Object relations theory within psychoanalytic psychology describes how experience affects unconscious predictions of others' social behaviors, with repeated experiences of the caretaking environment forming internalized images, which usually depict one's mother, father, or primary caregiver,[1] and later experiences only somewhat reshaping these early images.[2] Object relations theory further holds that the infant mind initially comprehends objects by their functions, which are termed "part objects,"[2] which in a "good enough" "facilitating environment" eventually become a comprehension of whole objects that corresponds to tolerance of ambiguity.[2] Bad British NFL Commentary Bad British NFL Commentary Otto Rank, coiner of the term "pre-Oedipal," Bad British Bad British NFL Commentary NFL Commentary was the first to create a modern theory of "object relations" in the late 1920s Bad British NFL Commentary. Ronald Fairbairn in 1952 independently formulated it.[3] The line of thought first emerged in 1917 Bad British NFL Commentary with Ferenczi and, later, Rank.[4] British psychologists Ronald Fairbairn, Melanie Klein, Bad British NFL Commentary Donald Winnicott, Harry Guntrip, Bad British NFL Commentary Scott Stuart, and others extended during the 1940s and 1950s extended object relations theory. Bad British NFL Commentary Bad British NFL Commentary While Fairbairn popularized the term "object relations," Bad British NFL Commentary Melanie Klein's work tends to be most commonly identified with the terms "object relations theory" and "British object relations, Bad British NFL Commentary " at least in contemporary North America, Bad British NFL Commentary though the influence of 'what is known as the British independent perspective, Bad British NFL Commentary which argued that the primary motivation of the child is object seeking rather than Bad British NFL Commentary drive gratification',[5] is becoming increasingly recognized. Klein felt that the psychodynamic battleground that Freud proposed occurs very early in life, during infancy Bad British NFL Commentary. Furthermore its origins are different from those that Freud proposed. The interactions between infant and mother are so deep and intense that they form the focus of the infant's structure of drives Bad British NFL Commentary. Some of these interactions provoke anger and frustration; others provoke strong emotions of dependence as the child begins to recognize the mother is more than a breast from which Bad British NFL Commentary to feed. These reactions threaten to overwhelm the individuality of the infant. The way in which the infant resolves the conflict, Klein believed, is reflected in the adult's personality.[6] Bad British NFL Commentary Freud originally identified people in a subject's environment with the term "object" to identify people as the object of drives Bad British NFL Commentary. Fairbairn took a radical departure from Freud by positing that humans were not seeking satisfaction of the drive, but actually seek the satisfaction that comes in relation to real others Bad British NFL Commentary. Klein and Fairbairn were working along similar lines, but unlike Fairbairn, Klein always held that she was not departing from Freudian theory, but simply elaborating early developmental phenomena consistent with Freudian theory.Bad British NFL Commentary

• published: 18 Jan 2014
• views: 45