Object Relations Theory Applied to Family Therapy

Introduction to Object Relations Theory

This paper employs the object relations psychoanalytic model to address a family issue depicted in film. It delineates key object relations concepts, the theory's assumptions, and the application of those concepts to the chosen film.

The object relations concept is a variant of psychoanalytic theory that deviates from Sigmund Freud's view that humankind is driven by aggression and sexual drives. Instead, object relations theory proposes that human beings are primarily driven by a need to forge relationships with others — that is, by the need for contact. Object relations therapists aim to help clients uncover early mental pictures that may be perpetuating current problems in their relationships with other people, and to adapt those pictures in order to improve interpersonal functioning.

Core Concepts in Object Relations

The word "object" in object relations theory does not denote inanimate things. Rather, it refers to significant individuals with whom one relates closely — often a father, mother, or primary caregiver. The term is also sometimes used to refer to a part of an individual, such as the mental representations of important people in one's life or the mother's breast. Object relations theorists emphasize the significance of early familial interactions, particularly the mother–infant bond, in the development of personality. Infants are believed to form mental images of the self in relation to other people, and these internal pictures greatly influence interpersonal relationships later in life. Because relationships are at the heart of this theory, the bond between client and therapist is crucial to its success.

The object relations concept is derived from the psychoanalytic instinct model. An instinct's "object" denotes the agent through which one achieves one's instinctual aim — and that agent is typically another person. It is widely accepted that the mother is a baby's first object. Object relations originate in the first year of life, and nearly all psychoanalysts regard the initial mother–infant relationship as fundamentally oral in nature. The main theoretical divide, however, is between psychoanalysts who maintain that archetypal object relations exist from the very start, and those who believe that "real" object relations emerge from and replace the infant's initial dependency bond with the mother.

The focus of object relations therapy and its theoretical model is "internal objects." Internal objects denote aspects of the psychic framework formed from an individual's experiences with key caregivers in early life. These reproduce themselves within the individual's personality through internalization; thereafter, the personality bears traces of those initial relationships. Internal objects are neither memories nor representations in the ordinary sense. Rather, they constitute a key element of the individual self's being. They manifest in interactions with — and in the choice of — other individuals (external objects) currently in one's life. They can also change through associations with current external objects, such as a psychotherapist.

External objects represent actual places, people, or things in which an individual has invested emotional energy.

Internal objects constitute only one component of the self. According to object relations theory, the self is made up of: (1) internal objects; (2) the traditional concept of the "ego" — the executive mechanism responsible for modulating self-control through its governance of sphincters, affect states, and motility, which mediates a person's relationship with the external world; and (3) components and objects of that ego corresponding to feelings (affects) that match a child's object-relationship experiences.

Consequently, the "self" denotes a dynamic and distinctive blend of internal objects and ego that together comprise character. From this blend, the individual's personal identity is formed — an identity that endures and remains consistent as the person ages.

The technical phrase "object relations" covers both interpersonal and intrapsychic dimensions. It represents the scheme of interrelationships and interactions among different facets of the self that are then expressed within the field of existing relationships with others. Components of self, including internal objects, correspond to outer objects, such that in all relationships personalities mutually influence one another. In other words, internal psychic frameworks and external relationships constantly interact (IPI, 2016).

The following terms are central to understanding this dynamic:

Self: A person's internal image — the unconscious and conscious mental images one holds of oneself.

Self-object: The loss of boundaries by which what is "object" and what is "self" become blurred; the division between external objects and self becomes hazy. (Gestalt Therapy refers to this condition as "confluence.")

Self-representation: An individual's internal image of the self as experienced in relation to other significant individuals.

Whole object: Another individual recognized as possessing hopes, needs, rights, feelings, insecurities, strengths, and weaknesses akin to one's own.

Part object: An object — such as a breast or hand — that forms part of an individual. The other parts are not considered a "whole object."

Object constancy: The maintenance of a long-term association with a particular object, or the rejection of alternatives to that object — for instance, an infant's refusal to be cared for by anyone other than its own mother. Mahler defined object constancy as: (1) a capacity to center one's feelings on a particular object; (2) a capacity to recognize and tolerate both hostile and loving feelings toward the same object; and (3) a capacity to attach value to a given object for qualities other than the satisfaction of basic needs (Daniel, 2007).

Representation: The way an individual possesses or holds a given object. Object representation thus implies an object's mental representation.

Splitting: Occurs when an individual — particularly a child — is unable to hold two conflicting feelings or thoughts simultaneously, and therefore keeps them apart, concentrating on only one feeling or thought at a time.

Self-psychology: Concerned with the kind and nature of the self's emotional investment. Narcissism plays a major role in self-psychology. The implication is that an individual regards objects as part of himself or herself, or as objects that perform a critical function for the self. This sort of distorted connection requires a different type of treatment than that required for neurotics.

In summary, object relations theory represents a means of conceptualizing interpersonal relations and extending psychoanalytic thought to the relational domain. Its vocabulary may appear unfamiliar to those unacquainted with the theory. Object relations theory locates the source of how we relate to others at a developmental stage earlier than Freud's "genital stage" in his psychosexual theory (Daniel, 2007).

The Role of the Therapist

Psychotherapists, psychologists, social workers, and counselors may earn certification in object relations psychotherapy from a number of training institutions. For instance, the International Institute of Object Relations Theory — now renamed the IPI (International Psychotherapy Institute) — offers a two-year object relations certificate program for mental healthcare professionals. Ottawa's Object Relations Therapy Institute also certifies object relations psychotherapists, while the Object Relations Institute for Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis offers a one-year introductory certificate course in the theory and practical technique of object relations, alongside an advanced two-year program (GoodTherapy, 2016).

The therapist's relationship with the family depends on the therapist providing an ideal psychological space and holding environment in which families can display their recurring defensive patterns — patterns that allow them to manage underlying anxieties. Therapists have described how families require them to engage in a particular way so as to deflect a less desirable relational presentation that, at a deeper level, shields the family from an even more distressing relational experience. This type of interpretation has been called the "because clause" (Ezriel, 1952). A family seeking counsel responds to the therapist in their service-provider role much as an infant responds to a mother who literally holds and comforts the child (Scharff & Scharff, 1987).

Therapists cultivate a space in which families can spend time together naturally and engage in typical family tasks. Based on prior experience with the families in which they were raised, families bring to therapy their expectations of whether — or how — therapy will help them.

Conclusion

It is important to bear in mind that the object relations approach operates wholly within a neo-local familial context, in which a family unit relocates and the parents establish a new household. The approach does not adequately account for the social structures that generate pathology, nor for broader social norms. On its surface, it is an interpersonal perspective focused on the mother–infant relationship, yet it ultimately stems from an intrapersonal perspective, with individuation — or self-contained individualism — as its therapeutic goal. Paradoxically, as individuals separate themselves from their broader social context, the likelihood of family violence or social abuse may increase. When the home environment fails entirely, the wider community can "mirror" appropriate behavior for those still developing their social selves — and this community function may itself be a source of resilience.

Balk, D. (1996). Models for understanding adolescent coping with bereavement. Death Studies, 20, 367–387.

Balk, D. (1990). The self-concepts of bereaved adolescents: Sibling death and its aftermath. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5(1), 112–132.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.

Daniel, V. (2007, October). Object relations theory. Retrieved from Sonoma State University:

Ezriel, H. (1952). Notes on psychoanalytic group therapy II: Interpretation and research. Psychiatry, 15, 119–126.

GoodTherapy. (2016, May 9). Who practices object relations? Retrieved from GoodTherapy.org:

Hogan, N. S., & Balk, D. E. (1990). Adolescent reactions to sibling death: Perceptions of mothers, fathers, and teenagers. Nursing Research, 39(2).

IPI. (2016). Object relations therapy. Retrieved from International Psychotherapy Institute:

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Scharff, D. E., & Scharff, J. S. (1987). Object-relations family therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Scharff, J., & Scharff, D. (1992). Scharff notes: A primer of object relations therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Winnicott, D. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.