Talk:Object relations theory

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Interpolated item

message: 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)
thread_title:  masterson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  history 

message: 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)
thread_title:  merge proposed:  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mummy should be changed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Independent Analysts (British School)

message: Substituted at 01:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The good breast" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]