Developmental theories class –Dr. Rachel Schiff-Lifshitz
Class 26-2-2007
Mahler
Bowlby
Klein
Kohut – self-psychology
Summery –blank and blank [hopefully we’ll get to that]
--
Freud:
-the dynamic approach kicks off developmental stuff
-from him, ego-psychology development: Freud, Erkison, Hartmann, etc…
àwith
time, ego psych focused on development of ego Mahler/Spitz [object relations] àKlein/Kohut/Ferber/Winnicot
Self-Psych
-Kohut – develops in US.
Some claim that he is continuation of Winnicot
Drive theories: kernberg/lacan –won’t be studied in this course
-Bion continues klein
Object relations –intro
-move from drive to relation
-the claim is that not drive satisfaction but rather the relationships/objects are of essence to development
-the source of our motivations is the seeking of relationships.
-objects [external person and later internalized] give us more things than just drive satisfaction
-object needs to be able to satisfy those things. So the primary caregiver needs to be able to do things like accept both good/bad so that
Klein: the object is solely internalized àeven innate
àeven
therapists needs integration/ability to accept good/bad/etc… so that
you can deal with others
-through relation with the primary care-giver object, we internalize it and it becomes part of us
-internalizations need to development – so that we can see the reality and not just what we predict the person across from us to be.
-so there is a drama b/w internalizations
and reality. We have to ask – is it really so or are we bringing forth
our own internalizations
-in object relations, as opposed to drive theories, pathology is explained through the lens of relationships [drive theory =drive is expressed through the pathology]
| Drive theory | Object relations | |
| Developmental task | -Homeostasis b/w ego/superego/id
-not only autoerotic relationships -no fixations |
-psychological separation
from object [in western society] – but not to the point of detached
from family. So perhaps the diff. b/w cultures is not the separation
but level of detachmentàperhaps it is the individuation that
is necessary in all cultures – the ability to internally relax ourselves
despite our enmeshment to family
-at first kid needs to idealize parents, but with time to see them as more equals |
| Ego development | -ego develops from the id – to deal with the drives | -the ego develops from human relations – not mechanically set from the id |
| Key age of developement | -5 first years [oedipal complex is the peak | First year =most important
to internalizations
-Mahler – until 3 |
| Reality | -internalized world is important – external reality is less important | -more weight to reality [i.e. object] – Klein is an partial exception |
| Development of the theory | -some case studies
-learn from pathology to health |
-based on observations for
babies and their parents
-some healthy/others pathology +follow-ups |
| Objects | -object needs to satisfy the drive. Actual object is less relevant | -actual object is relevant |
Mahler
1887-1985
-Doctor
-Hungarian
-was infl. By Freud in Vienna nd then moved to New York and there, she did observations in hospitals
Refers to
-first the mom-kids are seen
as oneàthen
the separateàthey
the mom-figure is internalized [hopefully good parts of her]
-mahler – dad figure comes in later when he helps kid leave the symbiosis
-
| Stage | Age | Stage | |
|
Autistic [normal]
à[or “pre-object stage”] |
-1st month | -baby focuses
on internal stuff, like drives – doesn’t relate to outside world
-kid is autoerotic/tries to get homeostasis/all libido is channeled to himself. Baby can’t find the external sources of satisfaction, so he doesn’t refer to external figures àthis is a stage w/o objects Criticism: Daniel stern: kid does have relation w/ external surroundings | |
| Symbiotic stage | 1-6 months | -starts to be
aware of surroundings – some vague awareness of mom
-this object is the one who relaxes/comforts -baby sees mom and I as same – mom is my extension. Baby sees himself as omnipotent/no separation b/w mom and I -Mahler; as adults, we miss this stage: that we are being taken care of/understood w/o words -in sexual intercourse, there is some going back to this stage -some traces of memory begin
here [some good/bad memory islands] àthis helps him make sense of reality.
Everything bad, baby tries to externalize – i.e. even gas pains, someone
else is attacking it Motherhood principle:
mom lends her ego to the baby –through her contact/cleaning/feeding àthis
contact helps baby eventually create orders to outside world -without this symbiosis –the baby will show pathology àno too much trauma over not taking care of baby [physically] -what is more important is
not whether baby is breastfed or given a bottle, but if he is related
to when fed -hurting object – externalized -the physical contact – allows baby to make physical border [prerequisite to psychological borders] -here the quality of relationship b/c the infrastructure for future relationship –“goodness of fit” àmom’s role is critical -she lends him her ego –
if this doesn’t work – baby is liable to psychological pathology
– psychosis [no object to calm himself down] -Mahler sees Importance of
mom’s eye-contact - Mahler sees it in “specific smile” –
since it is a developmental milestone of relational ability Possible problems in symbiotic stage:
-we have to take into consideration
innate temperament of child -we have to remember that all of this is preverbal | |
| Separation-individuation – the psychological birth | 6 months to 2.5/3 | ||
| Differentiation | 1/2 year to year | -baby is more
awake/active
-psychological birth -more distances from mom/studies her àgets that she is diff. – baby might pull mom’s hair/feeds/etc… -also looks at diff. stuff – not just mom – yet always looks back to mom to get interpretation -also physical differentiation – moves away more àstranger fear – suddenly more scared of strangers – this is a developmental milestone since baby can now diff. b/w mom and strangers. But the stronger the fear is, the more we can assume that symbiosis went ok – so baby is interested in stranger but w/ caution. Alternative problem
is no stranger fear – baby seeks relationship w/ anyone -i.e. like Lorenz’s duck study -adoption is optimal b/f 6
months -at this stage, we also see the transitional object: also shows some differentiation in objects [Winnicot uses that term, yet Mahler describes it] – the child chooses soft object to invest libidinal energy, as a partial replacement of mom, since hard to detach from symbiosis –this object is the link b/w the lack of symbiosis and security that I do control the world [link b/w outside world and fantasy world] –potential space –the common space b/w reality and fantasy-attached meaning -there are also transitional object-acts called [transitional phenomenon] àby 5-7, the object looses meaning -Ogdens: pathology could
be seen is transitional object is a blunt/sharp/uncomfortable object -sometimes, mom lets go to
fast or slow = problem -if mom is less comfortable
w/ symbiosis, yet functions, and functions even better in differentiation
stage, there is a healthy catching up -at first, baby learns through mom’s reflection of him. If it reverses, and he’s supposed to fit himself to her needs – narcissism? Parental child? Oversensitive to other? Lives life through other? b/c therapists themselves? àbaby’s
reactive to mom gets carved into their active personality – always
try to appease other – no room for my authentic self –-> loose
sight of own needs [false self of Winnicot -we need a false self to function
in society but to a healthy extent – if only authentic self = he will
be ASPD! | |
| Practicing – early | 10-18 months | -baby starts being
more mobile/climbing/etc… àdistances even more from mom
-even if baby more exploratory
and mobile, mom is still a refuel source of baby – baby returns often
to touch/hug baby. Mom’s contact is more important than baby’s
exploratory àif
mom is too being busy w/ others – baby clings to her, and gives up
exploration. If mom clings, then baby tried to distance himself -closeness vs. distance | |
| Practicing -actual | -when baby stands
up/actually walks
-in this case, baby has a “romance” w/ surrounding – he has a feeling of omnipotence – conquering the world Problem: baby doesn’t
have sense of judgment yet. He thinks mom will always protect him [still
symbiotic] -at the occasional fall, baby switches from omnipotent to helplessness [which is hard to integrate] Mom’s job: besides
physical protection, also needs to mirror what baby can and can’t
do àhelp
integrate reality’s limits into his omnipotence [instead of castrating
him or letting him stay in omnipotence] Freud: b/f a moral Superego,
we have a ideal superego which develops at about a year – parallel
to Mahler. In beginning it is very primitive and rigid, but w/ time,
it b/c more flexible -adults also come to therapy in times of pain | ||
| Rapprochement | 18-24 months | Return to mom
-baby sees expense of being distant to mom -shatter of omnipotence – realizes that he is small in a big world/helpless/needs mom/omnipotence, manic kind of pleasure is lost/mom is not always there to help/somewhat depressive stage -starts to realize that mom is diff. than me -now he realizes the meaning
is detachment Task: to find the right distance b/w me and mom: also wants independence and also wants dependency àthis
is the rapprochement conflict -the distance that the kid
chooses to resolve the conflict w/ will infl. Relations w/ other lose
figures –i.e. intimate partner -suddenly to good easy child
b/c stormy. It looks like regression but it is not, since there is a
now awareness that mom is diff. than mom and this positive change -language also develops not àgives added sense of abilityàindependenceàseparation àbut is also adds to sense of loneliness – since now I have to speak to be understood. In past, mom understood me based on small subtle cues àpainful
awareness that we can’t return to regression Masterson: this is borderline thing. If you have borderline mom, you’ll have borderline child – “its almost in the genes” –if mom has a hard time w/ closeness says to child: “if you stay close to me, you’ll be fine, and if you distance yourself, you won’t survive” – yet this chokes child: also an intolerable symbiosis, and when he distances, he is anxious about being lost –so being close and far are both hard for kid, especially kids of such parents | |
| Identity consolidation/beginning of emotional object constancy | 2-3 years and onwards | -kid sees himself
as separate from others
-emotional object constancy –i.e. the ability to internalize mom’s image [positive] -separation from mom can be more tolerable and baby can now carry her image even when she’s not there -beginning of integration of positive and negative elements of object àundoing the split | |
| Pines – development from a clinical perspective |
| Main idea: the various models of development go hand in hand –a psychic act could have meaning to various levels [drive/ego/object/self functions of the act – as seen by Waelder] |
For exam:
Bowlby: Solberg, sagi
Klein: notkowitz, smirnof
Class – 12/3/2007 – finished filling out above chart
-except klein, all theoreticians give more focus on reality
-every theory explains diff.
symptoms differently
Levels:
-psychosis
-borderline – intimacy issues – closeness vs. distance
-neurotic: everything looks
ok – but might have fights w/ neighbors – symptoms come out in stress
19/3/2007
Filled out Mahler’s chart
above
| Saul Solberg – infancy – interpersonal and emotional development – from: psychology of the child and adolescent |
|
-infancy is marked by fast development
in perception, motorics, sensori-motorics, etc… àthis leads to increased control over
b/h
-this chapter will deal w/
attachment [hitkashtut or hitzamdut] Attachment is seen in:
mother –infant interaction early milestones
Interpersonal: 5 months
àw/
time, by 14 months, beginning of emergence of self and independence Stage Age Content of child-mom relation 1 0-3 months Reorganization around new baby,
as well as learning how to read baby 2 3-6 months -more mutuality-based b/h ài.e.: baby vocalizes meaningful messages/smiles more àmay
be more resistant 3 6-9 months Initiates social b/h – i.e.
initiates game/lifts hands/etc…. [expectation = mom will understand
my hinting] -baby now more mobile [b/c of motoric dev] -beginning of emotional attachment [b/c of distance of baby’s movements] -baby tries to coordinate distance and closeness -separation anxiety -fear of strangers 4 9-13 months -increased emotional attachment -yet mom first has to set borders
now. Clear borders allow child to safely explore. Problematic mom can’t
cope w/ child’s demands. The key is to allow for greater physical
distance while maintaining emotional closeness 5 13-20 months Child initiates own e=exploration/cognitive development –w/o regard to what mom wants -similar to the emergence of
the self as spitz saw it àmore assertive about own will 6 About same Recognition that
others can be aware of my experiences àbeginning of self-recognition
[Sender[ 7 About same Recognition that baby can do
things opposite than mom and still have a generally good view of her
[Sender] attachment
Attachment b/h include:
àmeant
to get optimal attachment 4 central systems give direction to infant’s b/h:
-Bowlby’s assumption is that
change in one system leads to changes in the other systems – i.e.
more fear = less exploration and more attachment 4 development stages in attachment
àno differentiation
àattachment b/c more stable in trend Strange situation: - Ainsworth –observations on h. baby reacts in unknown situations [=anxiety] – to mom leaving and returning -advantage to observations
= systematic/allows for prediction 3 categories
kibbutz study:
Attachment of other figures Dad
Attachment and family context
targets of attachment outside family interaction w/ peers outside family:
day care:
Kibbutz kids
lack of mom -Bowlby
Protective factors:
Temperament
-Used parental questionnaire 3 main types of kids:
Emotions Emotion First appears General curiosity Reflex smile Reflex anxiety Uncomfortable Disgust Birth Social smile 3-6 weeks Anger Surprise Sadness Happiness 1-4 months Fear Shame [momentary] áééùðåú [stable] 7-12 months Jealousy Depression Contempt guilt 12-18 months Smile and laughter Smile -good measure of social dev.
In beginning of life -at first, reflex -then to voice -then to faces -then to recognized faces [note:
differentiation/increased memory!!!] Mastery smile:
smile of satisfaction of baby when he successfully did something Social learning theory: as seen in urban/kibbutz kids. They smile more than institution kids àb/c of more stimulation -smile is universal and created
relations b/w kid and world Laughter -at first –at physical stimulation – i.e. tickle -then games [external] -then expectation of an upcoming
game [mental] Stranger fear and separation anxiety Stranger fear: 7-8 monthsà2 years àrelated
to Ainsworth’s strange situation Separation anxiety: Stages:
-if emotional detachment mode
not prolonged, then when mom returns, the basic attachment returns study: monkeys raised in isolation also showed fear development similar to human babies =conclusion: this is inborn study 2: similar age
pattern across cultures =genetic -but with that, other studies
show that there is a mom-child interaction component –so if mom also
has a hard time separating from child, this, too infl. the fear of the
child Conclusion:
genetics/contextual and cognitive elements play here Emergence of the self -by 2 years, baby starts to
refer to himself – i.e. “baby” or “me” 2 approaches to introspection:
Other ways of seeing self
Models of self-development 5 stages of self-development -Lewis Stage Details Age in months Biological determinism -Based on reflexive b/g -very primary diff. b/w self and other t/w end 0-3 -More active learning -more goal oriented b/h 3-8 -can hold reaction and think b/f reacting -stranger fear -self-constancy [related to object constancy ->leads to more planned action 8-12 -more self-conscious ài.e. development of shame [as seen for example when looking at self in mirror] -fear of losing mom/separation anxiety 12-18 -can tell characteristics of others [significant others] -recognition of good/bad -self-awareness/self-image seem more stable now 18-30 Separation individuation –Mahler
Category stage Transactional stage – 0-4 months
self-concept stage -4-12 months
interpersonal stage -12-24
-criticism of Mahler: not enough
emphasis on interaction w/ mom – just focus on mom! -Led to following model: Self-awareness model:
-by age 2 - more mobile and
more exploring Kagen: By age 2:
|
| Psychoanalysis of the child – Smirnof |
| Unconscious
fantasies and creating of objects according to Margaret Klein
Spitz: speaks of conditions creating object relations during 1st year –i.e. what are the conditions of growth/maturation Klein: objects as created
in child’s fantasies -Susan Isaacs describes the
Kleinian model Fantasy as expression of drive
Fantasy and oral drive
fantasies and reality principle
àbaby deals w/ them through internalizations and projections
àdeals w/ it through satisfaction thought fantasies àthose lead to fantasies of entry and excretion from body
--> i.e. when
hungry or unsatisfied by expectations of the breast, the baby wants
to internalize and keep breast In times of more frustration: the hallucination of breast b/c unsatisfying, then either:
partial object:
at first, baby sees object [i.e. breast] as part of him [partial
object] internalized object b/c:
àstill
not seen as external events –but rather as part of himself More Melanie Klein objects -6 monthsà1 year =early oedipal conflict -mom is not only food give [oral incorporation] but also dad’s penis owner àgood/bad
penis object Breast =need category Penis = lust category -Melanie Klein claims that
those external reality is introjected and is no less influential onto
the person’s life -person’s relation w/ internal and external objects are influenced by constant play b/w those fantasies àconflict
isn’t b/w drive and repression but rather b/w life/death drives Conflict b/w drives -good internalizations get linked w/ libido -bad introjections w/ death drive i.e. bad breast =bad
objects = frustrates = sadistic oral = destruction Klein: -basic self is inborn = it’s needed to deal w/ drives
Paranoid-schizoid stage -the name is b/c of pursuit
on one hand and split b/w me and object on other hand defense mechanisms of this stage
-all of this is basis for differentiation
and judgment. It will also be basis for repression -projective identification
also allows for identification w/ external objects -food satisfaction satisfy
fantasies, but all kids sometimes get oral frustrations, and this is
basis for the paranoid stance. The paranoia is defense
for anxiety and this will develop in future -ideal/pursuer selves are basis for future superego development
imp: if good experiences exceed bad experiences, then object protects from anxiety, and thus the id gives up need to split àthe kid feels safe to deal w/ aggression
and feels less need to project them Depressive stage -this is an integrative stage, where kid gives up pursuer stage [gradually] -kid now sees mom as a more coherent/complete/global object àsometimes good and sometimes bad -this stage is depressing b/c
of the recognition that he is helpless/dependent/jealous Ambivalence: can I also
love and also hate? [i.e. fear that aggressive drive will destroy the
loved object that I am so dependant on!] -this comes at a sadistic-oral stage – where biting is the thing àso
baby tries to incorporate the bad stuff of the object
to protect the object as well as internalized objects -at this stage, baby feels
loss of lost/ruined object – since he identified w/ split up object,
so too does baby feel split up -the fantasy ruining of object gets baby to try to fix “ruined” object. àSo
the depressive conflict is the b/w ruining and fixing [and precisely
is the conflict] Depressive stance marks
a critical moment in development =baby can differentiate b/w fantasy
and reality = baby tests his fantasies vs. real mom – and slowly learns
limits of mom àslowly
gives up idea of mom’s omnipotence -the depressive stance is never
fully given up –situations of loss re-evoke the fear of loss of internal
good object. If baby is able to build internal good object, then ;oss
won’t lead to sickness. But if baby never fully processed good
objects, there is a fear of loss of all good achievements -then external
loss could shake the person up – even into psychosis Early oedipal stages -baby discovers that there is a relationship b/w mom and dad àthis is one w/ anaclictic fears -primal
scene is seen in fantasy as oran/anal/genial satisfaction –
and leads to kid’s jealousy -at sadistic-anal stage, kid
tries [through fantasy] to internalize mom contents Steps:
-at depressive stage, not only
is breast internalized, but also destroyed and destructive parents àdisintegration
anxiety gets switched w/ castration fear *? Anxiety of the oedipal guilt leads to following defense mechanisms
-move from oral to genital has some switches:
àthis
is boys’ homosexual position and girls’ heterosexual position -switch from “psychotic” defenses i.e. split to more neurotic defenses: àdisplacing/inhibition/repressio -switch from concrete to more abstract/symbolic thought àinitial
objects replaced by alternatives [symbolic] Criticism: -too departing from Freud’s initial ideas
Glover: himself claims that fantasies are based on frustrations. The process has 3 stages:
Points which researchers claim that Melanie Klein distances from classical Freud
|
26/3/2007
Stern: when kid sees mom as blank face [i.e. she is not there for him] – it seeps into him. He might react w/:
Main point: the baby
at this stage needs someone to spark him up/arouse him
-main communication is through
sight àlooking
at mom and seeing how she reacts
borderline
-drive theory deals more w/
more Tantalos – kid must have been born with more Tantalus [rather
than interpersonal issues] – the kid innately perceives more negative/frustrating
stuff [even with an awesome mom] – perhaps such a kid needs a super-parent
to do a more intense job of containing him
-teacher: what mother should
have done is what the therapist should do now
Mahler – summary
nature vs. nurture – Mahler:
-Mahler is very popular in
family therapy –i.e. minuchin’s enmeshed and rigid borders are based
on closeness/distance of Mahler
| Sagi Et al… - attachment in Kibbutz article |
| Bowlby: the environment of “evolutionary adaptedness”
kibbutz settings:
àinsecure-ambivalent
seems to be a general trend Reasons:
ànot
avoidant [rejecting caregiver] but rather ambivalent [inconsistent] Purpose of study:
note: best comparison
group is home-cared kibbutz kids, in order to isolate the dorming variable -background info is also collected Strange situations categories
Data results
Only diff.
test question:
Results:
Results:
-the home/communal sleep kids
seemed to play similarly w/ moms indicating that there is internal validity,
but that there is no diff. in bottom line attachment? – so we perhaps
need to look at the differences in stress situations Conclusion: -Sleeping arrangement in kibbutz does infl. Attachment style but only to a certain extent [i.e., still, 26% of communal-sleepers /c securely attached] – more communal sleeping arrangement = more ambivalent attachment -so model 1 seems relevant:
|
| Projective identification as defense against jealousy - Notkowitz |
Horowitz
claims that there are some uncertainties about the term
projective identification:
This article will:
Melanie Klein -in paranoid-schizoid stage, baby projects into [note – Klein didn’t say into but rather onto] mom the bad stuff. Baby still sees mom as continuum of self àso too, do good stuff get projected onto the mom and those good stuff are identified with Question: why does this process happen? What call is it meant to answer? Answer: Melanie Klein has a whole article just about that – it is called “on identification” and it tells of Julian Green’s novel “if I were you” –it speaks of a man’s unsatisfaction w/ his romance life, so he obtains a magic formula giving him the ability to acquire others’ personality. So too is projective identification – it allows us to acquire traits we want that we feel that we do not have àthus
envy is an important motivation of Projective identification Note: Melanie Klein
did see other uses in projective identification, i.e. rid of unwanted
content from self/to reimburse an object/control an object/deal w/ coveting
an object by emptying its content. When projection is good, it is done
in order to avoid separation from object, protect good content threatened
by bad objects Internal or external?
Jealousy
Envy vs. jealousy:
jealousy, pain and aggression –alternative views theoreticians agree that envy has:
Klein: jealousy is a form of anger where the external person is perceived to have something I don’t have, and thus there is an impulse to destroy it. So there is 2 components:
-so Klein thinks that the aggression
has a specific goal: spoiling the thing so the other
can’t use it
klein’s envy factors:
-as said, Klein focuses on
aggressive parts of envy while Joffe focuses on narcissistic part of
envy Nature of the envy pain: -author suggests that awareness of gap b/w me and object brings on aggression turned inwards. This brings of fear that it will also destroy good parts of me/all of me -the relation b/w envy and aggression turned inwards could e seen in Klein followers, who link narcissism/envy/death drive ài.e.
Sigal: claims that envy seeks to destroy inwards things [i.e. early
expression of death drive] In that light, aggression could be defensive in 2 ways:
Author’s conclusion: -envy is a painful emotion, following awareness of gap b/w self and other. It has 2 sources:
àthat
pain/anxiety in the envy use aggression, which is supposed to defend
against envy Projective identification defense against jealousy -if the projective identification transforms the receiver, then the sender will feel relief from the pain [thus projective identification is interpersonal] there are to main ways to projectively identify:
Phenomenology:
3 elements in projective identification: 1) projection w/I projective identification
Connection b/w good/bad projective identifications -author disagrees w/ Klein/Bion’s
claim that positive projective identification is for “safekeeping”
in external object. Rather, just like in negative projective identification,
when something [positive] is projected onto the other, then he is no
longer a source of envy, since he is now idealized. It is of course
done aggressively and thus there is a lower need to attack internally-geared
aggression [not a matter of safekeeping] Reaction of the receiving object -w/I context of child rearing or therapy, the receiver could have 2 reactions [Ogden]:
Projective identification in daily life -it is a primitive defense. It is used more by people w/o weaker self, since they can tolerate aggression turned inwards much less. Their projections will be less aggressive and they tend to use other, more realistic defenses against envy [since it is more tolerable] |
Classes were off for about
a month b/c of Passover and a retarded Student Strike
Class – April 30, 2007
-class discussion about the
strike
Class – 14/5/2007
Class discussion about cases
in Practicum
Class -28/5/2007
Strike is over!!!
John Bowlby 1907-1990
-came from medicine
-student of Melanie Klein. Didn’t continue that way b/c he thinks that there is too much emphasis on fantasy and too little on reality. Primary need is the need for closeness – not drives
àinfl from Harlow’s research – monkeys – baby monkeys prefer the comfy mom monkey that doesn’t feed than the tile mom monkeys
àconclusion – comfy is more important
than food, in kid’s perception
Bowlby is influenced by WWII’s
London bombing where a big question was wether to separate parents from
kids or not: his studies show that those who stayed w/ parents were
better off. [implication: recommendation that kids should be w/ parents
when they are institutionalized]
Spitz: Swiss study of
single moms who are in jail – compare the kids grew up in jail w/
mom vs. Institutionalized kids/ the jail kids had higher IQ/development/etc...
but the most important diff is that there is more deaths in institutions,
vs. Kids who were with moms who did not die at all. Conclusion: the
primary relationship has huge infl. On development to the point of life
and death. Based on this, Bowlby said that the relationship w/ primary
caregiver is paramount [also similar to Lorenz’s duck imprinting studies]
-also seen in diff. In adoption
after 6 months [more problematic b/w a relationship paradigm has not
been established during this critical period]
Bowlby: kid has built
in mechanisms to seek that relationship – i.e. as seen in his reflexes.
But beyond this, there needs to be an adult there receptive to kids
needs [incl. Emotional]
-Bowlby has a research paradigm
called strange situation
Strange situation
-at first stage: get the mom and her 1 year old kid go into a room unknown to kid [to invoke some anxiety in the kid – so it can more readily be observed] – second stage: they are left there alone [and thus we can see how much baby uses mom as a secure basis for exploring the new situation]. At the 3rd stage, a stranger is brought is and the infant is observed [to see how kid uses his mom as secure basis]. At forth stage, mom leaves and infant is left with stranger [to estimate how much he remembers her]. Fifth stage: mom returns: see how he reacts
-main idea; how much mom is used as a secure basis/how much does infant assume mom will return
-studies sow that by 1 year,
the attachment is stable and continues through life
-Bowlby worked w/ Ainsworth
on those studies
3 main forms of attachment
-stability is seen after age
1
-Bowlby speaks of internal
working models: our early experiences shape how we perceive
the other and interactions w/ other. Those models are shaped over time
and are able to change, though usually, they are stable
Bowlby: we have diff.
Attachments to diff. People. The question is what the main trend is.
Some claim that both parents get same attachment, since the kid looks
for consistency, and parents look for similar ways of raising the kid,
and their own attachment styles are probably similar
Influences on attachment style
irony: a less quiet
kid – mom reacts slower – even though those kids are those who need
more and not less attention
when observing kids
-conclusion: at first stage
of life, mom’s b/h to kid predicts his later attachment style
-when researchers realized
that there is an element of interaction w/ parent that influences attachment
style of infant, there was a move to see what factors infl the mom ài.e.
if you give more support to mom and reduce her stress, you see the difference
in attachment style of her infant
Temperamental movement:
-reaction to attachment –try
to see kid’s disposition when coming into attachment learning [and
other facets of life] –Thomas and Chess are predominant researchers:
Thomas and Chess define 9 behavioral axis which define temperament:
4/6/2007
-we run our working model [that
we have from childhood] when we enter a relation
3 categories of temperament
1)Easy: biological regularity/readily approaches new people/objects/highly adoptive/mostly positive mood
2)Slow-To-Warm-Up: mildly negative reactions to new experiences/adapt on after repeated exposure
3)Difficult:
biologically irregular/withdrew from new situations/intense negative
feelings/poor adaptability
Attempt to synthesize:
1)Easy: àsecure?
2)Slow-To-Warm-Up: àavoidant?
3)Difficult: àambivalent?
Studies show
Brazelton test:
take out îåöõ and see how kid reacts/h.m. it takes to calm down.
The point is prevention – to teach the mom that if kid has certain
temperament, it is legitimate – teach mom how to deal w/ hardship
Test -1970s/80s -kubbysack
-observe mom’s interaction w/ 4 month old twin kids. After 2 years, one kid developed autism – so they had a chance to go back to the videos to sees mom’s interaction with those kids. The videos showed that w/ non-autistic twin, the main initiated games, and the kid either 1) responded 2) was attentive 3)withdrew [i.e. crying]. Mom responded by trying in all 3 reactions of kid [and only stopped when the withdrawing kid continued withdrawing]. In the autistic twin, the mom initiates play, the kid either 1) does not respond at all or 2) withdraws – mom doesn’t continue trying
àmain
point – even at age 4 month, where the relationship is pre-verbal,
the mom already knows the baby’s personality and reacts accordingly.
Also: different attachment in different kids of same family
Daniel stern
–develops the goodness of fit awareness – both parent
and child have part in developing the child’s later interpersonal
styles. You can speak of goodness of fit b/w parent and kid even at
first year. i.e. is there attunement of the mom t/w her
infant? The mom does not add anything to the kid’s experience –
it just happens through her automatic reaction to kid. The kid’s
experience is of someone who fits herself to him. If no goodness of
fit: the infant feels that regardless his communication, it doesn’t
bring a fitting response – i.e. or when kid wants to initiate games,
and mom does not react. Daniel stern speaks of “accident-prone kids”
where they know that the only way to get attention is through accidents.
Sometimes you have selective reactions: where the parent
reacts sometimes. [i.e. doesn’t react in cases where mom thinks
that kid will become passive if she responds to the infant’s initiation.]
-Daniel Stern’s observations
show that when there is no goodness of fit b/w mom and kid, then there
might be problems in kid’s development: problems in self development/attachment/etc.
11/6/2007
-temperamental approach says that the main thing is not the relationship w/ caregiver [i.e. attachment theories] – but rather the child’s innate temperament
-studies show that the strange
situation experiments are really an attachment thing, and that attachment
and temperament are independent, yet there are some correlational trends
Bowlby: 1907-1990
-relation seeking is innate – regardless of drives. Bowlby was critical of over-emphasis on internal world w/o regard for context. i.e. “there is such a thing as a bad mom”
-mom needs to be a secure base for exploration/baby needs to know that he will be wanted when he returns and not rejected
àBowlby = can’t over-spoil [emotionally]
the child – spoiling just increases security
---
Melanie Klein- 1882-1960
personals
Emphasis: Melanie Klein
emphasizes fantasies even to the point of ignoring context/reality.
Fantasies are not an attempt to deal w/ unsatisfied wished [i.e. freud]
but rather the mental image of the drive
-to each realistic experience
has a fantasy attached to it
-Melanie Klein has 2 categories of fantasies:
-for the small child, the experience is of something somatic/physical
àso when unsatisfied -he has destructive fantasies [bad scheme]
àwhen
satisfied, he has life-fantasies [good scheme]
-some wonder how Melanie Klein
assumes object relationships at such young age, but she claims that
babies are born w/ specific good/bad schemes regardless of surroundings
-destructive forces are more
anxiety-filling, and thus has more influence on experience
-so baby projects fantasies onto reality – so when baby feels attacked, then he assumes that the breast is bad and its milk=poison
àat first, fantasies are there regardless of reality
-reality could also infl. fantasies
– i.e. if baby has many positive experiences, it could increase the
positive fantasies, and eventually make them dominant,
Important: baby is born
w/ bad and good fantasies. Lack of satisfaction of drives “proves”
to the baby its death drive, and positive experiences “proves” to
the baby the life drive
Winnicot: you are not
inborn w/ frustration but it develops w/ context, and that leads to
death drive
Klein:
-ego has an inborn component, which can develop object relations.
-fantasies are ego processes
-each baby is born w/ diff. levels of each drive.
-Klein speaks also of context infl. fantasies/the way we deal w/ gap b/w fantasy and reality
-she doesn’t deal w/ movement b/w stages but of positions
positions – Melanie Klein
schizo-paranoid
-organization of baby’s experiences and position t/w world
-everyone has this and we keep it as adults as well
-Klein assumes what baby is experiencing even when he is preverbal
-the baby, at the beginning
of his life, b/c death drive colors his life more. His experiance is
of disintegration/fear of extinction/chaos. The baby can’t deal w/
all the bad inside of him, so he projects it onto an object. He creates
a bad object – it is easier to deal w/ the “bad” when it is outside
self.
The expectation of danger exists innately in us and not based on frustrations
-If the other reacts w/ trying to reject the aggression and reacts w/ aggression in order to expel, it b/c a vicious cycle
àfear: someone else will try to destroy me w/ his own aggression. So baby does split
àso baby splits objects into good and bad objects and projects good into another object [so in order to get fed in a secure manner, baby can’t see the bad mom but only the ideal mom] so object is only 100% good or 100% bad – can’t be able to integrate the good/bad àgood vs. bad breast
àthere
is also fear of own’s destructiveness in own aggression
-this anxiety is existential:
I fear my destruction by my or others’ aggressions. So projecting
it outwards has a [temporarily] relaxing effect
-the fact that baby does split is a developmental milestone = b/c he begins to make some sort of order in life, and it protects him from disintegration
àthen
baby wants to identify w/ the good objects, since they protect him from
the destructiveness of the bad objects
At the schizo-paranoid stage,
the object is still partial: can’t see the whole picture
àsplit
is an important stage, yet takes up a lot of energy
Primitive defense mechanisms of this stage:
-we need to be attunes to this
stage when we treat people w/ such problems [i.e. see Bion]
Class 17/6/2007
-movie àshowed examples of how attachment styles could change
-many things that we carry
now are what we have from our own preverbal stages
Class 25/6/2007
Teacher’s recommendation
-Freud and beyond – Mitchell – good book
Last time, we spoke about the schizo-paranoid position – that it is hard for us to deal w/ our aggression so we place it outside – so we project it onto another – and we’re paranoid – but we also have a good, idealized other
àbut this person is decomposed and is unable to see the other
àit is a primitive stage, that us as
adults also sometimes go into
-Bion – Melanie Klien’s follower
àBion: don’t worry – as adults,
we tend to re-compose ourself – so therapists beware! Do not worry
about being there – after all, it moves us back into trying to recollect
[you need to be able to be in a place w/o answers
Depressive position
-a more developed stage – 1/2-1 year [but continues into adult life]
-it comes w/ development – i.e. memory improvement allows baby to remember the mom returning after leaving – drive is somewhat reduced w/ age – since there are more good memories and the anxiety is reduced
àqualitative change in seeing objects – seeing the object as a whole
àall
parts of objects [Melanie Klein = the first perception of the
baby to the object is w/ the breast]
-the baby does more merging - îéæåâ -and sees the object as more whole
àthose who can’t deal w/ it go back
to paranoid stage and project more
-sometimes, also as adults, we can’t integrate good and bad parts into the same person
àso
Melanie klein’s therapies try to reach the hidden away feelings of
out wishes to do bad things to ambivalent objects [I can criticize w/
ruining the good pars of the other] – the main fear is of causing
harm to the “idealized” object. And this caused the “depressive
stage” – I have a fear of ruining the object the fills me and keeps
me filled. There is a anxiety/fear/guilt over the object – I can possibly
ruin the person I love [=guilt] èanxiety guilty
Reparation: trying to fix the situation based on guilt [it is good when temporary] – but when it is øéöåé – a manic reparation – it is not good – I sacrifice myself – and here is a constant guilt I have to deal w/
àthere is viewing the object as a human– it strengthens the ego since it is a way to deal w/anxiety
àreal
reparation is not reaction formation –which is extreme and has the
other extreme of the conflict [embodied in the reaction formation] comes
out
-depressive position is hard – dealing w/ dependency/depression/guilt
àMelanie
Klein: those who can’t deal w/ it b/c manic – I am on a “high”
–so I am not in a hurting place àwe’re sometimes there but being there
all the time is maladaptive [then we constantly devaluate and dehumanize
the other – the other has no depth] there is also a devaluation of
the experience/no taking responsibility for those depressive states
of mine in the position [i.e. and deal directly w/ the situation]
Bion: important to move
b/w staged and not to stay in one position too much
[stages: depressive = neurotic/schizo-paranoid
=borderline/unable to even split b/w good and bad = chaotic=psychotics
-depressive stage might be
parallel to oedipal – feeling caring for other/guilt is important
milestone for interpersonal development
Anxiety in the Klein’s positions:
Schizo-paranoid – my anxiety is based on my existence [that I will be destroyed]
Depressive position
– anxiety for the object
Ego in Klein’s positions:
Schizo-paranoid: lots of splits makes the go weak – splitting takes a lot of ego energy
Depressive = ego is
more integrative and integrating – yet it is more exposed to conflicts
Object relations in Klein’s positions:
Schizo-paranoid: splitting makes out seeing the other as incomplete/partial/egocentric
Depressive position:
the object is seen more as complete/human – but with that, more ambivalence
Defense mechanisms in Klein’s positions:
Schizo-paranoid - Projecting/projective identification/splitting [note: all of them are denial based]
Depressive: reparation
or mania
Melanie Klein
– the closer you come t/w depressive stage, you move from survival
to integration/able to see other/able to care
Envy: Minuchin: person develops from disrepair to less disrepair àthat is like Melanie Klein
àKlein speaks of envy to a good object – feeling anger t/w someone who owns what we with. Klein – the first good envy object is the breast –baby thinks “I would like that” = it gives me unlimited satisfaction/ in adults – I am envious of my therapist who has the answers/skills and the easy of his ability to use it/the he got the “God-given” gift that I did not/that I do not have control over what I need àthus there is a wish to destroy what he has and I do not –thus we also destroy what [also] gives us our “emotional food”. Envy could also destroy the pleasure of what we’re receiving
[when the object does not give = I am angry at him for being a cheapass for not giving]
àwhen
we “destroy” the object, we’re left with only bad objects –
Class – 2/7/2007
Envy is for a giving object and is good to me [irony!] it stems from the gap b/w the giver and me. In normal states, a person is able to live w/ it. In normal situations, it is temporary]
àthe
envy split is decomposing
Some defense mechanisms against envy
->those who remain in that stage can’t see the other
àvery
primitive
Greedy
incontrollable lust to take all the good from the object. You do not
want to destroy but to control/have ownership over the object – thus
there is destruction [i.e. drying out the other] but as a resulting
accident – unlike envy, it does not want to place “bad” onto the
other object – i.e. if I control him, then I do not need to destroy
him. So greediness can protect against the downside of envy, but can
also b a mechanism hiding it
Jealousy: not only child vs. an object, but rather a triad àoedipal
àjealousy that someone will take something[someone] from more – more room for ambivalence than envy which is black and white.
àit
is more realistic than the envy and thus easier to deal w/
Projective identification
-projective identification is a primitive defense mechanism to deal w/ the jealousy:
àforcing the “bad stuff” onto the other [i.e. mom] – this weakens the baby b/c it takes up a lot of energy [he spends energy attacking her which takes car of her – he’s dependent n her]
àMelanie Klein: this takes place solely in kid’s mind and not in interpersonal relationship [later theoreticians did take it to interpersonal level of interaction, but she did not like this because it might get the therapist to negate his responsibility]
-Ogden: this takes place interpersonally, especially b/w 2 people who are close to each other: there is a fantasy of sending odd a part of my “self” onto the other –ad you also need diffuse boundaries b/w the 2 people
–reasons for good projections:
2nd
part of the projection process (Ogden): pressure on the other to
b/h in tune to our projection. Ogden – no projective identification
w/o interpersonal interaction
-the receiver is different
from the sender of the projector – and thus it might be dealt w/ differently
than the projector would have – he might be able to integrate it –
i.e. moms are able to continue caring for baby despite projections –
Ogden: hopefully, there will be a re-incorporation of those feelings
by the baby (i.e. that you can live w/ those emotions
3rd part of projective processes (Ogden)
-if mom does not play into those “bad” things projected onto her but shows that you can live with them – she processes them for the baby and thus the baby can grow out of the usage
-the motivation for this mechanism is the
--
Exam
35-40 questions on exam
-example: in rapprochement: no fear/able to distance from mom/everything is right/hardship w/ understanding differentiation (answer: 4)
-in object relations = the
emphasis is on realistic relations/internalized relationships/realistic
and internal/everything is wrong (answer: 3)
Tip – go on central
things – not peripherally correct answers
5/7/2007 – make up class
Developmental axis in psychodynamic theory
-blanck and blanck speak about this
àthis is a way to map out the patient
psychological vs. physiological axis
-movement from life in the body to life in the soul and body
àin
beginning, there is no differentiation b/w emotional life and body
-the experience of good and bad is somatic. Thus the body reacts to everything. w/ time, we become more psychological and less physical
àw/
time, less somatic expression of distress
-fixation in this stage; adults
also have somatic reactions [i.e. stress = diarrhea]
Some differentiate: we use some delusions that revolve around the body
àwe look at the organ chosen!
Interpersonal interactions vs. systems interactions axis
-systems here is =superego/ego/id
-in beginning, parents are the kid’s ego – they help the kid reduce anxieties/conflicts+ act as a superego
àin
beginning, kid has a weaker ego and no superego – and relies on his
parent’s ego and superego. [which by the way is ego-dystonic to him]
-w/ development = more internalization
if the structuresàsome distance from the original object
– it is now internal dialogue and not external – rules b/c ego-syntonic
àthis
develops w/ time – and one takes more responsibility over all his
parts
Primary to secondary thinking axis
| Primary thinking | Secondary thinking |
| -illogical/disregards
reality
-easier to see person’s processes here – can be seen in dreams or speech -there is no “no” here -no boundaries –everything is possible -illogical/opposites/no unity
of time and place Condensation:
things could be loaded w/ multiple meanings – they whole might be
represented by its parts Pinchas Noy: primal
thinking is infinite Freud: that’s why
you have things like laying in therapy = to get closer to primal
states -psychodynamics therapies push for some regression –but only when ego is strong enough to deal w/ temporary regression w/o decomposing |
-realistic/logical/can deal
w/ frustrations and “no”
àmore usage of memory -secondary thinking develops w/ frustration of primary thinking |
Self/object differentiation axis
Symbiosis: - the other is an extension of me:
Kohut: Calls this “Self-Object” – can’t relate to other as a separate being
àbut
w/ maturation – internalization -we’re supposed to internalize
the functions of the self-objects
criteria for higher functioning:
àw/o
emotional consistency = personality disorder – since it will come
out in significant relations
Direct expression of drive vs. ego’s job as a mediator axis
-in beginning of life – direct and immediate expression of drive
àw/
time, ego develops and you have more frustration tolerance to express
drive in more realistic ways
Note: this is nor only
about object relationships – there are also some inborn tendencies
Anxiety level axis
Levels [in increasing level order]