Psychodynamic Theory Debate
Janice Birdsong, Melissa Johnston, and Helene Torres
Psy/405
November 10, 2014
Instructor Krasner

Psychodynamic Theory Debate
Jung and Klein, I think for the purpose of this debate we get a quick description of your theories. Klein, let us start with you.
In my theory of object relation, we focus on the importance of the mother child relationship. My theory was built on my interpretations of childhood during the first four to six months where most children begin showing behavior traits toward specific people in their lives. Yes, my theory was built from Freud’s idea of instincts just as most psychoanalytical psychologists work, but my work emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships, we focus more on the significance of mothers, and the key motivation in my theory is human connection and how we relate. I believe we are all predisposed to certain personalities. Something Freud and I both accepted was the “existence of phylogenetic endowment” (Feist and Roberts, 2013, p. 144). I also believe that young children adopt defense mechanisms such as introjection, splitting, projective identification, and projection to protect themselves from destructive fantasies and the anxiety that follows.
Jung, please give us a description of your theory as well.
I, too, was a colleague of Freud and some of my work also was built on ideas he formed. When I went in my own direction I coined the idea of analytical theory. My theory was based on “the assumption that occult phenomena can and do influence the lives of everyone” (Feist and Roberts, 2013, p. 102). Like Freud, I do believe people are motived by repressed understandings, except I also believe that we inherit experiences that are emotionally driven from our ancestors. My theory also consists of archetypes that can only be acquired when there is a balance between within our personalities and other factors. I also believe that our minds are split between the conscious and unconscious, but a third section that I insist is the collective unconscious. I express this because of my belief in the experiences we acquire from our ancestors. It is in the collective unconscious that archetypes are create. For example, the hero, self, wise old man, and so forth.
Jung, what are the pros of your analytical theory?
As previously stated I believe the mind can be divided into unconscious and conscious portions. I feel that the unconscious mind was made up of layers. For example the personal unconscious is the unconscious part of the mind, which is stowed in each person's distinctive occurrences and recollections, which are or are not remembered consciously. I believe in terms of complexes each person’s contents of his or her intimate unconscious are organized, clusters of sensitive unaware thoughts. For example, a complex he or she may have concerning his or her mother or regarding his or her partner. Now the second layer of unconsciousness is referred to as the collective unconscious. All people have inherited from common ancestors in the distant human past in this level. They are comprised of recollections and behavioral tendencies that provide us with essentially shared memories and tendencies. During analytic therapy, I use certain archetypes to explain ones unconscious thought that in turn will affect his or her outward behavior. According to Jung (1953), regardless of how far we have come in modern society, we are still simple, and if we ignore the need to join our unconscious the archetypes will find new forms of manifestation.
What is the importance of the application to your theory?
I believe these archetypes are the importance of my theory. For instance, the persona archetype, the part we are willing to share with others is the part of our personality and showcase to the world, “people are both introverted and extraverted; rational and irrational; male and female, conscious and unconscious and pushed by past events while being pulled by future expectations” (Feist & Roberts, 2013, p. 102). The darker part of a person is the shadow archetype. This is the part that comprises what we tend to hide from both others and ourselves, which pertains to being scary, intolerable and even malevolent.
The other is known as the anima, which I feel is of a man’s personality and portrays his femininity, which would show his areas of sensitivity, consideration, sympathy and cordiality to those around him, however it could be more unreasonable because of feelings. Looking in to the women’s masculine side of her personality is the animus, the other side I believe is the more balanced and logical. With men there is such a stigma in how they are seen. Men dread to be seen in the negative as weak both from others and from themselves because it is a contradiction of their overemphasized persona of what men should be, therefore men try to hide their softer side (anima).
Klein, same to you, what are the pros of object relation?
First, I believe the object relations theory places less importance on biologically based drives and more importance on personal relations. For example, the early childhood months emphasize a child’s drive directed at certain objects such as the mother’s breast. The object serves as an interpersonal relation between the child and mother. The reason I refer to the importance of this in early development, but also in psychic disturbances (Webster University, n.d.). Therefore, I feel this early experience affects all later interpersonal relations. Secondly, I believe the object relations theory expresses more toward the maternal side of things such as intimacy and nurturing of the mother. The focus being on the childhood experiences motivated by attachment to the mother because the child looks to the mother to meet its needs. Third, I believe that human behavior is motivated by our connection and relation to others rather than sexual pleasure.
Why is the application important to your theory?
I believe the importance of application to my theory provides an account for human experience. The theory opens the interest of inner self-images and others, explaining how the images manifest themselves in interpersonal relationships. Perhaps the most useful feature about the object relation theory is its ability to organize information about the behavior of infants. For example, the speculation of how a sense of identity is created through mother-child relationship. Also, the theory can be a guide to the practitioner through the use of data passed on to the parents. The parents can learn the importance of a warm, accepting, and nurturing caregiver upon the development of a child. Children who do not receive such affection were more likely to retreat into a world of fantasy (Webster University, n.d.). Lastly, I believe the internal consistency of my theory which provides validation of object-relations, places primary importance on human relationships (Feist & Roberts, 2013).
Considering no discussion has all positive aspects, Jung, what are the limitations of your theory? Why?
While I do believe archetypes play a role in personal connections and for the adult psyche, it has no place in human development, so I would state that it was a limit. For instance, the unconscious manifestation into the archetypes and sway from infant, childhood or adolescence, but are for the adults. I do believe ones performance could be distinctive if he or she had knowledge of the complete collective at birth, I would call that a con. Perhaps the various phases of growth are connected to the archetype. Like moving on into the early development comprising of only the Anima and Animus, following through the adolescence the personality is liberated, and just maybe the hero.
Klein, are there limitations to your theory? What are they?
As with any “good theory,” there are always limitations. I personally believe that a “lack of agreement,” with fellow psychoanalysis is one major limitation in my theory. The support of empirical evidence leads to unscientific points. Also, a lack of controlled studies can provide a faulty conclusion. For example, generalizing a small number of patient’s experiences to a whole population does not provide enough research. In conclusion, I believe that a lack of studies to provide an overall relevance from childhood to adulthood is a limitation (Feist & Roberts, 2013).
In closing
Jung and Klein, we have enjoyed hearing about your point of views in terms of personality. We cannot ignore that both sides have some excellent ideas focusing on our motivations and how our personality is influenced. Jung, your explanation of archetypes was quite interesting and I think we have a better understanding of why you believe our ancestors play a role in the forming of our personality. I can also see how having a complete collective could be more beneficial based on your theory. Klein, we enjoyed how you branched off from Freud in terms of motivation and personal relationships. I do not think any of us could disagree that personal relationships are significant to our development.Thank you for joining us today to talk about what makes your theory important.

References
Feist, G. J. and Roberts, T. A. (2013). Theories of Personality. (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill
Jung, C. G. (1953). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Retrieved from http://www.butler-bowdon.com/carl-jung-archetypes-collective-unconcious Webster University. (n.d.). Women's Intellectual Contributions to the Study of Mind and Society.
Retrieved from http://www2.webster.edu/~woolflm/klein.html#object