Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality

W. R. D. Fairbairn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134842131
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

First published in 1952, W.R.D. Fairbairn's Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality re-oriented psychoanalysis by centering human development on the infant's innate need for relationships, describing the process of splitting and the internal dynamic relationship between ego and object. His elegant theory is still a vital framework of psychoanalytic theory and practice, infant research, group relations and family therapy.
This classic collection of papers, available for the first time in paperback, has a new introduction by David Scharff and Elinor Fairbairn Birtles which sets Fairbairn's highly original work in context, provides an overview of object relations theory, and traces modern developments, launched by Fairbairn's discoveries.

PART ONE

An Object-Relations Theory
of the Personality

CHAPTER I

Schizoid Factors in the Personality (1940)¹

MENTAL processes of a schizoid nature have latterly come to occupy my attention to an increasing degree; and cases in which such processes are sufficiently marked to impart a recognizably schizoid complexion to the personality now seem to me to provide the most interesting and fruitful material in the whole field of psychopathology. Amongst various considerations supporting this point of view, the following may be selected for special mention: (1) Since schizoid conditions constitute the most deep-seated of all psychopathological states, they provide an unrivalled opportunity for the study not only of the foundations of the personality, but also of the most basic mental processes. (2) The therapeutic analysis of the schizoid case provides an opportunity for the study of the widest range of psychopathological processes in a single individual; for in such cases it is usual for the final state to be reached only after all available methods of defending the personality have been exploited. (3) Contrary to common belief, schizoid individuals who have not regressed too far are capable of greater psychological insight than any other class of person, normal or abnormal—a fact due, in part at least, to their being so introverted (i.e. preoccupied with inner reality) and so familiar with their own deeper psychological processes (processes which, although not absent in individuals who would ordinarily be classified as simply ‘psychoneurotic’, are nevertheless excluded from the consciousness of such individuals by the most obstinate defences and stubborn resistances). (4) Again contrary to common belief, schizoid individuals show themselves capable of transference to a remarkable degree, and present unexpectedly favourable therapeutic possibilities.

So far as overtly schizoid conditions are concerned, the following groups may be differentiated:

(1) Schizophrenia proper.

(2) The Psychopathic Personality of a Schizoid Type—a group which may well comprise the majority of cases of psychopathic personality (not excluding epileptic personalities).

(3) The Schizoid Character—a large group comprising individuals whose personalities embody definitely schizoid traits, but who could not reasonably be regarded as psychopathic.

(4) The Schizoid State or transient schizoid episode—a category under which, in my opinion, a considerable proportion of adolescent ‘nervous breakdowns’ fall.

Apart from these overtly schizoid conditions, however, it is common to find features of a basically schizoid nature displayed by patients whose presenting symptoms are essentially psychoneurotic (e.g. hysterical, phobic, obsessional, or simply anxious). Such features, when present, are, of course, specially liable to emerge when the psychoneurotic defences by which the personality has been protected become weakened in the course of (and through the agency of) analytical treatment; but increasing familiarity with the underlying schizoid background renders it increasingly possible for the analyst to detect the presence of schizoid features in the initial interview. In this connection it is interesting to note the incidence of hysterical and obsessional symptoms in the previous history of thirty-two schizophrenics included in a series of 100 psychiatric cases studied by Masserman and Carmichael (Journal of Mental Science, Vol. LXXXIV, pp. 893–946). These authors found that ‘in no less than fifteen of the thirty-two patients there was a definite history of hysterical symptoms which preceded the development of the more frankly schizophrenic syndrome’; and regarding the incidence of obsessions and compulsions they remark, ‘These also occurred with the greatest frequency in the schizophrenics’—obsessions being found to be present in eighteen, and compulsions in twenty of the thirty-two cases. It may be of interest to add that, in a series of military cases which has come under my own observation, 50 per cent of those finally diagnosed as ‘Schizophrenia’ or ‘Schizoid Personality’ were submitted for investigation with a provisional diagnosis of either ‘anxiety neurosis’ or ‘hysteria’. Whilst such figures are suggestive as an indication of the extent to which psychoneurotic defences are employed by the frankly schizoid patient in a vain attempt to defend his personality, they give no indication of the extent to which an underlying schizoid trend may be masked by the success of such defences.

Once the prevalence of essentially schizoid features has come to be recognized in cases in which the presenting symptoms are ostensibly psychoneurotic, it becomes possible in the course of analytical treatment to detect the presence of similar features in a number of individuals who seek analytical aid on account of difficulties to which it is difficult to attach any definite psychopathological labels. To be included in this group are many of those who consult the analyst on account of such disabilities as social inhibitions, inability to concentrate on work, problems of character, perverse sexual tendencies, and psychosexual difficulties such as impotence and compulsive masturbation. The group also includes most of those who complain of apparently isolated symptoms (e.g. fear of insanity or exhibitionistic anxiety), or who display a desire for analytical treatment on apparently inadequate grounds (e.g. ‘because I feel it would do me good’ or ‘because it would be interesting’). It likewise includes all those who enter the consulting-room with a mysterious or mystified air, and who open the conversation either with a quotation from Freud or with such a remark as ‘I don’t really know why I have come’.

On the basis of an analytical study of cases belonging to the various categories which have now been mentioned, it becomes possible to recognize as essentially schizoid not only such phenomena as full-fledged depersonalization and derealization, but also relatively minor or transient disturbances of the reality-sense, e.g. feelings of ‘artificiality’ (whether referred to the self or the environment), experiences such as ‘the plate-glass feeling’, feelings of unfamiliarity with familiar persons or environmental settings, and feelings of familiarity with the unfamiliar. Allied to the sense of familiarity with the unfamiliar is the experience of ‘déjà vu’—an interesting phenomenon which must likewise be regarded as involving a schizoid process. A similar view must be taken of such dissociative phenomena as somnambulism, the fugue, dual personality, and multiple personality. So far as the manifestations of dual and multiple personality are concerned, their essentially schizoid nature may be inferred from a discreet study of the numerous cases described by Janet, William James, and Morton Prince. And here it is apposite to remark that many of the cases described by Janet as manifesting the dissociative phenomena on the basis of which he formulated his classic concept of ‘Hysteria’ behaved suspiciously like schizophrenics—a fact which I interpret in support of the conclusion, which I have already reached on the basis of my own observations, that the personality of the hysteric invariably contains a schizoid factor in greater or lesser degree, however deeply this may be buried.

When the connotation of the term ‘schizoid’ is extended through an enlargement of our conception of schizoid phenomena in the manner indicated, the denotation of the term inevitably undergoes a corresponding extension; and the resulting schizoid group is then seen to become a very comprehensive one. It is found, for example, to include a high percentage of fanatics, agitators, criminals, revolutionaries, and other disruptive elements in every community. Schizoid characteristics, usually in a less pronounced form, are also common among members of the intelligentsia. Thus the disdain of the highbrow for the bourgeoisie and the scorn of the esoteric artist for the philistine may be regarded as minor manifestations of a schizoid nature. It is further to be noted that intellectual pursuits as such, whether literary, artistic, scientific, or otherwise, appear to exercise a special attraction for individuals possessing schizoid characteristics to one degree or another. Where scientific pursuits are concerned, the attraction would appear to depend upon the schizoid individual’s attitude of detachment no less than upon his over-valuation of the thought-processes; for these are both characteristics which readily lend themselves to capitalization within the field of science. The obsessional appeal of science, based as this is upon the presence of a compulsive need for orderly arrangement and meticulous accuracy, has, of course, long been recognized; but the schizoid appeal is no less definite and demands at least equal recognition. Finally the statement may be hazarded that a number of outstanding historical figures lend themselves to the interpretation that they were either schizoid personalities or schizoid characters; and indeed it would appear as if it were often such who leave a mark upon the page of history.

Among the various characteristics common to the apparently conglomerate group of individuals who fall under the schizoid category as now envisaged three are of sufficient prominence to deserve special mention. These are (1) an attitude of omnipotence, (2) an attitude of isolation and detachment, and (3) a preoccupation with inner reality. It is important, however, to bear in mind that these characteristics are by no means necessarily overt. Thus the attitude of omnipotence may be conscious or unconscious in any degree. It may also be localized within certain spheres of operation. It may be over-compensated and concealed under a superficial attitude of inferiority or humility; and it may be consciously cherished as a precious secret. Similarly the attitude of isolation and detachment may be masked by a façade of sociability or by the adoption of specific roles; and it may be accompanied by considerable emotionality in certain contexts. So far as the preoccupation with inner reality is concerned, this is undoubtedly the most important of all schizoid characteristics; and it is none the less present whether inner reality be substituted for outer reality, identified with outer reality or superimposed upon outer reality.

It will not escape notice that the concept of ‘Schizoid’ which emerges from the preceding considerations corresponds remarkably closely, particularly where its denotation is concerned, to the concept of the ‘Introvert’ type as formulated by Jung; and it is significant that in one of his earlier writings (Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology (1917), p. 347) Jung expressed the view that the incidence of schizophrenia (‘dementia praecox’) was confined to the introvert type, thus indicating recognition on his part of an association between introversion and schizoid developments. The correspondence between Jung’s concept of ‘Introvert’ and the concept of ‘Schizoid’ as now envisaged is not without interest in so far as it provides confirmation of the actual existence of the group described, particularly since the two concepts were reached by completely independent paths. Recognition of such a correspondence does not, of course, imply any acceptance on my part of Jung’s theory of fundamental psychological types. Indeed, on the contrary, my conception of the schizoid group is based upon a consideration, not of temperamental, but of strictly psychopathological factors. At the same time it may appear to some that, for purposes of describing the group in question, the term ‘introvert’ would be preferable to that of ‘schizoid’ in view of the somewhat sinister associations which have become attached to the latter term as the result of its original use. Yet, of the two terms, ‘schizoid’ has the inestimable advantage that, unlike the term ‘introvert’, it is not simply descriptive, but is explanatory in a psychogenetic sense.

The criticism for which I must now prepare myself is that, according to my way of thinking, everybody without exception must be regarded as schizoid. Actually I am quite prepared to accept this criticism, but only with a very important qualification—one in the absence of which my concept of ‘Schizoid’ would be so comprehensive as to become almost meaningless. The qualification which confers meaning on the concept is that everything depends upon the mental level which is being considered. The fundamental schizoid phenomenon is the presence of splits in the ego; and it would take a bold man to claim that his ego was so perfectly integrated as to be incapable of revealing any evidence of splitting at the deepest levels, or that such evidence of splitting of the ego could in no circumstances declare itself at more superficial levels, even under conditions of extreme suffering or hardship or deprivation (e.g. under conditions of grave illness, or of Arctic exploration, or of exposure in an open boat in mid-Pacific, or of relentless persecution, or of prolonged subjection to the horrors of modern warfare). The all-important factor here is the mental depth which requires to be plumbed before evidence of splitting of the ego declares itself. In my opinion, at any rate, some measure of splitting of the ego is invariably present at the deepest mental level—or (to express the same thing in terms borrowed from Melanie Klein) the basic position in the psyche is invariably a schizoid position. This would not hold true, of course, in the case of a theoretically perfect person whose development had been optimum; but then there is really nobody who enjoys such a happy lot. Indeed it is difficult to imagine any person with an ego so unified and stable at its higher levels that in no circumstances whatever would any evidence of basic splitting come to the surface in recognizable form. There are probably few ‘normal’ people who have never at any time in their lives experienced an unnatural state of calm and detachment in face of some serious crisis, or a transient sense of ‘looking on at oneself’ in some embarrassing or paralysing situation; and probably most people have had some experience of that strange confusion of past and present, or of phantasy and reality, known as ‘déjà vu’. And such phenomena, I venture to suggest, are essentially schizoid phenomena. There is one universal phenomenon, however, which proves quite conclusively that everyone without exception is schizoid at the deeper levels—viz. the dream; for, as Freud’s researches have shown, the dreamer himself is commonly represented in the dream by two or more separate figures. Here I may say that the view which I myself have now come to adopt is to the effect that all figures appearing in dreams represent either (1) some part of the dreamer’s personality, or (2) an object with whom some part of his personality has a relationship, commonly on a basis of identification, in inner reality. Be that as it may, the fact that the dreamer is characteristically represented in the dream by more than one figure is capable of no other interpretation except that, at the level of the dreaming consciousness, the ego of the dreamer is split. The dream thus represents a universal schizoid phenomenon. The universal phenomenon of ‘the super-ego’ as described by Freud must also be interpreted as implying the presence of a split in the ego; for, in so far as ‘the super-ego’ is regarded as an ego-structure capable of distinction from ‘the ego’ as such, its very existence ipso facto provides evidence that a schizoid position has been established.

The conception of splitting of the ego, from which the term ‘schizoid’ derives its significance, can only be regarded as an illuminating conception when it is considered from a psychogenetic standpoint. It is, therefore, necessary to consider very briefly what is involved in the development of the ego. The function of the ego upon which Freud has laid most stress is its adaptive function—the function which it performs in relating primal instinctive activity to conditions prevailing in outer reality, and more particularly social conditions. It must be remembered, however, that the ego also performs integrative functions, among the most important of which are (1) the integration of perceptions of reality, and (2) the integration of behaviour. Another important function of the ego is discrimination between inner and outer reality. Splitting of the ego has the effect of compromising the progressive development of all these functions, although, of course, in varying degrees and varying proportions. Accordingly, we must recognize the possibility of development resulting in all degrees of integration of the ego; and we may conceive a theoretic scale of integration such that one end of the scale represents complete integration and the other end represents complete failure of integration, with all intermediate degrees. On such a scale schizophrenics would find a place towards the lower end, schizoid personalities a higher place, schizoid characters a still higher place, and so on; but a place at me very top of the scale, which would represent perfect integration and absence of splitting, must be regarded as only a theoretical possibility. If we keep such a scale in mind, it should help us to understand how it would be possible for any individual to display some schizoid feature under sufficiently extreme conditions, and how it comes about that some individuals manifest evidence of a split in the ego only in situations involving such readjustments as are involved in adolescence, marriage, or joining the army in wartime, whereas others again may manifest such evidence even under the most ordinary conditions of life. In actual practice, of course, the construction of a scale such as that just imagined would involve quite insuperable difficulties, of which only one is that arising out of the fact that quite a number of schizoid manifestations, as indeed Freud pointed out, are really defences against the splitting of the ego. However, it helps us to appreciate the general position as regards splitting of the ego if we envisage an imaginary scale of this sort.

Although, in conformity with the implications of Bleuler’s classic conception of ‘schizophrenia’, we must regard splitting of the ego as the most characteristic schizoid phenomenon, psychoanalysts have always concerned themselves more with (and indeed have largely confined their attention to) the libidinal orientation involved in the schizoid attitude; and, under the influence of Abraham’s psychogenetic theory of libidinal development, clinical manifestations of a schizoid order have come to be regarded as originating in a fixation in the early oral phase. It is presumably during this first phase of life, and under the influence of its vicissitudes upon the undeveloped and inexperienced infant, that splitting of the ego commences to occur; and there must thus be a very close association between splitting of the ego and a libidinal attitude of oral incorporation. In my opinion, the problems involved in splitting of the ego deserve much more attention than they have so far received; and some indication of the importance which I attach to these problems may be gathered from what has already been said so far. In what follows, however, I propose to consider some of the developments which appear to depend upon, or to be powerfully influenced by, a fixation in the early oral phase, and which thus play a prominent part in determining the pattern of the schizoid attitude.

The ego of the infant may be described as above all a ‘mouth ego’; and, whilst this fact exercises a profound influence upon the subsequent development of every individual, the influence is particularly marked in the case of those who subsequently display schizoid characteristics. So far as the infant is concerned, the mouth is the chief organ of desire, the chief instrument of activity, the chief medium of satisfaction and frustration, the chief channel of love and hate, and, most important of all, the first means of intimate social contact. The first social relationship established by the individual is that between himself and his mother; and the focus of this relationship is the suckling situation, in which his mother’s breast provides the focal point of his libidinal object, and his mouth the focal point of his own libidinal attitude. Accordingly, the nature of the relationship so established exercises a profound influence upon the subsequent relationships of the individual, and upon his subsequent social attitude in general. When circumstances are such as to give rise to a libidinal fixation in the early oral situation in question, the libidinal attitude appropriate to the early oral phase persists in an exaggerated form and gives rise to far-reaching effects; and the nature of these effects may perhaps best be considered in the light of the chief features which characterize the early oral attitude itself. These may be summarized as follows:

(1) Although the emotional relationship involved is essentially one between the child and his mother as a person, and although it must be recognized that his libidinal object is really his mother as a whole, nevertheless his l...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface By Ernest Jones
• Introduction
• PART I. An Object-Relations Theory of the Personality
• PART II. Clinical Papers
• PART III. Miscellaneous Papers
• List of Works to which Reference is made in the Text
• Index