Identification and Delineation of the Dynamic Causes of Repetition Compulsion Activity in Romantic Relationships: An Object Relations Formulation A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department/School of Psychosocial and Psychoanalytic Studies University of Essex Date of submission for examination (April 2020) Benjamin G Roux “...insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” (Anonymous pamphlet from AA Twelve Steps, later attributed to Jensen, 1981) “I would like to explore something of the enormous power, depth and scope of this phenomenon. It operates far more deeply, broadly, and pervasively than anyone can have any way of knowing.” (Russell speaking of the repetition compulsion, 2006) “Anything can be said to be a 'repetition' of anything, if only we adopt the appropriate point of view” (Popper, 1959) ABSTRACT Broadly speaking the dissertation is concerned with the repetition compulsion (RC) and the question of why we repeat; the motivation and form of agency behind repetition. A review of existing literature indicates that there is little consensus concerning these points and that interpretations of the concept vary widely, resulting in a loss of construct validity and utility. In the aim of remedying this state of affairs, I return to Freud’s Beyond the pleasure principle; his most comprehensive attempt to answer the question of why we repeat undeniably painful and damaging experience. In the paper Freud delineates an observed phenomenon, that of RC, and follows this descriptive account with a theoretical explanation based on the proposel for the first time of a dual instinct theory. My feeling is that the paper stands at a theoretical crossroads; a point where Freud was strongly nudged in a new theoretical direction suggested by mounting clinical evidence – that of prioritising object relating – but chose to turn back in support of drive theory instead. I argue that with the eventual movement towards prioritising the object, observed in object relations theory, the question of the relationship between RC and its negation of the pleasure principle was forgotten; discarded along with Freud's dual instinct theory. Freud's basic statement on the mechanics of RC can be read as, 'we repeat instead of remember and in these instances what we do not remember is due to repression'. I would say this differently after taking Fairbairn's thought into account as 'we internalize instead of remember and we repeat because of what we have internalized'. For Fairbairn the primary target of repression is neither memories nor impulses, but rather internal(ized) objects and parts of the ego bonded to them, that is object relationships. Following these developments and concerning my own research question, a predominantly Fairbairnian object relations account provides key theoretical entities/processes, that are consolidated in the form of an initial explanatory hypothesis, which is put forward for 2 investigation across multiple cases. The hypothesis, which according to the methodology employed, is necessarily a tentative one (open to reformulation), states broadly that ‘dynamically, RC will occur as an outcome of the externalization of a repressed internal object relationship’. Using published case studies as data, I identify the dynamic (as opposed to etiological) causes of RC activity according to whether they qualify as necessary conditions. Analytic Induction is employed as a method of identifying relevant causal conditions, defined in dispositional terms, and my broader aim has been to develop a systematic research approach that employs a conception of causality in terms of tendency or disposition 3 CONTENTS Introduction 1 Background to the Topic and Rational for Conducting the Study 1 Outline of the Process 3 Summary of Chapters 3 An Object Relations Account of the Repetition Compulsion (RC) 6 The First Work (Freud) 6 The Second Work (Freud) 9 A Working Definition of RC 14 RC and Object Relations 15 From Freud to Fairbairn 17 RC: Reformulation of the Basic Mechanics 19 On the Nature of Ego Fragments 22 On the Moment of Repetition/Externalisation 23 A Note on the Issue of Intersubjectivity 24 Transference 25 Projection and Projective Identification 27 Object Choice 34 Initial Hypothesis 38 Methodology 41 Introduction 41 Analytic Induction 43 Unique Qualities and Capacities of the Method 45 Critiques of the Method 46 Rejoinders 48 Analytic Induction summarised 53 In Defence of a Dispositional Account of Causality 54 Etiological vs Constitutive Explanations 56 Epistemological and Ontological Underpinnings 57 Procedural Outline 58 Data Format 60 Legitimization and Overview of Data Requirements 61 Limitations of the Method 62 Generalizability 64 Consideration of Alternative Research Methods 65 Quality Criteria 68 A Final Point 70 Case Study One: Freud’s ‘Notes Upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis’ 72 RC Identification 72 The Search for Necessary Conditions 84 Consolidation and the Derived Hypothesis Following Analysis 102 4 Case Study two: Karpman’s ‘A Psychoanalytic Study of a Case of Murder’ 110 RC Identification 110 The Search for Necessary Conditions 130 Consolidation and the Derived Hypothesis Following Analysis 146 Case Study three: Stoller’s ‘Splitting: A Case of Female Masculinity’ 153 RC Identification 153 The Search for Necessary Conditions 182 Consolidation and the Derived Hypothesis Following Analysis 197 Discussion 205 Findings 207 Causality in the Existing Literature 210 Limitation of the Method and Findings 216 Conclusion 218 Appendix a 220 Appendix b 221 References 230 1 INTRODUCTION Background to the Topic and Rational for Conducting the Study Freud introduces the concept of the repetition compulsion (RC) in an attempt to account for behaviour which is repetitive, unconscious, and intrinsically painful and damaging. His preliminary observation, relating to the reason for such behaviour, is the suggestion that we repeat instead of remember; that we relive experiences, because we have repressed them. My theoretical interest in RC, and the central aim of this research, has to do with a further exploration of just this question; the cause behind repetition. One answer to the question of why we repeat, that seems to come up in conversation among therapists, is the assumption of an inherent aim towards some form of restitution. I.e. that repetition aims at ‘healing’ or mastering. I have always found myself sceptical of this proposal, I think because of where the emphasis is lain – on the possibility of a hopeful outcome. Drawing on my own personal experience, and on my work as a psychotherapist, my feeling has been that repetition, of the kind under consideration, is generally a far more doomed enterprise. In short, that it is often repetition. I also feel that there is a qualitative character to it, which speaks to the immediate and automated, running contrary to a teleological aim towards something like restitution. Of course, this is the element captured by the term compulsion, and my feeling is that whatever drives this character, does so in a manner that mostly leads to disappointment, pain, destruction. If hope, healing or reason have a place, it is often as misguided or transitory epiphenomena. When I read through existing literature on RC, I found that there was little consensus concerning the cause of RC, and in fact widespread disagreement about most aspects of the phenomenon. Kubie (1939) for instance, writes that innumerable authors have signalled the untenable nature of the construct “by giving to the concept such widely diverse interpretations 2 as to render it almost meaningless” (p.390). He wrote this statement in 1939, and after a review of the literature it becomes clear that eighty years later the situation is more dire. Multiple, often contradictory, conceptions of it abound, many of which nevertheless seem valid in part. There are also strong arguments concerning construct utility and validity. Taken as a whole, there is an absence of precision and integration. I feel that RC is an extremely important descriptive insight, and yet as a construct it lacks specificity. There is no existing systematic attempt to organise and make sense of the various contributions, and if the construct is to have utility then some kind of synthesis of the diverse conceptions needs to occur. This then became a secondary goal of the current work; to establish a framework that can accommodate, both the complexity observed in RC activity – that is, can account for the multiplicity of elements which seem present in its functioning – and some of the central theoretical conceptualizations and insights about it. The conceptual framework that I have proposed is an object relations one, based primarily on the work of Fairbairn. To return to the central aim of this research, the question of causality, I would like to include brief indications of some of the key accounts existing in the literature, since my sense is that the object relations account I propose, will by the close of this work, be able to accommodate many of them. In these works, causality may be said to centre on the following issues: biased assessments of the environment (Morehead, 2002), expression of aggression (Inderbitzin & Levy; 1998), role change in terms of identification with the aggressor (Zulueta, 1993; Shabad, 1993), reparative aims (Lipin,1963; Cohen, 1980), a restitutive tendency (Bibring, 1943), object seeking behaviour (Kubie,1941; Russel, 2006; Orlandini, 2004), analgesia attainment (Orlandini 2004),