Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:51:10.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object Relations Theory, Mothering, and Religion: Toward a Feminist Psychology of Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Diane Jonte-Pace
Diane Jonte-Pace*
Affiliation:
University of Santa Clara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although psychoanalytic object relations theory has been acclaimed for its ability to revitalize the psychological understanding of religion, the implicit sensitivity of object relations theory to feminist concerns has not been recognized. This paper suggests that object relations theory shares with feminist thought three central foci: relationality, mature dependency, and a revaluing of the mother-infant relationship. Through this coincidence of concern object relations theory can move toward a feminist psychology of religion which avoids not only Freud's reductionism toward religion, but also his patricentrism. The psychological antecedents of religious experience, ritual, and the image of God are examined from the object relational perspective, and are located in the maternal-infant matrix. It is suggested that this linkage of culture and mother offers a radical challenge to the psychoanalytic perspective.

Type
Articles
Information
Horizons , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Fall 1987 , pp. 310 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Freud, Sigmund, The Psychopathology of Every day Life (Standard Edition [hereafter cited as SE], vol. 6, Strachey, J., ed., New York: Norton, 1952), 1–279Google Scholar, and “Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices” (SE 9, Strachey, J., ed., New York: Norton, 1952), 117–27.Google Scholar

2 Some recent feminist literature has attempted to rethink or reclaim Freud's problematic view of the feminine. Juliet Mitchell shows that Freud's project was to describe the phallocentric psyche in a patriarchal culture, arguing that Freud's work is valuable to feminism because of its power to elucidate the way patriarchy structures masculinity and femininity. Judith Van Herik shows the deep structural homologies between, on the one hand, Freud's view of religion, wish fulfillment, and femininity; and on the other hand, his view of intellect, renunciation, and masculinity. Significant though these works are, they will not be central to my argument here. See Van Herik, Judith, Freud on Femininity and Faith (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982);Google Scholar and Mitchell, Juliet, Psychoanalysis and Feminism (New York: Random House, 1974).Google Scholar

3 Ross, Mary Ellen and Ross, Cheryl Lynn, “Mothers, Infants and the Psychoanalytic Study of Ritual,” Signs 9 (1983), 26–39;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcDargh, John, Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory and The Study of Religion (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983);Google ScholarMeissner, William, Psychoanalysis and Religious Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984);Google Scholar and Rizzuto, Ana Maria, The Birth of the Living God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).Google Scholar

4 Included in Greenberg and Mitchell's comprehensive study of object relations in psychoanalytic theory are such diverse figures as Sullivan, Klein, Fairbairn, Winnicott, Guntrip, Mahler, Kernberg, and Kohut, many of whom have incompatible theoretical stances. See Greenberg, Jay and Mitchell, Stephen, Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 3.

6 Ibid.

7 Guntrip, Harry, “Psychodynamic Theory and the Problem of Psychotherapy,” British Journal of Medical Psychology 36 (1963), 166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8 Freud, Sigmund, An Outline of Psychoanalysis (SE 23, Strachey, J., ed., London: Hogarth, 1964), 185.Google Scholar

9 Freud, Sigmund, “Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of his Childhood” (SE 11, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1957), 124–25.Google Scholar

10 Greenberg, and Mitchell, , Object Relations, p. 161.Google Scholar

11 Mahler, Margaret, “On the First Three Subphases of the Separation—Individuation Process,” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 53 (1972), 333.Google ScholarPubMed

12 Freud, Sigmund, Totem and Taboo (SE 13, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1955), 147.Google Scholar

13 Freud, Sigmund, “Female Sexuality” (SE 21, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1961), 225.Google Scholar

14 Greenberg, and Mitchell, , Object Relations, p. 160.Google Scholar

15 Mitchell, Juliet, “Reflections on Twenty Years of Feminism” in Mitchell, Juliet and Oakley, Ann, eds., What is Feminism? (New York: Pantheon, 1986), pp. 43–44.Google Scholar

16 Smith, Ruth, “Feminism and the Moral Subject” in Andolsen, Barbara Hilkert, Gudorf, Christine, and Pellauer, Mary, eds., Women's Consciousness, Women's Conscience: A Reader in Feminist Ethics (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985), p. 236.Google Scholar

17 Miller, Jean Baker, “Toward a New Psychology of Women” in Conn, Joann Wolski, ed., Women's Spirituality: Resources for Christian Development (New York: Paulist, 1986), p. 107.Google Scholar

18 Gilligan, Carol, In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 19.Google Scholar

19 Christ, Carol, “Why Women Need the Goddess” in Christ, Carol and Plaskow, Judith, eds., Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 285.Google Scholar

20 Kahn, Coppelia, “The Hand that Rocks the Cradle: Recent Gender Theories and their Implications” in Garner, Shirley, Kahane, Claire, and Sprengnether, Madelon, eds., The (M)other Tongue: Essays in Feminist Psychoanalytic Interpretation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), p. 26.Google Scholar

21 de Beauvoir, Simone, The Second Sex (New York: Vintage, 1974), p. 72.Google Scholar

22 Kahn, , “The Hand that Rocks,” p. 73.Google Scholar

23 Allen, Jeffner, “Motherhood: The Annihilation of Women” in Treblicot, Joyce, ed., Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 1984), pp. 315–30.Google Scholar

24 Chodorow, Nancy, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 39.Google Scholar

25 Ruddick, Sara, “Maternal Thinking,” Feminist Studies 6 (1980), 342–67;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSuleiman, Susan Rubin, “Writing and Motherhood” in Garner, Shirleyet al., eds., The (M)other Tongue, pp. 352–77;Google ScholarDemetrakopoulis, Stephanie, Listening To OurBodies: The Rebirth of Feminine Wisdom (Boston: Beacon, 1983).Google Scholar For a further discussion of sexist elements in the object relations theory view of mothering, see Jonte-Pace, Diane, “The Betrayal and Recovery of Mothering: Object Relations Theory, Feminism, and Religion” (paper presented at the American Academy of Religion, Atlanta, Georgia, 1986).Google Scholar

26 French psychoanalytic feminists Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva, influenced by and critical of Lacan's rereading of Freud, have urged a reexamination of the pre-oedipal maternal-infant relationship as a way of reintegrating the feminine into psychoanalytic discourse. They complain that the Lacanian phallic realm of symbolic discourse excludes women. Their work is distinct from (and critical of) the tradition of object relations theory, but their emphasis on the pre-oedipal coincides with the object relational approach. See Kristeva, Julia, “Un Nouveau Type d'intellectuel: Le Dissident,” Tel Quel 74 (1977), 1–11Google Scholar, and Irigaray, Luce, This Sex Which is Not One (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

27 See Mitchell, Juliet, “Introduction I” in Mitchell, Juliet and Rose, Jacqueline, eds., Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the ecole freudienne (New York: Norton, 1982), pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Fairbairn, W. R. D., “Observations in Defense of the Object Relations Theory of the Personality,” British Journal of Medical Psychology 28 (1955), 144–80;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGuntrip, Harry, Psychotherapy and Religion (New York: Harper, 1957);Google ScholarGuntrip, Harry, Personality Structure and Human Interaction (New York: International Universities Press, 1961);Google ScholarGuntrip, Harry, “Religion in Relation to Personal Integration,” British Journal of Medical Psychology 42 (1969), 323–33;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWinnicott, David W., “Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena,” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 34 (1953), 89–97.Google ScholarPubMed

29 Ross and Ross, “Mothers, Infants and the Psychoanalytic Study of Ritual”; McDargh, Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory and The Study of Religion; Meissner, Psychoanalysis and Religious Experience.

30 Freud, , “Leonardo Da Vinci and a Memory of his Childhood,” p. 123.Google Scholar

31 Freud, Sigmund, Civilization and Its Discontents (SE 21, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1961), 71, 76.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 77.

33 In McDargh, John, “Object Relations Theory and the Study of Religion: Prospects for a Partnership” (paper presented at the American Academy of Religion, St. Louis, 1976), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

34 Meissner, , Psychoanalysis and Religious Experience, p. 150.Google Scholar

35 Guntrip, , Personality Structure, p. 383.Google Scholar

36 Gay, Volney, “Winnicott's Contribution to Religious Studies: The Resurrection of the Culture Hero,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 51 (1983), 371–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Winnicott, , “Transitional Objects,” p. 94.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 94.

39 Rizzuto, , The Birth of the Living God, p. 177.Google Scholar

40 Freud, Sigmund, The Future of an Illusion (SE 21, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1961), 48.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., p. 31.

42 Freud, Totem and Taboo.

43 Freud, Sigmund, “Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices,” pp. 117–27.Google Scholar

44 Ross, and Ross, , “Mothers, Infants,” p. 26.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., p. 27.

46 Ibid., p. 39.

47 Freud, Sigmund, “A Seventeenth Century Demonological Neurosis” (SE 19, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1961), 69–105.Google Scholar See also Rizzuto, , Birth of the Living God, pp. 18–22.Google Scholar

48 Rizzuto, , The Birth of the Living God, p. 42.Google Scholar

49 Vergote, Antoine, The Religious Man (Dublin: E. T. Gill and Macmillan, 1969);Google Scholar and Vergote, Antoine and Tamayo, A., The Parental Figures and the Representation of God: A Psychological and Cross-Cultural Study (New York: Mouton, 1981).Google Scholar See also Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin and Argyle, M., “God as a Father Projection: The Theory and the Evidence,” British Journal of Medical Psychology 48 (1975), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

50 Rizzuto, , Birth of the Living God, pp. 221, 209.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., p. 196.

52 Ibid., p. 177.

53 Englesman, Joan Chamberlain, The Feminine Dimension of the Divine (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979);Google Scholar and Gimbutas, Marija, Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982).Google Scholar

54 Garner, Shirley, “Introduction” in Garner, et al., The (M)other Tongue, p. 25.Google Scholar

55 Freud, Sigmund, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (SE 22, Strachey, J., ed., Toronto: Hogarth, 1964), 3–182.Google Scholar