Back to Table of Contents
Recently, Auchincloss and Samberg (2012), described Object Relations Theories according to their similarities and grouped them according to some of their differences. Below is the updated somewhat modified version of such a perspective. Object Relations Theories share several following features: 1. Object relations are the basic unit of experience. 2. The human mind is viewed as object- seeking from birth; the basic motivation for object-seeking is not reducible to any other motivational force; 3. Internalized object relations are built up in the course of development through the interaction of innate factors (such as inborn affect disposition and cognitive equipment) and relationship with others (caregivers). 4. Interpersonal relationships reflect internalized object relations; psychopathology, especially serious psychopathology such as psychosis or borderline and narcissistic personality disorder, are conceptualized in terms of object relations. These shared features lead to theoretical attitudes about basic aspects of the psychoanalytic model of the mind, including motivation, structure, development and psychopathology. Object relations theories provide a natural link to the study of family and group dynamics, as much as to the study of development, as in developmental psychology. Object Relations Theories differ from each other along several criteria: 1. Relationship to drive theory: Klein, Jacobson and Mahler stayed intimately connected to drive theory. Loewald, Kernberg, Sandler, Winnicott are examples of object relations theorists who maintained a version of drive theory with the concept of drive variously modified, placing the emphasis on affect and object relations as the building blocks of drives. Fairbairn, Guntrip and Sullivan are generally viewed as most distant from the Freudian drive theory. 2. The importance of aggression in psychic life: While often Klein is viewed as focusing on aggression, Kleinian analysts believe it would be more accurate to say her theory focuses on splitting, which can include the split between love and hate, that takes a central role in psychic life. 3.The importance of actual versus fantasied interaction: Sullivan’s interpersonal theory emphasized real interaction; Klein’s theory emphasized ‘phantasy’ as the representation of instinct and how such representations colored the object. 4. The question of whether the clinical situation is shaped primarily by internalized object relations or by the real, dyadic patient-analyst interaction: Klein and Kernberg emphasized the former; Greenberg and Mitchell emphasized the latter.
II. HISTORY - ROOTS: BUILDING BLOCKS AND/OR THEORETICAL PROBLEMS
Object-relations emerged as a theoretical problem in the history of psychoanalysis prior to Klein’s contribution in the 1920s and the subsequent formulation of object-relations theory in Britain in the 1940s and 1950s. The concept of object-relationships does not form part of
558
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online