In An Extremely Influential Work, Mitchell (1988) described Freudian drive theory as outdated, stating, “we have been living in an essentially post-Freudian era” (p. 2). Mitchell noted that for the first half century of psychoanalytic thought, the guiding vision of treatment was one of the exploration and eventual renunciation of infantile instinctual drives, but that a revolution has occurred over the past several decades. Greenberg and Mitchell (1983) coined the term relational model to characterize a perspective that focuses on relations with others rather than on drives. Contributions from relational thinkers are quite diverse but tend to focus on the individual as a participant in a matrix of relationships rather than as an isolated figure experiencing internal pressures. Moreover, as Stolorow et al. (1987) postulate, a focus on affects rather than drives is central to relational psychoanalysis. The shift to a relational model has invigorated psychoanalytic thinking. It also enables a kind of integration with other theoretical frameworks that was not possible with drive theory's view of the individual as a relatively closed system and its focus on invariant stages and the primacy of fantasy. Gold and Stricker (2001) similarly assert that relational psychoanalysis provides a foundation for assimilative integration. Mitchell (1988) declared that mind “is composed of relational configurations” (p. 2) and Stolorow and Atwood (1992) critiqued what they term the “myth” of an isolated individual mind, which they believe characterizes Western culture, including psychoanalytic thinking. The nature of such relationally oriented mental processes, their genesis, and their potential transformation in treatment may be illuminated in diverse ways, including, I believe, some of the nonpsychoanalytic methods that I discuss in this book.