result of specific work on the part of the therapist. To define the concept of interpersonal learning and to describe the mechanism whereby it mediates therapeutic change in the individual, I first need to discuss three other concepts:
1. The importance of interpersonal relationships
2. The corrective emotional experience
3. The group as social microcosm
THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
From whatever perspective we study human society—whether we scan humanity’s broad evolutionary history or scrutinize the development of the single individual—we are at all times obliged to consider the human being in the matrix of his or her interpersonal relationships. There is convincing data from the study of nonhuman primates, primitive human cultures, and contemporary society that human beings have always lived in groups that have been characterized by intense and persistent relationships among members and that the need to belong is a powerful, fundamental, and pervasive motivation. 1 Interpersonal relatedness has clearly been adaptive in an evolutionary sense: without deep, positive, reciprocal interpersonal bonds, neither individual nor species survival would have been possible.
John Bowlby, from his studies of the early mother-child relationship, concludes not only that attachment behavior is necessary for survival but also that it is core, intrinsic, and genetically built in. 2 If mother and infant are separated, both experience marked anxiety concomitant with their search for the lost object. If the separation is prolonged, the consequences for the infant will be profound. Winnicott similarly noted, “There is no such thing as a baby. There exists a mother-infant pair.” 3 We live in a “relational matrix,” according to Mitchell: “The person is comprehensible only within this tapestry of relationships, past and present.” 4
Similarly, a century ago the great American psychologist-philosopher William James said:
We are not only gregarious animals liking to be in sight of our fellows, but we have an innate propensity to get ourselves noticed, and noticed favorably, by our kind. No more fiendish punishment could be devised, were such a thing physically possible, than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof. 5
Indeed, James’s speculations have been substantiated time and again by contemporary research that documents the pain and the adverse consequences of loneliness. There is, for example, persuasive evidence that the rate for virtually every major cause of death is significantly higher for the lonely, the single, the divorced, and the widowed. 6 Social isolation is as much a risk factor for early mortality as obvious physical risk factors such as smoking and obesity. 7 The inverse is also true: social connection and integration have a positive impact on the course of serious illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. 8
Recognizing the primacy of relatedness and attachment, contemporary models of dynamic psychotherapy have evolved from a drive-based, one-person Freudian psychology to a two-person relational psychology that places the client’s interpersonal experience at the center of effective psychotherapy. † 9 Contemporary psychotherapy employs “a relational model in which mind is envisioned as built out of interactional configurations of self in relation to others.” 10
Building on the earlier contributions of Harry Stack Sullivan and his interpersonal theory of psychiatry, 11 interpersonal models of psychotherapy have become prominent. 12 Although Sullivan’s work was seminally important, contemporary generations of therapists rarely read him. For one thing, his language is often obscure (though there are excellent renderings of his work into plain English); 13 for another, his work has so pervaded contemporary psychotherapeutic thought that his original writings seem overly familiar or obvious. However, with the recent focus on
1. The importance of interpersonal relationships
2. The corrective emotional experience
3. The group as social microcosm
THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
From whatever perspective we study human society—whether we scan humanity’s broad evolutionary history or scrutinize the development of the single individual—we are at all times obliged to consider the human being in the matrix of his or her interpersonal relationships. There is convincing data from the study of nonhuman primates, primitive human cultures, and contemporary society that human beings have always lived in groups that have been characterized by intense and persistent relationships among members and that the need to belong is a powerful, fundamental, and pervasive motivation. 1 Interpersonal relatedness has clearly been adaptive in an evolutionary sense: without deep, positive, reciprocal interpersonal bonds, neither individual nor species survival would have been possible.
John Bowlby, from his studies of the early mother-child relationship, concludes not only that attachment behavior is necessary for survival but also that it is core, intrinsic, and genetically built in. 2 If mother and infant are separated, both experience marked anxiety concomitant with their search for the lost object. If the separation is prolonged, the consequences for the infant will be profound. Winnicott similarly noted, “There is no such thing as a baby. There exists a mother-infant pair.” 3 We live in a “relational matrix,” according to Mitchell: “The person is comprehensible only within this tapestry of relationships, past and present.” 4
Similarly, a century ago the great American psychologist-philosopher William James said:
We are not only gregarious animals liking to be in sight of our fellows, but we have an innate propensity to get ourselves noticed, and noticed favorably, by our kind. No more fiendish punishment could be devised, were such a thing physically possible, than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof. 5
Indeed, James’s speculations have been substantiated time and again by contemporary research that documents the pain and the adverse consequences of loneliness. There is, for example, persuasive evidence that the rate for virtually every major cause of death is significantly higher for the lonely, the single, the divorced, and the widowed. 6 Social isolation is as much a risk factor for early mortality as obvious physical risk factors such as smoking and obesity. 7 The inverse is also true: social connection and integration have a positive impact on the course of serious illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. 8
Recognizing the primacy of relatedness and attachment, contemporary models of dynamic psychotherapy have evolved from a drive-based, one-person Freudian psychology to a two-person relational psychology that places the client’s interpersonal experience at the center of effective psychotherapy. † 9 Contemporary psychotherapy employs “a relational model in which mind is envisioned as built out of interactional configurations of self in relation to others.” 10
Building on the earlier contributions of Harry Stack Sullivan and his interpersonal theory of psychiatry, 11 interpersonal models of psychotherapy have become prominent. 12 Although Sullivan’s work was seminally important, contemporary generations of therapists rarely read him. For one thing, his language is often obscure (though there are excellent renderings of his work into plain English); 13 for another, his work has so pervaded contemporary psychotherapeutic thought that his original writings seem overly familiar or obvious. However, with the recent focus on
Similar Books
The Spider Truces
Tim Connolly
Freak
Francine Pascal
Creighton's Hideaway
LoRee Peery
The Mystery Megapack
Marcia Talley
Mistletoe Magic
Melissa McClone
The Reenchantment of the World
Morris Berman
THE NEXT TO DIE
Kevin O'Brien
The Daylight Gate
Jeanette Winterson
A Tan & Sandy Silence
John D. MacDonald
The Prince’s Bride
Julianne MacLean