Passivity and destructiveness : the re-integration of aggression into object relations

It was the purpose of this study to examine the theories of the later writers of the British Object Relations School of Psychoanalysis (i.e., Fairbairn, Winnicott, Guntrip) and explore whether their eschewing of Melanie Klein's concepts of aggression/destructiveness as a primary pathological factor and central dynamic force from the earliest period of development was justified, both on a theoretical and heuristic basis.

Based on an exposition of four key arguments for the virtual exclusion of the importance of destructiveness as put forward by these theorists, and a rebuttal of those arguments, it was concluded that aggression/destructiveness as proposed in Klein's model is indeed a crucial dynamic factor. An integrative system of early dynamics was proposed, one which ascribes a major role to destructiveness as a primary pathological and dynamic factor which influences all subsequent development, dynamics, and endopsychic structure while retaining many of the major features and structures of Guntrip's and Fairbairn's system.

A new comprehensive concept of "passivity" was proposed to describe and account for the earliest defensive strategy to contain destructiveness. Such "passivity" was described in terms of the quelling of any initiative action based on aggressive or libidinal urges towards external and internal objects in the service of reducing expression of destructiveness, and hence reducing phenomenological persecution and annihilatory anxiety. This concept of passivity as a defensive measure was contrasted with Guntrip's use of the term as a primary motivational and pathological force, and it was concluded that this "new" concept of passivity represents a concept of greater theoretical consistency and heuristic value than Guntrip's formulation. Accordingly, Guntrip's concept of a Regressed Libidinal Ego (and schizoid withdrawal) was critiqued and found to be theoretically unviable, and modifications to increase its viability were proposed. Finally, three directions for further application of the concept of passivity as developed in this work were suggested: as a basis for comprehensively defining and differentiating the concepts of "activity" and "passivity"; the development of passivity as a major pathological force itself which inhibits the development of reality testing; and as a diagnostic and conceptual tool in personality assessment and psychotherapy