions of distress, such as hwa-byung in Korea or amae in Japan. Tummala-Narra also commented that traditional psychodynamic models often frame resistance as an intrapsychic defense; relational theorists, however, will likely reinterpret resistance as a response to perceived threats to the client’s cultural or social identity: For example, a client may withhold indigenous healing practices to avoid therapist misunderstanding, reflecting both self-protection and cultural resilience (2015).

The following content will delve into the importance of relational perspective in psychodynamic work with a multicultural lens, while utilizing the case studies illustrated in Tummala-Narra’s book. To begin with, the relational emphasis on the therapist’s self-reflection can help mitigate power imbalances. Tummala-Narra’s (2015) discussed her case with Gina, an Afro-indigenous client who struggled with fears of judgment regarding social classes, Tummala-Narra’s own awareness of her class privilege allowed her to address Gina’s fears of judgment. Without relational attunement, clinicians can risk imposing dominant cultural narratives, perpetuating client marginalization. Tummala-Narra provided another case of her client Maricel, a Honduran immigrant, who conveyed her trauma through her gift of a feeding bowl that symbolized her trauma of separation from her daughter and a desire for mutual care. Tummala-Narra’s own reflections highlighted how her own cultural background, coming from an Indian heritage valuing caregiving intersected with the client’s narrative, which raises questions about privilege, guilt, and unconscious dynamics (Tummala-Narra, 2015). Adopting a relational lens as such can help therapists decode such symbols without pathologizing them, thus fostering culturally responsive care.

Additionally, the relational focus on co-created narratives can enable clients to reclaim silenced and marginalized aspects of their identity. When Gina talked about her dreams in sessions, Tummala-Narra suggested that Gina’s dreams should be interpreted through her Ojibwa heritage, which exemplifies how relational space can also validate clients’ marginalized narratives (Tummala-Narra, 2015). This contrasts with the classical Freudian interpretations that might reduce her dreams to unresolved Oedipal conflicts. Last but not least, contemporary clients often grapple with intersectional identities. Relational theory’s flexibility can accommodate these complexities, whereas rigid psychodynamic frameworks may over-pathologize the differences. For example, labeling a client valuing familial interdependence as “enmeshment” ignores the collectivist cultural norms (Tummala-Narra, 2015).

References

Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. Routledge.

Landa, S., Duschinsky, R. (2013). Crittenden’s dynamic–maturational model of attachment and adaptation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17:326. doi: 10.1037/a003 2102

Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Harvard University Press.

Tummala-Narra, P. (2016) Psychoanalytic Theory and Cultural Competence in Psychotherapy. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association.