Two thoughts about recently deceased Stephen Mitchell:

His criticism's of classical psychoanalysis overlapped considerably with
those of  Frederick Crews, yet he was well accepted within the
psychoanalytic world while Crews has taken on the status of the
Anti-Christ. (I must exclude most social-worker-psychoanalysts who do
not seem to know anything about Crews and who are amazed that anyone can
find any reason at all to criticize psychoanalysis). Mitchell was sharp
in his criticism; he didn't pull any punches, nor did he conclude his
articles with the usual platitude that Freud, despite being wrong about
everything as well as being an all around bad guy, was still a world
class genius. Could Mitchell's acceptance within psychoanalysis and
Crew's rejection be due to (1) Crews' biting humor, (2) Crews'
non-psychoanalyst status, or (3) Crews' rejection of all psychoanalytic
approaches, including Mitchell's relational orientation?

Mitchell did a good job of raising serious questions about classical
psychoanalysis, but he seemed to miss the-in my opinion- obvious point
that relational psychoanalysis suffers the same deficiencies, the most
notable of which is that it, too, is unconnected to any body of
scientific knowledge nor does it have any research backing. Freud could
feel that research is unnecessary for psychoanalytic advancement; yet,
at this time, it is unlikely that psychoanalytic theorists can be taken
seriously outside their own group of followers without having a
scientific research basis for their claims.

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.