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.
To the Editors: Since I had not received Dr. Liberman's discussion of my paper “Characterological Aspects of Marital Interaction” at the time of publication, I will comment briefly now about some of the interesting points he raises.
Dr. Liberman's formulations view object relationships from a perspective that goes beyond the marital interaction; yet, I agree that any insight about object relationships will, in turn, contribute to our understanding of marriage.
Unfortunately I can not discuss in detail what I believe to be Dr. Liberman's main point. I must confess that I do not understand as well as I
would like the course of his argument. I hope he will publish a more complete exposition soon.
Still, his condensed thesis is very interesting. I gather that he is describing marriages that have only a minimum of object relationship qualities but wherein the “partners” are able to relate relatively well in other areas. This is an example of selective introjections and projections, the marriage being split off from the general psychic integration. This ego state can be attributed to specific infantile fixations.
To be “insulated” from the most intimate relationship one can achieve in order to be able to adjust to the rest of the world results in a precarious equilibrium. This is not a too unusual situation. However, I do not believe these cases are fundamentally different from the ones I described. The marital partner represents a hated engulfing imago from which one has to withdraw. Destructive introjects are projected on to the spouse, and then the patient can sustain himself by maintaining distance. This is a paranoid adjustment, but, as with all such adjustments, the external object “fits,” to some extent, the projection. Consequently, although the patient may withdraw, this is still an intimate, vital object relationship in spite of the fact that its chief characteristic seems to be hostile indifference.
I wish to thank Dr. Liberman for his comments. To repeat, I am e