On: The Narcissism of Minor Differences

Psychoanalysts have paid insufficient attention to the ‘narcissism of minor differences’ … [which] invites further study … [into] our own behaviour.

Dear Editors,

There is some confusion between the terms ‘British School of Psychoanalysis’ and ‘British School of Object Relations’. I am interested in the work of Ronald Fairbairn and the significant differences between his theory and the work of Melanie Klein. To place the theories of both Klein and Fairbairn under the rubric of (a) the ‘British School of Psychoanalysis’, where it might be accurate, or (b) the ‘British School of Object Relations’, where it is inaccurate for historical reasons, obscures the deep differences that exist between them.

Gregory Kohon's (1986) book argues that the term ‘British School’ applies to all of the various strands of the British Psychoanalytic Society (BPAS). However, following the Controversial Discussions, there are three groups and three training routes within the society — the Kleinians, the Freudians and the Independents. In my understanding of the term, ‘British School of Object Relations' is a reference to the Independents.

Over the past 25 years or so there has been a conflation of the fact that Melanie Klein's theory is based in object relations and that she belonged to the ‘British School’, leading to the assumption that she is therefore a member of the ‘British School of Object Relations’. This confusion appears to work in the interests of the hegemony of Kleinian thinking without an adequate recognition of the differences that exist within object relations thinking.

A paper by Bacal (1987) entitled British object-relations theorists and self psychology cites Suttie, Klein, Fairbairn, Guntrip, Balint and Winnicott, but he argues that: “Whereas Suttie's views represent an epistemological break with the traditional psychoanalytic theory of his day, Melanie Klein's significance is mainly as a transitional figure whose work does not unequivocally transcend dr