Object relations theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:25, 7 June 2024

Revision as of 02:59, 6 August 2024

Line 5:

{{Psychoanalysis |Schools}}

'''Object relations theory''' is a school of thought in [[psychoanalytic theory]] and [[psychoanalysis]] centered around theories of stages of ego development. Its concerns include the relation of the [[psyche (psychology)|psyche]] to others in childhood and the exploration of relationships between external people, as well as internal images and the relations found in them.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |title=Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory |last1=Greenberg |first1=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> ThinkersAdherents ofto thethis school of thought maintain that the infant's relationship with the mother primarily determines the formation of itstheir personality in adult life. Particularly, [[Attachment theory|attachmentAttachment]] is the bedrock of the development of the self, ori.e. the psychic organization that creates theone's sense of identity.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=Family Therapy: An Overview |last1=Goldenberg |first1=Herbert |last2=Goldenberg |first2=Irene |publisher=Thomson Higher Education |year=2008 |isbn=9780495097594 |___location=Belmont, CA |pages=160}}</ref>

== Theory ==

While its groundwork derives from theories of development of the ego in [[Sigmund Freud|Freudian]] [[psychodynamics]], object relations theory does not place emphasis on the role of biological [[Drive theory|drives]] in the formation of personality in adulthood.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, Updated |last1=Andersen |first1=Margaret |last2=Taylor |first2=Howard |publisher=Thomson Wadsworth |year=2008 |isbn=9780495007425 |___location=Belmont, CA |pages=93}}</ref> ThinkersThis school of the schoolthought instead suggestsuggests that thea wayperson's peoplepattern relateof relations to others andas situations in theiran adult lives is shaped by family experiences of caregivers during infancy;. anCaregivers and other figures in the infant's life are termed "objects." An adult who experienced neglect or abuse in infancy expects similar behavior from others who, through [[transference]], remind them of the neglectful or abusive parent from their past. These patterns of the behavior of people become repeated images of the events, and eventually turn into ''objects'' in the unconscious that the self carries into adulthood to be used in the unconscious to predict people's behavior in their social relationships and interactions.

The first "object" in an individual's psyche is usually an internalized image of the 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

Line 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> 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"." 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]]. andSubsequently, early in the 1930s, [[Harry Stack 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]], [[Harry Guntrip]], Scott Stuart, and others{{Who|date=June 2023}} extended object relations theory during the 1940s and 1950s;. inIn 1952, [[Ronald Fairbairn]] 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 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. 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]] 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 68 ⟶ 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 theory of attachment===

Fairbairn identifieddescribed how people who were abused as children internalize that experience;. theThe "moral defense" is the tendency seen in survivors of abuse to take all the bad upon themselves, each yielding the moral evil so the 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 who had suffered a broken arm fromat the hands of her mother to a doctor friend of his, who told the little girl that they were going to find her a new parent. The girl, now panicked and unhappy, replied that she wanted her "real mommy.", before Fairbairn asked, "You mean the mommy that broke your arm?" "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> fromFrom this exchange, he theorized that she needed to believe that her love object (mother) was entirely good to firmly believe she would one day receive the love and nurturing she needed—in an attempt to recuperate these needs, she used the moral defense to make ''herself'' bad in order to preserve her mother's goodness.

==Kleinian object relations theory==