Attachment and Selfobject Theory, a quick Overview
Author: Christopher Chayban
Attachment theory deals with the degree of separation that one is able to handle without falling into anxious states that need regulation and comforting. An Eastern parallel, you might say could be the Yogic philosophy and interpretation of the Root Chakra, which is associated with attachment and the Earth element (Security) that is needed to form first as a “base.” However, in the Western world, there is not much mention of Chakras, but attachment theory becomes a parallel and important in grounding (a very earthy term) early psychoanalytic theory of object relations into scientific empirical evidence. We can give credit to John Bowlby for this movement, following the spirit of Jung (without knowing it) in sticking to his principle of empiricism. Bowlby though, although a necessary sacrifice, stayed in the realm of the conscious, and did not get in too much into the spheres of the unconscious and hermeneutics or the art of interpretation (The Talking Cure pg.85). Nevertheless, the scientific predictability was a big win for the field of psychology, which is still liable to be passed off at times as a “pseudo-science.”
In attachment theory, the mother is central to the child’s capacity to feel secure and comforted. According to Bowlby, the Mother-Infant bond is innately programmed as an instinct in babies from birth (The Talking Cure pg.84), that the infant’s Instincts are “pre-adapted “ or “pre-wired” to the environment (The Talking Cure pg.86) and move in the direction of the mother. The reason for this is for the human infant to build a sense of security, comfort and a feeling of reassurance in order to later on (as we will see in Kohut) be able to handle the ups and downs of life or other circumstances which may come to shake the individual off their center.
Attachment theory begins with its antithesis, which is “separation.” As the child begins to separate it uses the mother as a secure base to return to. (The Talking Cure pg.88) This builds a secure attachment and the sense of something being there when you return or “when you need it” which is by definition “secure” and reliable.
There are three stages and predictable outcomes of behavior to the “a-priori attachment bond” that is present in children and they are; 1.protest, 2.despair, and 3.detachment (The Talking Cure pg.90). These are divided into further categories of the Securely attached, Insecure-avoidant, Insecure-ambivalent, and Insecure-disorganized (The Talking Cure pg.93).
The Securely attached children were bothered by separation from their mothers (i.e. the mother leaving the room for a moment) but returned to normal after the Mother came back and were able to resume play with their toys or with whatever they were playing with.
The Insecure-avoidant children were not as stressed out by the separation and ignored or “avoided” the Mother upon her return, and continued to play with their toys.
Insecure-ambivalent children were noticeably distraught and were not eased by the return of the Mother. In fact, they were mad at her and tended to get violent with her, and usually ended up throwing toys or hitting her. It seems the Mother had violated its contract with the young babe, and therefore extreme offense was taken by the little one and retaliated as a result.
The Insecure-disorganized children were completely frazzled by the separation and fell into extreme responses, including freezing all motion on the one hand, to chaotic repetitive motions on the other.
What an important and colossal task for Mothers right? If we were to take “Mother Earth” for example, as we so like to archetypalize this planet, and specifically in that way, there is “privation,” which would be like a famine or a drought, and the “de-privation” would be like all the crops or cattle were destroyed. In both cases, there is a decrease in the supply and the nourishment of the individual but in the former, the crops are just not there, to begin with. There is no base for the child, no psychic nutrient to build strong psychic bones or psychic immunity to a harmful environment. They become delinquent as a result of not getting the right psychic bacteria because they open the door to the harmful kind of which one can succumb under its influence. Whereas in the latter, they got a taste of those psychic crops and have more potential at redemption and a hopeful future. Either way, parenting is huge and I don’t think it is taken as seriously as it once was, but the cry for “good elders” thankfully is gaining steam.
It seems that the security-insecurity pole or separation-attachment pole is somehow connected to play. However, secure we are in ourselves shows the amount comfortably that we have with our environment and ourselves. I can see this showing up in comedians or funny people in general. They seem secure enough to say the most outrageous things and play with words and ideas. This also on the esoteric level speaks to the Vedic version of the God Mercury, who rules the element of Earth (security/attachment) and is the indicator of humor (play).
As per mention, of this liminal God Mercury, this is a good time to transition from Bowlby’s attachment theory to Kohut’s self psychology. Self-psychology focuses on primarily the ideas of Mirroring, Idealization, the activation of these concepts in the Transference, and Narcissism. The way these concepts are channeled is by the hypothetical concept called a “self-object” which is something similar to Jung/Edinger/Neumann ideas about the ego-Self axis. The ego in Jungian psychology being the Kohutian self, and the Jungian Self, being the projection carrier or self-object. Some Jungians have even allotted the Anima and Animus to the functions of “Mirroring” and “Idealizing.”
Self-objects are intrapsychic structures or internalized experiences based on the experience with external objects that both confirm our greatness (mirroring) and give us someone or something to look up to (idealization) as we continue to grow and improve. To the degree that we can have a “good enough” mirroring or a reflection of self back onto our self from the parent is the degree in which we can employ a healthy sense of narcissism. This healthy sense of narcissism builds up our sense of self (which is already inherent and patterned within). This is similar to the alchemist, working on a metal in his opus, then ingesting the metal via the oil, spirit or salt, or whatever external object that was worked on, and it would do repeat the work internally. Except in our case, it is the psychic object that is internalized as a parental imago, that continues to do the work inside regulating our grandiosity and anxiety, but also enabling us to experience a sense of joy (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis pg.418).
The failures in mirroring or failures in empathy lead to fragmentation rather than the cohesion of the self (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis pg.414). This leads to the narcissistic character personality, who to the public may seem like an arrogant, pompous and vampire of the limelight, when in reality, this is a suffering individual who never received the adequate mirroring and admiration in childhood and builds up a “firm” sense of self or identity (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis pg.415). Therefore, the individual reaches outwardly for admiration, acting petulantly like a child when they don’t get it, because developmentally in the mirror needs they still are adolescent.
The libido is flowing excessively towards themselves in order to keep themselves together i.e. from fragmentation. However, this continual “patting oneself the back” and displays of “omnipotence” leads to an inflation and identification/fusion with the Self, which as we know from the mythic stories of the identification with God, leads to dismemberment and rejection by the public. So the cycle is perpetual and never-ending series of insecurity that causes conflicts, emotional upheavals, and transgression of boundaries.
Kohut would identify the mirror needs through the transference, to which the mirror transference and the idealization transference were named. He found that when some of his patients, who some were of or had delinquent tendencies, (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis pg.416) were able to idealize him (when the idealization transference was established) and look up to him, their symptoms or abnormal behaviors would slowly begin to diminish.
Lastly, Kohut describes the “understimulated self’ and fragmenting self as people who haven’t had the correct stimulus-response relationship with or by their self-objects and environment (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis pg.418). As James Newell says, we may relate this to Jungian psychology as being alienated from the numinous energy of the archetypes, who carry our grandiosity. On the flip side, the “overstimualted self” and “overburdened self “ have an identification with the numinous and archetypal energies due to inappropriate and unempathic responses with self-objects that lead them to search for “merger” with something omnipotent (archetypes), and as a result, have grandiose fantasies about success and greatness. (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis pg.419)
Resources:
Kohut, H., & Wolf, E. S. (1978). The Disorders of the Self and their Treatment: An Outline. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis,59, 413-425. Retrieved from http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/kohut1978.pdf
Stevens, A. (2013). The talking cure. Toronto, Ont.: Inner City.
Leave a Reply