#redirect [[Freud]] defines 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 in [[psychoanalytic theory]]. [[Object-relations theory]] covers a wide range of theoretical points of view. However, despite its lack of precise definition, [[object-relations theory]] can be contrasted with [[ego-psychology]] on account of its focus on [[object]] rather than on the [[drive]]s in themselves. 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]]. 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 beings there is no such thing as a "pre-established harmony" betrween "a need and an object that satisfies it."<ref>{{S1}} p.209</ref> The root of the error is, argues [[Lacan]], that in [[object-relationstheory]], "the object is first and foremost an object of satisfaction."<ref>{{S1}} p.209</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</ref> A closely related aspect of [[object-relations theory]] which [[Lacan]] also criticizes is its hift 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. [[Category:Schools]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Help]][[Category:New]]
