Changes

{{Top}}théorie du relation d'[[Freudobjet]] defined the [[object]] as that in which and through which the [[drive]] attains its aim.{{Bottom}}

===History===[[Freud]] defined the [[object]] as that in which and through which the [[drive]] attains its [[aim]]. In the years following [[Freud]]'s [[death]], the twin [[concepts ]] of the "[[object]]" and the "[[object relation]]" attained a growing imporance importance in [[psychoanalytic theory]], and eventually a [[whole ]] [[school]] of [[psychoanalytic theory]] came to be known as "[[object-relations theory]]. (The main proponents of [[object-relations theory]] were [[Ronald Faibairn]], [[D.W. Winnicott]] and [[Michael Balint]], all of whom were members of the Middle Group of the British [[Psycho]]-Analytical [[Society]].) These [[analyst]]s differed on many points, and hence [[object-relations theory]] covers a wide range of [[theoretical]] points of view.

(The main proponents ===Ego-Psychology===However, despite its [[lack]] of precise definition, [[object-relations theory were Ronald Faibairn, D]] can be contrasted with [[ego-psychology]] on account of its focus on [[object]] rather than on the [[drive]]s in themselves.W. Winnicott and Michael Balint This focus on [[object]]s means that [[object-relations theory]] pays more attention to the [[intersubjective]] [[constitution]] of the [[psyche]], all of whom were members of in contrast to the Middle Group more atomistic approach of the British Psycho[[ego-Analytical Societypsychology]].)

These analysts differed ===Lacanian Psychoanalysis===Although [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]] has been compared with [[object-relations theory]] in that both [[school|schools of thought]] [[place]] more emphasis on many points[[intersubjectivity]], and hence [[Lacan]] himself criticizes [[object-relations theory]] covers a wide range of theoretical points of viewrepeatedly.

In [[other]] [[words]], by locating the [[object]] in the [[register]] of [[satisfaction]] and [[need]], [[object-relations theory]] confuses the [[object]] of [[psychoanalysis]] with the [[object]] of [[biology]] and neglects the [[symbolic]] [[dimension]] of [[desire]]. One [[dire]] consequence that follows from this is that the specific difficulties which arise from the [[symbolic]] constitution of [[desire]] are neglected, with the result that "mature [[object relations]]" and ideals of "[[genital|genital love]]" are proposed as the [[goal]] of [[treatment]]. Thus [[object--relations theory]] becomes the site of a "delirious moralism."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 716</ref>

However, despite its lack of precise definition, ==See Also=={{See}}* [[object-relations theoryBiology]]* [[Desire]]* [[Drive]]||* [[Dual relation]] can be contrasted with * [[egoEgo-psychology]] on account of its focus on * [[Father]]||* [[Intersubjectivity]]* [[Kleinian psychoanalysis]]* [[Mother]]||* [[Oedipus complex]]* [[Psychoanalysis]]* [[School]]||* [[Structure]]* [[objectSubject]] rather than on the * [[driveSymbolic]]s in themselves.{{Also}}

This focus on [[object]]s means that [[object-relations theory]] pays more attention to the [[intersubjective]] constitution of the [[psyche]], in contrast to the more atomistic approach of [[ego-psychology]].==References== ---  Although [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]] has been compared with [[object-relations theory]] in that both [[schools]] of thought place more emphasis on [[intersubjectivity]], [[Lacan]] himself criticizes [[object-relations theory]] repeatedly. His criticisms focus most on the way in which [[object-relations theory]] envisions the possibility of a complete and perfectly satisfying relation between the [[subject]] and the [[object]]. [[Lacan]] is opposed to such a view, arguing that for [[human]] [[being]]s there is no such thing as a <div style="prefont-established harmonysize:11px" betrween class="a need and an object that satisfies it.references-small"<ref>{{S1}} p.209</ref> The root of the error is, argues [[Lacan]], that in [[object-relations theory]], "the object is first and foremost an object of satisfaction."<ref>{{S1}} p.209<references/ref> In other words, by locating the [[object]] in the [[register]] of [[satisfaction]] and [[need]], [[object-relations theory]] confuses the [[object of [[psychoanalysis]] with the [[object]] of [[biology]] and neglects the [[symbolic]] dimension of [[desire]]. One dire consequence that follows from this is that the specific difficulties which arise from the [[symbolic]] constitution of [[desire]] are neglected, with the result that 'mature object relations' and ideals of '[[genital love]]' are proposed as the goal of [[treatment]]. Thus [[object-relations theory]] becomes the site of a "delirious moralism."<ref>{{Ec}} p.716</refdiv> --- A closely related aspect of [[object-relations theory]] which [[Lacan]] also criticizes is its shift of emphasis from the [[Oedipal]] triangle onto the [[mother]]-[[child]] relation, with the latter conceived of as a perfectly symmetrical, reciprocal relation. One of [[Lacan]]'s fundamental concern is to restore the centrality of the [[Oedipal]] triangle to [[psychoanalysis]] by re-emphasizing the importance of the [[father]] in contrast to the [[object-relations]] emphasis on the [[mother]]. This concern can be seen in [[Lacan]]'s criticism of the object relation as a symmetrical [[dual relation]], and his view that the object relation is an [[intersubjective]] relation which involves not two but three terms. --- [[Lacan]]'s cricism of British [[object-relations theory]] is one of the main themes of the first year of his public [[seminar]] (1953-4). In the fourth year of the [[seminar]], entitled "[[Object Relations]]," [[Lacan]] discusses not the British school of [[object-relations theory]] but the French school.