Drives and objects - notes on the change of drive theory

ABSTRACT

Freud’s drive theory has been questioned since the 1940s when Fairbairn created a metaphor of the mind that is not based on the tripartite model and drive theory. His work inspired others to elaborate on the significance of internal object relationships. According to the object relation theory, internal object relations are dynamic structures capable of generating meanings and action. Consequently, two distinct metapsychologies were created.The aim of this article is to show how the interaction of theories has initiated revisions of classic drive theory. Freud’s concept of drive and three synthesizing viewpoints between the two perspectives are discussed. Otto Kernberg addresses affects as a primary motivational system; the mother–infant relationship organizes affects to drives. Joseph Sandler adheres to classic drive theory but proposes that the ego’s attempt to protect the mind against psychic pain is as important as drive derivatives in motivating the mind. Laplanche proposes that the unconscious of the care-giving adult is the crucial factor for the constitution of an infant’s unconscious and drives. For Freud and Klein, drive is inherent. Contemporary writers, like Loewald and Laplanche, conceive drive as a function of the mind that is born out of the same matrix of interaction with the other elements of the mind.

KEYWORDS:

• Drive
• objects
• object relations
• the unconscious
• general theory of seduction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tiina Koivikko

Tiina Koivikko was born in 1957. She worked as a psychiatrist (1992) and was a member of Finnish Psychoanalytical Association (2014). Currently, she is working in private practice in Turku, Finland.