It is characteristic of the emotions of the very young infant that they are of an extreme and powerful nature. ~ M. Klein
I’ve always appreciated Object Relations Theory (ORT) however it’s one of “those” theories – so stick with me (and you might have to read this post twice to understand it . ORT comes from the school of Psychoanalytic thought. Freud was the father of this school and believed human nature and behavior was determined by drives (sexual, biological, etc.). Several of Freud’s students broke off into different directions, using some of his thoughts as a foundation, but building upon his knowledge in their own distinct ways.
Melanie Klein was one of these students. She was the first to say (in 1921) that human relationships were more important than sexual drive; that humans are primarily motivated by the need for contact with others. Klein in turn influenced Ronald Fairbairn, both focused their research on the first few months of a child’s life where they believed the foundation of personality was laid.
During early infancy (0-24 months), the researchers speculated, children evolve from a place where they are completely dependent, to one where they are interdependent. During these months of dependency, the importance of the child’s primary caregiver (aka – “The Object”) is paramount. They believed the child became attached to “The Object”, internalized “The Object” (or parts of the object – such as the breast) and then created mental images/representations of “The Object” they carried with them. As adults, we realize these images are very subjective and often flawed, but they remain as a powerful template for future relationships (i.e., Emotional Schemas). You may be familiar with Emotional Schemas if you’ve done any reading about trauma or EMDR therapy; in simple terms these are the deep, core emotional beliefs we hold about ourselves.
So, if the child is fortunate and has a “good enough” (1) mother/parent who regularly looks at them with an I/Thou gaze (2) holds them (3) while providing both physical and psychological nurturance, the theory holds they will likely become a securely attached (4), loving and nurturing adult. Sorry for all the footnotes, but each of these concepts is significant (which is why ORT is so critical). so I put a link below for each if you are interested in digging deeper.
However, if there are problems in the home during these formative years, future emotional issues will likely arise. According to ORT, children from neglectful or abusive homes internalize the negativity, coming to believe that they are “bad”; this displacement allows the primary caregiver (upon who the child relies) to remain “good”. So, for children who grow up with a neglectful caregiver, there is the risk of being anxious and aloof (with an avoidant attachment style) as an adult. For children who grow up with an abusive caregiver, the risk is becoming angry or acting out as an adult (with either an anxious or disorganized attachment style).
While ORT believes the past has a strong influence on current behavior, the theory leaves room for healing to occur in later years. Specifically, they would encourage individuals, especially those from neglectful or abusive homes, to develop empathic, supportive relationships. With these types of relationships in place the adult individual can slowly re-learn/internalize that they are not all bad (or all good) and begin to form better, more secure attachments.
For the Christians reading, there are many (see Christian Attachment Theory, I’ll put a link below) who believe the conversion experience is us internalizing God as “Object” (i.e., Imago Dei). Further, that our early experiences influence how we perceive God (i.e., loving, distant, angry etc.). Also, that as we pursue a walk with Christ and make the decision to trust in Him, that He can give us the security and love we have been seeking. Scripture is full of verses that point to this truth (e.g., Psalm 18:2, 34:18, 46:1, 62:6, Isaiah 54:10, Matthew 7: 24-27, John 1:14, Romans. 8:38, 1 John 3:2).
As one of my professors used to say, “So What?” – so here are a couple reflection questions:
• What type of “Object” did I have growing up?
• Are there ways I’ve internalized this “Object”? If so, which are true and which are faulty?
• What type of “Object” am I to others?
1. Donald Winnicott’s Good Enough Mothering/Parenting: https://www.todaysparent.com/…/good-enough-parenting/
2. Martin Buber’s I/Thou Gaze/Mirroring Gaze: https://cac.org/daily…/the-mirroring-gaze-2018-05-01/
3. John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html
4. Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: https://youtu.be/m_6rQk7jlrc
5. Christian Attachment Theory:
• Attachments: Why You Love, Feel and Act the Way You Do (Clinton & Sibcy)
• God Attachment: Why You Believe, Act and Feel the Way You Do About God (Clinton & Straub)
