Abstract
The discussion of splitting within mental health treatment teams emerged from British object relations theory, a movement concerned with understanding the interplay between individuals in terms of their inner lives. Over time, the terminology used in this domain has become reified and splitting has been discussed in terms that are apt to frame the process as patient-precipitated. This is apt to encourage simplistic inferences, and attribute to patients responsibility for events that are beyond their control. In this article, the historical development of the psychoanalytic account of team splitting is examined and contemporary critiques are reviewed. It is suggested that the resultant one-person picture overlooks the ways that psychoanalytic theory has been subject to controversy and revision. In the last section of the article, I propose that relational innovations in psychoanalytic theory provide a way to rediscover the richness of early descriptions of splitting.
"In this article, the historical development of this mainstream psychoanalytic account of team splitting is examined. I then review a range of important contemporary critiques of splitting from dialectical, feminist and social-justice perspectives. With reference to an example of team splitting I suggest that the conventional psychoanalytic picture is incomplete, and has likely contributed to a simplistic and patient-blaming conception that has attracted justified criticism. Finally I suggest that relational approaches to psychoanalytic theory can rejuvenate our understanding of team splits by returning our focus to the interpersonal processes involved, and linking them to intrapsychic phenomena. Specifically relational psychoanalytic theory substitutes a process oriented language for over-used psychoanalytic theoretical terminology, and places greater explanatory emphasis on the psychology and behavior of all parties in an interaction."
Huw Green (2018) Team splitting and the ‘borderline personality’: a relational reframe, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 32:3, 249-266, DOI: 10.1080/02668734.2018.1487465
ความคิดเห็น