Resolving Rapprochement Challenges: The Process of Metabolizing Love-Fueling Development, Therapeutic Growth, Reparation, and Healing

ABSTRACT

Anni Bergman’s later work regarding rapprochement is briefly considered and then used as a foundation for this reconsideration of rapprochement’s place in development over the lifespan. Resolving rapprochement challenges is seen as the central developmental process whereby one either utilizes or refuses the love and care one receives. A sense of safety in early life leads to the capacity to metabolize love and to the development of a secure attachment followed by libidinal object constancy. This developmental achievement sets the stage for caring relationships and optimal development over the lifespan. A predominant sense of danger in early life, either reality-based or based primarily on internal experience, leads to the development of an insecure attachment. Hostile object constancy, a form of self-regulation based on the anticipation of future danger, leads to the defensive refusal of the actual love and care one receives. Subsequent interference with the capacity for caring relationships leads to pathological development over the course of life. Successful psychological treatment involves helping the patient become open to loving connections. In addition, Anni intended her work to pave the way for a reconciliation of Attachment Theory and Separation-Individuation Theory. This integration is better conceptualized as Attachment-Individuation Theory, which highlights the unique contributions of each to a unified developmental process. This article aims to further this integration.

KEYWORDS:

• Separation-Individuation
• rapprochement
• attachment
• process of development
• process of therapy
• psychological healing

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Bobby and his parents for their major contributions to this article through allowing me to discuss Bobby’s treatment and to share his wisdom. In addition, over many years, Anni Bergman was a major source of inspiration, wisdom, and support, guiding my work with children as well as adults. Louis W. Sander suggested my development of this model and contributed to my early formulations. Wendy Olesker provided most helpful editorial assistance and made astute comments on several versions of this article. In addition, discussions with Diana Diamond were immensely helpful in developing some major aspects of this model. Finally, the suggestions of an anonymous reviewer were most helpful.

My thanks to Rowman & Littlefield, 4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200, Lanham, MD, 20706, for permission to use material from my paper, “Changing Hateful Feelings Back to Loving Feelings: The Work of Child Analysis—Discussion of Herbert Schlesinger’s Chapter, ‘Technical Problems in Analyzing the Mourning Patient.” This paper was published in Three Faces of Mourning: Melancholia, Manic Defense, and Moving On, edited by Salman Akhtar and published by Jason Aronson. All rights reserved.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. For example, he states that: “It must, however, be remembered that just as hostility directed toward a loved figure can increase anxiety, so can being anxious, especially that an attachment figure may be inaccessible or unresponsive when wanted, increase hostility. It is of both great theoretical and great practical importance to determine how these vicious circles begin. Does increased anxiety precede increased hostility, is it the other way round, or do they spring from a common source?” (255).

2. For completeness and clarity, Mahler revised her original theory to exclude her initial idea of a beginning normal autistic phase (Bergman and Fahey 1999).

3. The child’s experience of loss and vulnerability, even with optimal parenting, is a crucial difference between Attachment Theory and Separation-Individuation Theory. This experience is an internal developmental crisis, not considered in Attachment Theory, with which the child must grapple.

4. For the sake of clarity, in Attachment Theory, the child’s inner working models “reflect lived interaction patterns” (Bretherton 1999, 343). In Separation-Individuation Theory, libidinal object constancy, as noted in the foregoing, depends on the child’s ability to constructively regulate emotions. While a secure working model may function similarly to libidinal object constancy, the two outcomes are considered to be achieved through very different pathways. A secure working model depends upon the caregiver’s history of availability, while libidinal or secure object constancy is a process that depends upon the child’s psychological functioning. As Anni wrote, “while Separation-Individuation Theory is focused on a process, Attachment Theory is focused on the result of a process and how that result comes to affect aspects of development and relationships throughout life” (Bergman et al. 2015, 17).

5. Further consideration of this process, including the important contributions of genetic and epigenetic factors (Fujiwara et al. 2019; Fujiwara, Ochi, and Osawa 2014), is beyond the scope of this article.

6. Moral disengagement refers to the process in which an individual or group of people distance themselves from the normal or usual ethical standards of behavior, and then become convinced that new unethical behaviors are justified, often due to perceived extenuating circumstances (Oxford Review 2023). A 19-year-old patient described this as a “Freudian excuse:” i.e., something bad happens that is then blamed for many other bad things happening and is used to justify revengeful pursuits and other harmful behavior.

7. While the term homeostasis refers to our need to maintain a stable internal physiological state, allostasis is used to emphasize that our systems of stress response help provide stability for the body through their ability to adjust in order to actively cope with changes in the environment (McEwen and Lasley 2002).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

William M. Singletary

William Singletary, MD is a Child, Adolescent, and Adult Psychoanalyst. He is a Faculty Member and Child Analysis Supervisor of the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia.