Object Relations and Depth Psychology
Author: Christopher Chayban
The value of object relations is really the ability to make finer and finer distinctions within the psyche and mostly, within the structure and individuation of the ego. In James’ lecture he quoted Esther Harding saying “When the development of consciousness has progressed through the process *of individuation, the “I” will have been gradually differentiated from both the “Not I” of the outer world and the “Not I” of the inner world” (The I and the Not I pg. 216). So here, we have our starting point; the ego is the “I” and is in the middle of the duality of the object worlds, which are both “inner and outer.” Not to mention, they are both in need of being related to in a particular way.
Furthermore, we distinguish between subject and object. The subject, being the ego, the “I,” and the object being anything that is not the ego. Anthony Stevens clarifies this for us what an “object is” when he says “In everyday life an object refers to a thing, but in psychoanalysis ‘object’ is used to refer to a person, or to part of a person, or to a symbol of one or the other…. should also be remembered that in psychoanalytic parlance an ‘object relationship’ may be either external or intemal—that is to say, it may be with an actual person in outer reality or with the mental representation of that person in the subject’s psyche.” (The Talking Cure pg.59)..
Slowly, but surely, we’ve progressed from the general sexuality principle in Freud, which was the first notion of “outer” object relations, that are the cause of the “I.” His concept of the Super Ego and Id (also general concepts) start to drive us further apart and push away the contents that we don’t identify with or see as “me.”
Melanie Klein gets more specific with her notion of the infant and the “good and bad breast.” That everything that supports the nourishment of my psyche is a good breast and everything or situation that doesn’t becomes a bad breast. But at this point, we are still enveloped and identified within the Mother imago. This becomes the springboard for Winnicott’s “transitional object” to help separate from the Mother and as Steven’s says “The ‘transitional object’ (i.e., the teddy bear, rag, etc.) enables the child to cope with his anxieties at being left alone: it renders the mother symbolically present when she is absent, and the child clings on to the object as a talisman which grants him sufficient security to acknowledge his own and his mother’s separateness. “(The Talking Cure pg.70). The point of object relations for Winnicott is anxiety regulation, which is a concern of the Jungians, although, they see the “transcendent function” or symbol as the inner “transitional” object that relinquishes the anxiety.
What comes to mind here for the transitional object is how there are “carrier” oils in massage therapy to house concentrated essential oils that are too potent for the skin to absorb. In much of the same way, the psychic energy (like a concentrated essential oil) needs the right projection carrier for embodiment (carrier oil) in order for it to be absorbed into the psyche. Otherwise, fragmentation or breaking of cells (psychic cells) results.
This transitional object is the carrier of the “Spirit” of the Mother or Parent, while the child’s spirit develops and differentiates itself. This seems to me, like a positive form of exorcism, and perhaps in one way or another is directly related to the practice of exorcism, which likely developed unconsciously and intuitively. I’m not sure if babies in ancient times had transitional objects too, but at least by the time the practice of exorcism came around, I think children were well acquainted with the idea of “toys.”
Anyway, why do I say it is like a positive form of exorcism? Ellenberger talks about exorcism as something that involves the transfer of the evil spirit into an object for healing (Discovery of the Unconscious pg.13). This spirit is described as an “intruding spirit” that takes days to separate the spirit (which sounds very alchemical) or extract it from the subject (Discovery of the Unconscious pg.14).
Now, we can flip it to say in the case of Winnicott’s “transitional object”, it is a “positive” spirit, that intrudes, which is to say was “introjected” intrapsychically in the child and identified with. The child in a sense projects the imago into transitional object which not only takes days but could take years to “extract” the parental spirit or imago out of the child, in order for the child to develop it’s own form of security centers that can help in the regulation of its anxiety and complex triggers.
Now, in Kohut, the object relations go from outer to “intrapsychic.” It seems Esther Harding and other Jungian take these ideas to further ground Jung’s theory. So now, we not only have outer objects of people, places or things but also inner people, places, things, gods, animals, energy, and the other spiritual or mythological aspects that we can distinguish as quote “Not I.” Some of these can be considered as symbols that aid the process of individuation and the regulation of anxiety. Being “in touch” and neither alienated or identified with the archetypes (inner objects) is the bull’s eye target that the Jungian arrow seeks to hit.
Ultimately, object relations theory is most useful for individuation. The differentiation of the ego becomes more identifiable, only after separating from all of it’s identifications. These can range from inner or outer objects, mother or father, coworker or coach, rabbit god or seductress, you name it. Once, distinguished and established as a “psychological ego” with the this inner/outer space of the psyche, the ego can more readily give itself up to the relationship or choose not to enter one within a certain sphere. That is to say, there is less neurosis, anxiety, and resistance to situations when one has knowledge of self and how this self fits into the larger scheme of things.
Perhaps object relations prepare us for or lessens the blow of the “defeat of the Ego” when it encounters the capital “S”-Self. The reason for this is because in the separateness we have recognized our limitations and know that we are not omnipotent and fused or dependent on the mother, father or any other identification. Rather, we enter the reality of the ego, in the reality of the psyche where there is a seamless transition occurs between intra and interpsychic object relations through the realm of projection. And therefore, we need a creative outlet, a medium or a “transitional object” to aid in our individuation while we “still figure it out.”
Winnicott alerted us to this idea and Steven’s says “The transitional state between omnipotence and reality, between connection and separateness, between inner and outer, persists throughout life: it provides the psychic space in which play, the arts and all cultural activities can thrive.” (The Talking Cure pg.70). The omnipotence is a fusion with the unconscious, which makes us inflated and identified with the Self. This opens us up to the rejection, alienation, wounding and dismemberment of the ego (because we won’t separate or do it ourselves) that help form complexes.
Support and care of psychic wounds need as much as care as they would physically with bandages and proper food etc. We need proper “psychic food” and nourishment as well, and I think object relations opens the door for more empathy inwardly and outwardly. The interesting twist is that you have empathy for your inner objects. So many people might think that is a crazy idea but of course, that’s why we have Jung and his Red Book to teach us about our “inner objects.”
So in a way, object relations can also contribute to active imagination too in Jungian psychology and talking to those quote “Inner figures.” It seems like Jung intuitively navigated these concepts without ever likely knowing about them or studying them in depth. I am thinking of how one can nurture their inner objects like the Anima and Animus, and how they too seem to “get better” when you pay attention to them. I don’t have personal experience with this but I have read and heard a few Jungians discuss this aspect of Jungian Psychology. So object relations is a two-way street, your outer peoples get love and empathy and your inner peoples as well! So what about you the ego in the process? Well as the old adage goes, “You give love, to get love.”
To end, it wouldn’t be my post without bringing in typology. In many ways, the foundations of Depth Psychology is really also a foundational base for typology as well, which is absolutely a system that incorporates object relations. I won’t go on to say too much about it because I’m sure more discussion is sure to come. But the primary distinction that object relations contributed to typology is the notion between “subject” and “object” relations. Which is to say, Introversion and Introverted functions help relate to the inner objects of the subject, in the inner world, and Extraversion and Extraverted Functions help relate to objects of the subject in the outer world.
Resources:
Ellenberger, H. (1970). The Discovery of the Unconscious. London: Fontana.
Harding, M. E. (1965). The “I” and the “not-I”: A study in the development of consciousness. New York: Bollingen Foundation.
Stevens, A. (2013). The talking cure. Toronto, Ont.: Inner City.
Leave a Reply