It’s gratifying to be a Relational-Cultural practitioner as we learn more and more about neuroscience. Almost everywhere we look, there’s information about neuroscience supporting the need for healthy relationships. Those of us who’ve been doing Relational-Cultural Therapy (RCT) for a long time can nod, knowingly, maybe even adding an “I told you so” to the mix. Using neurobiology to back up our therapeutic approach feels solid, even certain.
Risks and Rewards of Neuroscience
As with any powerful tool, the way we use neuroscience in therapy matters deeply. When employed thoughtfully, it can illustrate the benefits of relational healing and support the principles of RCT. Yet, when misused or overstated, it can reinforce the very systems and narratives we are struggling to dismantle. Yes, it can even undermine connection and growth.
Double edged sword of Neuroscience
Neuroscience, by its nature, is both a source of profound insight and a field in constant evolution. By the time your therapist is offering psychoeducation on mirror neurons, the theory underpinning it has boomeranged through believers, skeptics, and theorists all the way from”that might be true” to “no way” and back again. What we understand about the brain today is not what we understood yesterday, and will shift dramatically with future discoveries. This dynamic quality is a reminder that no therapeutic approach should hinge entirely on current scientific knowledge. However, the allure of neuroscience—its capacity to “prove” ideas—can lead to oversimplification and even misuse.
Consider the way some public figures wield neuroscience to reinforce rigid hierarchies and patriarchal norms. Jordan Peterson, for example, often uses scientific language to argue that societal hierarchies are biologically determined and inevitable. By framing these ideas in the context of “natural order,” he appeals to those who feel destabilized by cultural shifts. This misuse of neuroscience doesn’t just misrepresent the science; it also feeds into fear-based narratives that resist equity and mutuality.
RCT: Integrating Neuroscience Without Overreliance
Relational-Cultural Theory takes a different approach. Rather than using neuroscience to bolster rigid claims, RCT integrates it as a dynamic, evolving lens. Neuroscience supports—but does not define—the relational principles RCT champions.
For example, RCT emphasizes the importance of connection, mutuality, and relational safety in fostering growth. Neuroscience complements these ideas by demonstrating how connection activates neural pathways associated with empathy, trust, and creativity. Relational moments of co-regulation—where one person’s calm presence soothes another’s stress—are not just emotionally impactful; they’re also reflected in the calming of the amygdala and the activation of the prefrontal cortex. These findings underscore what practitioners have long known: human relationships have the power to heal.
RCT also recognizes the risks of over-relying on neuroscience. By rooting its insights in lived relational experience, it avoids presenting the science as unchanging or definitive. Neuroscience becomes a companion to RCT, a support in living up to its values, not its foundation.
Why It Matters
Misusing neuroscience in therapy or otherwise, to reinforce hierarchical or fear-based narratives undermines the potential for genuine connection and growth. It fosters defensiveness rather than openness, and isolation rather than mutuality. Grasping our neuroscience straws too tightly robs us of the opportunities to be in the MUD.
Conversely, when neuroscience is used responsibly, it can enhance our understanding of relational healing and offer hope to those navigating the complexities of human connection.
Therapy isn’t about proving the validity of connection through science; it’s about creating growth-fostering relationships that honor our shared humanity. Neuroscience, when used thoughtfully, can help illuminate the path forward without overshadowing the relational wisdom that guides us.