A reflection on shifts in Klein’s development of her paradigm

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

Reticent and artfully veiled, betrayal as a social phenomenon is something we give little consideration to on an ongoing basis, particularly if we are content in believing that our intimate relationships are not in any significantly grave danger of coming under threat. Under these circumstances the possibility for the occurrence of acts of betrayal such as infidelity, therefore, seldom inhabit our uppermost conscious awareness for any length of time, if at all. Furthermore, in the event that thoughts of betrayal by our partners do stealthily creep into our awareness, we may expel them rapidly as a collective of the larger group may remind us of the danger of sowing seeds of suspicion into our relationships.
Therefore, the possibility that we will set aside time on a daily basis to contemplate whether our partners have committed or will commit infidelity, is as slim as the possibility that what we would spend time considering whether our feet will respond to our wish to walk or that our friends will greet us with recognition. Consequently, it is in the inherent component of unexpectedness, characteristic of most acts of betrayal, that intense pain, shock, trauma and even death lie dormant until the betrayal has been disclosed or exposed. The notion of betrayal under most circumstances presents significant challenges to individuals, and we may be seduced into externalising this persistent and insidious social predator of relationships.
In addition, we may endeavour to rationalize or deny lesser and greater acts of betrayal whether we are the betrayers, or the betrayed. On the other hand, should we allow ourselves to reflect on the implicit nature of acts of betrayal, we would most likely prefer not to dwell on the conceptualisation of the phenomenon, since betrayal speaks to our inherent potential and ability as human beings to inflict irrevocable harm on others and to destroy relationships, a potential we may prefer to ignore and displace. In this study, by attempting to explore and elucidate the essential meaning of the lived experience of betrayal in intimate relationships within a Kleinian framework, I have attempted to contribute to a greater understanding of the phenomenon.

Motivation for the study.

People mostly engage in intimate relationships in the hope that they will be long-term and mutually rewarding experiences. Expectations of a partner, whom at the outset of the relationship appears to be attentive, committed and reliable and is likely to remain that way, are often well founded. Frequently, however, these expectations are short-lived as echoed in the disillusionment of individuals who suggest their partners have changed over time (Couch, Jones & Moore, 1999). Furthermore, hopes that a partner will remain honest and faithful may be permanently crushed by a single act of betrayal that violates and destroys the aspects of trust and loyalty, which are inherent characteristics of intimate relationships.
Engaging in relationships requires a large degree of risk as well as a willingness to explore depths of fragile individual and relational vulnerabilities. As will be examined during the course of the next chapter, belonging or membership of a dyad or collective is a prerequisite for the potential risk of betrayal. Furthermore, belonging as an antithesis of loneliness implies the need for trust in relationships As a result the lingering possibility of rejection and betrayal needs to be trumped by an unfaltering trust in significant others, that one’s identity and vulnerabilities will be embraced and sheltered rather than exploited and abused. Trust is a pre-requisite for group living and indicates greater levels of adjustment and happiness in individuals (Jones, Couch & Scott, 1997). The lexical definition of betrayal reveals specific emphasis on the violation of trust and loyalty in relationships (see 2.2). While much research regarding betrayal includes these relational violations as inherent to the phenomenon of betrayal, psychological studies appear to focus on the consequences and effects of the phenomenon of betrayal across a wide spectrum of interpersonal relationships, at both micro and macro levels (see 4.1).
However, it appears as if little work has been directed at developing a psychology of betrayal and few existing theoretical frameworks in the field of psychology include betrayal as a phenomenon. One reason may be that betrayal is generally considered to belong to classifications of socially deviant behaviour (Ben-Yehuda, 2001) and therefore forms a strong alliance specifically with the field of sociology. However, considering the pivotal role it plays in relationships, betrayal as an aspect of daily relational occurrence requires further exploration in the field of psychology. Klein’s theory as the theoretical framework for this study was specifically chosen for two reasons. Firstly, Klein introduced a shift in her well known emphasis on intrapsychic processes in her theory to interpersonal processes, towards the end of her life in her writings on loneliness (Likierman, 2001).
Consequently in terms of identifying an opportunity in Klein’s theory to make an original contribution to the field of psychology, I considered this relatively unknown Kleinian space of interpersonal processes, appropriate within which to explore the experience of betrayal in intimate relationships. Secondly, relevant literature in the field of psychology reveals very little attention to betrayal per se as a phenomenon on both an intrapersonal and interpersonal level. This limitation is also echoed in Kleinian theory. Consequently, I was afforded a further opportunity to contribute an alternative and unexplored perspective to Klein’s intrapsychic theoretical framework which could enhance my contribution of new knowledge to the field of psychology and in particular, psychoanalytic psychology. Lastly, although the focus of the study is based on betrayal as an interpersonal phenomenon, a number of opportunities appear to be facilitated by this study for future research into the phenomenon of betrayal at an intrapsychic level.
Boundary violations or risks inherent to relationships are mirrored against trust and loyalty in determining their essential structure, and betrayal consequently acquires meaning as an antithesis of trust. Therefore the theoretical fibres of trust amongst others also serve as a bridge to Kleinian theory as Kleinian literature whilst placing less emphasis on betrayal and infidelity per se due to its focus on intrapsyhic rather than interpersonal processes however, does include trust during the course of human development. In this manner, an attempt is made to move beyond predefined structures to include concepts usually excluded from Kleinian theoretical constructs specifically within the context of infidelity.
My increasing interest in betrayal as a prominent theme in human relationships evolved as a result of my work as a psychotherapist, working mainly with couples in intimate relationships. In sharing their narratives of shattered assumptions, mistrust, deception and brokenness, I was constantly reminded of the essential fragility of relationships. Committed individuals and couples who favour my consulting-room had earlier shared the mysticism of mutually exclusive intimacy with a significant other. However acts of betrayal in various forms and degrees of depth and

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Acknowledgements
• Summary
• List of figures
• List of tables
• CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1. Motivation for the study
  • 1.2. Aim of the study
  • 1.3. Overview of the study
  • 1.4. Structure of the study
  • 1.5. Conclusion
• CHAPTER TWO BETRAYAL
  • 2.1. Introduction
  • 2.2. The conceptualisation of betrayal
  • 2.3. The social nature of betrayal
  • 2.4. Dimensions of betrayal
  • 2.4.1. Secrecy
  • 2.4.2. Deception
  • 2.4.3. Motivation
  • 2.4.4. Membership
  • 2.5. Betrayal within the field of psychology
  • 2.6. Betrayal trauma
  • 2.7. Infidelity: an act of betrayal
  • 2.8. Trust
  • 2.8.1. The concept of trust and psychoanalytic theory
  • 2.9. Conclusion
• CHAPTER THREE MELANIE KLEIN-INNOVATIVE THEORIST
  • 3.1. Introduction
  • 3.2. Klein’s encounter with Ferenczi, Freud and psychoanalysis: an overview
  • 3.3. Early beginnings
  • 3.3.1. “The development of a child” – Part One (1919)
  • 3.3.2. “A child’s resistance to enlightenment” – Part Two (1921)
  • 3.3.3. “Fritz”, the neighbour’s son
  • 3.3.4. Instinctual riots in the playroom
  • 3.3.5. Early criticisms of Klein’s work
  • 3.3.6. Klein’s theoretical departure from Freud
  • 3.3.6.1. On time: past and present
  • 3.3.6.2. On childhood development processes
  • 3.3.6.3. On the neuroses and psychoses
  • 3.3.6.4. On the death drive
  • 3.3.6.5. On the unconscious, phantasy and primal repression
  • 3.3.6.6. On the development of sexuality
  • 3.3.6.7. On the development of the Oedipus complex
  • 3.3.6.8. On fathers
  • 3.3.6.9. On babies
  • 3.4. The primitive Oedipal complex and the mother as object
  • 3.5. Karl Abraham’s alternative view of infant sadism
  • 3.6. Towards an integrated Kleinian theory of Object relations
  • 3.6.1. Projection and introjection
  • 3.6.2. Anxiety, Sadism and the Super-ego
  • 3.7. Klein’s conceptualisation of psychic defence mechanisms, dissociation processes and primitive object love
  • 3.7.1. Psychic defence mechanisms and dissociation processes
  • 3.7.2. Primitive object love
  • 3.7.3. The primary good object
  • 3.7.4. Idealisation of the primary good object
  • 3.8. Loss of the primary object, depressive states and ambivalence
  • 3.8.1. Loss of the primary object
  • 3.8.2. Depressive states during the course of human development
  • 3.8.3. Infantile ambivalence in the depressive position
  • 3.8.4. Sorrow, morality and primordial guilt in the depressive position
  • 3.8.5. Morality and tragedy in the depressive position
  • 3.9. Internal concepts
  • 3.10. Surmounting fear in the depressive position
  • 3.11. Klein’s concept of phantasy
  • 3.12. The paranoid-schizoid position
  • 3.13. Fairbairn’s influence on Klein’s concept of schizoid mechanisms
  • 3.14. Winnicott’s concept of “primary unintegration”
  • 3.15. Klein’s perception of the schizoid state
  • 3.16. “Projective identification”
  • 3.17. Splitting and disintegrated states
  • 3.18. Primitive envy and jealousy
  • 3.19. Deprivation and envy
  • 3.20. Longing and loneliness
  • 3.21. Summary
• CHAPTER FOUR THE METHOD
  • 4.1. Methodological orientation
  • 4.2. The research design
  • 4.2.1. Research method
  • 4.2.2. Researcher’s position
  • 4.2.3. Research participants
  • 4.2.4. Pilot study
  • 4.3. Data collection
  • 4.3.1. The initial interview
  • 4.3.2. The second interview
  • 4.3.3. The follow-up interview
  • 4.3.4. The interview review
  • 4.4. Data analysis
  • 4.4.1. First stage: Open coding
  • 4.4.2. Second stage: Axial coding
  • 4.4.3. Third stage: Selective coding
  • 4.4.4. Extending the story through the conditional matrix
  • 4.5. Addressing the question of reliability and validity in qualitative research
  • 4.5.1. Parallel criteria for reliability and validity in qualitative research
  • 4.6. Summary
  • 4.7. Conclusion
• CHAPTER FIVE THE INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS
  • 5.1. Introduction
  • 5.2. The Research question
  • 5.3. The Research participants
  • 5.4. Analysis of data
  • 5.4.1. First stage – Open coding
  • 5.4.2. Second stage- Axial coding
  • 5.5. An overview of the findings derived from axial coding using the framework as an organisational scheme
  • 5.5.1. Conditions
  • 5.5.2. Actions and interactions
  • 5.5.3. Consequences
  • 5.6. The framework as a guide to analysis of the data
  • 5.7. Conclusions regarding a sense of alienation
• CHAPTER SIX “THROUGH A KLEINIAN LENS” – DISCUSSION
  • 6.1 Introduction
  • 6.2 The experience of infidelity viewed through a Kleinian lens
  • 6.2.1. The capacity to love another and the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.2. A sense of an integrated self and the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.3. Moral orientation and the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.4. Revisiting the Oedipal situation and the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.5. Idealisation of the loved object in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.6. Ambivalence in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.7. Denial of the persecutory aspects of the loved object in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.8. The interplay between internal world and external reality in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.9. Continuity in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.10. Mourning in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.11. Loss of the loved object in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.12. Depressive anxiety, guilt and reparation in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.13. Guilt in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.14. Reparation in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.15. Hope in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.16. Overcoming in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.17. Separating bad- from idealised aspects of the loved object in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.18. Projective identification in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.19. The onset of loneliness in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.2.20. Cognitive processes in the experience of betrayal
  • 6.3. Conclusions regarding the experience of betrayal
• CHAPTER SEVEN “OUR GREAT NEED FOR OTHERS” – CONCLUSION
  • 7.1. The phenomenon of betrayal in intimate relationships
  • 7.2. A reflection on shifts in Klein’s development of her paradigm
  • 7.3. Proposed shifts and contributions to Klein’s paradigm derived from the findings in this study
  • 7.4. Criticisms of Klein’s paradigm
  • 7.5. A critical review of the methodology
  • 7.6. A critique of the strengths and limitations of the study
  • 7.6.1. Strengths of the study
  • 7.6.2. Limitations of the study
  • 7.7. Concluding comments
  • References

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
“JUDAS’ KISS” THE EXPERIENCE OF BETRAYAL: A KLEINIAN APPROACH