Melanie Klein 1

Running Head: Melanie Klein

An Analysis of the Interpretation on Melanie Klein’s Theory

(Name)

(University)

(Professor)

(Subject or Course Number)

(Date)
 Melanie Klein 2

An Analysis of the Interpretation on Melanie Klein’s Theory

Melanie Klein, an Austrian psychoanalyst, had been famous for the object-relation theory

that focuses on child analysis emphasizing that the children undergoes similar psychological

processes as adults. Her theory is in line with Freudian psychoanalysis with an expansion that

includes children. In her view, children should be treated psychoanalytically in the same manner

as adults were being treated. She proposed that there are anxieties that even infants could

experience and these anxieties could not be resolved even during adulthood. This idea created

the schism between Kleinian psychoanalysts and Ana Freudian’s followers. Ana Freud

maintained that children were not yet fully developed and must be treated through educative

methods.

Among the interpreters of Melanie Klein’s theory were Fred Alford and Thomas Ogden.

Their interpretations were connected in terms of similarities regarding the basic tenets of

Kleine’s “dialectically constituted subject” (Ogden, ;33). Nevertheless, there is a difference

between the two interpretations in respect with “the real goal of Kleinian analysis” (Alford,

1998; 188). This essay would first try to identify the link between Alford’s and Ogden’s

interpretations. Afterwards, there will be a discussion of the contrasting opinions presented by

the interpreters.

Ogden’s interpretation lies upon three important Kleinian concepts: “the concept of

positions, the decentering of the subject and the intersubjectivity of projective identification”

(1994, 33). He asserted the importance of “dialectical conception of psychic structure and

psychological development underlying [her concept of] positions”(34). Ogden believes that the

“positions” were relevant determinants of the manner in which “meaning is attributed to

 Melanie Klein 3

experience” (34). He argued that positions were in constant tension with one another in a

dialectical process that produces the existence of the subject.

Melanie Klein introduced two types of positions, the paranoid-schizoid position and the

depressive position. The paranoid schizoid refers to a certain anxiety about the possibility of

death that simultaneously creates the separation of good and bad object. The depressive position

refers to the acknowledgement that the good and the bad objects are parts of a whole. This

implies the presence of guilt and the recognition of relations between objects and the self.

In relation to these two positions, Ogden introduced his own position known as the

autistic-contiguous position. According to him this position is “associated with a mode of

generating experience that is of a sensation-dominated sort and is characterized by photo-

symbolic impressions of sensory experience” (36). It is important to note that Ogden emphasizes

the non-linearity of these positions. According to him, the positions “shift in the way in which

each contextualizes the others” (36).

In relation to the ideas of positions, Alford argued that Klein’s worldview consist an

“absolute idealism in which ideas of our inner-world constitute reality” (1998; 119). This is

where Freudian concepts and Klein’s differ. Klein believes that drives are passion while Freud

renders them as directionless tensions produced by the body. In a sense, drives were “patterns of

feelings towards real and imaginary others” (120).

 Melanie Klein 4

This is related to another difference between Klein and Freud is the idea of psychological

objects which are merely products of instinctual aims for Freud. Klein believes that the “object-

relation involves the infant’s emotions, phantasies, anxieties and defenses” (Alford, 1998; 120).

Klein used the term schizoid paranoia position to stress the manner by which aggression could

cause the separation from love. It is the “coexistence of splitting and persecutory anxiety” (121).

Klein called the creation or the reconstruction of an object as something that possess the good

and the bad objects. Alford stated that Klein believes that child tries to reconstruct the thoughts

destroyed during schizoid paranoia. This process of resolution is known as the method of

reparation in which the child attempts to “re-create the other it has destroyed, first by phantasies

of omnipotent restoration, later by affectionate and healing gestures toward self” (123).

The difference between the two interpretations lies on the emphasis on morality or the

metaphysical component of Klein’s theory by Alford and the emphasis on relationship, processes

and analysis in the work of Ogden. Alford argued that the Kleinian analysis is not about the

delineation of depressive position and paranoid schizoid position, nor the incorporation of the

personal self and the experiences of engaging with others people; rather it is the “activation of

compensatory reparative activities” (Alford, 1998; 118). The idea of reparation is not the focus

of Ogden’s analysis. Ogden, on the other hand, believes that an infant or a person could only find

peace if they could overcome their hatred and anxiety. Infants can do this by the splitting the

good and the bad, which results to the creation of their inner world. Ogden’s interpretation

centers on the psychoanalysis of infants, which is the product of object-relation theory.

 Melanie Klein 5

References:

Alford, C.F. (1998). Chapter 5: Melanie Klein and the Nature of Good and Evil. In

Marcus and Rosenberg’s Psychoanalytic Versions of the Human

Condition.NYU Press.

Ogden, T. (1994). Subjects of Analysis. Carnac Books.