[As a pastoral counselor in training it is important to begin identifying and clarifying those sources for theory and theology that I use in caregiving. This article is an attempt to clarify my source and school of theoretical insight. Object Relations is a development within the Psychoanalytic School of Therapy. Unlike Freud’s purely drive model approach to human behavior and therapy Object Relations includes a discussion of how early object realtionships provide for a child to thrive. In a future post I will discuss the competing claims of my sources for theory and theology. ]
Object Relations Theory is considered a theory within the school of psychoanalysis that describes the early object relationships that a child has with its environment prior to the Oedipal Phase of development. These object relationships are formed for various needs and are instrumental in helping the child form judgment about good and bad objects. The heart of these relationships would be the relationship between the infant and the mother or caretakers. (Kropp, 796) These object relationships are internalized and become part of the “internal world of the self” (Kropp, 796). For the purposes of this paper I will be using D. W. Winnicott. John McDargh conceptualizes the move from strict classical psychoanalytic theory to Object Relations as one from observing the satiated baby at the breast who has fallen asleep having satisfied that primal “instinctual drive for food.” (McDargh, 11) to one of the baby who in the midst of feeding at the breast “is happy to interrupt nursing (surprise!) to gaze upon and exchange smiles with the nursing adult, or to follow with rapt attention some interesting feature of the environment.” (McDargh, 11). McDargh says that
…
the key transition to postclassical psychoanalytic views of the self occurred when theorists began thinking of the id in a different way, as structured rather than formless, as directed rather than explosive. They began to think of repressed not as disorganized, impulsive fragments but as constellations organized around relationships, and they began to conceive of the id as involving a way of being, a sense of self, a person in relation to other persons, so that these theorists brought it closer in nature to Freud’s portrayal of the ego and superego. (McDargh, 12)
Object Relations Theory in all of its flavors theorizes that the self as separate from the ego uses different self-objects to meet various needs. These needs may be for nurture, food, or valuing. In fact it is fair to say just about anyone or anything can become a self-object. Children create a web of relationships with self-objects such as the infant and the mother’s breast, or the toddler and the ‘security blanket’ or the fifteen year-old and the keys to the car. Each of these objects/relationships represents more than just the literal physical thing. For the infant the breast is nurture and soothing, for the toddler the blanket is the presence of home and normalcy, and for the fifteen year-old the keys might represent freedom. (Kropp, 296)
The writings of D.W. Winnicott represent less of a system and more of a set of concepts. Key concepts in Winnicott’s writings are related less to instinctual drives as articulated by Freud and more about the interactions between the infant and the environment. Winnicott describes this as the “facilitating environment” (St. Clair, 69). The mother initially functions in a way that meets or anticipates the infant’s needs for food and nurture. At early stages the infant does not make recognize any separation between the environment and itself. The infant feels “omnipotent” initially and eventually as the maturational process happens the mother will reassert some of her independence as the infant is able to separate himself from the rest of the environment.
The concept of the ‘good-enough mother’ was developed by Winnicott to describe the way in which parenting and the child’s environment effects development. “The good enough-mother sufficiently provides for what the child needs at a particular developmental period in the relationship with the mother. The mother adapts and changes according to the changing needs of her child and gradually there is a decrease in the growing child’s dependence. (St. Clair, 70)” The child grows and develops because of the environment that the parents provide.
McDargh describes the environmental emphasis of parenting by describing it as the difference between being given a large exhaustive script for a play and being told that you are a supporting actor, that you are to do the things that others (your parents) want you to do. The script has every moment and inflection detailed so you won’t get lost. This obviously would be less than a caring holding environment. McDargh characterizes the good holding environment this way:
In this drama you are the principle actor and it is our function to support you, at least in this first act. It is improvisational theatre pretty much all the way, so go ahead and explore the range of your feelings and the body that is your instrument and we’ll be here to assure you that we will delight in your unfolding, that there are no malicious critics to be hidden in the audience and finally that there are nevertheless reliable boundaries that insure you won’t wander away from the real action or fall off the stage. Beyond that, it’s your show kiddo.”(McDargh, 13)
By centering and providing the safe environment the parent allows the child to discover his own role, in life and to act out the drama in an appropriate and life giving way.
References
Kropp, C. (1990) “Object Relations Theory” In R. J. Hunter, et al. (Eds.), Dictionary of
pastoral care and counseling. (pp. 796-798). Nashville : Abingdon Press.
McDargh, J. (1992) “Emerson and the Life of the Self: A psychoanalytic conversation.” In
R.K. Fenn & D. Capps (Eds.), The Endangered Self. (pp. 7-21). Princeton: Center for Religion, Self and Society, Princeton Theological Seminary.
St. Clair, M. (1986) Object relations and self psychology: An introduction. Monterey:
Brooks/Cole.
