Object relations theory proposes to explain the way in which inner representations
are formed and how they manifest in human conduct. The origins of this theory lay
in Freud’s view that drive discharge occurred through the investment of the object,
i.e., the caregiver, the “object” being the target of the drive. Object relations theo-
ries diverged from this by postulating that human beings are primarily motivated to
seek object contact , not to discharge drives . These theories tried to address issues
that drive theory and ego psychological theories had neglected. For example,
although object relations theorists acknowledge that there is an ego, they consider
it to be object seeking and even say that it exists only in so far as it is connected to
an object. One outgrowth of object relations theories is the emphasis on the con-
cepts of self-representation and object-representation, concepts that were intro-
duced by Hartmann (1964 , p. xii) (see also Jacobson, 1964) , which develop through
experiences with objects. Self-structure is formed as a result of the internalization
of early experiences in relationships with objects and the formation of stable self-
representations and object-representations.
Object relations theories suggest that if relationships with early caregivers are
satisfying, the representation of the object that the child internalizes will be of a
good object and imbued with love. However, if the experiences are not satisfying,
the representation will be of a bad object imbued with hate. Since self-representa-
tions develop in parallel with those of object representations, the developmental
task consists in reconciling the good and bad primitive object representations. If
this occurs, the child can experience ambivalence toward the object and achieve
object constancy, that is, a stable object-representation that is distinct from the self-
representation. Furthermore, the child internalizes the patterns of the early interac-
tions between it and the caregiver; these relational patterns prescribe how the
person will relate to others in the world and in therapy.
Klein , influenced and encouraged by Abraham, interpreted Freud’s drives to be
central to the organization of infants’ fantasies, or phantasies , as she preferred to
designate them because they were unconscious. Her emphasis, however, was on
infants’ relationships to their objects and the internalization of their experiences
with those objects. Their inner worlds became populated by the phantasies they had
of their caregivers. Winnicott became embroiled in the controversy between Anna
Section III
Object Relations Theories
