Object relations theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:49, 13 April 2022

Latest revision as of 10:26, 11 July 2025

(46 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|TheorySchool inof psychoanalytic psychologythought}}

{{redirect|The good breast|the 2016 documentary film|Bernadette Wegenstein}}

{{essay|date=June 2012}}

{{more citations needed|date=March 2023}}

{{Psychoanalysis |Schools}}

'''Object relations theory''' is a school of thought in [[psychoanalytic psychologytheory]] is the process of developing aand [[Psyche (psychology)|psychepsychoanalysis]] incentered relationaround totheories othersof instages theof childhoodego environmentdevelopment. ItIts designatesconcerns theoriesinclude orthe aspectsrelation of theoriesthe that[[psyche are(psychology)|psyche]] concernedto withothers in childhood and the exploration of relationships between real and external people, as well as internal images and the relations found in them.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |title=Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory |lastlast1=Greenberg |firstfirst1=Jay |last2=Mitchell |first2=Stephen |publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1983 |isbn=0674629752 |___location=Cambridge, MA |pages=[https://archive.org/details/objectrelationsi00gree/page/12 12] |url=https://archive.org/details/objectrelationsi00gree/page/12}}</ref> ItAdherents maintainsto this school of thought maintain that the infant's relationship with the mother primarily determines the formation of itstheir personality in adult life. [[Attachment theory|Attachment]] is the bedrock of the development of the self, i.e. the psychic organization that creates one's sense of identity.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=Family Therapy: An Overview: An Overview|lastlast1=Goldenberg |firstfirst1=Herbert |last2=Goldenberg |first2=Irene |publisher=Thomson Higher Education |year=2008 |isbn=9780495097594 |___location=Belmont, CA |pages=160}}</ref> Particularly, the need for [[Attachment_theory|attachment]] is the bedrock of the development of the self or the psychic organization that creates the sense of identity.<ref name=":1" />

== Theory ==

While objectits relationsgroundwork theoryderives isfrom basedtheories onof development of the ego in [[psychodynamicsSigmund Freud|psychodynamicFreudian]] theory[[psychodynamics]], object relations theory placesdoes lessnot place emphasis on the role of biological [[Drive theory|drives]] in the formation of adultpersonality personalityin adulthood.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, Updated |lastlast1=Andersen |firstfirst1=Margaret |last2=Taylor |first2=Howard |publisher=Thomson Wadsworth |year=2008 |isbn=9780495007425 |___location=Belmont, CA |pages=93}}</ref> TheThis theoryschool of thought instead suggests that thea wayperson's peoplepattern relateof relations to others andas situations in theiran adult lives is shaped by family experiences of caregivers during infancy. ForCaregivers example,and another figures in the infant's life are termed "objects." An adult who experienced neglect or abuse in infancy would expectexpects similar behavior from others who, through [[transference]], remind them of the neglectful or abusive parent from their past. These images of people and events turn into ''objects'' in the unconscious that the "self" carries into adulthood, and they are used by the unconscious to predict people's behavior in their social relationships and interactions.

The first "object" in someonean individual's psyche is usually an internalized image of one'sthe mother. Internal objects are formed by the patterns in one's experience of being taken care of as aan babyinfant, which may or may not be accurate representations of the actual, external caretakers. Objects are usually internalized images of one's [[mother]], [[father]], or other primary caregiver,. althoughHowever, they couldcan also consist of parts of a person, such as an infant relating to the [[breast]] orrather thingsthan into one'stheir innermother worldas (one'sa internalizedwhole image of others)person.<ref>{{cite book
|last = St. Clair

|first = Michael

|title = Object Relations and Self Psychology: An Introduction

Line 19 ⟶ 22:

|url = https://archive.org/details/objectrelationss00stcl/page/6

}}</ref>

Later experiences can reshape these early patterns, but objects often continue to exert a strong influence throughout life. Objects are initially comprehended in the [[infant]] mind by their functions and are termed ''part objects''.<ref name = "Greenberg1983">Greenberg, J. & Mitchell, S. (1983). ''Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory''. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.</ref> Objects are initially comprehended in the [[infant]] mind by their functions and are termed ''part objects''.<ref name = Greenberg1983/> The breast that feeds the hungry infant is the "good breast"," while a hungry infant that finds no breast isunderstands inthe relationbreast to be the "bad breast.".<ref name = Greenberg1983/> With a "good enough" facilitating environment, part object functions eventually transform into a comprehension of whole objects. This corresponds with the ability to tolerate ambiguity, to see that both the "good" and the "bad" breast are a part of the same mother figure.<ref name = "Greenberg1983" />

==History==

The initial line of thought emerged in 1917 with [[Sándor Ferenczi|Ferenczi]]. andSubsequently, early in the 1930s, [[Harry Stack Sullivan|Sullivan]], coinerestablished ofwhat theis termknown as "interpersonal" theory.<ref>Ogden, T. (2005). ''This Art of Psychoanalysis: Dreaming undreamt dreams and interrupted cries''. NY: Routledge. (p. 27).</ref> British psychologists [[Melanie Klein]], [[Donald Winnicott]], and [[Harry Guntrip]], Scott Stuart, and others extended object relations theory during the 1940s and 1950s. In 1952, [[Ronald Fairbairn]] in 1952 independently formulated his theory of object relations.<ref name=":2">Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). ''Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality''. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.</ref>

The term has been used in many different contexts, which led to different connotations and denotations.<ref name=":0" /> While Fairbairn popularized the term "object relations," Klein's work tends to be most commonly identified with the terms "object relations theory" and "British object relations," at least in contemporary North America, though the influence of the [[British Independent Group (psychoanalysis)|British Independent Group]]—which argued that the primary motivation of the child is object seeking rather than drive gratification<ref>Glen O. Gabbard, ''Long-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy'' (Washington, DC 2010) p. 12</ref>—is becoming increasingly recognized.

The term has been used in many different contexts, which led to different connotations and denotations.<ref name=":0" /> While Fairbairn popularized the term "object relations", Melanie Klein's work tends to be most commonly identified with the terms "object relations theory" and "British object relations", at least in contemporary North America, though the influence of 'what is known as the [[British Independent Group (psychoanalysis)|''British independent perspective'']], which argued that the primary motivation of the child is object seeking rather than drive gratification',<ref>Glen O. Gabbard, ''Long-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy'' (Washington, DC 2010) p. 12</ref> is becoming increasingly recognized. Klein felt that the psychodynamic battleground that Freud proposed occurs very early in life, during infancy. Furthermore, its origins are different from those that Freud proposed. The interactions between infant and mother are so deep and intense that they form the focus of the infant's structure of drives. Some of these interactions provoke anger and frustration; others provoke strong emotionsfeelings of dependence as the child begins to recognize that the mother is more than a breast from which to feed. These reactions threaten to overwhelm the individualityinfant's sense of the infantself. The way in which the infant resolves the conflict, Klein believed, is reflected in the adult's personality.<ref>Gomez, 1997, p. 12</ref>

[[Sigmund Freud|Freud]] originally identified people in a subject's environment with the term "object" to identify people as the object of drives. Fairbairn took a radical departure from Freud by positing that humans wereare fundamentally motivated not by seeking satisfactionfulfillment of thea drive, but actuallyby seekseeking the satisfaction that comes inof being in relation to real others. Klein and Fairbairn were working along similar lines,. but unlikeUnlike Fairbairn, however, Klein always held that she was not departing from Freudian theory, butrather simply elaborating early developmental phenomena consistent with Freudian theory.

Within the London psychoanalytic community, a conflict of loyalties took place between Klein and object relations theory (sometimes referred to as "id psychology") and [[Anna Freud]] and [[ego psychology]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mitchell |first=Stephen A. |title=Influence and Autonomy in Psychoanalysis |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=9780881634495 |___location=New York, NY |pages=101}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=The Freud-Klein Controversies 1941-45 |publisher=Routledge |year=1992 |editor-last=King |editor-first=Pearl |___location=London |id={{ASIN|0415082749|country=ca}} |editor2-last=Steiner |editor2-first=Riccardo}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Other Banalities: Melanie Klein Revisited |publisher=Routledge |year=2006 |editor-last=Mills |editor-first=Jon |___location=London}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Hughes |first=Judith M. |title=Reshaping the Psychoanalytic Domain: The Work of Melanie Klein, W.R.D. Fairbairn, and D.W. Winnicott |publisher=University of California Press |year=1990}}</ref> In London, those who refused to choose sides were termed the "middle school," whose members included [[D.W. Winnicott|Winnicott]] and [[Michael Balint]]. Klein's theories became popular in South America, while Anna Freud's garnered an American allegiance.<ref>{{Cite book

Within the London psychoanalytic community, a conflict of loyalties took place between Klein and object relations theory (sometimes referred to as "id psychology"),<ref>{{Cite book

| last = Mitchell

| first = Stephen A.

| title = Influence and Autonomy in Psychoanalysis

| publisher = Routledge

| year = 1997

| ___location = New York, NY

| pages = 101

| isbn = 9780881634495}}</ref>

and [[Anna Freud]] and [[ego psychology]]. In America, Anna Freud heavily influenced American psychoanalysis in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. American ego psychology was furthered in the works of Hartmann, Kris, Loewenstein, Rapaport, Erikson, Jacobson, and [[Margaret Mahler|Mahler]]. In London, those who refused to choose sides were termed the "middle school," whose members included [[Michael Balint]] and [[D.W. Winnicott]]. A certain division developed in England between the school of Anna Freud and that of Melanie Klein,<ref>{{Cite book

|title = The Freud-Klein Controversies 1941-45

|publisher = Routledge

|year = 1992

|___location = London

|editor-last = King

|editor-first = Pearl

|editor2-last = Steiner

|editor2-first = Riccardo|id = {{ASIN|0415082749|country=ca}}

}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book

|title = Other Banalities: Melanie Klein Revisited

|publisher = Routledge

|year = 2006

|___location = London

|editor-last = Mills

|editor-first = Jon}}</ref> which later influenced psychoanalytic politics worldwide.<ref>{{Cite book

|title = Reshaping the Psychoanalytic Domain: The Work of Melanie Klein, W.R.D. Fairbairn, and D.W. Winnicott

|last = Hughes

|first = Judith M.

|publisher = University of California Press

|year = 1990

}}</ref> Klein was popularized in South America while A. Freud garnered an American allegiance.<ref>{{Cite book

|title = Freud in the Pampas: The Emergence and Development of a Psychoanalytic Culture in Argentina

|last = Ben Plotkin

Line 65 ⟶ 41:

|year = 2001

|isbn = 9780804740609

|url = http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=669}}</ref> Anna Freud was particularly influential in American psychoanalysis in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. American ego psychology was furthered in the works of Hartmann, Kris, Loewenstein, Rapaport, Erikson, Jacobson, and [[Margaret Mahler|Mahler]].

|url = http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=669}}</ref>

=== Fairbairn's Structuraltheory Theoryof attachment===

Fairbairn revised much of Freud's model of the mind. He identifieddescribed how people who were abused as children internalize that experience. Fairbairn'sThe "moral defense" is the tendency seen in survivors of abuse to take all the bad upon themselves, each believingyielding hethe ismoral morally badevil so histhe caretaker -object can be regarded as good. This is a use of [[Splitting (psychology)|splitting]] as a defense to maintain an attachment relationship in an unsafe world. In one particular example of this circumstance, Fairbairn introduced a four-year-old girl withwho had suffered a broken arm at the hands of her mother to a doctor friend of his., Hewho told the little girl that they were going to find her a new mommyparent. "OhThe no!"girl, thenow girlpanicked cried.and "Iunhappy, wantreplied mythat she wanted her "real mommy." Fairbairn asked, "You mean the mommy that broke your arm?" Fairbairn asked. "I was bad," the girl replied.<ref name="Columbia University Press">{{cite book|last1=Celani|first1=David|title=Fairbairn's Object Relations Theory in the Clinical Setting|date=2010|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0231149075}}</ref> SheFrom this exchange, he theorized that she needed to believe that her love object (mother) was allentirely good, so that sheto couldfirmly believe she would one day receive the love and nurturing she needed.needed—in Ifan sheattempt acceptedto herrecuperate motherthese was badneeds, then she would be bereft and alone in the world, an intolerable state. She used the Moralmoral Defensedefense to make ''herself'' bad, butin order to preserve her mother's goodness.

==Kleinian object relations theory==

===Unconscious phantasy {{Anchor|Unconscious Phantasy|Kleinian Phantasy}}===

<!--'Unconscious phantasy' redirects here-->

Klein termed the psychological aspect of instinct unconscious '''unconscious phantasy'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> (deliberately spelled with 'ph' to distinguish it from the word '[[Fantasy (psychology)|fantasy]]'). Phantasy is a given of psychic life which moves outward towards the world. These image-potentials are given a priority with the drives and eventually allow the development of more complex states of mental life. Unconscious phantasy in the infant's emerging mental life is modified by the environment as the infant has contact with reality.<ref name="Segal 1981">{{cite book

| last = Segal

| first = Hanna

Line 93 ⟶ 71:

===Projective identification===

As a specific term, [[projective identification]] is introduced by Klein in “Notes"Notes on some schizoid mechanisms.”"<ref name="Klein 1946">{{Cite book

| last= Klein

| first= Mélanie

Line 104 ⟶ 82:

}}</ref>

<blockquote>

[Projection] helps the ego to overcome anxiety by ridding it of danger and badness. Introjection of the good object is also used by the ego as a defense against anxiety. . .. .The processes of splitting off parts of the self and projecting them into objects are thus of vital importance for normal development as well as for abnormal object-relation. The effect of introjection on object relations is equally important. The introjection of the good object, first of all the mother’smother's breast, is a precondition for normal development . . . It comes to form a focal point in the ego and makes for cohesiveness of the ego. . . . I suggest for these processes the term ‘projective'projective identification’identification'.<ref name="Klein 1946" />{{rp|6–9}}

</blockquote>

Klein imagined this function as a defense which contributes to the normal development of the infant, including ego structure and the development of object relations. The [[introjection]] of the good breast provides a ___location where one can hide from persecution, an early step in developing a capacity to self-soothe.

[[Thomas Ogden| isbn = 978-0-87668-446-7}}</ref>Ogden]] identifies four functions that projective identification may serve. As in the traditional Kleinian model, it serves as a defense. Projective identification serves as a mode of communication. It is a form of object relations, and “a"a pathway for psychological change.”"<ref name="Ogden 77">{{cite book |last=Ogden |first=Thomas H. |title=Projective Identification and Psychotherapeutic Technique |publisher=Jason Aronson |year=1977 |isbn=978-0-87668-446-7 |___location=Lanham, MD}}</ref>{{rp|21}} As a form of object relationship, projective identification is a way of relating with others who are not seen as entirely separate from the individual. Instead, this relating takes place “between"between the stage of the subjective object and that of true object relatedness”relatedness".<ref name="Ogden 77" />{{rp|23}}

[[Thomas H. Ogden|Ogden]]<ref name = "Ogden 77">{{cite book

| last = Ogden

| first = Thomas H.

| title = Projective Identification and Psychotherapeutic Technique

| publisher = Jason Aronson

| year = 1977

| ___location = Lanham, MD

| isbn = 978-0-87668-446-7}}</ref> identifies four functions that projective identification may serve. As in the traditional Kleinian model, it serves as a defense. Projective identification serves as a mode of communication. It is a form of object relations, and “a pathway for psychological change.”<ref name="Ogden 77" />{{rp|21}} As a form of object relationship, projective identification is a way of relating with others who are not seen as entirely separate from the individual. Instead, this relating takes place “between the stage of the subjective object and that of true object relatedness”.<ref name="Ogden 77" />{{rp|23}}

===The paranoidParanoid-schizoid and depressive positions===

{{main|paranoidParanoid-schizoid and depressive positions}}

The positions of Kleinian theory, underlain by unconscious phantasy, are stages in the normal development of ego and object relationships, each with its own characteristic defenses and organizational structure. The paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions occur in the pre-oedipal, oral phase of development.

In contrast to Fairbairn and later Guntrip,<ref>{{cite book|author=Guntrip, H. (|date=1975). ''|title=Schizoid phenomena, object relations and the self''. |___location=Madison, CT: |publisher=International Universities Press. p. |page=21.}}</ref> Klein believed that both good and bad objects are introjected by the infant, the internalization of good objects being essential to the development of healthy ego function.<ref name="Klein 1946" />{{rp|4}} Klein conceptualized the depressive position as “the"the most mature form of psychological organization”organization", which continues to develop throughout the life span.<ref name="Ogden 1989">{{cite book

| last = Ogden

| first = Thomas H.

Line 129 ⟶ 100:

| year = 1989

| ___location = Northvale, NJ

| isbn = 978-0-87668-982-0}}.</ref>{{rp|11}}

The depressive position occurs during the second quarter of the first year.<ref name="Klein 1946" />{{rp|14}} Prior to that the infant is in the paranoid-schizoid position, which is characterized by persecutory anxieties and the mechanisms of splitting, projection, introjection, and omnipotence—which includes idealizing and denial—to defend against these anxieties.<ref name="Klein 1946" />{{rp|7}} Depressive and paranoid-schizoid modes of experience continue to intermingle throughout the first few years of childhood.

Line 143 ⟶ 114:

Klein saw the depressive position as an important developmental milestone that continues to mature throughout the life span. The splitting and part object relations that characterize the earlier phase are succeeded by the capacity to perceive that the other who frustrates is also the one who gratifies. Schizoid defenses are still in evidence, but feelings of guilt, grief, and the desire for reparation gain dominance in the developing mind.

In the depressive position, the infant is able to experience others as whole, which radically alters object relationships from the earlier phase.<ref name="Klein 1946" />{{rp|3}} “Before"Before the depressive position, a good object is not in any way the same thing as a bad object. It is only in the depressive position that polar qualities can be seen as different aspects of the same object.”"<ref name="Grotstein 1981">{{cite book

| last = Grotstein

| first = James S.

Line 152 ⟶ 123:

| isbn = 978-0-87668-348-4}}</ref>{{rp|37}} Increasing nearness of good and bad brings a corresponding integration of ego.

In a development which Grotstein terms the "primal split",<ref name="Grotstein 1981" />{{rp|39}} the infant becomes aware of separateness from the mother. This awareness allows guilt to arise in response to the infant's previous aggressive phantasies when bad was split from good. The mother's temporary absences allow for continuous restoration of her “as"as an image of representation”representation" in the infant mind.<ref name="Grotstein 1981" />{{rp|39}} Symbolic thought may now arise, and can only emerge once access to the depressive position has been obtained. With the awareness of the primal split, a space is created in which the symbol, the symbolized, and the experiencing subject coexist. History, subjectivity, interiority, and empathy all become possible.<ref name="Ogden 1989" />{{rp|14}}

The anxieties characteristic of the depressive position shift from a fear of being destroyed to a fear of destroying others. In fact or phantasy, one now realizes the capacity to harm or drive away a person who one ambivalently loves. The defenses characteristic of the depressive position include the manic defenses, repression and reparation. The manic defenses are the same defenses evidenced in the paranoid-schizoid position, but now mobilized to protect the mind from depressive anxiety. As the depressive position brings about an increasing integration in the ego, earlier defenses change in character, becoming less intense and allowing for an increased awareness of psychic reality.<ref name="Klein 1952">{{Cite book

Line 168 ⟶ 139:

<blockquote>

[As] fears of losing the loved one become active, a very important step is made in the development. These feelings of guilt and distress now enter as a new element into the emotion of love. They become an inherent part of love, and influence it profoundly both in quality and quantity.<ref name="Klein 1964">{{Cite book

|lastlast1= Klein

|firstfirst1= Mélanie

|last2= Riviere

|first2= Joan

Line 180 ⟶ 151:

}}</ref>{{rp|65}}

</blockquote>

From this developmental milestone comecomes a capacity for sympathy, responsibility to and concern for others, and an ability to identify with the subjective experience of people one cares about.<ref name="Klein 1964" />{{rp|65–66}} With the withdrawal of the destructive projections, repression of the aggressive impulses takes place.<ref name="Klein 1952" />{{rp|72–73}} The child allows caretakers a more separate existence, which facilitates increasing differentiation of inner and outer reality. Omnipotence is lessened, which corresponds to a decrease in guilt and the fear of loss.<ref name="Segal 1981" />{{rp|16}}

When all goes well, the developing child is able to comprehend that external others are autonomous people with their own needs and subjectivity.

Line 195 ⟶ 166:

====Further thinking regarding the positions====

[[Wilfred Bion]] articulates the dynamic nature of the positions, a point emphasised by [[Thomas Ogden]], and expanded by [[John Steiner (psychoanalyst)|John Steiner]] in terms of '"The equilibrium between the paranoid-schizoid and the depressive positions"'.<ref>John Steiner, in Robin Anderson ed., ''Clinical Lectures on Klein and Bion'' (London 1992) p. 46-58</ref> Ogden and [[James Grotstein]] have continued to explore early infantile states of mind, and incorporating the work of [[Donald Meltzer]], [[Esther Bick]] and others, postulate a position preceding the paranoid-schizoid. Grotstein, following Bion, also hypothesizes a transcendent position which emerges following attainment of the depressive position. This aspect of both Ogden and Grotstein's work remains controversial for many within classical object relations theory.

===Death drive===

[[Sigmund Freud]] developed the concept [[object relation]] to describe or emphasize that bodily [[drive theory|drive]]s satisfy their need through a medium, an object, on a specific focus. The central thesis in [[Melanie Klein]]'s object relations theory was that objects play a decisive role in the development of a subject and can be either part-objects or whole-objects, i.e. a single organ (a mother's breast) or a whole person (a mother). Consequently, both a mother or just the mother's breast can be the focus of satisfaction for a drive. Furthermore, according to traditional psychoanalysis, there are at least two types of drives, the [[libido]] (mythical counterpart: [[Eros (mythology)|Eros]]), and the [[death]] drive, [[mortido]] (mythical counterpart: [[Thanatos]]). Thus, the objects can be receivers of both [[love]] and [[hate]], the affective effects of the [[libido]] and the death drive.

==Ronald Fairbairn's model of object relations theory==

Fairbairn was impressed with the work of Klein, particularly in her emphasis on internalized objects, but he objected to the notion that internalization of external objects was based on death instinct. The death instinct is a remnant of the Freudian model that was emphasized in Klein's model, and her model assumes that human behavior is motivated by a struggle between the instinctual forces of love and hate. Klein believed that each human being was born with a inborn death instinct which motivated the child to imagine hurting their mother during the schizoid period of development. The child attempts to protect themselves from becoming overwhelmed by hate by internalizing, or taking into themselves, memories of the loving aspects of their parents to counteract the hateful components. Fairbairn's model also emphasized the internalization of external objects, but his view of internalization was not based on instinctual drive, but rather the child's normal desire to understand the world around him.

Ronald Fairbairn was impressed with the work of Klein, particularly in her emphasis on internalized objects, but he objected to the notion that internalization of external objects was based on the death instinct. The death instinct is a remnant of the Freudian model that was emphasized in Klein's model, and her model assumes that human behavior is motivated by a struggle between the instinctual forces of love and hate. Klein believed that each human being was born with aan inborn death instinct which motivated the child to imagine hurting their mother during the schizoid period of development. The child attempts to protect themselves from becoming overwhelmed by hate by internalizing, or taking into themselves, memories of the loving aspects of their parents to counteract the hateful components. Fairbairn's model also emphasized the internalization of external objects, but his view of internalization was not based on instinctual drive, but rather the child's normal desire to understand the world around himthem.

Fairbairn began his theory with is observation of the child's absolute dependency on the good will of its mother. The infant, Fairbairn noted was dependent on its maternal object (or caretaker) for providing him with all of his physical and psychological needs as noted in the following passage.<blockquote>The outstanding feature of infantile dependence is its unconditional character. The infant is completely dependent upon its object not only for his object not only for his existence and physical well being, but also for the satisfaction of his psychological needs...In contrast, the very helplessness of the child is sufficient to render him dependent in an unconditional sense...He has no alternative but to accept or reject his object- an alternative that is liable to present itself to him as a choice between life and death (Fairbairn, 1952, 47)<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=D.|first=Fairbairn, W. Ronald|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/923853600|title=Psychoanalytic studies of the personality|date=1976|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0-415-05174-6|oclc=923853600}}</ref></blockquote>When the maternal object provides a sense of safety and warmth the child's innate "central ego" is able to take in new experiences which allows him to expand his contact with the environment beyond the tight orbit of his mother. This is the beginning of the process of differentiation, or separation from the parent, which eventuates into a new and unique individual. As long as the maternal object continues to provide emotional warmth, support and a sense of safety, the child will continue to develop throughout childhood. However, if the parent fails to consistently provide these factors, the child's development stops and he regresses and remains undifferentiated from his mother, as the following quote illustrates.<blockquote>The greatest need of a child is to obtain conclusive assurance (a) that he is genuinely loved as a person by his parents, and (b) that his parents genuinely accept his love. It is only in so far as such assurance is forthcoming in a form sufficiently convincing to enable him to depend safely upon his real objects that he is able to gradually renounce infantile dependence without misgiving. In the absence of such assurance his relationship with his objects is fraught with too much ''anxiety over separation'' to enable him to renounce the attitude of infantile dependence: for such a renunciation would be equivalent in his eyes to forfeiting all hope of ever obtaining the satisfaction of his unsatisfied emotional needs. Frustration of his desire to be loved as a person and have his love accepted is the greatest trauma that a child can experience (Fairbairn, 1952:39-40).<ref name=":2" /> </blockquote>This quote illustrates the basis of Fairbairn's model. It is completely interpersonal in that there are no biological drives of inherited instincts. The child is born with a need for love and safety, and when his interpersonal environment fails him, he stops developing psychologically and emotionally. The counterintitutive result of maternal (or paternal, if the father is the primary caregiver) failure is that the child becomes '''more, rather than less, dependent''' upon her, because by failing to meet her child's needs the child has to remain dependent in the hope that love and support will be forthcoming in the future. Over time, the failed support of the child's developmental needs leaves him further and further behind his similarly aged peers. The emotionally abandoned child must turn to his own resources for comfort, and turns to his inner world with its readily available fantasies, in an attempt to partially meet his needs for comfort, love and later, for success. Often these fantasies involve others figures who have been self-created. Fairbairn noted that the child's turn toward his inner world, protected him from the harsh reality of his family environment, but turned him away from external reality "All represent ''relationships with internalized objects, to which the individual is compelled to turn in default of satisfactory relationships in the outer world'' (Fairbairn, 1952, 40 italics in the original).<ref name=":2" />

Fairbairn began his theory with his observation of the child's absolute dependency on the good will of their mother. The infant was dependent on their maternal object (or caretaker) for providing them with all of his physical and psychological needs, as Fairbairn noted in the following passage:<blockquote>The outstanding feature of infantile dependence is its unconditional character. The infant is completely dependent upon its object not only for his existence and physical well being, but also for the satisfaction of his psychological needs...In contrast, the very helplessness of the child is sufficient to render him dependent in an unconditional sense...He has no alternative but to accept or reject his object – an alternative that is liable to present itself to him as a choice between life and death (Fairbairn, 1952, 47).<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=Fairbairn|first=W. Ronald D.|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/923853600|title=Psychoanalytic studies of the personality|date=1976|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0-415-05174-6|oclc=923853600}}</ref></blockquote>

=== Fairbairn's Structural Theory ===

Fairbairn realized that the child's absolute dependence on the good will of his mother made him intolerant of accepting or even acknowledging that he is being abused because that would weaken his necessary attachment to his parent. The child creates a delusion that he lives warm cocoon of love, and any information that interferes with this delusion is forcibly expelled from his consciousness, as he cannot face the terror of rejection or abandonment at three, four or five years of age. The defense that children use to maintain their sense of security is dissociation, and they force all memories of parental failures (neglect, indifference or emotional abandonments) into their unconscious. Over time the neglected child develops an ever expanding memory bank of event after event in which he was neglected. These dissociated interpersonal events are always in pairs, a self in relationship to an object. For example, a child who is neglected dissociates a memory of himself as a frightened confused self who has been neglected by a remote and indifferent parent. If these events are repeated again and again, the child's unconscious groups the memories into a view of the self and a view of the parent, both which are too toxic and upsetting to be allow into consciousness. The paired dissociations of self and object that accrued from rejections were called the antilibidinal ego (the child's frightened self) and the rejecting object (the indifferent or absent parent). Thus, in addition to the conscious central ego, which relates to the nurturing and supportive parts of the parent (called the ideal object), the child has a second view of self and object in his unconscious: the antilibidinal ego and the rejecting object.

The model is completely interpersonal in that there are no biological drives of inherited instincts. When the maternal object provides a sense of safety and warmth, the child's innate "central ego" is able to take in new experiences, which allows the child to expand their contact with the environment beyond the tight orbit of their mother. This is the beginning of the process of differentiation, or separation from the parent, which eventuates into a new and unique individual. As long as the maternal object continues to provide emotional warmth, support, and a sense of safety, the child will continue to develop throughout childhood. However, if the parent fails to consistently provide these factors, the child's emotional and psychological development stops and the child regresses and remains undifferentiated from their mother. The following quote illustrates the basis of Fairbairn's model:

No child can live in a world devoid of hope for the future. Fairbairn had a part time position in an orphanage, where he saw neglected and abused children. He noticed that they created fantasies about the "goodness" of their parents and eagerly looked forward to being reunited with them. He realized that these children had dissociated and repressed the many physical and emotional outrages that they had been subjected to in the family. Once in the orphanage, these same children lived in a fantasy world of hope and expectation, which prevented them from psychological collapse. The fantasy self that the child develops was called the libidinal self (or libidinal ego) and it related to the very best parts of the parents, who may have shown interest or tenderness toward their child at one time or another, which the needy child then enhances with fantasy. The fantasy enhanced view of the parent was called the exciting object by Fairbairn, which was based on the excitement of the child as he spun his fantasy of a reunion with his loving parents. This pair of self and objects is also contained in the child's unconscious, but he may call them into awareness when he desperate for comfort and support (Fairbairn, 1952, 102-119)<ref name=":2" />

<blockquote>The greatest need of a child is to obtain conclusive assurance (a) that he is genuinely loved as a person by his parents, and (b) that his parents genuinely accept his love. It is only in so far as such assurance is forthcoming in a form sufficiently convincing to enable him to depend safely upon his real objects that he is able to gradually renounce infantile dependence without misgiving. In the absence of such assurance his relationship with his objects is fraught with too much ''anxiety over separation'' to enable him to renounce the attitude of infantile dependence: for such a renunciation would be equivalent in his eyes to forfeiting all hope of ever obtaining the satisfaction of his unsatisfied emotional needs. Frustration of his desire to be loved as a person and have his love accepted is the greatest trauma that a child can experience (Fairbairn, 1952:39–40).<ref name=":2" /> </blockquote>

The counterintitutive result of maternal (or paternal, if the father is the primary caregiver) failure is that the child becomes ''more, rather than less, dependent'' upon the caregiver, because by failing to meet the child's needs, the child has to remain dependent in the hope that love and support will be forthcoming in the future. Over time, the failed support of the child's developmental needs leaves them further and further behind their similarly aged peers. The emotionally abandoned child must turn to their own resources for comfort, and turns to their inner world with its readily available fantasies, in an attempt to partially meet their needs for comfort, love and later, for success. Often these fantasies involve other figures who have been self-created. According to Fairbairn, the child's turn toward the inner world protects them from the harsh reality of their family environment, but turns them away from external reality: "All represent ''relationships with internalized objects, to which the individual is compelled to turn in default of satisfactory relationships in the outer world'' (Fairbairn, 1952, 40 italics in the original).<ref name=":2" />

Fairbairn structural model contains three selves that relate to three aspects of the object. The selves do not know or relate to each other, and the process of dissociation and the development of these structures is called '''the splitting defense, or splitting.'''

=== Fairbairn's structural theory ===

'''The child's central ego''' relates to the '''Ideal object''' when the parent is supportive and nurturant.

Fairbairn realized that the child's absolute dependence on the good will of histheir mother made himthem intolerant of accepting or even acknowledging that hethey isare being abused, because that would weaken histheir necessary attachment to his parent. The child creates a delusion that hethey liveslive in a warm cocoon of love, and any information that interferes with this delusion is forcibly expelled from histheir consciousness, as hethey cannot face the terror of rejection or abandonment at three, four or five years of age. The defense that children use to maintain their sense of security is dissociation, and they force all memories of parental failures (neglect, indifference or emotional abandonments) into their unconscious. Over time the neglected child develops an ever expanding memory bank of event after event of in which he wasbeing neglected. These dissociated interpersonal events are always in pairs, a self in relationship to an object. For example, a child who is neglected dissociates a memory of himselfthemselves as a frightened confused self who has been neglected by a remote and indifferent parent. If these events are repeated again and again, the child's unconscious groups the memories into a view of the self and a view of the parent, both which are too toxic and upsetting to be allowallowed into consciousness. The paired dissociations of self and object that accrued from rejections were called the antilibidinal ego (the child's frightened self) and the rejecting object (the indifferent or absent parent). Thus, in addition to the conscious central ego, which relates to the nurturing and supportive parts of the parent (called the ideal object), the child has a second view of self and object in his unconscious: the antilibidinal ego and the rejecting object.

No child can live in a world devoid of hope for the future. Fairbairn had a part time position in an orphanage, where he saw neglected and abused children. He noticed that they created fantasies about the "goodness" of their parents and eagerly looked forward to being reunited with them. He realized that these children had dissociated and repressed the many physical and emotional outrages that they had been subjected to in the family. Once in the orphanage, these same children lived in a fantasy world of hope and expectation, which prevented them from psychological collapse. The fantasy self that the child develops was called the libidinal self (or libidinal ego) and it related to the very best parts of the parents, who may have shown interest or tenderness toward their child at one time or another, which the needy child then enhances with fantasy. The fantasy enhanced view of the parent was called the exciting object by Fairbairn, which was based on the excitement of the child as he spun his fantasy of a reunion with his loving parents. This pair of self and objects is also contained in the child's unconscious, but he may call them into awareness when he is desperate for comfort and support (Fairbairn, 1952, 102-119102–119).<ref name=":2" />

'''The antilibidinal ego''' relates only to the '''rejecting object,''' and these structures contain the child's fear and anger as well as the parent's indifference, neglect or outright abuse.

Fairbairn's structural model contains three selves that relate to three aspects of the object. The selves do not know or relate to each other, and the process of dissociation and the development of these structures is called the '''the splitting defense'', or splitting.''splitting' '.

'''The libidinal ego''' relates only to the '''exciting object''', and these structures contain the overly hopeful child who relates to the exciting over-promising parent.

'''* The ''child's central ego''' relates to the '''Idealideal object''' when the parent is supportive and nurturant.

The Fairbairnian object relations therapist imagines that all interactions between the client and the therapist are occurring in the client's inner object relations world, in one of the three dyads. The Fairbairnian object relations therapist also uses his/her own emotional reactions as therapeutic cues. If the therapist is feeling irritated at the client, or bored, he/she might interpret that as a re-enactment of the Antilibidinal Ego and the Bad Object, with the therapist cast in the role of Bad Object. If the therapist can patiently be an empathic therapist through the client's re-enactment, then the client has a new experience to incorporate into their inner object world, hopefully expanding their inner picture of their Good Object. Cure is seen as the client being able to receive from their inner Good Object often enough to have a more stable peaceful life.<ref name="Columbia University Press" />

* The '''The antilibidinal ego''' relates only to the '''rejecting object,''', and these structures contain the child's fear and anger as well as the parent's indifference, neglect or outright abuse.

'''* The ''libidinal ego''' relates only to the '''exciting object''', and these structures contain the overly hopeful child who relates to the exciting over-promising parent.

The Fairbairnian object relations therapist imagines that all interactions between the client and the therapist are occurring in the client's inner object relations world, in one of the three dyads. The Fairbairnian object relations therapist also uses his/hertheir own emotional reactions as therapeutic cues. If the therapist is feeling irritated at the client, or bored, he/shethat might interpretbe thatinterpreted as a re-enactment of the Antilibidinal Ego and the Bad Object, with the therapist cast in the role of Bad Object. If the therapist can patiently be an empathic therapist through the client's re-enactment, then the client has a new experience to incorporate into their inner object world, hopefully expanding their inner picture of their Good Object. Cure is seen as the client being able to receive from their inner Good Object often enough to have a more stable peaceful life.<ref name="Columbia University Press" />

Numerous research studies have found that most all models of psychotherapy are equally helpful, the difference mainly being the quality of the individual therapist, not the theory the therapist subscribes to. Object Relations Theory attempts to explain this phenomenon via the theory of the Good Object. If a therapist can be patient and empathic, most clients improve their functioning in their world. The client carries with them a picture of the empathic therapist that helps them cope with the stressors of daily life, regardless of what theory of psychology they subscribe to.

==Continuing developments in the theory==

[[Attachment theory]], researched by [[John Bowlby]] and others, has continued to deepen our understanding of early object relationships. While a different strain of psychoanalytic theory and research, the findings in attachment studies have continued to support the validity of the developmental progressions described in object relations. Recent decades in developmental psychological research, for example on the onset of a "[[Theory of mind#Theory of Mind — Understanding that others have minds with separate beliefs desires and intentions|theory of mind]]" in children, has suggested that the formation of the mental world is enabled by the infant-parent interpersonal interaction which was the main thesis of British object-relations tradition (e.g. Fairbairn, 1952).

While object relations theory grew out of psychoanalysis, it has been applied to the general fields of [[psychiatry]] and [[psychotherapy]] by such authors as [[N. Gregory Hamilton]]<ref name=ORT>http://ajp.psychiatryonline{{cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=N.org/article.aspx?articleid Gregory|date=1989|title=166427A ''critical review of object relations theory|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry'' article\|volume=146|issue=12|pages=1552–1560|doi=10.1176/AJP.146.12.1552|s2cid=22792463}}</ref><ref name=Pharmacotherapy>{{Cite journal

| last1 = Hamilton | first1 = N. G.

| last2 = Sacks | first2 = L. H.

Line 238 ⟶ 210:

| pmid = 7992869

| doi = 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1994.48.3.380

}}</ref> and [[Glen O. Gabbard]]. In making object relations theory more useful as a general [[psychology]] [[N. Gregory Hamilton]] added the specific ego functions to [[Otto F. Kernberg]]'s concept of object relations units.<ref name="Self and Ego">Hamilton, N.G. (1996). ''The Self and the Ego in Psychotherapy''. Jason Aronson {{ISBN|978-1568216591}}</ref>

==See also==

Line 247 ⟶ 219:

* [[Egocentrism]]

* [[Family therapy]]

* [[Jointness (psychodynamics)]]

* [[Psychoanalysis]]

* [[Relational psychoanalysis]]

Line 254 ⟶ 225:

}}

'''Individuals:'''

{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|

* [[Otto Rank]]

Line 277 ⟶ 248:

==External links==

*[http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/objectrelations.html Object Relations Theory, Psychology Department, Sonoma State University] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161101120035/http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/objectrelations.html |date=2016-11-01 }}

*[http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=176021 Melanie Klein Obituary]