Karl Abraham

The Birth of Object Relations Theory

Isabel Sanfeliu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9780367325244
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429915383
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book provides an in-depth analysis of the major milestones in Karl Abraham's career, and highlights his interest in mythology and his permanent focus on the libido. It explores his development of two different forms of early object relations: incorporation and destruction.

PART I

ABRAHAM, PSYCHOANALYSIS, AND HIS TIME

CHAPTER ONE

An introduction

Karl Abraham redefined the status of the object in his new structural theory regarding the first relationships formed between infants and objects (or others); although in his papers the object still maintained its elementary condition as a place in which drives discharge. Object relations theory is becoming an increasingly significant aspect of psychoanalysis and continues to evolve. However, this shift in emphasis has meant that some schools desensitise the object by ignoring or undervaluing the notion of drive. The consolidation of any scientific theory requires an acknowledgement of its initial starting point and the process carried out from this point. In this respect, this book seeks to fill the gaps that may exist by reconstructing these bases for Abraham and his object relation’s theory.

In many ways, Abraham was the true pioneer of the concept of object in psychoanalysis due to his division of the libidinal organisation into stages in accordance with the evolution of object-love. The active and passive currents in his theories allow us to address the issue from a double perspective: that of appropriating the object and that of identifying with the object.

His earliest studies were carried out in the field of psychosis, simultaneously analysing the most intimate and the most external dimensions, namely narcissism and the reality principle. Abraham conducted his psychoanalytical study of psychosis based on an in-depth and detailed examination of the phases of libidinal development. The concept of object relations arose with full force in his comparison of hysteria and dementia praecox.

The way in which he approached psychoanalysis, completely rethinking psychopathology and “forgetting” what he had been taught, was something that Bleurler or Jung, his superiors in the Burghölzli clinic, were unable to achieve. He adopted this research method throughout the whole of his life, scrutinising the origins that lead to the most dysfunctional cases.

As we shall see, the precocity and profoundness with which Abraham addressed object relations paved the way for Melanie Klein in developing her formulations regarding the internal object.

There is very little biographical information about Abraham in the literature on the history of psychoanalysis. His whole existence was dedicated to the creative process. All of the different references regarding Abraham describe him as a serene, enthusiastic, and balanced person. It is possible that his austerity and the absence of scandals or a defined pathology could have rendered him uninteresting for journalistically-inclined researchers. However, I believe that conclusions cannot be drawn without contemplating history. Therefore a comparative analysis of his works with those of other pioneers within the framework of the decisive events of the Europe in which he lived, will provide a backdrop for a review of his psychoanalytic elaborations. His profound studies of language and medicine (of Freud’s earliest disciples, few had such a solid psychiatric training), would later give rise to a fruitful consolidation of these two branches of psychoanalysis in which he continued to exercise his great ability as a clinical observer, while also making incursions into the fields of history, anthropology, and mythology.

It is also necessary, in my opinion, to describe the historical context within which he developed his theories; therefore we will examine the economic, political, and social aspects of the period.

Regarding the object

Since Kant, the object has been defined as reality set against the subject, which in turn is the object for the other. There are several conceptions of object; Freud’s initial approach to this concept coincides on the whole with the Kantian view. However, the internal object is related to structure, giving it a new dimension, which is very different from the philosophical theories. Nevertheless, object theory in Freud’s works is not systematically defined; although the initial emphasis on drive in his early writings and the relative subordination of the object do the job. Therefore, in his Three Essays (1905), we can see how the object is an integral element of the drive concept; but it is not a secondary actor with respect to drive. Accordingly, we can affirm that they are two inseparable elements, which in a broad sense, constitute the links which, after successive internalisations, give rise to the different types of object relations.

Object relations theory has been modified to such an extent by different authors that this generic term is too vague to cover all of the resulting hypotheses and developments. Although this theory enriches the preoedipal aspects of development and minimises biologistic temptations, at the same time it runs the risk of eliminating the bonds with biology: Fairbairn, for example, said that the drive concept may be eliminated from consideration, creating a transitional space in the social realm. If the theory were to work in this way it would have the advantage of eliminating the nineteenth century mechanistic straightjacket, but at the same time it ran the risk of converting the psychological fact into something intangible and speculative; disconnected from the links that on one way or another relate it to biology.

Melanie Klein’s “world of internal objects” was initially composed of a series of brilliant insights, however, it was characterised by the Viennese consistency that was typical of Freud and the majority of his first-generation disciples. The most probable source of this weakness was Klein’s pre-analytical training, as, from an epistemological point of view; her theories lack the close interlocking which is required by the complexity of object relations.

In his seminar of 30 September 1975, Lacan pointed out that object relations continuously refer to a lost object, whereby the gratifying object is the re-found object of desire, which, however, is never found. This initial gap, which is also mentioned in the Three Essays, always persists, preventing repetition from leading to satisfaction, whereby the latter eclipses and eliminates the former which is rendered superfluous.

It is not surprising that the object has undergone so many metamorphoses in the hands of different psychoanalysts. The difficulties in determining its function and the role that it plays in the structuring of the psychic apparatus are numerous.

Let’s start at the beginning.

CHAPTER TWO

Historical context

The remote environment: political intrigues

How can we begin to tell a story, or indeed recount an historical period that will later focus on one specific man? This beginning may comprise of a variety of ideological and epistemological alternatives. Classic history’s use of events such as battles, weddings, and births is correct to the extent that they constitute violent alterations in the course of events, mainly deaths, and abrupt changes in the order or the latter part of the order of a specific period. The great battles are condensations of everyday occurrences, which should then be combined with other non-bellical dimensions. Battles in classic history are intersections which threaten the prevailing structures, critical points from which it is possible to chart a before and after, although this before and after are not linear. The modern perception of history is far from simple.

The term “Mitteleuropa” refers to the sum of many events dating back to when Tiberius was unsuccessful in Romanising Germania in the same way as Caesar had done with France and, later, Claudio with Britannia. The barbarians withstood their ground through successive and overlapping assaults, the details of which are not relevant to our case. Throughout the centuries they created a place of permanent instability dating back so far that its origins have been buried in time and the consequences of which re-emerge over and over again in different forms.

Now we will turn our attention to Prussia; and to illustrate how it influenced an event which would trigger the series of successive latent incidents, we will refer to one battle. The battle of Sadowa took place on 3 July 1866, eleven years before Karl Abraham was born. Previously, the Prussians had invaded Saxony. Initially, the imperial artillery had the upper hand in the skirmish, but the Prussian infantry, with their breech-loading needle guns and resulting firepower, executed an encirclement manoeuvre, obliging Benedeck to withdraw, incurring losses of 20,000 men. Vienna was only a three-week march away.

This momentous defeat had many repercussions. Firstly, cracks appeared in the solidity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it also opened the door for Napoleon III’s projects. At first, this was favourable for Prussia, although it was very surprised by the swift victory of Napoleon’s armies. The French emperor faced opposing pressures: firstly, the closeness of Prussia raised fears that a disproportionate increase of its power would pose a threat to France. Moreover, Prussia’s left wing was hostile to Austria. Additionally, the Italians, who had been attacked by the Empire, were not sympathetic towards the French.

In view of the circumstances, Franz Joseph accelerated the cession of Venice, which, for all intents and purposes, had been lost. By doing this he tried to liberate his Italian flank and at the same time attempted to save the Rhineland, which was a territory that France had set its sights on. The limited political stature of Napoleon III was more evident now than ever. His European objective would have led him to a logical and immediate conflict with Prussia. However, he decided not to take this course of action. The Austrian Metternich saw the dilemma clearly: they could let Prussia continue its path and accept immediate peace which would avoid confrontations with the Germans and Italians, or they could join forces with Austria and accept a head-on conflict with the Prussians and Italians. The first alternative would delay the Franco-Prussian war. When it took place the conditions would be worse for the French.

Napoleon III chose to pressure Austria to accept the armistice, paving the way, to his regret, for the Prussian Empire. The outcome was that Prussia annexed four million inhabitants in the so-called North German confederation under the auspices of Berlin; Bavaria became the South German Confederation and constituted the pretext for the ensuing Franco-Prussian war of 1870.

In the Austro-Hungarian Empire a hornet’s nest of nationalities remained, including Ukrainians and Polish in the north, Czechs, Slovaks, Serb-Croats, Slovenians, Romanians, and Magyars. Upper and Lower Austria were occupied by Germans, and the south and Venice by Italians and Ladinos. Only twenty-four per cent of the total population were German speakers.

Pan-Germanism can be defined as the desire for the political and cultural unification of all the German-speaking people dispersed across many states. Before the creation of the German Empire in 1871, it was a synonym of German nationalism. After the emergence of the Empire, the concept diversified: in the Reich it meant the protection of German rights overseas and an aggressive foreign policy with racist and anti-Semitic connotations; it could be said that it was more befitting of the expansion and imperialist policy of Prussia than a nationalist ideology. Until the First World War, this policy had very few disputes with the declining Austro-Hungarian Empire.

During the time remaining for the House of Hapsburg before the Great War, Franz Joseph sought to maintain the strength of the two nations from which his empire took its name, Austria and Hungary. He did not engage in any type of belligerent or extremist policy either beyond the borders, as Prussia was doing, or within the social movements of the Empire: namely social democracy, liberal bourgeoisie, and nationalism. The emancipated Jews constituted a source of support for Germanism, which neither the Reich nor Austria which emerged after the war were capable of using to their own benefit; on the contrary, this emancipation gave rise to intense anti-Semitic currents.

In 1914, Franz Joseph, pressured by a group of warmongers in his government, sent Serbia an ultimatum after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This would lead to the end of Austria-Hungary, which at that time saw a unique opportunity to settle scores with Serbia. Germany found it impossible to refuse support to its only reliable ally and endorsed the declaration of war against Serbia; its role was to ensure that the Russians did not intervene, but it failed, and on 1 August 1914 Germany was forced to declare war against Russia and, consequently, its ally France. The British were reluctant to enter war and did not declare war against Germany until 4 August 1914. At the end of 1915, Poland and Lithuania were in the hands of Germany and after the victories of the East, they moved their troops to Verdun, the site of one of the most devastating battles. In 1917, “the people had lost all enthusiasm for that bloody war” (Asimov, 1991, p. 758) and the British fleet controlled the seas; despite this, the victories of the East encouraged them to embark on the “great German Spring offensive of 1918” which depleted their armies.

The situation got out of hand and on 9 November 1918 Wilhelm II abdicated: the socialist Ebert became the chancellor of the new German Republic. Shortly after the end of the war, a national assembly met in Weimar to draw up the constitution, which came into force on 31 July 1919.

It has often been said that the Weimar republic—the incarnation of German humanism—was a republic without republicans, or, according to the right wing parties, a Jewish republic. With the fall of the imperial regime, two rival powers emerged: a social republic and a socialist republic. They arose from an unnatural alliance: “between the different influential social strata under Wilhelm II’s reign, a Group of antidemocratic forces and social-democrat leaders. This paradox of a republican state highly influenced by an anti-republican spirit became even more prominent after the death of Ebert” (Fine, 1979, p. 29). From the point of view of a historian of psychoanalysis, this instability can be explained by the irreconcilable contrasts, which gave rise to the conflict.

Historical breakthroughs are made in small steps; one event paves the way for the next. Anti-Semitic agitation constituted an important part of the political objective of the two conservative parties of the day: the Christian Social Party (led by Karl Lueger who greatly influenced the young Hitler) and the Pan-Germanic Party. Adolf Hitler, born in Austria, had led a life full of resentment and poverty until he found his place as a soldier in the Great War. After the conflict, he proposed to avenge the defeat by spreading the idea that it had been caused by a conspiracy from within: the Jews were the enemy.

Although anti-Semitism was fairly widespread, it had limited repercussions as the centre of political power still revolved around the Emperor who was openly hostile to this discrimination.

Laín Entralgo (1954, p. 499) divides this period in history into three parts:

• The years between the Revolution of 1848 and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870; Romanticism, which had been on the decline since 1830, came to an end.

• The period between 1870 and the end of the century; the golden age of naturalistic mentality and the bourgeoisie. The German Empire was created in 1871; Abraham was born in 1877.

• The period between the beginning of the century and the First World War (1914). Life opposed reason; synthesis opposed analytical disaggregation; imagination opposed consciousness … and so the current era was born, in which “the European soldiers began digging the grave of the modern man between the Seine and the Rhine” (Entralgo, 1954, p. 499).

Social and cultural aspects

Let us explore this period from a different angle. Berlin was founded in 1237, but it was years before a true city emerged. Decimated by the plague and the Thirty Years War, it began to flourish when Friedrich Wilhelm Brandenburg began his rule in 1640. Later, during the Imperial Germany of Friedrich II (Friedrich the Great), the King of Prussia and under Wilhelm II, defined by Sigmund Freud as “the incurable romantic”, it began taking shape in terms of population, buildings, and monuments. In 1887, Berlin had the most highly developed railway network in Europe and the prestige of its universities attracted ambitious professors. However, after 1871, with the unification of Germany orchestrated by Bismarck, the splendour of the city waned. Then, after the abdication of W...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• FOREWORD TO THE ENGLISH EDITION
• FOREWORD
• PART I: ABRAHAM, PSYCHOANALYSIS, AND HIS TIME
• PART II: ABRAHAM’S ROLE AND UNIQUENESS IN PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
• PART III: EVOLUTION OF ABRAHAM’S THOUGHT REGARDING THE HISTORY OF LIBIDINAL DEVELOPMENT (1907–1925)
• PART IV: ABRAHAM, THE OBJECT, AND PSYCHOANALYSIS
• CHRONOLOGY
• THE SCIENTIFIC ENVIRONMENT OF KARL ABRAHAM
• APPENDIX
• REFERENCES
• INDEX