Back to Table of Contents
III. Bb. British Object Relations Theory
III Bba. Ronald Fairbairn Taking the purposive nature of the drive as a critical point of departure, Fairbairn (1952) advanced two further propositions: 1. “ The ultimate goal of libido is the object” (1952 [1941], p. 31); and, 2. energy is inseparable from structure (1952 [1944], p.126). He concludes: “’Impulses’ necessarily involve object-relationships” and “must accordingly be regarded as representing simply the dynamic aspect of ego-structures” (1952 [1951], p. 167). In his object relations theory Fairbairn postulates the organization of actual relational events into separate self-object formations, or structures, based upon the repression of internalized objects: central ego/ideal object; libidinal ego/exciting object; and anti-libidinal ego/rejecting object. In contrast to Freud, he regards “the libidinal ego (which corresponds to the ‘id’) as a split off portion of the original, dynamic ego” (1952 [1946], p.148). While his central ego/ideal object, libidinal ego/exciting object, and anti-libidinal ego/rejecting object have been later criticized for oversimplification, his clinical studies, demonstrating that the pathology of sexual development is intimately linked with the evolving patterns of intrapsychic and interpersonal development, have been widely acknowledged and remain a lasting contribution. His analysis of splitting, in patients with schizoid tendencies provided fertile background for the understanding of the structural models of the internalization of object relations to come (Kernberg, 1977). Fairbairn (1952 [1946]) was probably one of the most extreme “object-relation” theorists in the history of psychoanalysis. As noted already, drives were originally perceived in relation to the pleasure principle and the principle of constancy. According to this model, the rise of drive tension is felt as displeasure while drive release and lowering of tension are pleasurable. The human subject would therefore be expected to seek tension reduction, i.e., libidinal release. Inevitably, the object seems to be the most ‘replaceable’ part of the drive- chain – in spite of the fact that this contradicts the ‘uniqueness’ of a ‘loved object’. Again, the ‘adhesive’ quality of the relationship was according to Freud a characteristic of drive, and not attributed to the object. In opposition to this view, Fairbairn claimed that the human subject in his libidinal strivings seeks object relations and not tension reduction . In a Synopsis from 1963 he presents 17 points of deviation from the ‘classic model’. The first five are relevant to the criticism towards the drive theory:
1. An ego is present from birth. 2. Libido is a function of the ego.
3. There is no death instinct; and aggression is a reaction to frustration or deprivation. 4. Since libido is a function of the ego and aggression is a reaction to frustration or deprivation, there is no such thing as an ‘id’. 5. The ego, and therefore libido, is fundamentally object-seeking.
142
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online