Introduction
Understanding and exploring the underlying reason for a client’s behavior can help a social worker provide more quality support✅ to a client and help address behavioral concerns that are hidden in the unconscious. Social workers can help client identify and understand their emotions ✅and behaviors✅ for those who struggle in this area. The purpose of this paper is to show how Object Relations Theory can be a useful clinical tool✅ through a case vignette of my client GG ✅and providing brief biopsychosocial through the lens of Object Relations Theory. According to Object Relations Theory and Self Psychology in Social Work Practice, Goldstein (2001) reports that object relations is “the internal images or representations of the self✅ and others ✅(objects) that a person acquires in the course of early development” (p 7). Though there are many theorists who have studied object relations, I will focus more on theorist Ronald Fairbairn as his beliefs relates to the case presented. Fairbairn believed the “psychological and environmental” factors were the reasons for a person’s positive or negative behaviors✅, and I believe this case has the examples related to Fairbairn’s beliefs✅ (Goldstein, 2001, p33).
Biopsychosocial
GG was a 13-year-old Caucasian girl. She had returned to her mother’s care under trail discharge after running away from her residential treatment facility. GG was extremely smart✅ and appeared independent as she often found her way from the residential treatment facility located Upstate NY to her mother’s house on Staten Island on several runaways. GG often reported being bullied by the other girls at the residential facility and didn’t like anyone except one of the workers in the program. Her residential treatment facility requested preventive services to be in place to support GG’s mother Sally with case management, family, and individual therapy to help the family’s reunification process✅. Therefore, as a case planner I began working with the family prior to GG’s arrival. Through an object relations perspective, by the time GG was 13 years old, GG had gone through abandonment✅ by her parents with a lack of family structure and support. GG’s mother Sally left her when she was 10 years old to avoid problems with ACS and then Sally placed herself into a one-year residency substance abuse program. Prior to Sally leaving, GG had witnessed her mother’s DV✅ history and possibly aware of her mother’s substance abuse✅. Because Sally was unable to care for her and her siblings GG was then left under her biological father’s care only to be taken out of his home and placed into the residential treatment facility for behavioral issues✅. GG often blamed her father’s girlfriend✅ for her placement and believed that she manipulated her father’s decision making.
At the time GG had 6 siblings✅ and she was the second oldest✅. Three of her siblings were from the same father as her and the other three had two different fathers. When the children were removed from the home, the oldest sibling moved in with a maternal relative✅, while all others moved in with one of the stepfathers. After three years of being away from Sally, GG ended up being the second to last child to go back home✅ with the family since 5 of her siblings were already back in Sally’s care when I began working with them. Thus, GG felt that she was excluded✅ from the family, abandoned, and felt indifferent because of family separation.
Lens from an Object Relations Theory
From an object relations perspective, it appears that all adults around GG became a bad object✅. GG felt abandoned by Sally and later rejected being that GG was almost the last one to come back home. Her biological father, the father’s girlfriend and possibly the stepfather for not let her stay with her siblings also seemed to be bad objects to ✅GG. It seems that GG’s stay at the residential facility was a negative experience✅ thus, creating more bad objects✅. Additionally, with Sally’s history of domestic violence, it must have been difficult for Sally to provide nurture and affect to GG during those times✅. The Application of Object Relations Theory To Domestic Violence, Zosky (1999) argues that “the mother’s ministrations serve the purpose of soothing and organizing✅ for the child until these functions are interiorized through maturation and the continuous internalization of representation.” Unfortunately, there is a likelihood that Sally was unable to do so during the time she endured domestic violence✅. Being unable to provide comfort to a child who witnesses abuse will create a long-lasting trauma✅.
I believe these bad objects created a new personality ❓within GG. GG had to quickly learn how to be independent, strong, and know how to defends herself for the real world at a very young age. I also quickly learned that GG has sever behavioral issues. Though she consistently went to school every day, she would not follow school rules✅, used vulgar and inappropriate sexual comments✅ to yell at the teachers✅, and disrupt class ✅every day. At home, she would often hit her siblings ✅and be defiant towards her mother. Fairbairn believes that a “child’s response to a frustrating environment is a moral defense, in which he or she represses✅ his or her perceptions of the parents as bad…sees himself or herself as bad, and constructs a world of inner bad objects✅…” (Goldstein, 2001, 60). Introject can be seen in GG’s behavioral issues and her negative coping mechanism which were caused by the trauma and struggles she went through as a child. Fairbairn also believed that “introjects begin to cluster into “good ✅me” and “bad me✅” depending on whether the infant is experiencing pleasurable or frustrating interactions with the environment” (Goldstein, 2001, 56). With this perspective in mind, I can now understand how GG felt that she had to be “bad” in order to be safe.
Differences from a Second Object Relations Theorist Perspective
In looking at this case from a second object relations theorist lens, it was hard to see a difference between Fairbairn✅ and theorist Margaret Mahler✅. I felt that both theorists could have beneficial views of GG. Mahler “viewed the child’s relationship with the primary love object, the mother, ✅rather than the child’s drives per se as central to human development (as cited in Goldstein, 2001, p27). There is a possibility that in using Mahler’s view, the clinician and GG can see a much bigger context into GG’s behavioral issues and personality characteristics based upon GG relationship with her mother✅. Thus, when GG was unable to find comfort and security✅ within her mother, GG resorted to negative behaviors. However, Mahler views differ from Fairbairn✅ in that fact that it’s “focused upon the impact of the actual interpersonal transactions between caretaker and child” (Goldstein, 2001, p29). In this stance, the only person being explored is the mother and the child and not the child’s surround environment. It becomes a clearer picture of the client when we understand how they see others around them✅. GG was exposed to more than one bad object for which altered❓ how she views life and how she copes with it.
Object Represented
Though GG had many bad objects✅ in her life, I believe GG saw me as a part object✅ at first. GG would refuse to speak with me and would get angry when I would show up✅ at her school at the request of the school. GG refused to allow me to be a support✅ and I believe this was due to her ego defenses✅ she had built from being abandoned by family,✅ having several social workers✅, and of course her anger towards ACS. ✅However, after working with the family for three years, I believe GG viewed me more as a whole object✅ where she felt comfortable expressing ✅her feelings and concerns and was compliant✅ in following up with scheduled visits. By showing GG over the years that I was caring towards her, ✅expressed concern for her education, and worked on helping her build a healthier relationship with her mother, allowed GG to have a better view of me✅✅. Theory and Practice in Clinical Social Work states “The outcome of a successful engagement with the adolescent client in building the therapeutic alliance is a beginning identification with the therapist and a strengthening of the adolescent’s ego ideal” (as cited in Brandell, 2001, 134). GG needed additional positive people in her life ✅that would create an ego ideal❓ in her life. I hope that I may have been a positive influence in her life. I believe that I was able to create a new object for her to see differently❓. And if so, this allowed GG to create a new external view✅ by which helped her to make change in her life.
Transference/Countertransference
In Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self, Guntrip (1971) argues that our feelings and perception of our “childhood experiences… is buried in the unconscious while our conscious self of everyday living develops on either a conformity…rebellion…or more usually a mixture of the two”. In the case of GG, there was many unconscious feelings that often came out in her anger or frustration towards me. Understanding that there are hidden❓ feelings in people is an important part of being a social worker since this is where transference is projected onto the social worker. “Transference occurs when the client relieves ❌early personal relationship in the treatment because old patterns and reactions✅ are transferred✅, or displaced✅, onto the therapist…” (Brandell, 2011, 123). In working with GG, there were several instances where she would yell her anger towards me✅ and act as though she was tough and reported that she didn't need any help. I knew that GG has gone through several social workers✅ and I was the family's second preventive service involvement✅. GG had no trust in any social workers✅, often expressing that no one helped her mother or her when they needed support. This was an emotion of transference GG placed on me as I might have reminded GG of her previous workers and her belief that social workers come and go in her and her family’s life. ✅
“Countertransference arises not out of a client’s behavior alone but from unconscious and preconscious forces within the therapist that cause the therapist to react to the client in ways that are inappropriate to the current reality of the therapeutic relationship✅” (Brandell, 2011, 138). Looking back, I realized that I also struggled with countertransference✅. There was about a month that I received phone calls and email from the school on almost a daily regarding GG's behavioral ✅issues. In that time, I dreaded✅ following up with GG and would often not want to address the problem with the school or with Sally. In this situation, I realized that I purposely avoided this conflict✅ because I was frustrated with making little to no results with reducing GG’s behavioral issues✅. This countertransference dynamic possibly caused me to lose a time with GG to make progress or prevented me from thinking more clearly✅ about how to address the problem instead of partially avoiding it.
Conclusion
Although there are several theorists that support object relations theory, I decided on Ronaldo❌ Fairbairn. Not only does he address the psychological development✅ from infant-mother relationship but also believes that the external object in a person’s environment also create a person’s personality✅y and perspective of the world✅. In Social Work Practice with Families: A Resiliency-Based Approach, Van Hook (2008) discusses that using object relations therapy allows the clinician to “address interpersonal relationship issues with roots in earlier life experiences.” He reports that the benefits of object relations theory allow the client to understand “links between past and current relationships.” This will allow the client to make healthier relationships in the future and help them see the world away from bad objects✅ and other negative objects they have experienced in the past✅. Object relations can also help the client be able to identify positive coping skills and address any deep feelings.❓Therefore, object relations theory is a good clinical skill to use and believe that it can be most useful during the initial stages ✅of a case where you begin to learn the family dynamics and begin to build a relationship with the client✅.
References
Goldstein, E. (2001). Object Relations Theory and Self Psychology in Social Work Practice, NY: Free Press
Zosky, D.L. (Spring 1999). The Application of Object Relations Theory To Domestic Violence. Clinical Social Work Journal. Vol. 27, 1. Human Science Press, Inc.
Brandell, J.R. (2011). Theory and Practice in Clinical Social Work. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Guntrip, H. (1971). Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self. A Basic Guide to the Human Personality in Freud, Erikson, Klein, Sullivan, Fairbairn, Hartmann, Jacobson, and Winnicott. Leeds University. Basic Books.
Van Hook, M.P. (2008). Social Work Practice with Families: A Resiliency-Based Approach. Chicago, Ill. Lyceum.
Maggie,
You open discussing the value of Object Relations Theory in understanding underlying process and providing support. You chose to assess your case through Fairbairn. You present GG a 13 year old White female with a history of running away from her residential facility. She experienced bullying and feeling abandoned by her mother. The mother experienced domestic violence and abused substances. I found it odd the mother left the home due to domestic violence, but GG was placed in the father’s care. GG felt excluded when her siblings were placed back in her mother's custody while she remained in foster care. You document the impact of her losses, her trauma and her inability to self soothe. You assess the case through Fairbairn. You discuss how she takes in the bad objects. You also assess the case through the Mahler perspective. You feel both theorists helped you understand GG's case. This does not mean that you did something wrong. You lay out clear reasons why there were problematic moments with her. She’s seen a lot of social workers and also felt abandoned at various points in her life. Both of those experiences could color your work with her beyond your control. However with time, over your three-year relationship you were able to gain her trust. I appreciate your honesty about the challenges you had with this case. Often students don’t want to share this information. Overall I think you did a nice job. I put ✅‘s where I understood your points and saw valid reasoning. I put❌/❓’s for unclear statements, weak arguments or just incorrect points ie Bad objects don’t necessarily create a new personality but they are part of the development of the client actual personality. How did you become a new model for GG? You used a lot of quotes in your paper, some of which I would’ve liked you to expand on further and actually apply it to Gg. For example, what is an ego ideal? You used a great quote “which is correct but how does it apply to GG? What does it mean? Clearly you have many more ✅’s than❌’s/❓’s. I appreciated reading your work. Finally, I would love to hear more from you in class.
C