ABSTRACT
Although Lacanian psychoanalysis has been compared with object-relations theory in that both schools of thought place more emphasis on INTERSUBJECTIVITY, Lacan himself criticises object-relations theory repeatedly. His criticisms focus most on the way in which object-relations theory envisions the possibility of a complete and perfectly satisfying relation between the subject and the object. Lacan is opposed to such a view, arguing that for human beings there is no such thing as a ‘pre-established harmony’ between ‘a need and an object that satisfies it’ (S1, 209). The root of the error is, argues Lacan, that in object-relations theory, ‘the object is first and foremost an object of satisfaction’ (S1, 209). In other words, by locating the object in the register of satisfaction and NEED, object-relations theory confuses the object of psychoanalysis with the object of biology and neglects the symbolic dimension of desire. One dire consequence that follows from this is that the specific difficulties which arise from the symbolic constitution of desire are neglected, with the result that ‘mature object relations’ and ideals of ‘genital love’ are proposed as the goal of treatment. Thus object-relations theory becomes the site of a ‘delirious moralism’ (Ec, 716; see also GENITAL).
