Paul M. Lerner, Ed.D.* on the Institute’s
New Edition of the Object Relations Technique —
“Utility for Assessment”
The Object Relations Technique (O.R.T.), as
Dr. Shaw observes, is an assessment
instrument whose basic format may be summarized as integrating
"Rorschach and T.A.T. sensibilities." In reintroducing the
Technique with this new edition he has
updated and eloquently augmented its original conceptual base, set
forth a highly refined and sophisticated system for analyzing its
response data, and provided a rationale that links scorable
responses with broader personality functioning. Here I offer some
thoughts on the current status of personality science as a whole,
and situate the O.R.T. within a distinct orientation on assessment
I designate generically as 'conceptual.' Lastly I will comment on a
certain, major contemporary shift in psychoanalytic thinking of
which the O.R.T. is now evidently also a significant part.
I believe the O.R.T. — both as first
conceived (Phillipson, 1955) and in its present, more evolved form
(Shaw, 2002) — is best understood, employed and
evaluated from a distinctly conceptual position. I should note for
immediate clarification that this does not imply any preference as
to theoretical frame of reference in one's work with the
instrument. Whereas by title and developmental background the
O.R.T. has been grounded from its onset in the rich tradition of
Object Relations theory, in other words, as a basic method it also
exists independently of that or any other psychodynamic theory in
particular....
A conceptual orientation as meant here addresses
the need to forge connecting links between two main sets of
considerations: behavior with its psychodynamic substrate on one
hand, and task performance strictly speaking on the other (Lerner,
1998). David Rapaport (Rapaport, Gill & Schafer, 1945-1946)
reflected this seminally, for example, when he based his approach
to validity on certain models of cognitive process and structure.
From the organization of a subject's thinking, as evidenced in the
assessment setting — including of such subprocesses as
anticipation, concept formation, near and remote recall, judgment,
attention and concentration — Rapaport would draw
powerful inferences concerning other important facets of the total
personality and patterns of behavior.
In bridging test responses with more general
behavior and its underlying dynamics in a manner quite different
from Rapaport's, Dr. Shaw's key concept is perception and,
accordingly, a perceptual approach to the study of
personality. A brief excerpt from his text embodies this concisely:
"Perception, then — like all of intelligence and all of
action — is a function of the total subject, in humans
the total person, and the study of perception thus becomes an
approach in its own right to personality." The special advantage of
a perceptual approach, what is more, "lies in its ability to bypass
or undercut massively overlearnt verbal-intellectual conventions,
and thus get at the more immediate, idiosyncratic, actual
phenomenal experience of each subject... what truly makes
each one that one, each one that and no other."
It is instructive to note that in assigning this
place of utmost importance to perception and its emphasis on the
actual phenomena of individual experience — in lieu, for
example, of thought process with its inherent ties to more abstract
and highly generalized structures — Dr. Shaw's rationale
for the O.R.T. is consistent with another great shift now taking
place in psychoanalytic psychology. I refer to the still growing
modern movement away from a certain, highly rarefied classical
metapsychology — one deeply couched in mechanistic terms
of impersonal structures and energies — and toward a
more experience-near orientation, concerned foremost with
subjective meanings and the representational world. It is thus we
see today that Classical Drive theory and its derivative Ego
Psychology, once the very centerpieces of psychoanalytic thought,
have given way to a focus on the development and experience of self
and object relations. The O.R.T., both in its original and
presently expanded conceptual framework, embodies and importantly
exemplifies this major theoretical trend.
Given the resurgence of interest in personality
assessment over recent decades (cf. Holt, 1967; Millon, 1984) and,
somewhat relatedly, a number of apposite and far-reaching changes
now afoot in psychoanalytic psychology itself, I believe that Dr.
Shaw has has chosen a most opportune time to reintroduce the O.R.T.
in this more evolved form. When placed in broad context of what I
construe to be the conceptual approach in assessment, I begin to
see the potential richness of this method for both clinical and
research areas of application.
References
Holt, R. (1967) Diagnositc testing: Present situation and future
prospects. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 144,
444-465.
Lerner, P. (1998) Psychoanalytic Perspectives on the
Rorschach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Analytic Press
Millon, T. (1984) On the renaissance of personality assessment and
personality theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48,
450-466.
Phillipson, H. (1955) The Object Relations Technique.
(Plates & Manual) London: Tavistock.
Rapaport, D., Gill, M. & Schafer, R. (1945-1946). Diagnostic
Psychological Testing. Chicago: Yearbook Publishers.
Shaw, M. (2002) The Object Relations Technique: Assessing the
individual. (Plates and Manual) Manhasset, New York: ORT
Institute.
|
