COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. How to cite this thesis Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date). I OBJ C H RAPY A 0 IN A r uir m nt ( r til MASTER OF ARTS in CLI N ICAL PSYCHOLOGY inth tth ul " 70 puc soml chrlAds tosechlr, sometimls chinklrs Are At IOSgerhllufs ." whh one Anoth,r not beCAUS' chlir propositions do conflict, but b,CAUSI thl!J fAnc!J thAC ch'!J conflict. 7'b'!I suppose ch,msllv,s to b.. SiYinS AC l'Ast b!J indir,cc impliCAtion riVAl Answers to thl SAm, 'luestions wh,n chi. i. noc r'All!J th' ~ASI." GILBERT RYLE -"DILEMMAS" DEDICATION "Unless he belongs somewhere, unless his life has some meaninganddirection, he wouldjeellike aparticle ojdust and beovercome by Iris individual insignificance" Erich Fromm EJcape From FRtdom For Shem, Jonl, Miry and the late Joe. (i) ACKNoWL£.D6EM£NTS I am indebted to the following people: • Dr. Marietjie Joubert. for her invaluable support, guidance and remarkable patience; • The Department of Clinical Psychology at the Rand Afrikaans University for plunging me into a "wonderland- of discovery. and nunuring my love for knowledge: • My colleagues, for the endless hours of discourse, which created the first foundations for Ihis thesis: • My patients, whoconfounded every theory Jknow... ···000··· (jj) ABSTRACT The objective of this thesis is to examine the similarities and differences which exist between Object Relations and Interpersonal theory, specifically in relation to the practice of psychotherapy. In order to achieve the objective. the histortcal development of Object Relations and Jmerpersonal theory is examined. with specific reference to the development and useof the tools and premises which these two theories bring to the practice oftherapy. Thereafter. the thesis conducts a comparative analysis of these two schools' view of therapy and identifies the similarities and differences between them as they exist historically, and in current practice. .: The conclusion is that despite fundamental differences in theory, significant similarities exist in the practice of Object Relations and Interpersonal therapy, panicularly in regard to the use ofIhe therapeutic relationship as a central tool to understanding the process of therapy. The therapist, inboth Instances, is required to use his own though IS and feelings as a guide to understanding thedynamics and behaviourofthe patient. It is regarded as highly significant that these two divergent Iheories share this core insight since both schools emanate from a philosophical perspective which suggests that ihe therapist should remain objective to the process of therapy. ···000··· (iii) OPSOMMING Ole doel van hlerdle navorsing is om die ooreenkomste en verskille wat bestaan lussen Interpersoonllke Teori~ en Objekverhoudings, met spesifieke verwysing na die praklyk van pslgoteraple, teondersoek. Om hierdie doel te verwesenlik word die geskiedkundige onlwikkeling van Objekver­ houdings en Inlerpersoonlike Teoriee ondersoek len opsigtevan die bydrae wat die aannames en werkswyses van hierdie learie! kan lewer 101 die proses van pslgoterapie. 'n Vergelykende studle word onderneem len opsigte van hierdie twee skole se siening van lerapie en die verskille enooreenkomste wat bestaan lussendiehistoriese- en huidige praklyk word gerdentifiseer, Die studie korn lotdie gevolgtrekking dat ten spyte van die fundamenteJe verskille, duideJike .: ooreenkomste besuan in die praktyk van Objekverhoudings en Interpersoonlike Teoriee, veral ten opsigte van die terapeutlese verhouding as die sentrale proses waardeur die proses van terapie begryp word. Oil word van dieterapeut verwag om in beide gevalle geJei te word deur sy eie denke as gids om die dinamika engedrag van die pasiem te verstaan. Oil word as baie betekenisvol beskou dal hierdie twee uueenlopeade teorlee di~ kern-insigte deel aangesien beide sienings ontstaan vanuil 'n Illosofiese perspektief wat die slelling onderskryf daldie terapeut objeklief sal bJy lydens terapie-sessles. ..-000••• (jv) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...••••••••••• (j) ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) •••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••...••••••••••• (ij) ABSTRACT (AFRIKAANS) •••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••...•••••.••••• (iii) CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PRELI~fINAR Y ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 1.1.1 Diversily or chaos . 1 1.1.2 What isPsychotherapy? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3--+- 1.2 INTERPERSONAL THERAPY AND OBJECT RELATIONS: A RATIONALE FOR THIS COMPARISON ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4 1.3 THEAIM •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 1.4 METHOD •••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 CHAPTER 2: THE DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHO· ANALYSIS 2.1 THEBEGINNINGS: CLASSICAL PSYCHO· ANALYSIS 8 2.1.1 Theoretical orientation ••••••••.••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 9 2.1.1.1 Theinstlncu •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 2.1.1.2 Development of the ego and the superego •••••••••.•••••••••••• 12 2.1.1.3 The dele11CeS •••••••----••••••••••••••••••---••••••- ••--.-••••-. 13 2.1.2 Therapeutic relationship ••••••••••••••••__ . 14 2.1.3 Theappearance of transference . 14 (v) 2.1.4 Dealing with countertransference .. 15 2.1.5 Summary ••••••.••••••••••••......•.•••••••••.••.••......•••.••••••••• 15 2.2 TilE REVISIONISTS •..........••••••.•....••.......•....••••••• 16(±) 2.2.1 The rise of Object Relations: Melanie Klein •..•.•••••••••••••••• 17 2.2.1.1 Broad overview: Theoretical position ••••••••...•••••••••••••••••• 18 2.2.1.2 Technique: The tools of therapy································.· 24 2.2.2 Developments following from Klein ••••••..••...•••••••.••••••••• 26 2.2.2.1 Countertransfercnce and Projective identification •••..•••••••••• 27 2.2.2.2 Transference relationship ••..•..••••- . 30 2.2.2.3 Change. and how it is achieved ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31 .. 2.3 CONCLUSIONS ••••••.•....•...••••••••.•••..•.......••...••••••.• 34 CHAPTER 3: INTERPERSONAL THERAPY: FIRST ORDER CYBERNETICS 3.1 TilE BEGINNINGS: SULLLlVAN THE FATHER OF THE INTERPERSONAL TRADITION •••••••••••••....•...••••••••••••.••....•.••...••••••••• 3.2 TilE STRATEGIC POSITION .. 39 3.2.1 Theoretical assumptions . 42 3.2.2 Therapy from a Strategic point ofview ••••••..·•••••••.•••••••••• 47 3.2.2.1 The role ofthe therapist . 47 3.2.2.2 FOCUJ on behaviour _••••••••• 48 3.2.2.3 The tools ofchange _ _ •• 49 3.2.2.4 The thclIpetltic relationship . 52 (vi) uas 3.3 INTERPERSONAL THERAPy································ 53 3.3.1 Assumprlons about personality ..·•••••••••••••••···•••••·•••••••••• 53 3.3.2 Psychological problems in lnterpersonal terms ..••••••••••••••••• 56 3.3.J lruerpersonal Psychotherapy·············.········.················· 59 3.3.4 Change ....•.••.••••••••.••...•......••••••••••••.••.•..••••••.••••••••• 61 3.4 CONCLUSIONS •••••••••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••• 63 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION OFSIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 4.1 CLASSICAL PSYCHOANALYSIS AND INTERACTIONAL STRATEGIC THERAPY DISCUSSION . 4.2 OBJECT RELATIONS THERAPY AND INTERPERSONAL THERAPY: CURRENT .' DIFFERENCES ••••••••••.••.•••.••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••• 66 4.2.1 Epislomological differences .•..•••••••••••••.•••..•••••••••••••••••• 66 4.2.2 Differenl percepiions of change •••••••••.•••••••.•.•••••.••••••••••• 67 4.2.3 Techniques inchanging behaviour ••••••••••••.••••••••..•••••••••• ~ 68 4.3 COMMON ELEMENTS IN OBJECT RELATIONS AND INTERPERSOSAL THERAPY ••••••••••••••••.••••••.••••••••••- 69 0 4.3.1 The Ihenpeutic relationship ---.- 69 4.3.2 The tools oftherapy -- 70 4.3.3 Focus on ihe here and now - - 70 4.3.4 Inlerpreulion and meta communication -.-•••- 71 4.3.5 Pathology and how it is seen •••••••••••••••••-- ----.- 71 4.4 CONCLUSIONS •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-.....- 72 (vii) f.MiE. CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Summary and conclusions ••.••.••--------.--••--•.••----•.•--------- 73 5.2 Limitations of this study --••.•••----------.---.--••.••---••.•-------­ 76 5.3 Further research suggestions •••••--------.--••--••..•••••.••-------­ 77 5.3.1 The use ofselfas a construct in other theories oftherapy -------­ 77 5.3.2 A case study investigatingan Interpersonal approach versus anObject Relations approach to therapy .--••-•••.-----•••--------- 77 REFERENCES ---...----------------------....----------------.-...-----..--------- 78 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 PRELIMINARY 1.1.1 Diversity or chaos Unlike other scientific endeavours, in which a common language is accepted, and certain untcstable premises are taken for granted, the field of psychology is characterised by a splintering of different languages and different ideological premises and methods. Goldfield and Castoguay (J 992) estimate that there are over four hundred different schools or theories of psychology today. This theory proliferation could be construed as