Object Relations Theory
Klein, Balint, Fairburn, Winnicott and Guntrip Versus Jones:
Object Relations Theory Versus Societal Contact Catalysis
By Terrance Jones
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/12-4812.aspx
*Jones Societal Contact Catalyst Theory Premise (SCCT)
My goal is to point out the theoretical flaws in the object relations theory that lead to widescale ineffectiveness by a failure to address the cumulative factors that exist between the mental and physical interaction between the infant and parent/significant other that acts as a controlling factor to the end result of multiple mental entity(separate personality that serves stopgap purposes at strategic points of intervention during the life of the infant.) facilitation that determines the speed, method and success ratio of with which these mental deterioration variances can be correctly diagnosed by medical physicians. I will be successful in making a case for more successful diagnosis of mental variances caused by multiple mental entity facilitation in a manner that will allow medical physicians to construct treatment matrixes that will reverse mental deterioration variances amongst military soldiers through reciprocal contrast treatment at strategic points of intervention concerning the mental infrastructure of the patient. This is part one of a three part strategic thought essay that will end with suicide prevention methods amongst soldiers and civilians.
Object Relations Theory Premise
"This presentation will explore several concepts and techniques within the Object Relations theory of family therapy which, if understood, provides a framework for looking at couples and families. Before talking about this approach to family therapy, I would like to explain what object relations theory is all about." "Object Relations Theory was originated in England by a group of British psychoanalysts, including Klein, Balint, Fairburn, Winnicott, and Guntrip. Object relations theory was a break from Freud's drive model, and differs from it as follows: Freud's model held that a newborn infant is driven by animal instincts, such as hunger, thirst, and pleasure, but cannot relate to others. Relationships with others only develop later in the course of satisfying those needs. In this sense, Freud's model considers relationships to be secondary."
Projective Identification copyright 1996 Hannah Fox, CSW, BCD
*Jones Note
"In contrast, object relations theory maintains that the infant can relate to others at a very early age and that relationships with others are, therefore, primary. The drive to attach oneself to an object is considered to be the major motivating force." "Since we are talking about object relations theory, this is a good time to ask what an object is. In object relations theory, the word object is used with a very specific meaning. It's not literally a physical person, but an internal mental structure that is formed throughout early development. This mental structure is built through a series of experiences with significant others through a psychic process called introjection. Because an infant's earliest experiences are usually with its mother, she is usually the first internal object formed by the infant. Eventually,the father and other significant people also become internalized objects." "Introjection, the process of creating internal mental objects, leads to another process called splitting.Splitting occurs because the infant cannot tolerate certain feelings such as rage and longing, which occur in all normal development. As a result, the infant has to split off parts of itself and repress them. What happens to those repressed split-off parts? They are dealt with through another important process, called projective identification." "Projective identification itself is a very specific part of object relations theory. It is a defense mechanism which was conceptualized by Melanie Klein in 1946, having evolved from her extensive study and work with children. According to Klein, projective identification consists of splitting off parts of the self, projecting them into another person, and then identifying with them in the other person." "For example, the earliest relationship the infant has with its mother is feeding and touching, but the mother is not always able to respond quickly enough to the infant's need. Since the natural rage and longing the infant feels at such times are intolerable, to survive these feelings the infant "splits them off" and represses them from its consciousness. The "split off" feelings can be thought of as other parts of the self (ego)." "When such splitting takes place,the infant is free of the rage but has placed that part of itself inside the mother. To make itself whole again it must identify with the mother. The mother may or may not allow herself to become the container for the infant's negative feelings. Even if she doesn't, the projective identification still occurs."
*Jones Note
Object Relation Theory
While the premise that object relation theory is founded on in regards to relations developed by the child and significant other is obviously true in every sense of the word, there are flaws in the deductions that are formed from that point on:
"In object relations theory, the word object is used with a very specific meaning. It's not literally a physical person, but an internal mental structure that is formed throughout early development."
Projective Identification copyright 1996 Hannah Fox, CSW, BCD
The assessment that object relations theory is purely mental in regards to specificity sets a limited and constrained paradigm shift where ascertainment is only attained on guesswork observation and imprecise formulaic projections. I do not say that a significant amount of cases do not correspond to these projections and assertions, but I am saying that the reasons for this are due to circumstances that have to do with more than deductions made from purely mental object relations theory assertions:
"Introjection, the process of creating internal mental objects, leads to another process called splitting. Splitting occurs because the infant cannot tolerate certain feelings such as rage and longing, which occur in all normal development. As a result, the infant has to split off parts of itself and repress them. What happens to those repressed split-off parts? They are dealt with through another important process, called projective identification."
Projective Identification copyright 1996 Hannah Fox, CSW, BCD
*Jones Note
The theoretical splitting process of introjection does not address or take full account of how longing and rage factors based on temporal denial and or negligence factors affect the infant. What some physicians have chosen to do in regards to relegated these occurrences to an infant facilitated and controlled splitting of mental exertion factors for self healing and mental protection measures is irresponsible use of guesswork to prevent the admission of frustration as far as ascertainment of the divergent mental variances of infant development. The authors of object relations theory are right in suggesting that a multiple stage mental processing apparatus is developed in infants during their first year of development, however, these mental processes are manipulated and developed by a synthesis of societal contact catalysis factors that involves mental and physical interaction between the infant and parent/significant other. Theoretically, this accounts for the success of the projections made by physicians concerning the future of the infants, as a case could be made that by pursuing theoretical arguments in support of object relations theory gives you a fifty percent chance of efficiency which is extremely high and would go unchallenged by the past and current standards of the psychiatry/psychology field. However, the highly probable possibility that infancy stage mental development depends and works in continuity with mental and physical interaction between the infant and parent/significant other in order to realize it's full potential, alerts us to the fact that there is a significant and almost epidemic failure rate in regards to undiagnosed cases of various stages and levels of deteriorating mental variances.
Paradigm Shift
"Freud's model held that a newborn infant is driven by animal instincts, such as hunger, thirst, and pleasure, but cannot relate to others. Relationships with others only develop later in the course of satisfying those needs. In this sense, Freud's model considers relationships to be secondary."
Projective Identification copyright 1996 Hannah Fox, CSW, BCD
Societal Contact Catalysis
Freud's drive model gives us ample evidence in support of societal contact catalysis that implements maximum use of key facets of Freud's drive model as well as the infant/significant other primary relationship premise of the object relations theory. It is hard to dispute the fact that infants undergo an initial instinctive existence that is dramatically affected by intermittent, reciprocal and or interactive deficiencies on the part of the parent/significant other. Theoretically, these mental fusion/catalysis factors facilitate physical responses that will provide therapists with ascertainment/projection abilities and opportunities that are more reliable and accurate due to the lack of fully developed mental and physical capabilities of the infant during it's first year of personal and societal development. These opportunities are reduced by the rate and stage of development of the infant from this point on and if dramatically affected by the aforementioned parent/significant other societal catalysis factors.
Projective Identification
"Projective identification itself is a very specific part of object relations theory. It is a defense mechanism which was conceptualized by Melanie Klein in 1946, having evolved from her extensive study and work with children. According to Klein, projective identification consists of splitting off parts of the self, projecting them into another person, and then identifying with them in the other person."
Projective Identification copyright 1996 Hannah Fox, CSW, BCD
*Jones Note
The premise of projective identification is founded on the peripheral success of the mental aspect of object relations theory. However, theoretically, Dr. Klein failed to ascertain how the seemingly mental exertion reduction process of splitting "emotion splitting" was really a case of multiple mental entity facilitation that was developed by a fusion of the mental and physical interaction between the infant and parent/significant other. In this scenario, the parent/significant other holds sway over the rate of multiple entity facilitation and the exertive effects on the infant as well as the manner and intensity in which the infant telegraphs its management of these factors through physical acts and verbal response to a specific scenario, act and time period between the interaction between itself and the parent/significant other. Particular attention should be given to the reciprocal acts of the parent/significant other, as any prolonged irresponsible acts on their part can facilitate an accelerated mode of multiple entity facilitation on the part of the infant that will also develop an emotional masking system that will lead to undiagnosed mental deterioration and variances due to emotional and intellectual negligence on the part of the parent/significant other. When considering these factors along with the aforementioned mental and physical factors that must be gauged in tandem force continuity, the previous diagnosis efficiency rating of the object relations theory is dramatically reduced to 25% by maximum efficiency standards. Of course this rating will seldom be realized due to obvious factors such as ascertainment deficiencies and skill level disparity as well as problems in detecting problems that the patient and their family has problems articulating to new physicians in regards to case history.
End of Part 1
