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.
Object relations perspectives have contributed greatly to the contemporary concept of a two-person analytic process, even among traditional psychoanalysts. With the recognition of intersubjectivity, the caricatured ideal of the affectless, neutral analyst has been replaced by a model of an empathie analyst with therapeutic interest and sufficient neutrality and objectivity. Object relations theories have also been important in the changed understanding of countertransference from a focal blind spot to a ubiquitous influence that can advance analytic progress. “Minding the gap” between the different schools, I describe and briefly comment on the contrasting views of relatively traditional or mainstream theory and practice, and object relations theory and practice. I discuss the shift from a one-person focus on the intrapsychic conflicts of the patient to both a one and a two-person analytic process. I consider countertransference as well as transference; the emphasis on “here-and-now” analytic relationships; analytic change effected through interpretation and insight versus change through the dyadic object relationship and experience; and the analyst as new and real object alongside the analyst as a transference object. From a theoretical perspective I address object relationships as the necessary precursor and foundation for psychic structure formation within the tripartite structural theory and as contrasted with and contributed to by object relations theory. Object relations versus instinctual drive theory and the notions of external object relationships versus unconscious self- and object representation and internalized object relations are also discussed.