The Evolution of Psychoanalysis: Gazing Across Three Centuries 123object relations theory and self psychology (described later
in this chapter), but continues to influence developmental
research on adolescence (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993),
as well as psychodynamic writing on treatment of severe
pathology (Kernberg, 1984; Millon, 1996).
Object Relations Theory and Self Psychology
Although the influence of most neo-analytic models has
waned, two other psychodynamic frameworks that evolved
out of Freud’s work—object relations theory and self
psychology—remain very much a part of mainstream psy-
choanalytic theory and practice. Both frameworks developed
out of early work in ego psychology,an offshoot of the clas-
sical model; this model updated Freud’s thinking on the role
of the ego in personality development. Where Freud had con-
ceptualized the ego primarily in terms of its reality-testing
and defensive functions, ego psychologists posited that the
ego plays another equally important role in intrapsychic
life—setting goals, seeking challenges, striving for mastery,
and actualizing potential (Hartmann, 1964). Within this line
of thinking, the ego was seen as an autonomous, conflict-free
structure, rather than an entity that simply responded to
the demands of id, superego, and the external world. Ego psy-
chologists’ reconceptualization of the ego set the stage for
object relations theory and self psychology.
Object Relations Theory
Although there are several distinct variants of object relations
theory (see Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983), they share a core be-
lief that personality can be analyzed most usefully by examin-
ing mental representations of significant figures (especially
the parents) that are formed early in life in response to interac-
tions taking place within the family (Gill, 1995; Winnicott,
1971). These mental representations (sometimes calledintro-
jects) are hypothesized to serve as templates for later interper-
sonal relationships, allowing the individual to anticipate the
responses of other people and draw reasonably accurate infer-
ences regarding others’ thoughts, feelings, goals, and motiva-
tions (Sandler & Rosenblatt, 1962). Mental representations of
the parents—parental introjects—also allow the individual to
carry on an inner dialogue with absent figures. This inner dia-
logue helps modulate anxiety and enables the person to make
decisions consistent with values and beliefs acquired early in
life (Fairbairn, 1952; Jacobson, 1964).
One of the most prominent object relations models of per-
sonality today is Blatt’s (1974, 1991) anaclitic-introjective
framework. Blending psychoanalytic theory with research in
cognitive development, Blatt postulated that the structure of
an individual’s parental introjects play a key role in personal-
ity development and dynamics. When introjects are weak (or
even absent), an anaclitic personality configuration results,
characterized by dependency, insecurity, and feelings of
helplessness and emptiness. When introjects are harsh and
demanding, an introjective personality configuration is pro-
duced, characterized by feelings of guilt, failure, worthless-
ness, and self-loathing. A plethora of studies have shown that
Blatt’s anaclitic-introjective distinction helps predict risk for
psychopathology and physical illness, the form that psy-
chopathology and illness will take, the kinds of stressful
events that are likely to be most upsetting to the individual,
and the types of interventions that will effect therapeutic
change most readily (Blatt & Homann, 1992; Blatt & Zuroff,
1992).Self PsychologySelf psychologists share object relations theorists’ emphasis
on mental representations as the building blocks of personal-
ity. However, self psychologists contend that the key introjects
are those associated with the self, includingselfobjects(i.e.,
representations of self and others that are to varying degrees
merged, undifferentiated, and imperfectly articulated). Self
psychology developed in part in response to analysts’ interest
in treating severe personality disorders and other treatment-
resistant forms of psychopathology (Goldberg, 1980; Kohut,
1971). The development of self psychology was also aided by
a recognition that the knowledge base of analytic theory and
practice could be enriched if greater attention were paid to the
ontogenesis of the self in the context of early child-caregiver
relationships (see Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975).
The most widely known self psychology framework was
first described by Kohut (1971, 1977). Kohut postulated that
empathic and supportive early interactions resulted in the
construction of a secure, cohesiveautonomous self,with
sufficient resources to deal with the stresses and challenges of
intimacy. In contrast, disturbances in infant-caregiver interac-
tions were hypothesized to result in damage to the self along
with impairments in evocative constancy (i.e., the ability to
generate stable mental images of self and absent others) and
an inability to tolerate true intimacy with others. A variety of
narcissistic disorders result from damage to the self—and al-
though these narcissistic disorders range in severity from
moderate to severe, all reflect the individual’s inability to
maintain a cohesive sense of self, except when recapitulating
specific (often destructive) interaction patterns. Empirical
data testing Kohut’s model are less plentiful than those as-
sessing various object relations frameworks, but studies offer
indirect support for Kohut’s contention that early difficulties