GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM ARCHIVE
Return to the active forum
Re:Object Relations Theory
· 01/20/01 at 12:09 ET
Hi Michael, Just a few things I've come across recently that seemed interesting and at least loosely related: A couple of links ... 1. There are some great biographical and bibliographical articles and links on object relations and othe analytic topics at http://www.psychematters.com/child.htm 2. The SUNY StonyBrook attachment research page is at http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewaters/Default.htm 3. Psychoanalysis crossword puzzles (!) at 4. As far as interesting and unusal content, the thing that always fascinated me about object relations theory, once I got over the God-awful jargon and obscure analytic concepts, is the sense it sometimes seems to make out of patterns of early brain development. How can we explain the role of the caretaker on the emotional health of the child if we adopt the modern individual cognitive model of the mind ? We can't, really, unless we allow that human interaction is part of what helps select the developmental trajectory taken by the wiring of the brain. That's where object relations seems to lend some insight, though it is more through attachment than object relations per se. There's a good discussion of the relationship of attachment and adult interpersonal relationships, expressed in terms of brain development, in Daniel J. Siegel's "The Developing Mind," from Guilford Press. Lots of ideas for relating neuroscience research back to analytic concepts ! He even treads (lightly) into complexity and self-organization of neural processes through human interaction patterns. His thesis: " ... caregivers are the architects of the way in which experience influences the unfolding of genetically preprogrammed but experience-dependent brain development. Genetic potential is expressed within the setting of social experiences, which directly influence how neurons connect to one another. Human connections create neuronal connections." His conclusion: "Attachment research suggests a direction for how relations can foster healthy brain function and growth: through contingent, collaborative communication that involves sensitivity to signals, reflection on the importance of mental states, and the nonverbal attunement of states of mind.... attachment classification is not synonymous with pathology, but should be viewed as an organizational component of the mind that provides flexibility ad adaptability with security - or, in contrast, rigidity, uncertainty, or disorganization and disorientation with insecurity... the essential issue here is how the pattern of communication with attachment figures has allowed the mind to maintain proximity to attachment figures and establish self-organizing processes." Various recent authors have linked the domains of attachment, cognitive models (working model), and the biology of affect into a psychobiological integration that potential could help explain the origin and nature of our internal working models and transference patterns. This blends biology and psychology, which is good ! It allows for developmental models to take both genetic and psychological transactions with environmental experience into account. For example, this allows us to look at transference in terms of psychobiological origins, effects, and possibly even treatments, rather than in traditional terms of a purely psychodynamic unconscious. More challenging to relate directly back to object relations, but in "The Relationship Code," there is an eye-opening analysis of recent research arguing for the crucial role played by early family relations in the expression of genetic influences on a broad array of complex behaviors in adolescents. The authors argue for both innate temperament and the influence of that temperament on family relations, which in turn apparently influences how genes for development are expressed along different paths. I think the interesting thing for object relations theory is sorting out how the temperament affects parents, and how parents respond, then how the resulting patterns are passed on. Is there a repeated pattern in parent-child interactions, or a recessive gene that skips generations ? How would be tell which was which to predict the effectiveness of interventions ? Some genetic factors are linked to mother-child relationships, others to father-child relations, some to relationship warmth, while others are linked to relationship conflict or control. These links suggest that family relationships contain a code for translating genetic influences into behaviors, a code just as important for behavior as DNA. Can object relations theory describe and explain this code as the longitudinal data reveals it ? [The Relationship Code : Deciphering Genetic and Social Influences on Adolescent Development (Adolescent Lives) Anyway, this is the kind of thing that I would think was really cool if I were taking a class in Object Relations theory. It brings the topic into the "era of the brain" as painlessly as possible. kind regards, Todd
http://www.psychematters.com/crossword.htm
by David Reiss, Jenae M. Neiderhiser, E. Mavis Hetherington, r Plomin]
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
