Object relationship theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The object relationship theory is a further development of psychoanalytic theory, originally based on Melanie Klein's work . The term object relationship theory summarizes different approaches, which have in common that they emphasize the central importance of the early mother-child relationship and the child's ideas about himself and his caregivers for the later formation of relationships and for personality development. Another common feature is the emphasis on transference and countertransference in the application of the psychotherapeutic concept.

The term object has undergone a clear change in psychoanalytic linguistic usage: In orthodox psychoanalysis it is considered to be a person or an object that can cancel an impulse (e.g. a person who provides sexual satisfaction). In object relationship theory, the term describes a reacting partner, i.e. a person who responds to the utterances of the subject. The term thus has a strong emotional meaning and is only understood as a secondary goal of instinctual impulses.

Object relation describes the relation of the subject to his world. It describes the fantasized or imagined relationship with a person, which may well deviate from the real interaction.

Development and positions of the object relationship theory

The introduction and recognition of object relationship theories is one of the most important developments in the development of psychoanalysis. While Freud's psychoanalysis focused on the concept of drive theory and thereby (tended to) regard humans as individuals, Melanie Klein directed psychoanalysis to a greater extent to the development of early childhood and the effects of early relationships with caregivers . She thus followed the tradition of Hungarian psychoanalysts such as Sándor Ferenczi and Michael Balint .

Klein advocated the idea that the way in which a person perceives the world and with what expectations they approach it is shaped by their relationships with important early reference persons ("objects"). These objects can either be loved or hated according to the principle of idealization and devaluation.

Between Melanie Klein's approach to object theory and the dominant school of Anna Freud , another current emerged that, in terms of the history of ideas, can be located between these two poles. The so-called "British Object Relationship Theory" around William RD Fairbairn (1889–1964), Harry Guntrip (who criticized Freud's theories as biologistic and inhuman), John D. Sutherland and Donald Winnicott played a central role .

Unlike Klein, Fairbairn also opposed Freud's dualistic drive concept. The radical turn he initiated from the drive to object relationships was also referred to as the “ Copernican turn ” in psychoanalytic personality research. The work of Daniel Stern and Otto F. Kernberg also built on Fairbairn , who recognize an innate need for relationship and attachment as fundamental to both early development and therapy . In the course of this realization they emphasize the important importance of the relationship process within the therapy compared to the mere interpretation of unconscious content, which was still at the center of Freud's psychoanalytic activity.

Even Donald W. Winnicott followed Klein in their assumptions, but stressed as well Fairbairn, the real world experiences for the development of the child from the projections and imaginative moderate " occupation " as they stand in Freud in the center of attention. The so-called transitional object, with the help of which the child processes and absorbs the weaning from the mother's breast and the outcome of the close symbiotic relationship with the mother in infancy, occupies an important position in Winnicott's theory . A typical example of a transitional object is a cuddly toy or a comfort blanket that the child no longer gives out of their hands.

Heinz Kohut further developed Klein's approach to self-psychology . This examines the extent to which a person needs self-objects (supportive people, important objects) in order to maintain or even build up the psychological functionality of his self .

Theories from the field of ego psychology ( Joseph Sandler , development model by Margaret Mahler , Jacobson and others) have also had a strong influence on object relationship theory and are often attributed to it.

A link between these theories and empirical research also creates the attachment theory of John Bowlby .

Overall, the object relationship theory represents almost a paradigmatic change of course within psychoanalytic theory . Michael Balint criticized orthodox psychoanalysis with its focus on the phenomenon of drives as a "one body psychology". In contrast, with the turn to research into early mother-child interaction, a reversal or at least a significant expansion of the perspective was completed. This is also known as the turn from one-person psychology to two-person psychology.

"Hard" and "soft" object relationship theories

Heinz Kohut coined "the terms tragic person to denote the psychopathology of narcissism and guilty person to denote the oedipal psychopathology that develops under the influence of drives, unconscious intrapsychic conflicts and the three-part structure of the psyche ". "Following this distinction, the object relationship theories can be divided into" soft "or" maternal "theories - which intervene in a more supportive, structural and granting manner - and" hard "or" paternal "conceptions - which work in a more revealing, interpretative and confrontational manner. " The division into hard and soft originally comes from Friedmann "(quoted in Fonagy and Target, 2006, p. 155)"

Hard object relationship theorists

  • Melanie Klein puts the death drive in the foreground in her metatheory; she sees aggression as an expression of the death instinct and the meaning of real objects is rather in the background in her conception, insofar as inner objects correspond to the unconscious fantasies of the "respectively active intrapsychic position"; it depends "on the instinctual cathexis, not on the real processes".
  • Otto F. Kernberg put affects and dual drive structure in the foreground in his metatheory; he sees aggression as an expression of genetically anchored disposition and the meaning of real objects is rather in the background in his conception, insofar as they "together with fantasy and defense processes form the self and object representations".

Soft object relationship theorists

  • Michael Balint put the basic preoedipal development in the foreground in his metatheory; he sees aggression as an expression of a derailed relationship and the meaning of real objects is essential, insofar as they, as primary objects, have to be "available responsively to meet archaic needs"
  • Donald W. Winnicott put the stages of development of internal and external objects in the foreground in his metatheory; he sees aggression as a reaction to object failure "but also [as] a central development factor for the establishment of usable non-ego objects" and the meaning of real objects is more in the foreground in his conception, insofar as the responsiveness of primary objects promotes ability , to be alone
  • William Fairbairn placed the search for the object in the foreground in his metatheory; he sees aggression as a reaction to "real frustration and deprivation" and the real objects "determine the extent of internalized evil objects". From Friedmann's point of view, William Fairbairn belongs to the group of hard object relationship theorists.
  • Heinz Kohut put the development of narcissistic self-regulation in the foreground in his metatheory; he sees aggression as "an expression of the collapsed self-object relationship and the attempt to stabilize self-coherence" and the real objects "must be responsively available as self-objects, suboptimal frustration of self-object needs leads to narcissistic pathology"

The treatment goal from the point of view of the object relationship perspective can be, for example, to dissolve the great self of the (narcissistic) patient, more precisely: "The psychoanalytic approach to the pathological great self that leads to its dissolution does not simply allow the emergence of fragmented, independent parts of instinctual components in the transference, but highly differentiated, albeit primitive, partial-object relationships. These can be examined and resolved with the help of an interpretive procedure that allows them to be transformed into more mature or holistic object relationships and transferences, and thus also, solve primitive intrapsychic conflicts and consolidate a normal self ".

Criticism of this classification

Stavros Mentzos wrote that "one can advocate an object relationship theory that need not belong to either the" hard "or the" soft "object relationship theories. By that I do not mean superficial compromises against" hard "and" soft "because I have against both In my opinion, the second group neglects the central and continuous role of the conflict, while in the first group the conflict takes on the central position it deserves, but it is different from the one I meant: it is the antithesis between Eros and Thanatos, while I regard the contrast between self-centered and object-centered tendencies as the decisive conflict. "

literature

  • Howard A. Bacal, Kenneth M. Newman: Object Relationship Theories - Bridges to Self Psychology. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1994, ISBN 3-7728-1583-9 .
  • William RD Fairbairn: The Self and Internal Object Relations. Psychosozial-Verlag, Giessen 2000, ISBN 3-89806-022-5 .
  • Otto F. Kernberg : Object Relations and Practice of Psychoanalysis. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1992, ISBN 3-608-95936-X .
  • Jacques Lacan : The seminary. Book IV: The Object Relationship. 1956-57. Turia + Kant, Vienna 2003, ISBN 3-85132-300-9 .
  • Donald W. Winnicott : Maturation Processes and Enhancing Environment. Studies on the theory of emotional development. Psychosozial-Verlag, Giessen 2002, ISBN 3-89806-091-8 .
  • Joseph Sandler, Anne-Marie Sandler : Inner object relationships. Origin and structure. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1999, ISBN 3-608-91717-9 .
  • James F. Masterson: The Self and Object Relations. Theory and Treatment of Personality Disorders. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2003, ISBN 3-608-91046-8 .
  • Bernhard F. Hensel (Ed.): WRD Fairbairn's Significance for Modern Object Relationship Theory: Theoretical and Clinical Developments. Psychozial-Verlag, Giessen 2006, ISBN 3-89806-431-X .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Jean Laplanche , JB Pontalis : Vocabulaire de la Psychanalyse. 1967. ( The vocabulary of psychoanalysis . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, ISBN 3-518-27607-7 )
  2. ↑ W. Mertens: Introduction to psychoanalytic therapy . Volume 1, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2000.
  3. ↑ Heinz Kohut: Narcissism, A theory of the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, ISBN 3-518-27757-X , p. 129 ff.
  4. ↑ Otto F. Kernberg: Serious personality disorders . Klett-Cotta, Germany 1985, ISBN 978-3-608-94828-8 , pp. 269 .
  5. ↑ Annegret Boll-Klatt, Mathias Kohrs: Practice of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Basics - models - concepts . 1st edition. Schattauer, Stuttgart 2015, ISBN 978-3-7945-2899-8 , pp. 61 .
  6. ↑ Stavros Mentzos: Textbook of Psychodynamics. The function of the dysfunction of mental disorders . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2009, ISBN 978-3-525-40123-1 , p. 55 .
  7. ↑ a b c d e f Annegret Boll-Klatt, Mathias Kohrs: Practice of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Basics - models - concepts . 1st edition. Schattauer, Stuttgart 2015, ISBN 978-3-7945-2899-8 , pp. 60 .
  8. ↑ Stavros Mentzos: Textbook of Psychodynamics. The function of the dysfunction of mental disorders . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2009, ISBN 978-3-525-40123-1 , p. 55 .
  9. ↑ Otto F. Kernberg: Serious personality disorders . Klett-Cotta, Germany 1985, ISBN 978-3-608-94828-8 , pp. 273-274 .
  10. ↑ Stavros Mentzos: Textbook of Psychodynamics. The function of the dysfunction of mental disorders . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2009, ISBN 978-3-525-40123-1 , p. 55 .