You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
There is a history in the recent psychoanalytic literature of comparisons between Horney's theory and that of other psychoanalytic thinkers. These have included Lerner's (1985) consideration of Horney and Guntrip, and Rosenthal's (1983) efforts to incorporate Horney's ideas in order to better appreciate Horney's concept of alienation. Also, there have been metatheoretical reviews comparing Horney with Bowlby (Paul, 1984; Ingram, 1984), Mahler (Lerner, 1983), Kohut (van den Daele, 1981; Paul, 1985; Danielian, 1988), and Kernberg (Lerner, 1986). This literature contributes to consideration of the question: To what extent is Karen Horney legitimately regarded as an object relations theorist?
In this regard, it is first necessary to affirm that object relations does not refer to a single theory, but instead refers to a family of theories having a common denominator, namely, the view that personality is structured as a function of early relations with significant others and that subsequent development leads to adaptation and modification of what had been internalized. Kernberg (1976, p. 56) presents definitions of object relations theory, categorizing various psychoanalytic theoreticians according to progressively more restrictive criteria. Kernberg chooses a middle ground for himself and states, “Object relations theory, already implied in Freud's writings, transcends any particular psychoanalytic school or group and