The Repression and the Return of Bad Objects, Fairbairn (1943)
What kinds of mental content do we repress? According to Freud, we repress memories and impulses that cause pain and guilt. Fairbairn writes that we repress bad internalized objects. Yes, we repress memories but memories of objects identified with bad internalized objects. And yes, we repress impulses but impulses impelling us to have relationships with bad objects.
We repress bad internalized objects for two reasons. First, we repress bad internalized objects to avoid feeling bad about ourselves. This follows because early object-relationships are based on identification, meaning that during these relationships we’re not yet able to differentiate ourselves from our caregivers. Second, we repress bad internalized objects because as young children it is anxiety-provoking to believe that our caregivers are bad. To put it in religious terms, “it is better to be a sinner in a world ruled by God than to live in a world ruled by the Devil.”[1]
Why, it might be asked, does the child internalize bad objects and not simply reject them? Fairbairn writes that no matter how badly we’d like to escape these objects, we’re unable to do so. Our caregivers have power over us, and we need them. And so the best we can do is internalize these objects, and in so doing we attempt to control them. Because this need for our caregivers “remains attached to [patients] in the unconscious,” they cannot later part with them.
So then how do we get our patients to release bad objects? Put differently, how to we get our patients to become un-cathected to these internalized bad objects? Fairbairn notes that many analysts find success mitigating the harsh superegos of their patients. He believes that this is only possible if the therapist becomes through transference a good object because in so doing the patient will be more likely to risk releasing her internalized bad objects. Many analysts encounter resistance when trying to mitigate the harshness of a patient’s superego because releasing these bad objects can be anxiety-provoking, the patient believing that if this were to happen her world would become “peopled with devils which are too terrifying for [her] to face.”
People erect defenses to prevent the return of the bad objects, a term which denotes bringing the bad objects to conscious awareness. When these defenses begin to erode, many seek psychoanalysis. But while these patients enter analysis in hopes of strengthening their defenses, the analyst’s goal is to release these bad objects. “It is only when the released bad objects” begin to “lose their terror” for the patient that she starts to appreciate the analysis.
* * * * *
[1] Fairbairnn continues: “A sinner in a world ruled by God may be bad; but there is always a certain sense of security to be derived from the fact that the world around is good—‘God's in His heaven—All's right with the world!’; and in any case there is always a hope of redemption. In a world ruled by the Devil the individual may escape the badness of being a sinner; but he is bad because the world around him is bad. Further, he can have no sense of security and no hope of redemption. The only prospect is one of death and destruction.” Given this fact, it makes sense why many children who have been sexually abused are reluctant to talk about their abuse.”
We repress bad internalized objects for two reasons. First, we repress bad internalized objects to avoid feeling bad about ourselves. This follows because early object-relationships are based on identification, meaning that during these relationships we’re not yet able to differentiate ourselves from our caregivers. Second, we repress bad internalized objects because as young children it is anxiety-provoking to believe that our caregivers are bad. To put it in religious terms, “it is better to be a sinner in a world ruled by God than to live in a world ruled by the Devil.”[1]
Why, it might be asked, does the child internalize bad objects and not simply reject them? Fairbairn writes that no matter how badly we’d like to escape these objects, we’re unable to do so. Our caregivers have power over us, and we need them. And so the best we can do is internalize these objects, and in so doing we attempt to control them. Because this need for our caregivers “remains attached to [patients] in the unconscious,” they cannot later part with them.
So then how do we get our patients to release bad objects? Put differently, how to we get our patients to become un-cathected to these internalized bad objects? Fairbairn notes that many analysts find success mitigating the harsh superegos of their patients. He believes that this is only possible if the therapist becomes through transference a good object because in so doing the patient will be more likely to risk releasing her internalized bad objects. Many analysts encounter resistance when trying to mitigate the harshness of a patient’s superego because releasing these bad objects can be anxiety-provoking, the patient believing that if this were to happen her world would become “peopled with devils which are too terrifying for [her] to face.”
People erect defenses to prevent the return of the bad objects, a term which denotes bringing the bad objects to conscious awareness. When these defenses begin to erode, many seek psychoanalysis. But while these patients enter analysis in hopes of strengthening their defenses, the analyst’s goal is to release these bad objects. “It is only when the released bad objects” begin to “lose their terror” for the patient that she starts to appreciate the analysis.
[1] Fairbairnn continues: “A sinner in a world ruled by God may be bad; but there is always a certain sense of security to be derived from the fact that the world around is good—‘God's in His heaven—All's right with the world!’; and in any case there is always a hope of redemption. In a world ruled by the Devil the individual may escape the badness of being a sinner; but he is bad because the world around him is bad. Further, he can have no sense of security and no hope of redemption. The only prospect is one of death and destruction.” Given this fact, it makes sense why many children who have been sexually abused are reluctant to talk about their abuse.”
Comments
Post a Comment