ABSTRACT
Mills (2005) offers a wide-ranging critique of relational psychoanalysis, seeking to point out its theoretical shortcomings and its clinical hazards. Although he declares an evenhanded and nonpolemic approach, promotes “accurate scholarship,” and decries “illegitimate attacks” on psychoanalytic literature, Mills’ thesis is rife with rhetorical excesses, unsubstantiated allegations, and misrepresentations of clinical moments unlinked from their contexts. This commentary highlights where Mills supports his opinions through evocative and mystifying rhetoric rather than scholarly and substantiating evidence.
