MODESOFRELATEDNESSINPSYCHOTHERAPY

Laing,WinnicottandRelationalPsychoanalysis
ByPeterWilberg
Introduction
This article attempts to bridge the gap between existential analysis, with its emphasis on
authenticityandauthenticrelating,andtheinterpretativestanceofpsychoanalysisbasedonthe
object relations theories of Winnicott, Guntrip and Kohut. It draws on the seminal insights
providedbyRDLaingpresentedinhisbookTheDividedSelf,arguingthatunliketheegothe
self,assuch,isneverdividedbutcanbestarvedofasenseofcorerelatednesswithothers.The
distinctionbetweentheegowithitsvariousmodesofobjectrelatednessontheonehand,andthe
selfwithitscapacityforcorerelatednessontheother,isusedtoclarifytheconceptofauthentic
relatingandrefineLaingsandWinnicottsdistinctionbetweenthefalseself,andthetrueor
innerself.Objectrelationstheoryisimportantforexistentialtherapists,becauseitdealswiththe
egosinternalrelationtotheself,thewaytheegorepresentsandhandlesthisselfasanobject.
Conversely,existentialanalysishascrucialimplicationsforobjectrelationstheory,whichreveals
byitsverynameanexclusiveconcentrationontheIItrelationbetweentheegoanditsinternal
objects,neglectingtheIYourelationofselfandother.ThisIYourelationismorethanjustan
ethicalstance.Itsfoundationistheontologicalrealityofsilentcommunication,thewaytheselfs
mostprivateperceptionsofotherscommunicatedirectlytothem,whethertheseperceptionsare
expressedornot.Onlythroughaconsciousandhealthyscissionofegoandselfcanthetherapist
begintoperceivethepatientsmodeofrelatednesstoothers(relationalanalysis)andtheinternal
egoself relation it reflects. Only then can the therapist use their own mode of relating and
communicating with the patient as the principal medium of therapeutic response (relational
therapy).

PhilosophyandPsychoanalysis
Psychoanalysis is implicitly philosophical. Conversely, philosophy has implicit psychoanalytic
dimensions.Relationalanalysisisthechildofananalyticandphilosophicalrelationshipthe
resultofamarriageofphilosophywithpsychoanalysis.Itisasynthesisoftheethicsofauthentic
relating and dialogue associated with Martin Buber and the fundamental ontology of Martin
Heidegger.ThepsychoanalyticrootsofrelationalanalysislieinWinnicott,Fairbairn,Guntripand
Kohut.Alltheseanalysts,likeLaing,acknowledgedbasic ontological issuesconfrontingcertain
typesofpatienttheirfeltlackandhugeneedforasenseofauthenticselfbeing.Theproblem
1

hereisnotrelationstootherpeoplebutwhetheroneisorhasaself.(Guntrip).Theysoughtto
understandtheindividual notjustinterms ofFreudianegopsychologybutintermsofaself
psychology(Kohut)andthefundamentalneedoftheselfforrelatednessandempathicresponse
fromitsenvironment.
Thechildthatistosurvivepsychologicallyisbornintoanempathicresponsivehumanmilieujust
asitisbornintoanatmospherethancontainsanoptimalamountofoxygen....anditsnascentself
expectsanempathicenvironmenttobeintunewithitsneedwishes,withthesameunquestioning
certitudeasitslungsmaybesaidtoexpectoxygen.Kohut
Butthewholeterminologyofobjectrelationsreflectsandreinforcesafundamentalconfusion
betweentheobjectifyingego(theCartesiansubject)andtheinnerorcoreselffromwhichit
emergestheselfbeingoftheindividual.
I feel we need to use the term ego in a more fundamental sense than that in which
psychoanalysishastraditionallyusedit,asrepresentingtheevolutionandrealisationoftheintrinsic
natureoftheself,andegoandselfarethesamething.Guntrip
The conflation of ego and self brings about a confusion between egorelatedness and object
relationsontheonehandandembodied,ethicalrelatingorcorerelatednessontheother.The
selfisregarded,liketheego,asasubjectrelatingtoobjects,albeitsubjectiveobjects(Winnicott)
orselfobjects(Kohut).Hence...thebasicdrivetoobjectrelationsisatthesametimethedrive
toselfdevelopment.(Guntrip).
ItwasMartinBuberwhofirstdistinguishedegorelatedness(theIItrelation)fromwhatIcall
corerelatedness (the IYou relation). But Buber himself never suggested that IIt relations
could be simply transcended or put aside. Relational analysis recognises self and ego, object
relatedness and corerelatedness, as distinct but fundamentally inseparable aspects of a human
being, and uses both object relations theory and fundamental ontology to explore the egoself
relation.
RelatingandRelationships

It seems a truism to assert that the whole of social and economic life is built upon human
relationships,andisshapedbythequalityofthoserelationships.Thatthelivesoffamiliesand
communities, corporations and nations is not a product of their collective value systems or
institutionalstructuresbutofthewayinwhichindividualsrelatetooneanotherwithinthegroup
whetherthisbeagroupoftwo,thecouple,oragroupoftwohundredoroftwothousand.Butto
speak of the way individuals relate to one another is not the same thing as to speak of
relationships.Alltoooftenpeopleseekrelationships(includingthetherapeuticrelationship)as
asanctuaryinwhichtheyareprotectedfromtheneedtoactuallyrelate.Althoughrelatingisthe
verylifeofrelationships,relationshipsarealltoooftenthedeathofrealrelating.
Behind the extramarital affairs and disrupted relationships that daily confront the marriage
guidanceorcouplescounsellorisaoncestablerelationshipinwhichtherewasnorealrelating
apointdisguisedbyreferencestoahistoryofpoorcommunicationbetweenthepartners.Onthe
onehandthetermpoorcommunicationherebecomesaeuphemismforamuchmoreseriousand
thoughtprovokinglackalackingcapacitytorelate.Ontheotherhand,theidentificationof
relatingwithcommunicationignoresthefactthatpeoplecanquiteeasilycommunicatewithone
another without actually relating to one another. It is a major thesis of this work that
communication, verbal and nonverbal, is in fact an indirect symbolic form of relating only.
Conversely,however,relatinginitstruest,mostauthenticsenseisindeedamostdirectandintimate
formofcommunication,acommunicationthattakesplacewithoutwordsandsymbols.Sucha
communicationrequiresacapacityforwhatIcallcorerelatingrelatingwithandfromour
innerorcoreselftotheselfoftheother.Ordinarycommunicationontheotherhandmoreusually
servesthepurposesofwhatIcallegorelatedness.Thisisaformofrelatinginwhichbothself
andotherbecomemereobjectsofdiscussionandthought.InhisbookTheDividedself,Laing
showedthatthisformofdepersonalisedorschizoidrelatingandcommunicationisnotuniqueto
schizophrenicsbutanacceptedandevenrequiredpartofnormalcultureandsanebehaviour.
Apartialdepersonalisationofothersisextensivelypractisedineverydaylifeandisregardedas
normal if not highly desirable. Most relationships are based on some partial depersonalising
tendencyinsofarasonetreatstheothernotintermsofanyawarenessofwhoorwhathemightbe
inhimselfbutasvirtuallyanandroidrobotplayingaroleorpartinalargemachineinwhichone
toomaybeactingyetanotherpart.

Wecannotuselanguageatallwithouttosomeextentturningourselvesandothersintoobjects.And
yetthereisaworldofdifferencebetweenacknowledgingthisfactanddenyingtheverypossibility
ofanothertypeofrelating,oneinwhichpeopledonottreatthemselvesandothersasobjectsoftalk
butlistentoeachotherfromthecoreoftheirselves.Thecoreselfisthelisteningself(Levin),a
selfwhoseresponsivenessandcapacityfordirectinteractionandcommunionwithothersiseasily
interruptedorforeclosedbytalkandinterpretationbyegorelatedness.Corerelatednessisatype
ofsilentlisteningcommunionwithothers.Thissenseofcommunionmaybeprovidedbybelonging
to communities, participating in religious rituals or drugtaking. But just as relationships can
becomeapassivesubstituteforactiveandconsciousrelating,socanthesenseofcorerelatedness
providedbybelongingtoreligiousandethniccommunitiesandcommunalismbecomeasubstitute
forthedevelopmentofanactivecapacityforachievingcorecommunicationandcommunionwith
others.Indeedinanagewhichhasseenthedeclineoftraditionalsocialandreligiouscommunities,
corerelatednesscanonlybemaintainedbythedevelopmentofthisactiveandconsciouscapacity
forcorerelating.
MartinBuberunderstoodcorerelatingasthecapacitytorelatetoanotherpersonasaYourather
thananobjectorIt.Theegoattendstoandinterpretssomethinganobject.OnlyasanIor
selfcanIfullyintendsomeoneaYou.TodayreferencetotheIYourelationinBuberssense
hasbecomeaclicheinethicalandpsychologicalliterature.AndyetthefullimplicationsofBubers
distinction between the IIt and the IYou relation have not begun to be recognised in
psychoanalysis andpsychotherapy,where,despiteall talkoftheimportance ofempathy and
rapportthereisstillnoadequatetheoreticalorpracticaldistinctionbetweenegorelatednessand
corerelatedness, ego communication and core communication. Psychoanalysis as a praxis is
governedbytheprincipleofinterpretationitselfamodeofegorelatedness.Andtheanalysisof
earlychildhooddevelopmentisbasedonneoKleinianobjectrelationstheoryandneoFreudian
ego psychology. These are theoretical models, which, as their very names imply, define
relationalityasanIItrelation,andmaturityasthedevelopmentofastrongandwellfunctioning
ego. This slant is not surprising in a Western social culture in which it is quite possible for
individualstoberegardedasfunctioningmoreorlessnormallydoingtheirjobsandtaking
careoftheirmaterialneedseventhoughtheyarenotintouchwiththemselves,havelittleorno
capacityforcorerelating,andfindnotruefulfilmentinpersonalrelationshipsbutonlyinobject
relationships.HencetheparadoxthattheanalystKarenHorneywroteof:

Thelossofself...isadespairwhichdoesnotclamourorscream.Peoplegoonlivingasifthey
werestillincontactwiththisalivecentre.Anyotherlossthatofajobsay,oralegarousesfar
more concern...Patients coming in for a consultation complain about headaches, sexual
disturbances,inhibitionsinwork,orothersymptoms;asaruletheydonotcomplainabouthaving
losttouchwiththecoreoftheirpsychicexistence.
In a socialeconomic culture dominated by egorelatedness and ego communication the self is
somethingwehaveorexpress.Buttorelatetoothersfromourcoreselfdoesindeedmeanno
longerjusthavingaselfbutbeingone,nolongerjustexpressingorseekingamirrorforour
selvesandembodyingtheminourrelationshipswithothers.Itisbeingaselfandbodyingthatself
thatgivestheindividualasenseofbeingrealafeelingofrealitynottobeconfusedwiththe
objectivity of the ego. Being a self is not being an abstract or transcendental subject
confrontingaworldofobjects.Subjectandobject,IandIt,egoandworldaretwinpolesofobject
relatednessnotcorerelatedness.NorisitwhatHeideggercalledbeingintheworld,fortheworld
inwhichtheselfisisnottheworldoftheegoatallbutaworldofbeings.Itistheselfsrelatedness
to people and things in their beingness, not as objects but as beings, that constitutes core
relatedness.Thereisaworldofdifferencebetweenintendingthepatientintheirselfbeingand
attendingtothepatientasawholepersonhoweverempathically.Itisthedifferencebetween
relating totheindividuals Dasein as abeingintheworld(Heidegger)andrelating tothem
spirituallyasabeinginaworldofbeings(RudolfSteiner).Heideggerdescribedspiritasa
fundamental knowing resolve towards the essence of being. Corerelatedness is spiritual
relatedness:afundamentalknowingresolvetowardstheessenceorbeingnessofahumanbeing.It
takesonetoknowone.Ittakesanindividualintouchwiththeirselfbeingtorelatetoanother
humanbeingspirituallyinthisway.Beingintheworld,ontheotherhand,isthepositionofthe
egothatfindsitselfthrownintoapositionofmediatingbetweeninnerselfandouterworld.Anego
thatisbothanobjectforotheregosandturnsselfandotherintoobjects.Heideggersconceptof
thrownnessdoesnottranscendthesubjectobjectdichotomy,Itistheveryrootofthisdichotomy,
thewordssubjectandobjectbothderivefromtheLatinjaceretothrow.
EgoandSelf
Psychoanalytictheoryhastraditionallyconfusedthedevelopmentofasenseofselfininfancywith
ego development. The process of ego development is identified with a growing sense of
separatenessfromthemother,reachingitsapogeewithanabilitytorelatetothemotherasawhole
5

object or real object. Here again, the very terminology of psychoanalysis identifies mature
relatingwithegorelatednessie.objectrelatedness.AndyetWinnicott,inparticular,acknowledged
thatdisturbancesintheinfantmotherrelationcaneasilyturnthedevelopingegointoafalseself.
Heacknowledgesalsothatthesedisturbanceshavelesstodowiththeinfantsrelationtothemother
asarealobject(eg.asabodyandbreast)thanwiththemothersresponsiveattunementtothe
infantasarealbeingaself;lesstodowiththeinfantsdevelopingcapacityforegorelatedness
andmuchmoretodowiththemothersowncapacityforcorerelating.Maternalabsenceisnotthe
absenceofthebreastbuttheabsenceofthemotherwhoisntreallytherefortheinfantwithher
wholebeing,whoisabsentasaself.AccordingtoWinnicottthisleavestheinfantvulnerableto
impingements on its sense of going on being. The absent sense of corerelatedness to the
motherinotherwordscreatesabasicontologicalinsecurityintheinfant(Greekontosbeing),
aninsecuritywhichLaingcorrectlyanalysedasthebasisofadultpsychosis.Itsessenceisthe
experienceofbeingamereobjectforthemother.Itisthisthatleadsthedevelopingegotofearall
relationshipswithothers.
Theriskconsistsinthis:ifoneexperiencestheotherasafreeagent,oneisopentothepossibility
ofexperiencingoneselfasanobjectofhisexperienceandtherebyoffeelingonesownsubjectivity
drainedaway.R.DLaing
Thesubjectivityinquestionisnotthatoftheegoassubjectbutofaselfwhichfeelsitselftobe
theobjectofotherpeoplesegos.Itisthissenseofobjectificationorpetrificationthatmaylead
theegototreatitsownselfasadeadorinanimateobject,and/ortreatothersasdeadorinanimate
objects in order to protect itself from their petrifying gaze. Alternatively, the individual may
identifywiththeirinnerself,whilstatthesametimedetachingthisselffromtheegotosuchan
extentthatthelatterbecomesahollowmaskorpersonaafalseselfwhichkeepsthetrueself
immunefromallrealcontactwiththeworld.QuotingHegelsanalysisoftheactordeedasthe
means bywhichindividuals committhemselves totheobjectiveelement Laingwrites ofthe
schizoidpersonalitythat:
He,hisselfisendlesspossibility,capacity,intention.Theactisalwaystheproductofafalse
self.Theactorthedeedisneverhistruereality.Hewishestoremainperpetuallyuncommittedto
theobjectiveelement....Theself,solongasitisuncommittedtotheobjectiveelementisfreeto
dreamandimagineanything.Withoutreferencetotheobjectiveelementitcanbeallthingstoitself
6

ithasunconditionedfreedom,power,creativity.Butitsfreedomandomnipotenceareexercised
inavacuum,anditscreativityisonlythecapacitytoproducephantoms.
Inpsychologicalterminologycommitmenttoactionandtotheobjectiveelementiscalledreality
testing.Thistermisunfortunate,foritconfusesobjectivitytheworldoftheegoandego
relatedness withthefeelingofrealityreferredtobyWinnicott,asenseofbeingrealthat
belongstotheself.WhatislackinginLaingsotherwiseastuteanalysisisaproperunderstandingof
whatisessentiallylackingintheselfrealitythattheschizoidpersonalityclingsto.Whatislacking
isnotmerelytheobjectiveelementbutcorerelatedness.Theindividualexperiencesonlytwo
options:eithertorelatetotheworldthroughtheego,ortowithdrawintotheselfanditsphantasies.
Theattempttodobothatthesametimerequiresasplittingofegoandself,turningtheformerintoa
falseselfandthelatterintoatrueorinnerself.Butthisisonlybecauseofamissingthird
optionthatofrelatingtotheworldauthenticallyie.withandfromtheself.Itistheabsenceof
corerelatednessandtheabsentcapacityforcorerelatingnotjustinhimselfbutinthosearound
him that leads the schizoid personality to attempt to defend their sense of self either by
abandoningegorelatednessaltogetherorbyturningtheegointoaformofprotectivearmouringfor
theself.Asaresulttheschizoidpersonalityeitherdoesnotcommunicateorcommunicatesinan
entirelyfalseandinauthenticway.
...suchcommunicationwiththeworldasoccursfromthefalseselfdoesnotfeelreal;itisnota
truecommunicationbecauseitdoesnotinvolvethecoreoftheself,thatwhichcouldbecalleda
trueself.(Winnicott)
Winnicottunderstoodschizoidnoncommunicationnotsimplyaspassivewithdrawalbutasaway
of maintaining an active silent communication with what he called subjective objects. He
postulatedthateveninthehealthypersonthereisaneedforsomethingthatcorrespondstothe
state of the split person in whom one part of the split communicates silently with subjective
objects. Nevertheless, and in contrast with his own idea that this silent communication is a
communicationwithsubjectiveobjects,Winnicottadds:
Thereisroomfortheideathatsignificantrelatingandcommunicatingissilent.
Winnicott develops this suggestionbylinkingsilent communication withartistic creativity and
culturallife,whichheseesasdomainsfortheexpressionsofthesubjectiveaspectofobjects.I
7

believethismissesthepoint.Silenceisamediumofsignificantrelatingandcommunicatingonly
ifitbecomesamediumofcorerelatingandcorecommunication.Corerelatingisnotarelationto
internalsubjectiveobjectsitisnotanobjectrelationshipatallbutarelationfromthecoreofour
beingtootherhumanbeings.Corecommunicationisnotcreativeorartisticselfexpression.Itis
thedirectcommunicationofinnerperceptionunmediatedbyculturalsymbolsandlanguages.
RelatingandCommunication
Therootmeaningoftheverbrelateistobearback(relate)amessage.Thewaywelistento
othersandthewaywehearthembearsbackitsownmessageinsilence,whetherornotthisis
represented in words or expressed in nonverbal signals. In this sense we cannot avoid core
relatednessandsilentcommunicationhowevermuchwetry.Forwecannothidefromthetruth
thatourinnerperceptionsofothers,howeverprivateandconcealed,communicatesilently.This
directtelepathiccommunicationhasnothingtodowitheitherparalinguisticsignalsorthought
transmission.ItisadirectresultofwhatIcallthelawofperceptualinteractivity.Simplystated,
thisistheunderstandingthateveryperceptionaltersbothperceiverandperceived.Ourperceptions
ofotherscommunicatetoothersdirectlynotbecausewerepresenttheminsymbolsortransmit
themasobjectsofthoughtbutbecauseperceptionisitselfaformofdirectinteraction.
Laingnotedthatfortheschizoidpersonalityperceptionisfelttobeasdangerousasaction.He
avoidsperceivingothersdirectlywiththeselfknowingthateveryactofperceptionisa
relationalactwhichcommunicatesdirectlyandhaseffectsonbothselfandother.Deprivedofcore
relatedness, the schizoid personality also fears core relatedness relatedness through direct
perceptual interactivity and relies solely on egocommunication. Simply put, ego
communicationisindirectrelating:eitherthroughlinguisticsignsandsymbolsorthroughsomatic
symptomsandbodysignals.Corerelatedness,ontheotherhandis directcommunication.This
communicationisunconsciousonlyfortheego.Thecapacityforconsciouslyrelatingtoothers
fromourcoredependsonaconsciousawarenessofourowninnerperceptionsofothersandthe
innerknowingorfaiththattheseperceptionswillcommunicatesilently,whetherexpressedor
not.
Unfortunatelytheschizoidawarenessoftherealityofsilentcommunicationisnotonesharedby
mostpsychotherapistsandanalysts.Insteaditisregardedasapathologicalphantasy.Theexception
isLaings(CommunicativePsychoanalysis),whocorrectlymakesthepointthatasilent,unstated
8

question will often elicit a truer response from the patient than a stated one.Many therapists,
however,continuetobelievethattheonlyrealtypeofcommunicationwithapatientisverbal
communication,albeitsupportedbysomethingcalledempathyorimbuedwithsomeelementof
authenticity.Thispositionreflectsthenatureofordinaryhealthycommunication,whichisa
mixofdetachedobjectivityandempathy,falsenessandauthenticity,consciousegocommunication
andsubconscious orunconscious corecommunication. Inordinarycommunication silence and
soundmergeinsoundsofsilenceintherhythmsandintervalsofspeech.Butitrequiresavery
specialtypeofhearkeningtohearthroughthevoiceoftheegotothesilentvoiceoftheself,andto
listeninawaythatrespondstothisvoice.
Whilst it has always been understood that a therapists verbal responses and an analysts
interpretationscanofcoursebemoreorlessempathicorauthentic,itisonlyrecentlythata
radicaldistinctionhascometobedrawnbetweenverbalresponseandinterpretation,ontheone
hand, and so called empathic response or authentic engagement, on the other. Lawrence
Hedgeswritesoftheneedoftheborderlinepatienttoexperienceasenseofsymbioticrelatedness
tothetherapist,andcontraststhisattempttoreplicatetheinfantmothersymbiosistotherelational
stanceoftheschizoidpatientlackingafoundingexperienceofsymbiosisie.corerelatedness.He
stresseshowimportantitisforthetherapisttorespondempathicallytotheborderlinepatients
attemptstoforgeasymbioticrelationshipwiththemandhowineffectiveitismerelytointerpret
themanalytically.
The communication to the therapist comes in the form of various enactments and modes of
relatedness.Notuntilthedyadicorsymbioticmodeisexpressedbythepatientinthetherapeutic
relationshipandgraspedempathicallybythetherapist,doanyalternativeselfandotherpatterns
becomerealisticallyviabletothepatient.
Inotherwords,thepatientisunabletomaketherapeuticprogressintermsofegorelatednessand
egocommunicationwiththetherapistuntilthelatterrespondstotheirfrustratedneedforcore
relatedness.Yetthisneedisunderstoodpsychoanalyticallynotasabasichumanneedbutasa
developmentalarrestatthestageofsymbioticmergerwiththemother.Hedgeshassympathyfor
therapists who feel their ego boundaries to be threatened by the patients symbiotic mode of
relatedness,buturgesthemtotemporarilyassumethefunctionofamergerobjectforthepatient,
allowingthelattertoreplicateearlyrelationalpatternsandexperience.Butthefunctionoftherapy
isneverthelesstohelptheindividualgobeyondsymbioticrelatingtoreplacecorerelatedness
9

with normal egorelatedness. This is in line with the psychoanalytic view of childhood
developmentandhumanrelatednesswhichopposesmergerofselfandotherwithegoseparation,
andwhichlacksatrueunderstandingoftheverynatureofcorerelatedness.Corerelatednessisnot
aprimitivemergerofselfandotherbutgenuineinnercontactbetweenselfandother,acontact
throughwhichdistinctionisnotabolishedbutenriched.Contactwithothersfromthecoreofour
selfbeingistheveryessenceofwhatitmeanstorelate.Bothseparationandmergeranxietiesare
egoanxieties the product of a social culture which privileges egorelatedness over core
relatedness.
WinnicottandEgorelatedness
ThetermegorelatednesswasfirstcoinedbyWinnicotttorefertotherelationshipbetweentwo
people,oneofwhomatanyrateis alone;perhapsbotharealone,yetthepresenceofeachis
importanttotheother.Whathewasthinkingofwasnotthefrighteningexperienceoffeeling
lonelydespitethepresenceofothers,butsomethingmorelikeachildsexperienceoffeelingsecure
inthepresenceofthemotherandbeingablethereforetocontentedlyplaybyitself.Thisexperience,
heclaimed,wasthebasisoftheadultsabilitytobealonewithoutbeinglonely.
Being alone inthe presenceofsomeone cantake place ata veryearly stage,whenthe ego
immaturityisnaturallybalancedbyegosupportfromthemother.
AccordingtoWinnicott,itwasthesupportiveorholdingpresenceofthematernalegoevenif
represented for the moment by a cot or a pram or the general atmosphere of the immediate
environment thatallowedtheinfanttofeelasenseofrelaxedatonenesswithitself.Guntrip
developedthispoint,arguingthat:
ahumaninfantcanonlygrowtobeapersonego,aself,outofhisoriginalstateoftotalmergence
inandidentificationwithhismotherpriortobirth,ifthemothersegosupportforhimafterbirthis
adequatethroughtheperiodofhisseparatingoutfromhermentally.
Throughegorelatedness,then,theinfantsoriginalsenseofatonenesswiththemotherbecomesa
senseofatonenesswithitself.EgorelatednessinWinnicottssenseisthebasisoffeelingrealand
beingaselfinsociety.Itisalsoablueprintforthetherapeuticrelationship,inwhichthetherapist
takesovertheholdingfunctionofthematernalego.Forinadultlifetoo,thesecurityprovidedby
10

thepresenceofotherscanhelppeopletofeelrealandtoexpressthemselves.Butthismayeasily
concealthefactthattheyarenotreallyrelatingtoothersfromtheircoreselvesbutonlyfromtheir
egos.Theproblemisthatselfexpressiontakestheformofegocommunicationpeopletalking
about themselves and others and in this way also objectifying themselves and others. Ego
relatednessinthissenseisessentiallyobjectrelating,turningbothselfandotherintoobjectsof
thoughtandobjectsoftalk.Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeantreatinganotherpersonasaninanimate
objectorpartofthefurniturethoughitcando.Itisaformofrelatinginwhichpeopleuseeach
otherasinstrumentsofprivateneedsatisfaction.Twopeoplemaysatisfyprivateneedsbyhaving
sexorhavingachat,talkingaboutthemselvesordiscussingatopicofcommoninterest,bouncing
ideasoffeachotherorgettingadviceorfeedbackfromeachother,andyetdosowithouteverreally
relatingtotheotherpersononacorelevelmakingcontactwiththemfromtheircoreself.Ego
relatedness hastodowithtalkingordoingthingswithothers.Corerelatednesshastodowith
listeningtoandbeingwithothersinsilence.

Ibelieve that Winnicott was aware ofthe nature ofcorerelatedness, but, lacking an adequate
distinction ofegoandself,wronglyattempted tosubsumethis underhisuseofthetermego
relatedness.Whathemeantbyegorelatednesswasquitesimplythesatisfactionprovidedbya
sense of relatedness as such, as opposed to objectrelating based on need. That is why he
emphaticallycontrastedegorelatednesswithidrelatednessobjectrelationsdrivenbythe
needforinstinctualdrivesatisfaction.Yethisuseofthetermegorelatednesstosuggestanother
modeofrelatednessatypeofcorerelatednessismisleading.Itfailstoacknowledgethattheego
anditsobjectrelationsaretheverymediumofidrelatednessandinstinctualdrivesatisfaction.
The issues at stake here are not merely academic or semantic. For whether egorelatedness in
Winnicotts sense does or does not facilitate a sense of atoneness with ones self and core
relatednesswithothersdepends,notonthematernalegoalonebuttherelationofthisegotothe
maternalself.Itisthemothersintouchnesswithherownselfthatallowshertoprovideholding
fortheinfant.ThatiswhyatherapistwhofollowsWinnicottsterminology,providesatypeof
maternalisticegosupportalone,which,howevercaring,willobjectifyandinfantilisethepatients
self.Thepatientmayindeedcometofeelatonewiththeirselfinaninfantileway,buttheywill
notbehelpedtorelatetoothersinanadultwayfromthisself.Onlyatherapistwiththecapacityfor
corerelatednesscanhelpthelattertodothis.Thetwostagesofinfantiledevelopmentdescribedby
Guntripfromatonenesswiththemothertoanatonenesswithoneselfaremediatedbyego
11

relatednesstothemotherandothersingeneral.Buttheconceptofegorelatednessobscuresthe
thirdstagethematureadultcapacityforatonenesswithothersforcorerelatedness.
EgopsychologyandEgotherapy
TheworkofWinnicott,FairbairnandGuntripattemptedtoadvancefromFreudianegopsychology
dominatedbydrivetheorytoarelationalmodelofpsychoanalysislinkedtoWinnicottsconceptof
egorelatedness. But the failure to properly distinguish egocentred objectrelating from core
relatednesshasleftthepraxisofanalysisandpsychotherapyanditsselfconceivedpurposeslargely
unchanged.Mostformsoftherapyremainegotherapies,confusingtheindividualscapacityfor
objectrelatingandselfexpressionthroughegocommunication,withthematurecapacityforcore
relatedness and core communication. The purpose of therapy is seen as encouraging ego
communicationgettingthepatienttotalk.Alternatively,thetherapistmayseethemselfas
providingamaternaltypeofegosupportandholding;facilitatingatherapeuticregressiontotake
placethroughwhichthepatientcaneventuallybegintofeel,perhapsforthefirsttime,asenseofat
oneness with their inner self. The style of relating characteristic of the egotherapist is not
unempathic orunreceptive totheselfofthepatient. Its essence,however,lies inthemodeof
responsetothepatient.Thecounsellorortherapistreceivesthepatientssilentcommunicationfrom
theselfbutrespondstoitwithegocommunication.Itmakesnoessentialdifferenceherewhether
this egocommunication takes the form of interpretations, elicitative questions or empathic
mirroring.Themessagetothepatientisstillthesametheselfcommunicationisrealonlyin
sofarasitistranslatedintoegocommunication.Ergo:theselfisrealonlyinsofarasitexpresses
itselfthroughordinarymodesofegorelatednessandegocommunication.Themottooftherapyis
stilltheFreudianone:WhereItwas,theEgoshallbe.Thetherapistengagedinsuchastyleof
therapeuticresponse,inessenceidentifiesherownselfwithherownego.Empathyisseenasa
tool in the service of egorelatedness, not as a bridge to a different level of relatedness and
therapeuticresponse,arelatednessandresponsefromthetherapistsownsilentcoreself.Theego
therapistrelatestothepatientlikeamotherwhosensitivelyhandlesherchildthroughherverbal
responses, and the empathic mirroring these convey. The problem for the schizoid patient,
however,isthatallverbalresponsesarefeltasintrusiveobjectificationsoftheselfbyanegowhich
standsoverandaboveitbutisnottrulyunderstanding.Forinlookingdownonthepatientsself
fromabove,thetherapistdoesnotunderstandwhatthisfeelslikefrombelowwhatitfeelsliketo
betreatedasamaternalortherapeuticobject.Theselfofthepatientspontaneouslywithdraws

12

fromsuchobjectificationhowevermuchmoresensitiveandsupportivethematernalegoofthe
therapistmaybethanthatoftheoriginalmother.
TheegoattendstoanobjectorIttosomething.Theselfintendssomeoneabeingor
You.Attentionistheprincipalmodeofegorelatedness.Intentionistheprincipalmodeofcore
relatedness.Itisthetherapistsegothatattendstothepatientsspeechandmannerisms.Itisthe
therapistsselfthatcanintendthepatientinhisorherselfbeing.Thisisatypeofinnervibrational
touchorholding.Theselfisnotanobject,eventhoughitmaybecomeonefortheego.The
momentsomeonestaresatyoureyesandviewsthemasanopticalobjectwiththeclinicaleyeofthe
egotheyarenolongerlookingatYou,andnoraretheyreceivingyourgaze.Theminuteyoulookat
someoneseyeswiththeclinicaleyeofanopticianitisnotlongertheIoftheselfbuttheeyeof
theegothatislooking.Similarly,themomentatherapistmerelyattendstothewords,voiceorbody
languageofapatient,theirverbalornonverbalcommunication,itisnolongerthepatientasaself
a You that they are relating to, but instead something (a partobject in Kleinian
terminology).Egotherapyconfusesempathicegoattentionwithcorecontactandcommunication
fromtheself.Theselfisnotessentiallyanobject,nordoesithaveobjects.Forthoughtheselfof
thepatientmayfinditselfempathicallyreflectedinthewordsofthetherapistormirroredintheir
eyes,thisrelationtotheotherasaselfobject(Kohut)isnotcorerelatedness.Itisatransverse
dimensionoftheMatrixofRelatedness(seediagram),notitsbottomline.
RelationalAnalysisandtheQuesttoRelate
FreudsmottowasWhereItwasI(theego)shallbe.ThemottoofrelationalanalysisisWhereIt
(theegosobject)was,aYoushallbe.Theegooverstandsselfandother,treatingbothasobjects
orthings,andusingtheintellecttoquestiontherelationshipbetweenthem.Theself,ontheother
hand,doesnotquestiontheobjectiverelationshipbetweenthingsandpeoplebutquestsadirect
relationtothem,seekingtounderstandorknowthemthroughtheintimacyofthisdirectrelation.
Themysticaldesiretomergewithanotherperson,withthetrueself,orwithanindividualor
communityrepresentingthisself,isadistortionofthisquestfortrueintimacyissomethingthat
canonlybeachievedbyanegoincontactwithitsself,notanegothatseekstosurrenderselfhood
tomysticalorsexualmerger.
Relationalanalysisunderstandsthe questtorelate iethequestforcorerelatednessasthe
fundamentaldriveofhumanbeings;aquestthatissublimatedinintellectualquestioningasitis
13

alsosexualisedinlibidinaldrives;thatmaybesymbolisedbyraceorreligionandyetissuppressed
byasocialculturewhichidentifieshealthyrelatingonlywithnormalegorelatedness.Thatis
whyitisraretofindindividualsinwhomtheordinaryrelationofegoandselfisreversed,whose
modes of egorelatedness are themselves an expression of corerelatedness of a power to
establish core contact andcommunication withother human beings,or even with animals and
plants.Thefactthatsuchindividualsareeitherregardedassaintsorbrandedasheretics,treated
asmisfitsorasmadmen,isasignofsocialambivalencetowardsthepowerofcorerelating,which
isacceptableonlysolongasitischannelledintosexualityorinstitutionalisedreligion.Themerger
anxietiesoftheegoitsmisplacedfearoflosingitsboundariesthroughcorecontactwithitsself
andothersisthebasisofneuroticanxietyandschizoiddefences.Psychosisisthecollapseof
thesedefencesacollapsethatcanbemetbyattemptstorebuildtheindividualsshatteredego,or
bythepowerofcorerelatingwhichrespondstotheirquesttorelate.
Sexualised,thequesttorelateiswhatFreudcalledlibido.Intellectualised,itistheegossearchto
discoverobjectiverelationshipsasearchwhichledFreudtopsychoanalysis.Existentially,itis
whatViktorFranklcalledthewilltomeaning.Ethically,itisthecapacitytomeananotherhuman
beingtomeansomeonenotjustsomething,YouandnotjustIt.Torelatefromtheinnermost
coreofourselfbeing.ThisrequiresanabilitytorelatetothiscoreitselfasabeingasaYou
andnotanIdorIt.Thecapacitytoembodythisethicinourrelationshipstoourselvesandto
othersisthecapacityforcorerelating,corecontactandcorecommunication.Thewilltoestablish
corerelatednesstoothersistheegoswillingnesstoletgoofitsobjectificationsofselfandother,
itsexternalandinternalobjects,andtorelinkwithothersinadirectandimmediatewayfromthe
coreself.Thisisalsotheessentialmeaningofreligion.WhatIcallrelationalpsychoanalysisis
amarriageofrelationalphilosophyandobjectrelationstheory,deandreconstructingthelatter
onthebasisofaradicaldistinctionofegoandself,objectrelatednessandcorerelatedness.
ARelationalModelofHealth
Thesicknessesofthesoularesicknessesofrelationship.
MartinBuber
Sicknessesofrelationshiptoothersarealwaysandatthesametimesicknessesofourrelationship
toourselves.Theyarenothealedbyourinterpretationsofthoserelationshipsbutbyrelatinginnew
waystoourselvesandothers.Corerelatingisthecapacitytoperceivewiththeeyesandearsof
theselfaswellasthoseoftheego,torelateandrespondtoothersfromtheselfaswellasfromthe
ego.Noanalystcanhopetounderstandbehaviourwhichitselfexpressesamisrelationofegoand
14

selfwithhisorheregoalone.Norcananymodeoftreatmentwhichisessentiallyamodeofego
Relatedness helpcorrectthespecific misrelationofegoandselfwhichprevents anindividual
achievingrelationalfulfilment.Insteadtheanalystorhelpermustconsciouslyrelatetothepatient
withboththeiregoandself.Onlythenwilltheybeableto(1)gainaninnerunderstandingofthe
patients internal egoselfrelation, and(2)intentionally modelandembodyadifferent egoself
relation,adifferentwayofrelatingtoothersfromtheselfaswellastheego.Itistheanalystsway
ofrelating toandfromtheirinner orcoreselfthatis theessential medium ofthetherapeutic
relationship; it is this that bears back (relates) a healing message, inducing and facilitating
changeinthepatientsownegoselfrelation.
Thelackingcapacityforcorecontactandcommunicationandtheresultingsearchforafeelingof
corerelatednessthroughdrugsandsexualrelationships,ethnicandreligiousidentifications,New
Agesectsandcommunitarianism,remainsa ubiquitous problemofindividualslivinginaglobal
technological and capitalist culture. It cannot beturned into the private pathology of schizoid,
psychoticorborderlinepatientsorresolvedthroughthepoliticsoffamilyandcommunityvalues.
Laingdefinesthetermschizoidasreferringto:anindividualthetotalityofwhoseexperienceis
splitintwomainways:inthefirstplace,thereisarentinhisrelationtohisworldand,inthe
second,thereisadisruptionofhisrelationwithhimself.Thusdefined,theschizoidorpsychotic
personalitypresentsaparodyofthenormalornormoticcharacter(Bollas)whichconsistson
theonehandofanoutwardorientedegoand,ontheotherhandofaprivatisedorconcealedinner
selfunabletomakedirectcontactwiththeselvesofothers.Butwhilsthealthyrelatingisbasedon
aspontaneousbutmoreorlessunconsciousblendofegorelatednessandcorerelatedness,Ibelieve
thattherapeuticlisteningandrelatingdependsonthetherapistscapacitytocreateaconsciousand
healthysplitbetweenthem.Forunlesstheanalystortherapistisawareofegoandselfastotally
distinctpartsoftheirownpsychegeneratingtotallydistinctmodesofrelatednesstothepatient,they
willnotbeabletotherapeuticallyadjustandalterthebalancebetweenegoandcorerelatinginthe
therapeuticrelationship.
Thetheoreticalsplitbetweeninterpretativepsychodynamicstylesoftherapyandexistentialtherapy,
likethesplitbetweenneoFreudianandneoKleinianegopsychologyontheonehand,andthe
selfpsychologyofKohutandJungontheother,needstobetransformedintoanexperiential
awarenessofegoandself,notasseparateandwalledoffentitiesbutastotallydistinctaspectsofa
dynamicrelation.Onlyatherapistcapableofdistinguishingtheearoftheselffromtheearofthe
egocandistinguishbetweenthevoiceofthepatientsselfandthevoiceoftheirego,andheartheir
15

relation.ThisiswhatIcallrelationalanalysis.Onlysuchatherapistcanrespondwiththevoiceof
theselfaswellasthevoiceoftheegousingthepowerofsilent,corecommunication.Thisis
whatIcallanalyticrelating.Analyticrelatingistherapeuticrelatingrelationaltherapy.
Thecrucialcontrastbetweenanalyticandnonanalyticstylesofcounsellingandpsychotherapy
lies,Ibelieve,inthetransformationofthewilltohelpintothewilltohear.Thoseinvolvedinthe
helpingprofessions,whetherascounsellorsortherapists,needtotransformtheirresolvetohelp
intoaresolvetohear.Thisrequiresanegocapableofresolutelywithholdingitsownurgetodo
tosayorasksomething.Withholdingisespeciallyimportantwithsocalledborderlineindividuals
whose central identification is with the withdrawn or schizoid self, and whose ego
communicationiseasilymistakenforapresentationofself.Byreactingto,orseekingtoexplore,
theegocommunicationofthesepatientsthetherapistfailsthemostimportanttestthattheymaybe
quiteconsciouslyset.Thistesttakestheformofasilentquestion:AreyougoingtotakewhatIsay
asme,orcanyouhearitandrelatetomemyself.Onlythroughthisdisciplineofwithholding
egoresponsestothepatientcanwegainaninnerexperienceofwhatitmeanstohearkentoandto
holdanotherselfintheinnergazeofourlisteningintent.
HandlingandRelationalTransference
Themoresensitiveandwithdrawntheselfis,themoreacutelysensitiveitistotheverbalhandling
itreceivesfromtheegosofothers.Thereisanintrinsicconnectionbetweenrelatingtoboththings
andpersonsasegoobjectsandhandlingtheminparticularwaysasobjectsofuse.Iknowthething
onmydeskasalighternotjustbecauseIknowthiswordisitsname,butbecauseIknowitina
pragmaticwayassomethingIregularlypickupandhandleinafamiliarwayinordertouseitto
satisfyaneedtolightmycigarettes.Thingsbecomeobjectsfortheegonotonlyasmereobjects
of perception but of action as objects of familiar use and handling. Language itself is the
handmaidenofthought,aninstrumentbywhichtheegoactivelyhandlesandshapesmeaning.The
selfconstantlyexperiencesitselfasanobjectoftheegosthoughtactivityandverbalhandling
anobjectbothofitsownegoactivityandtheegoactivityofothers.Asaresultitalsoperceives
meaninginquitedifferenttermstothoseoftheego.Theegoperceivesthegivenorconventional
meaningofparticularwordsoractions.Theselfperceiveswhatotherpeoplearereallydoingwhen
theyspeakandwhattheyaresayingthroughtheiractions.Itexperiencesbothwordsanddeeds,
thoughtandactionasaparticularformofintentional handlingbutwithoutinterpreting this
handlinginwordsorreactingtoitindeeds.
16

Interpretationandreactionareegofunctions,ourwayofgraspinginthoughtandrespondingin
actiontothewaywefeelourselvesperceived,handledorusedbyothers.Butthetermfeel
ourselvesismisleading.Itistheselfthatfeelsitselfhandled.Itistheegothatinterpretsthisself
feelingandturnsitintoanemotionalobjectafeelingthatithasandcannameinwords.
FeelingoccursbetweenanIandaYouitisthemediumofcorerelatedness.Itistheegothat
treatsfeelingasanItasemotionalobjectsinmeorinyou.Distinguishingbetweenself
andegomeansdistinguishingfeelingandfeelings,thoughtsandthinking.Theegoisfocussedon
theobjectofthoughtonwhateveritisthinkingabout.Theselfisawareofthethoughtasa
thoughtasanactofobjectifyingamoodorstateofbeingaselffeeling.Theselffeelsitselfas
theinternalobjectofegoactivity,feelsitselfhandledbyitsownegoandtheegoofothers.Butthe
egointurntransformsthisselffeelingorsingularBefindlichkeitintofeelings(plural)thatit
has.Theseemotionalfeelingsaretheonesthatcanbenamedorsymbolised,ownedordisowned
asinternalobjects belonging toselforother.Whatiscalled transferenceisthetherapists
feeling ofthewaytheirownselfishandledbytheegoofthepatient.Whatiscalledcounter
transference is the therapists own emotional interpretation of this selffeeling as an internal
emotionalobjectthatcanbenamedandsymbolisedasafeelingwhichthetherapisthas,and
whichtheyseeasbelongingeithertothemselvesortothepatient.Theexperienceofhandlingand
beinghandledbyothersinaparticularwayisthekeytherefore,torelationalknowing,butonlyif
weacknowledgethatourowninterpretationsofthishandlingarethemselvesaformofhandling.
This is the same thing as acknowledging the reality of silent communication and the law of
perceptualinteractivitytheawarenessthatourowninnerperceptionsofotherscommunicate
directlytothemasaformofinnertouchandhandling.ButwhatIhavecalledcorerelating,core
contactandcorecommunicationisnottransferentialorcountertransferentialawarenessassuchbut
thesilentcommunicationthatflowsfromit.Thebasisofrelationalanalysisisthecapacitytofeel
othersoutdirectlyfromtheselftostretchoutatendrilofintentthatmakesdirectcontactwith
theselfbeingoftheother, holds theminourlisteningintent,andasaresultactivatestheirown
awarenessofcorecontactandsilentcommunication.
Whatthenofegorelatedness andverbal communication withthepatient? Theruleofanalytic
relatingthroughcorecontactandcommunicationisaverysimpleone.Nevertorespondverballyto
apatientunlessthisverbalresponseisitselfaconsciousexpressionofcorerelatingunlesswe
haveafeelingunderstandingofwhatitisweintendtotacitlycommunicatetothepatientthrough
our words. To know what we are really saying to someone through a particular comment,
17

questionorinterpretation.Thisisnotthesameasbeingclearaboutwhatourwordsmeanorrefer
to.Itismorelikebeingawareofwhatfeelingtonetheyconveyandwhatwearedoingwithour
wordswhatsortofrelationalhandlingtheyembody.Theanalyticdialogueisnottrulydialogical
unlessthetherapistisabletouseverbalresponsestocommunicatedialogosthroughtheword
and not just in it. The analytic process is not complete until the patient, too, has the ego
confidencetorelatetothetherapistfromthecoreoftheirselftobearbackamessagethat
addressesandintendsthetherapistintheirselfbeing,andthatcommunicatesthroughthewordas
wellasinit.
Wecanneverfullyrepresentinwordsthemessagesthatcommunicatethroughthem,forassoonas
weseektodosoweemploynewwordsthatbeartheirownsilentandwordlessmessage.The
capacityforauthenticdialogueisbasedonthissimpleparadoxthatverbalcommunicationitself
isnotrepresentationbutactiverelation.Aquestion,forexample,istheegoswayofinquiring
aboutsomething,oraboutanunknownrelationshipbetweenonethingandanother.Itmayalso
betheexpressionofanabsentorunfeltrelationshiptosomeone.Thetherapistsquesttorelateto
orconnectwithapatientcannotbefulfilledbymakingconnectionswiththeego,orputting
questionstothepatientthatdemandthattheymakesuchconnections.Aquestionismeaningful
whenitnotonlyaskssomethingbutsayssomethingwhenitexpressestheoscillationofareal
andfeltrelation.Aquestionthatisnotexperiencedbythetherapistwithintheoscillationofthe
therapeutic relationship can carry no charge for the patient. A question that merely seeks to
objectifythetherapeuticrelationshipandaidininterpretingitdeprivestherelationshipofliving
realityforboththerapistandpatient.Thedisciplineofwithholdingis,aboveall,thedisciplineof
harbouringandholdingthequestionwewishtoputtoourpatientsinsilenceatleastuntilwe
havenotonlythoughtthequestionbutfeltthequestion.Thismeansfeelingitasourownquestion
andnotjustaquestionforthepatient(hisorherprivateproblem).Onlyinthiswaywillthe
questionoscillate,eveninsilence,asasharedquestionofselfandother;vibratinginthebetween,
andexpressingourcorerelatednessasbeings.
Psychoanalysis,ScienceandConscience
The touchstone of science is objectivity. The scientific consciousness is a form of ego
consciousness,turningallthatittouchesincludinghumanrelationshipsintoanobjectfora
subject.Buttherapyisitselfahumanrelationship,oneinwhichthetherapistmustengageasaself
aswellasanego,andforwhomthepatientmustbeaYouaswellasanIt.Thetouchstoneof
18

relationalanalysisisnotobjectivitybutethicalimpulse,notsciencealonebutrelationalself
consciousnessconscience.Scienceisimpelledbyquestions.Thetherapistsconscienceis
impelledbythequesttorelate.Scientificpsychoanalysisisbasedonmakingconnectionslinking
selfandother.Relationalpsychoanalysisisbasedonmakinginnerlisteningcontactwithothers
fromtheself.ItspurposeistoanalyserelationshipsintheoriginalGreeksenseofthewordto
loosen or free up (analuein). Relational analysis is analytic relating in this sense: con
scientiousethicalrelatingdesignedtoloosenandfreeuptherelationsofegoandself,egoandego,
selfandother.Itisspuriousforanalyststoclaimthatpsychoanalysisisasciencelikeanyother,one
based on evidence derived from analytic material provided by the patient. For the scientific
results of psychoanalytic investigation are themselves conditioned by the ethical bearing of
individualanalyststhewaytheyrelatetotheirpatients.Thetestofrelationalanalysisisnot
evidenceprovidedbythepatient,but(a)itsscientificvalueinobjectivelyarticulatinginternaland
externalrelationships(itsegovalue)and(b)itsvalueinenhancingtherelationalcapacityofboth
therapistandpatient.Thisincludestheircapacityforcorerelatednessaswellasegorelatedness.
RelationalMaturation
Previouspsychoanalyticmodelsofhumanrelatednesshaveconcentratedonlyonthematurationof
the ego in infancy and childhood. The concentration on the childs development or failure to
develop normal object relating (ie egorelatedness) has obscured the importance of core
relatedness. The maturation of the individuals capacity for corerelatedness takes place not in
infancyorchildhoodhowever,butinadulthood,middleandoldageintheindividualsmature
years.Traditionalpsychoanalysis looksbacktotheindividualsearliestrelationshipsandtheir
pathologies.Paradoxically,however,itdemandsfromthetherapistasociallyabnormaldegreeof
relational insight and maturity of the sort normally associated with the wisdom of old age.
Relationalanalysisseestheindividualasaflowernotonlygrowingoutoftherootsofitsearly
relationalexperiencebutgrowingtowardsthefulfilmentofaninnerpotentialforcorerelatednessin
adultlife.Thecapacitytoembodyawiseandmaturemodeofanalyticrelatingwhichfluidlyand
flexiblycombinesegoandcorerelatedness,isnottheresultoftrainingintherapeutictechniquesor
theadoptionofapsychoanalyticbeliefsystem.Insteaditistheproductofrelationalexperienceand
maturationanindividuationbywhichtheindividualobtainsaninnerawarenessofthebasic
scissionofegoandselfasinseparablebutneverthelessquitedistinctaspectsofourownbeingand
consciousness.Thisscissionisnotapathologicalone.Pathologyoccurswhenthescissionisdenied
whenegoandselfeithermergeintoconfused indistinction oraresplitintototally separate
19

entities. This is the message of madness or psychosis; a message there to remind us of a

fundamental distinction that our egoculture would prefer to obliterate in favour of ordinary
normosis.TherelationofselfandegomaybecomparedtotherelationofBeingandbeingsso
profoundly explored by Martin Heidegger. It is the same difference. We do not have
relationships. We are relational beings. This fundamental or core relationality is the very
Beingnessofhumanbeings.

TheSelfasaLanguage
Laingwrotethatthetechnicaltermsofpsychiatryandpsychopathology:
eitherrefertomaninisolationfromtheotherandtheworld,thatis,asanentitynotessentiallyin
relationtotheotherandinaworld,ortheyrefertofalselysubstantialisedaspectsofthisisolated
entity.Suchwordsare:mindandbody,psycheandsoma,psychologicalandphysical,personality,
theself,theorganism.
Isthereanotherwayofunderstandingthetermsselfandegowhichdoesnotturntheseaspects
ofourbeingintosubstantialised entities,linguistic objects?Yes,thereis.Relationalanalysis
offers a quite different view of the fundamental nature of self and ego, a view that does not
hypostatisetheseterms.Fromarelationalanalyticviewpoint,eachofusnotonlyhasorspeaksa
language.Eachofusisalanguage.Theselfisthelanguagethatweareouruniquelanguageof
being.Thisisexpressedinourwholewayofbeingandrelating,whatChristopherBollascallsthe
idiomoftheself.
The true self listens to a Beethoven sonata, goes for a walk, reads the sports section of a
newspaper,playsbasketballanddaydreamsaboutaholidaynottoknowtheseobjectsandthen
tocultivatethisknowledgeintoacommunicationbuttousetheseobjectstoyieldselfexperience.
Selfexperienceisnotegoconsciousness,forwhereastheegoseparatesitselffromtheobjectsofits
perceptiontheselfisitsexperiencing,andeverythingitexperiencesintheworldisatthesametime
awayofexperiencingitselfamodeofselfexperience.Theegouseswordstonamethingsas
objects and uses language to objectify and articulate experience. For the self, however, things
themselves arewordsinitsexperientialvocabulary,avocabulary thatitusestoexploreand
elaborateitsownexperiential language.Eachself,likeeachlanguageisendowedwithinfinite
20

potentialitiesforexpression.Buteachlanguage,likeeachself,isalsoinacertainsensefiniteinits
potentialsforwhateverissaidthroughitwillalwaysbestampedwithitsownuniquecharacter
oridiom.
Bollasconcernisnotonlywiththeidiomoftheself,however,buthowthisrelatestotheidiomof
maternalcare,themotherswayofbeingwithandrelatingtotheinfant.Languageisthehouseof
being.(MartinHeidegger).Theinfantfirstdwellsinthematernalidiomwhichitincorporatesasa
setofrulesforbeingandrelating.Italsodwellsintheobjectworldprovidedbythemotheraspart
ofthevocabularyofthisidiom,aworldofexperiencedthings,whichthechildlearnstohandle
andnameasegoobjects.Therelationbetweenmotherandinfantthen,canbecomparedtothe
relationbetweentwolanguages.Theinfantegoistheinterlanguagethatemergesasthechild
bothlearnsitsownmothertongueandatthesametimeseekstotranslateitsownnativeidiom
intothistongue.Thismothertongueismorethanjustasetofwordsandnames.Itincludesthe
motherswholerelationallanguage,herwayofbeingwithandrelatingto,handlingandresponding
tothechildbothfromheregoandfromherowncoreself.Asthechildacquireslanguageand
beginstospeakandactinalargerworldbeyondthehomeitseeksalsototranslateitsowncore
languageoridiomintothemodesofegorelatednessitfindsestablishedinthesocialworld.Itis
thenthatthechildlearns(or,inthecaseofautismdoesnotlearn)totranslateitsselfexperienceand
thequestforcorerelatednessintotheacceptableverbalandbehaviourallanguagesnecessaryfor
successfulsocialisationie.adaptationtothesocialegoculture.Therelationbetweenthechild
selfandthechildego,therefore,isembodiedinthechildsdevelopingrelationshiptolanguage
itself, its ability to feel at home in language and use it to translate the language of its self
experience.
Inanytranslationthereisadangeroflosingthespiritoftheoriginal.Theuniqueidiomoftheself
maybeoverlaidandobscuredbytheegosadaptiveorcomplianttranslationofthisidiominto
conventionalrulesofspeechandbehaviour,modelledinitiallybytheparentsorcaretakers.Indeed
itmayalreadybeoverlaidordistortedonapreverballevelbytheinfantegosincorporationofa
type of maternal handling unresponsive to the infants own language. This being the case,
althoughthechildmaystilllearntospeak,theverballanguageheorsheacquireswillnotbeatrue
mothertonguebutanemptyshellitswordsahollowsetofbuildingbricksoutofwhichthe
falseselfisconstructed.Butthisfalseselftoo,isnotathingbutalanguageadistorting
objectlanguagewhichservesonlyegorelatednessandwhichfailstotranslatethenativelanguage
oftheself,itsinbornexperientialandrelationalidiom.
21


RelationalEthicsandtheSuicidalEgo
Winnicottsawsuicideasthedestructionofthetotalselfinavoidanceofannihilationofthetrue
self.
Whensuicideistheonlydefenceleftagainstthebetrayalofthetrueself,thenitbecomesthelotof
thefalseselftoorganisethesuicide.
In relational terms, lacking acknowledgement of and response to the core self, the ego feels
increasingly disconnected from this self and fears for its very existence. Suicide is not self
destructionbutegocidetheabsolutewithdrawaloftheselffromtheworldoftheegoandfrom
egorelatedness.Thiswithdrawalmaybeprecipitatedbyrepeateddisappointmentsinthequestto
achievecorerelatednesstobetrulyheardandreceivedbyothersasaself.Indeed,itwasMartin
Buberspersonalexperience ofreceiving ayoungmanwhocame toseehim,but not actually
receivinghiminhiswholebeingnothearingthesilentcryofhisselfthatledBubertoso
passionatelycontrasttheIItandtheIYourelation.Theyoungmancommittedsuicideshortlyafter
thismisencounterwithBuber.Themoralofthisstoryisalsothemoralofrelationalanalysisas
Ihave presented itinthis essay,withits emphatic distinction ofegoandself,egoandcore
relatedness.
Postscript
The Divided Self can be seen as the first attempt to apply a relational ontology to the
deconstructionofpsychopathologyanditsvocabularies.Relationalanalysisisthecontinuationof
thisprojectthedeconstructionandreconstructionofpsychoanalytictheoryandpraxisonthe
basisofarelationalontologyofegoandself.Itisimpossibleinthespaceofasinglearticleto
explore all the detailed ramifications of relational analysis and its implications for the socio
cultural,existential,phenomenologicalandpsychoanalyticunderstandingofpsychopathology.An
exampleistherelationalunderstandingofobjectloss,mourningandthedepressiveprocessasa
healingprocessof disobjectification areidentificationwiththeself,andarecoveryofinner
relatednesstoothersfacilitatedbythewithdrawalfromegorelatedness.Norisitpossibletoconvey
fully the experience of applying the practical disciplines of withholding and core
communication,andtheireffectivenessintherapeuticwork.Iinviteresponsetothisarticlefrom
allexistentialtherapists withaninterestinLaing,objectrelations theoryandpsychopathology,
22

and/orfromthosewishingtoexperienceandapplywhatrelationalanalysisandcorerelatingcan
offertotheirownrelationshipswithpatients.
References:
BacalandNewman(1990)TheoriesofObjectRelations:BridgestoSelfPsychology.Columbia
Bollas,C.(1989)ForcesofDestiny:PsychoanalysisandHumanIdiom.FreeAssociation
Buber,M.(1965)BetweenManandMan.Macmillan
Guntrip,H.(1971)PsychoanalyticTheory,TherapyandtheSelf.Karnac
Hedges,L.E.(1991)ListeningPerspectivesinPsychotherapy.Aronson
Klein,J.(1989)OurNeedforOthersanditsRootsinInfancy.Routledge
Laing,R.D.(1960)TheDividedSelf.Penguin
Levin,D.M.(1989)TheListeningSelf.Routledge
Wilberg,H.P.(1998)BeingandListening.ThirdEarPublications
Wilberg,H.P.(1998)TherapyandPhilosophy.ThirdEarPublications
Wilberg,H.P.(1998)ChargingtheQuestion.ThirdEarPublications
Winnicott,D.W.(1965)TheMaturationalProcessandtheFacilitatingEnvironment.Karnac

23