Reclaiming Bowlby's contribution to psychoanalysis

Abstract

The paper reviews central concepts and research findings of attachment theory emphasizing its clinical relevance to psychoanalytically informed clinicians. We then turn to a historical analysis in order to understand why Bowlby's work was dismissed within psychoanalytic circles and the reasons why Bowlby's contributions and attachment theory have begun to have a significant impact among clinicians within the last ten years.

Keywords:

• Attachment theory
• motivational systems
• relational theories

Summaries in German and Spanish

Cortina M, Marrone M. Die Wiedergewinnung von Bowlby's Beitrag zur Psychoanalyse

Diese Arbeit bespricht zentrale Konzepte und Forschungsergebnisse der Bindungstheorie und betont deren klinische Relevanz für klinisch informierte Kliniker. Dann wenden wir uns einer historischen Analyse zu, um zu verstehen, warum Bowlby's Arbeit in psychoanalytischen Zirkeln abgewiesen wurde und den Gründen, warum Bowlby's Beiträge und Bindungstheorie begonnen haben, eine bedeutende Wirkung unter Klinikern innerhalb der letzten zehn Jahre zu haben.

Cortina M, Marrone M. Recuperando las Contribuciones de Bowlby

Este trabajo revisa los conceptos centrales y los hallazgos de la teoria del attachment, enfatizando su relevancia clinica para clinicos psicoanaliticamente formados. Volvemos al analisis historico para entender porque el trabajo de Bowlby fue rechazado en los circulos psicoanaliticos y las razones por las que las contribuciones de Bowlby y la teoria del attachment han empezado a tener un impacto significativo entre los clinicos desde los últimos diez años.

Notes

A different version of this article was presented at the XII International Forum for Psychoanalysis in Oslo, Norway, 2002.

There are now some excellent reviews of attachment theory that offer a good analysis of this shameful neglect (1– 7).

The organism is not the only level at which selective pressures operate. Selective pressures can operate at sub‐organismic levels (genes) or supra‐organismic levels (groups, species and clades). An example of selection at the level of genes is the production of so called junk DNA. Altruism is an example of selection operating at the level of groups. Language may be an example of selection operating at a species level. For a contemporary discussion of these issues see Sober & Wilson (36) and Gould (37).

Cooperative groups with altruistic members will compete for resources with other groups that may be less cooperative or altruistic (see Sober & Wilson (36) for a masterful rehabilitation of this group selection hypothesis).

These papers where published in the late fifties and early sixties (65– 67) and became the basis of his trilogy on Attachment (23), Separation (22) and Loss (24).

Kernberg (68) names several factors that have contributed to this situation, such as a) the fact that in many institutes the (so called) didactic analyst has a say in whether a candidate will be able to graduate, b) the lock that training analysts have over the organization and who is or isn’t considered legitimate and c) the lack of exposure to research methodologies and empirical studies.