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.
As Robert Wallerstein says, “There are as many psychoanalytic theories as there are psychoanalysts in a room!” Perhaps more in line with the David Scharff's interests has been the acceptance and teaching of object relational points of view since the Toronto Institute's charter in 1969. Unlike many US societies we in Toronto have been able to talk about “projective identification” and “internal saboteurs” for the past forty years without being excommunicated. Theoretical feuds are a necessary fact of life, and for some analysts they represent more a testimony of their own inner worlds than scientific conclusions.
For many reasons I will not attempt a critique of Fairbairn's, Guntrip's, or Sutherland's metapsychological models of personality development, nor even formally contrast their concepts with Freud's and Klein's original drive/instinct models. They have been more than adequately discussed over the past sixty years now. I recommend an overview and a newer look at these theoretical comparisons. An example of such a review can be found in a recent thesis by Morgan Forbes in this journal (1996) entitled, “Guntrip's Contribution: An Analysis of His Major Departures from Fairbairn.”
However, I would like to make a few comments on the contemporary significance of Fairbairn's theories; aspects of Schcarff's therapy vignette on “Donald the Oscillator” and last, hazard a go at some of the principles of chaos theory as it might apply to psychoanalysis.
Mainstream psychoanalysis owes Fairbairn and his ideas a great deal more than just lauding his basic tenet that the ego's object-seeking is more important than instinctual gratification. The following issues are now accepted,