From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series of articles on Psychoanalysis

Constructs Psychosexual development Psychosocial development Conscious • Preconscious • Unconscious Id, ego, and super-ego Libido • Drive Transference • Sublimation • Resistance Important Figures Sigmund Freud • Carl Jung Alfred Adler • Otto Rank Anna Freud • Margaret Mahler Karen Horney • Jacques Lacan Ronald Fairbairn • Melanie Klein Harry Stack Sullivan Erik Erikson • Nancy Chodorow Susan Sutherland Isaacs Ernest Jones • Heinz Kohut Important works The Interpretation of Dreams Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" Civilization and Its Discontents Schools of Thought Self psychology • Lacanian Analytical psychology • Object relations Interpersonal • Relational Attachment • Ego psychology

Psychology Portal This box: view • talk • edit

In psychodynamics, Object relations theory is the idea that the ego-self exists only in relation to other objects, which may be external or internal. The internal objects are internalized versions of external objects, primarily formed from early interactions with the parents. There are three fundamental "affects" that can exist between the self and the other - attachment, frustration, and rejection. These affects are universal emotional states that are major building blocks of the personality. Object relations theory was pioneered in the 1940s and 50's by British psychologists Ronald Fairbairn, D.W. Winnicott, Harry Guntrip, and others.

Sigmund Freud developed the concept object relation to describe or emphasize that bodily drives satisfy their need through a medium, an object, on a specific locus. 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 locus of satisfaction for a drive. Furthermore, according to traditional psychoanalysis, there are at least two types of drives, the libido (mythical counterpart: Eros), and the death drive (mythical counterpart: Thanatos). Thus, the objects can be receivers of both love and hate, the affective effects of the libido and the death drive. Another use of part-object vs. whole-object relates to the inability of young children to conceive of an object which can be both 'good' and 'bad' (e.g., a loving yet sometimes-frustrating mother). Because of this inability, children view objects as either all-good or all-bad, thus only seeing a part of that object instead of the object's whole good/bad reality. Children are too young to understand that objects can be both good and bad; they only see one part of the spectrum.

This paragraph has been inserted by someone who is not the original author. It is my hope that someone else will provide a better explanation of Object Relations then what has so far been described. Indeed, Object Relations deals with objects. A mother's breast is an object that an infant "deals" with. What is lacking in the first paragraph is how an infant puts together a whole object from what seems to an adult as a part object. The mother's breast might be, at one instance "good", and then at another time "bad". This good/bad relationship is referred to as the Splitting Defense Mechanism. Things (part objects) are simply good or bad. If things go well enough, an infant /child will learn that "things" have a range of qualities from good to bad as they grow. And part object will come together to form whole objects, with a range of qualities. As the need to the Splitting Defense Mechanism wanes, another process is taking place, and that is the Separation/Individualization phase. This phase describes the change from a symbiotic existence, to the recognition of separate part objects, to separate whole objects, to the individual self.

To truly understand Object Relations Theory, one must know the history of Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and Melanie Klein, and the differences between Freud (both Sigmund and Anna) and Klein. Klein's theory starts what is called "the British School", and many have followed this school of thought and added their own perspectives to it. The division between the British school and the American/Freudian school is wide and deep, or has been, as noted later in this article. The issue I have with this article is the somewhat simplistic presentation of what Object Relations Theory is. To gain a good understanding of it, I would suggest searching for Melanie Klein, and others listed in this article, on your favorite search engine.

Up until the 1970s, few American psychoanalysts were influenced by the school of Melanie Klein, who, on the other hand, constituted an opposite polarity to the school of Anna Freud (which dominated American psychoanalysis in 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s and was represented in the US by Hartmann, Kris, Loewenstein, Rapaport, Erikson, Jacobson, and Mahler), and, on the other hand, the "middle group" who fell between Anna Freud and Melanie Klein, and was influenced by the British schools of Michael Balint, Donald Winnicott, and Ronald Fairbairn. The strong animosity in England between the school of Anna Freud and that of Melanie Klein was transplanted to the US, where the Anna Freud group dominated totally until the 1970s, when new interpersonal psychoanalysis arose partly from ideas of culturalist psychoanalysis, influenced also by Ego psychology, and partly by British theories which have also entered under the broad terminology of "British object relations theories".

Recent decades in developmental psychological research, for example on the onset of a "theory of mind" in children, has suggested that the formation of mental world is enabled by the infant-parent interpersonal interaction which was the main thesis of British object-relations tradition (e.g. Fairbairn, 1952).

Fairbairn also discovered the psychological condition of dysfunctional interpersonal attachment of abused children to their abusing parents. This area is rooted in Attachment theory, which was developed by Sir John Bowlby and which remains the primary theory of infant mental health. Studies have shown that children who are raised by abusive parents are at risk to abuse their children in some way when they grow up. Children who grow up in abusive families tend to have poor quality attachments to their parents.

Like the theory, Object Relations Psychotherapy is rooted in psychoanalytical principles. In addition there is not one type, but rather object relations theory is a guiding principle in various forms of object relations therapy.

Perhaps the most important difference between psychotherapy based on principles of object relations theory (frequently referred to as a form of "psychodynamic psychotherapy") and psychoanalysis is that the therapist does not assume as passive a role as in traditional psychoanalysis, since the interpretation of the transference relationship, while important, is not such a central component. Instead, the therapist's role is to pay attention to ways in which the patient projects previous object relationships into the interactions with the therapist. Most therapies incorporating object relations theory then conceptualize the therapy as helping the patient resolve the pathological qualities of the transference relationship through the active experience of the real relationship between the therapist and the patient.

This re-experiencing of such vital object relational issues as intimacy, control, loss, transparency, dependency/autonomy, and trust represents the primary curative influence. While some interpretation and confrontation may be involved, the "working through" of the original pathological components of the patient's emotional world and the objects in it is the primary therapeutic goal.

Two analysts, James F. Masterson and Otto Kernberg, are considered the pioneers of Object Relations Therapy as a formal approach separate from psychoanalysis. While the more technical aspects of their theories of personality development and psychotherapy differ significantly, they share the core tenets of providing a safe, caring environment in the relationship while resisting the patient's unconscious attempt to draw the therapist into the same patterns of relationship as the ones that constitute the patient's distorted dynamic interactions with significant others. One frequently enacted process that serves as an example of this is the way in which the therapist encourages independence and development of a more autonomous sense of self (ego) but, at the same time, nurtures the establishment of intimacy and trust (interdependence rather than dependence or avoidance in relationships). This can be a very difficult task in that the therapist must provide acceptance and validation but, simultaneously, set and maintain limits in the relationship as well as limits to the client's behavior in his/her role as a "healthy" object.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2007)

• Fairbairn, W. R. D., (1952). An Object-Relations Theory of the Personality. New York: Basic Books.
• —, (1952). Endopsychic structure considered in terms of object relationships, London.

• Gomez, L. (1997). An Introduction to Object Relations Theory. London: Free Association Press.

ISBN: 1-85343-347-0

• Psychoanalysis
• Attachment theory
• Bowlby
• Family therapy

• Object Relations Theory, Psychology Department, Sonoma State University
• Object Relations Theory and Therapy