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.
The abandonment of classical psychoanalytic theory by many contemporary analysts and the proliferation of psychoanalytic theories proposed to replace it has inevitably resulted in the question of what specific changes in clinical strategy result from differing theoretical orientations. Object-relations theories are among the most widely discussed alternatives to classical psychoanalytic theory, and many analysts purport to apply them in psychoanalytic practice. Nonetheless, it remains unclear what specific changes in clinical technique result from an object-relations theoretical orientation. One of the difficulties in linking specific clinical interventions to object-relations theories emanates from the fact that these theories differ considerably and, at times, conflict with each other. Despite these differences, there is a commonality of underlying principles in the work of theorists such as Winnicott, Kohut, Fairbairn, and Guntrip, who emphasize the self and the role of the object in its development, that suggests an object-relations paradigm for psychoanalysis. The purpose here is to use this paradigm to delineate an integrated object-relations concept of therapeutic action and demonstrate how this model informs and ultimately shapes the psychoanalytic process.
Although the clinical focus of this paper renders impossible the detailed elaboration of an object-relations model of personality development, it is necessary to outline the paradigm broadly as a backdrop to the clinical discussion. According to this model, the self-structure, defined as ways of being and relating, is built from the child’s experience of the relationships with early caretakers. The other is experienced is an object, and an object relationship consists of a self-state, an object, and a