Content area
Full Text
Research into the use of transitional objects (Winnicott, 1971) by adult clients in psychotherapy has given little attention to the question of how a transitional object (TO) works. This question is addressed through the use of a semi-structured interview. Data was collected on the clinical practice and theoretical understanding of TO emergence and use of three psychodynamic-interpersonal (PI) and three Gestalt psychotherapists. A grounded theory analysis suggests that a TO works by a process of embodiment which can be structured with reference to a four-level model consisting of physical, process, contextual and conceptual levels. Therapists of both orientations emphasized the TO as a focus of intersubjectivity within the therapeutic relationship. Differences between the PI and Gestalt therapists are also examined. The clinical implications of this four-level model of embodiment for the use of TOs in psychotherapy are explored, together with suggestions for further research.
The term `transitional object' (TO) was coined by D. W. Winnicott to refer to the `first not-me' possession (1971, p.1) such as a bundle of wool, a teddy bear, or the corner of a blanket. Winnicott used the term to refer to an object which emerges within healthy development when a child is about 6 months old. The TO stands for the breast, or mother, and suggests the infant's journey from a symbiotic relationship with the mother towards individuation: from pure subjectivity to objectivity. Winnicott (1971) suggested that TOs are a defence against anxiety and are particularly important at the time of going to sleep. Current media representations of TOs suggest that they are an accepted part of a child's development in Western society, for example, Linus's security blanket in the Peanuts comic strip. What is less readily acknowledged is the continued use of TOs by adults or their specific introduction by adult clients or therapists within psychotherapy.
Winnicott stated that the use of TOs was ubiquitous (1971). However, a review by Ahluvalia & Schaefer (1994) implies that there is significant cultural and socio-economic variability in the use of TOs by children. For example, Litt (1986) concluded that use of a TO may be a function of sleeping arrangements. In her study, there was a positive correlation between children who slept in their own room from birth to 12...