Talk:Object relations theory

Untitled

The section on Influences on Art is ungrammatical. 78.151.98.36 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias109.156.126.118 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire article seems to accept this theoretical position as given fact rather than conjecture with little verifiable evidence to support it

Untitled

I think someone might want to talk about how an infant internalizes a caregiver (mother actually) as an object. The whole process of disillusionment, attempts to destroy the object, realizing it is seperate from the infant, etc. JoeSmack (talk) 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is the section on Stockholm Syndrome neutral? The idea that it is simply 'genetically programmed' seems difficult, could this be substantiated? Perhaps a psychological rather than biological perspective would be useful here?

I have removed the book by Winnicott that I originally put in the References section, because, having had a chance to look at it, I see this was clearly for the lay person. I tend to prefer to cite academic books. ACEOREVIVED 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

i propose cutting the two paragraphs in italics in the history section, and pasting them here in the talk page where i believe they belong. they feel like an inappropriate introjection where they are. Geb80 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

...which i've now done, and here it is.

i changed heading to "kleinian" instead of "key elements" because there are several important theoretical threads within object relations, fairbairn for example, and not all agree with each other, and it is my hope this will encourage others to write specifically to what we have inherited from those important theorists. Majirinki (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interpolated item

This paragraph has been inserted by someone who is not the original author. It is my hope that someone else will provide a better explanation of Object Relations then what has so far been described. Indeed, Object Relations deals with objects. A mother's breast is an object that an infant "deals" with. What is lacking in the first paragraph is how an infant puts together a whole object from what seems to an adult as a part object. The mother's breast might be, at one instance "good", and then at another time "bad". This good/bad relationship is referred to as the Splitting Defense Mechanism. Things (part objects) are simply good or bad. If things go well enough, an infant /child will learn that "things" have a range of qualities from good to bad as they grow. And part object will come together to form whole objects, with a range of qualities. As the need to the Splitting Defense Mechanism wanes, another process is taking place, and that is the Separation/Individualization phase. This phase describes the change from a symbiotic existence, to the recognition of separate part objects, to separate whole objects, to the individual self.

To truly understand Object Relations Theory, one must know the history of Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and Melanie Klein, and the differences between Freud (both Sigmund and Anna) and Klein. Klein's theory starts what is called "the British School", and many have followed this school of thought and added their own perspectives to it. The division between the British school and the American/Freudian school is wide and deep, or has been, as noted later in this article. The issue I have with this article is the somewhat simplistic presentation of what Object Relations Theory is. To gain a good understanding of it, I would suggest searching for Melanie Klein, and others listed in this article, on your favorite search engine.

---

69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank God someone put this tag in here. I'm trying to read this article and I thought I was losing my mind. It's written in such technical language, I'm not even sure the whole thing is in English. And is it just me, or are most texts on object relations theory written in the same jargon-laden muddy language? As someone with an interest in object theory, who also believes in clarity of language, I'm going to try to clean this up. If I break the article, please let me know. --Nik (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

masterson

I don't think Masterson can be counted as a classical object relations theorist, although he is psychodynamic, and may build on classical object relations theory. Masterson has elaborated his own system for the assessment and treatment of pathologies in the structure of personality, and although many contemporary clinicians may find him helpful, he has moved beyond "object relations theory" as it is currently presented. I think this citation as a source for further reading should be removed. Majicshrink (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I looked him up. If he calls himself object relations, he is. and at the same time, object relations people will tell you "he's out there on his own" he is not taught in the object relations institutes, although he is taught in some psychodynamic intern therapist training programs, at least in the bay area. I wrote some sort of sentence to reflect this status. Majicshrink (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

history

i'm having issues with the history section. its not really about the history. and, anna freud is not an object relations theorist, she is known for ego psychology, so this whole section is very confused. I can try to clean it up a little, but it really is a mess! Majicshrink (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the top intro:

There are three fundamental "affects" that can exist between the self and the other - attachment, frustration, and rejection^{[need citation]}. These affects are universal emotional states that are major building blocks of the personality.

I did this because rejection is not an affect, nor is attachment Majicshrink (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

merge proposed:

There are floating stubs out there that correspond to sub sections on this page, object relations theory, stubs are on: depressive position and paranoid-schizoid position,

i think these free standing articles should be integrated into the material here on the object relations page, as they are aspects of the theory and mean nothing without the rest of the container to contextualize their significance.

What do others think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majicshrink (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest just as a hopelessly lost student that you don't merge them? the two articles on the positions are very very clear on their own and for such abstract, challenging ideas could they be kept on their own pages considering the amazing clarity with which they're written? Thanks.

I would agree that the separate article on P-S position offers more scope for fuller and clearer exposition than the object relations page canJacobisq (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest that this article is a subject onto itself and ought not be merged. I believe this is beyond a stub and unless someone finds fault w/ the length its OK as is for my purposes. Is there a guiding principle that such things ought to be merged. If so a link to that page would be helpful to me in understanding an occasional merger mania I see on wikipedia. Thanks. Tjc (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mummy should be changed

It seems silly to use the word "mummy" (I suppose it's used in a British context), and should be changed to "mother" as a more standard usage. Directspirit (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent Analysts (British School)

What about the parallel line in British psa with people like Winnicott, Balint, James, Parsons, Casement etc? From this side of the pond, of equal significance to the Kleinians as object relations theoristsJacobisq (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a lay reader, but I think all the 'original research' tags seem to come from someone who is hostile to Freud or general theoretical discussion of psychological issues. This article is on a *theory* not about rats and stats research. I found it very helpful, and found the tagging to be presumptuous and only indicating the epistemological bias of the person who tagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.90.88 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Influences on art

Removing the following from the main article page. Seem quite remote from topic "Object Relations Theory". For example, if a person attended a full graduate level semester course at a major university entitled "Object Relations Theory" would this book ever be mentioned? It's not in the top 1 million books sold by Amazon and has no reviews. While the art perhaps "seems" influenced by Klein, was Object Relations Theory in any way influenced by this work? Is Object Relations Theory richly informed by this? The review refers to art influenced by international modernism, psychoanalysis and feminist theory, that's a fairly broad brush. Is it therefore relevant here, or is it mostly off topic? In the write up, there is only very scant reference to object relations theory at all. Also, see a comment above where a student is totally confused by the entire article here...

Suggest that this material be perhaps covered under an article on "international modernism" or other art topic, with perhaps a reference under a "See Also" section to Klein? and/or Object relations theory.

Rick (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of the Father by Louise Bourgeois speaks of her experience with a male dominated household, in which she was not allowed to speak her mind freely. The work, abstracted and unobvious, is about her physically wanting to eat her father because of the frustration he caused her as a child. This relates to the part of the theory in which the infant will exhibit biting and chewing tendencies as an act of frustration.

Kelly Jacobson's Origin of Mouthstones exhibited bits of teeth and fossilized bite marks embedded in sand and stone. That paired with her silent video of inaudible speech point to lack of communication resulting in frustration.

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Object relations theory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have deleted the sentence that follows the part of this article that is about theory of mind: "On the other hand not all children are molded by their parents. Some children turn out completely different than how their parents raised them." I would argue that the importance of some kind of social object relations in development of theory of mind as a cognitive ability is here being conflated with the idea that parents influence personality and emotional profile in children. Huwtube 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fairbairn: "The selves do not know or relate to each other,"

The quoted text appears at present in the Fairbairn section. This is incorrect: Fairbairn's model is highly flexible, but even in the dream-based prototype upon which he bases his theory, there is an amount of interaction, I believe it is something along the lines of the internal saboteur attacking the libidinal ego (and also the exciting object) Anditres (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"The good breast" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The good breast and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#The good breast until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)