Object Relations, Dependency, & Attachment; Theoretical Psychoanalytic Constructs of Mother-Father-Infant & A Cultural Comparison Of The Christian Religion’s Trinity

By Karen Barna

My theory, and a theory that can be proven very simplistically through psychoanalytic theories, is the predator who has chosen to systematically prove my failure in the supportive human behavior in belief in God and religion, and who chose to systematically isolate me from my family, friends, love relationships, and constructive work outlets, especially the outlets where there was the potential for financial gains, through the systematic use of electro-magnetic frequency has done so in an attempt to secure my “dependency” , “isolation,” and “attachment” to someone as a needed “other“ in securing my survival and providing for my needs. It’s fundamental in its psychoanalysis and this cycle is seen in many cases of spousal abuse and the treatment received from individuals suffering from the paranoid schizoid position with regard to their object relations and treatment of other. This personality constellation, which seeks dominance and control through the use of power over another, in which advanced forms of technology are employed, and who like the philosophical skeptic takes great joy and sadistic pleasure in watching their victims fall is at play in our local community. This personality disorder reduces his selected object in his relational attachment to other to a lower life form, one where the needs, wants, and desires of the person selected do not exist in the psychic life of the diseased mind. This particular idea is at the heart of psychoanalytic theory “the dead mother.“ The following four paragraphs seeks to explain, albeit most briefly, the formation of these early object attachments found in the infant‘s relationship towards ‘other.’

“Three terms have been commonly used to characterize the infant’s relationship with his mother: “object relations,” “dependency,” and “attachment“…..Each is more or less closely tied to a distinctive theoretical formulation of the origin and development of early interpersonal relations.” (1)

The theory of object relations are brought forth in the philosophical discussions in psychoanalysis and are regarded as “instincts.” The object of the instinct is usually the “agent” in which the person’s instinctual aims are achieved. The mother is generally the infant’s first relational object when object relations are forming but an infant’s object selection can change towards a handful of other persons who exist in the environment of the child.

“’Attachment’ refers to an affectional tie that one person (or animal) forms to another specific individual. Attachment is thus discriminating and specific. Like “object relations,” attachments occur at all ages and do not necessarily imply immaturity or helplessness. To be sure, the first tie is most likely to be formed to the mother…..” (2) but this may soon be supplemented by attachments to a handful of other specific persons present in the environment of the child. It is important to state that the possibility of a being affected by another person with regard to object relations at some other stage of childhood development could be possible take effect, and, as previously stated, that other persons present in the early oral stage of infancy may also influence the child’s object relations development.

Dependency, has been understood in more recent years, to be viewed by learning theorists as a class of behaviors, first learned in the context of the infant’s dependency with his mother, and reinforced in the course of her care and interaction with the infant. The stages of early human infancy are thus the incubation period of early personality formation, but predisposition which are biologically inherent in the individuals make up can play a hard-wired role as well. Thus, dependency can become a generalized personality trait. “Dependency connotes a state of helplessness. Behavior described as dependent implies seeking not only contact with and proximity to other persons but also help attention, and approval; what is sought and received is significant, not the person form whom it is sought or received. Dependency is the psychoanalytic context also has nonspecific implications, but object relations once acquired are considered sharply specific. Dependence implies immaturity, and indeed, the term is the antonym of “independence. Although normal in the young child, dependence should gradually give way to a substantial degree of independence. And yet it may be observed that relationships to specific persons-whether termed ’object relations,” “attachments,” or “dependency relationships”-develop concurrently with the development of the competencies upon which independence is based.” (3)

Lucy Holmes writes, “The women I treated and treat consistently demonstrate that they have an internalized triangle of mother, father and self within their psyches, and I have hypothesized that this unconscious triangulation is set up when girls, on a fantasy level, use the introjection of early parental objects in much the same way that boys use the penis: to gain mastery and control over an essentially uncontrollable object, the pre-Oedipal mother, and later, the Oedipal father.”This triadic structure typically found in the human psyche of children can be seen in how the adult child relates to the world through his or her expression of mother, father, self. This triadic psychic structure runs parallel to the superstructure of; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the term “Sophia” has been used to refer to the “spirit of god” in some ancient texts and denotes the feminine form of God. In other textual versions other female gendered nouns are used to refer to the spirit of god, and so we come to understand that this “spirit” is nothing more than the female side of the living god’s essence. We can make the correlation that the superstructure of the Christian religion is nothing more than the re-structuring of our early childhood interaction in object relations with mother, father, and self. The almighty father is then nothing more than the mythical representation of our paternal biological parent, his spirit with the possession of its feminine gendered noun(s) is the mythical representation of our maternal parent, and the son, we can come to recognize as ourselves.

In respect to psychoanalysis we come to understand that the Christian religions, which has its roots in the Jewish religion, has become nothing more than a vehicle in which a person comes to a resolution of one’s own conduct. “The function of the Jewish religion, functions to make the man forever a child, encourage repression of id motivations, an encourage the dependency and observation of commandment and laws through the fear of a “castrating father” or god.” (4) The almighty father promises his children he will take care of them and, as a reward to following his established laws, they will be granted everlasting life in his eternal kingdom.

When we compare the various religious myths, in regard to preliterate tribes in particular, we discover that certain details pertaining to circumcision hold significant psychoanalytic worth. Many preliterate tribes practice a form of circumcision at the later stage of child development through cultural ritualistic rites of passage and these ceremonies are initiation ceremonies, ushering the young boy into his adulthood or fertility. The religious myths surrounding the cultural belief structure of these preliterate tribes seek to empower the boy by stressing the importance of his fertility, or “magic gifts.” And anyone who has achieved orgasm realizes that they are most certainly “magical gifts” or “magic powers.” The Jewish religion, and more recently in our history, Christianity, seeks to “castrate” as opposed to “empower” its young followers. Unfortunately these structures also are familiar and found in familial environments and in the formation of identity of our young.

Such conflicts in moral and religious interpretations found in Western societies’ which ultimately identify certain groups as “hated,” creates a very real need for further explorations in moral relativism. “[The virtual] universal practice of calling one’s own people human and “dehumanizing” others does not necessarily mean that people actually doubt or deny the humanness of others. Much of the time, as William Green points out, those who so label themselves and others are engaging in a kind of caricature that helps define and consolidate their own group identity:

“A society does not simply discover its others, it fabricates them, by selecting isolating, and emphasizing an aspect of another people’s life, and making it symbolize their difference.” (5)

Such moral interpretation of conflict has proven extraordinarily effective throughout Western history in consolidating the identity of Christian groups; at the same time, the same history also shows that it can justify hatred, even mass slaughter.

“An unconscious relationship is more powerful than a conscious one.” ~Søren Kierkegaard

“It is reasonable to assume that early monotheism, which had to fight for its existence, was particularly stringent in it superego demands just because it was surrounded by societies granting greater instinctual gratification. The superego is more punitive and threatens more terrible punishments in the young child than, in the normal course of development, ever in later life. Perhaps the strictest, most castrating father god belongs precisely to the earliest monotheistic development; perhaps castration anxiety was evoked as new weapon to keep man under his control.” (6)

Here in lies the roots of Freud’s Castration Anxiety which we do not see in the preliterate tribal societies of various indigenous cultures.

“As the condition of becoming a subject, subordination implies being in a mandatory submission. Moreover, the desire to survive, “to be,” is a pervasively exploitable desire. The one who holds out the promise of continued existence plays to the desire to survival. “I would rather exist in subordination than not exist” is one formulation of this predicament (where the risk of “death” is also possible). This is one reason why debates about the reality of the sexual abuse of children tend to mis-state the character of the exploitation. It is not simply that a sexuality is unilaterally imposed by the adult, nor that sexuality is unilaterally fantasized by the child, but that the child’s love, a love that is necessary for its existence, is exploited and a passionate attachment abused.

A child’s love is prior to judgment and decision; a child tended and nourished in a “good enough” way will love, and only later stand a chance of discriminating among those he or she loves. This is to say, not that the child loves blindly (since from early on there is discernment and “knowingness” of an important kind), but only that if the child is to persist in a psychic and social sense, there is no possibility of not loving, where love bound up with the requirements for life. The child does not know to what he / she attaches; yet the infant as well as the child must attach in order to persist in and as itself. No subject can emerge without this attachment, formed in dependency, but no subject, in the course of its formation, can ever afford fully to “see” it. This attachment in its primary forms must both come to be and be denied, its coming to be must consist in its partial denial, for the subject to emerge.” (7)

I believe I was carefully selected because of who I am, that is to say, because of my identity and personality. Because this person may view religious beliefs as “weak” or as a  “manipulatable personality constructs.” I believe this individual possess a severe hatred of some kind, either towards women or men in general, in this highly narcissistic form of white supremacy over ‘other.’ I believe this person’s personality traits would make it very likely that he would engage in groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or KKK. Or perhaps other “secret society” groups in which one is allowed to carry out under, clandestine veil, their instinctual desires. The one’s that promote their own self-worth and supremacy.

What attracts people together, what makes them join groups, to get involved and become active members has its roots in what one believes and what one does not believe. Either way, their exists some type of belief structure.

Citation Information:
(1) (2) (3) Child Development, 1969, 40, 969-1025; “Object Relations, Dependency, and Attachment: A Theoretical Review of the Infant-Mother Relationship”; Mary D. Salter Ainsworth; Johns Hopkins University

(4) (6) Symbolic Wounds; Bruno Bettleheim; Glencoe, Ill.; Free Press; 1954

(5) The Origins of Satan; Elaine Pagels; New York; Random House; 1995

(7) The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection; Judith Butler; Stanford California, Stanford University Press; 1997



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s