Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 26:
==History==
The initial line of thought emerged in 1917 with [[Sándor Ferenczi]]. Subsequently, early in the 1930s, [[Harry Stack Sullivan]], established what is known 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]]
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.
Line 48:
==Kleinian object relations theory==
===Unconscious phantasy
<!--'Unconscious phantasy' redirects here-->
Klein termed the psychological aspect of instinct
| last = Segal
| first = Hanna
Line 182 ⟶ 183:
=== Fairbairn's structural theory ===
Fairbairn realized that the child's absolute dependence on the good will of their mother made them intolerant of accepting or even acknowledging that they are being abused, because that would weaken their necessary attachment to his parent. The child creates a delusion that they live in a warm cocoon of love, and any information that interferes with this delusion is forcibly expelled from their consciousness, as they 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 being 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 themselves 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
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, 102–119).<ref name=":2" />
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
* The
* The
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 their own emotional reactions as therapeutic cues. If the therapist is feeling irritated at the client, or bored, that might be interpreted 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" />
Line 209 ⟶ 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]]
==See also==
Line 218 ⟶ 219:
* [[Egocentrism]]
* [[Family therapy]]
* [[Psychoanalysis]]
* [[Relational psychoanalysis]]
Line 225:
}}
'''Individuals
{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* [[Otto Rank]]
Line 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]
| |||