top of page

Integrating activity theory, object relations and The Proposal

Oct 6, 2024

8 min read

0

3

0

The Proposal is a rom-com from 2009 starring Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock.


Disclaimer: this reflection includes spoilers.


Initially I watched this film after a busy day, feeling a need to decompress with something which demanded very little concentration and minimal use of my executive functions. I found what I needed in this film and initially thought nothing of it...until talking about it with friends, hearing myself frequently referring to it as ‘ridiculous’ (because of the plot) and the silliness throughout. I thought this meant I would not reflect more deeply on the film. What I did not realise was how over the following week, the simplicity of the film surfaced in my mind and started playing with psychoanalytic theoretical concepts that I sometimes find cumbersome and far-removed from relationships in real life.


I read over a few familiar theoretical articles then felt inspired to have a go at bringing together activity theory and object relations as a way to describe this film.


Activity theory


Activity theory is a Vygotskian approach to social development which states that we learn when we are with someone who is able to teach us just outside of what we are capable of doing by ourselves. Language and non-verbal communication is at the heart of this approach and there is a term for the area of optimal learning – the zone of proximal development.


Object relations


Psychoanalytic theory of the development of the self (and relationships with others) which underpins Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) is based on object relations. I remember a friend saying how she did not like the use of the word ‘object’ because it sounds so sterile and inhuman. I liked how she called it out because it is so easy to accept these longstanding established theories without real-world critique. These classical theories that underpin psychoanalytic training and offer neat explanations of how we develop socially and emotionally have begun to feel like acceptable assumptions. I think it helps to play with these theories and apply them to different contexts to discover new dimensions and areas of curiosity. 


Different theories considered when thinking about object relations


There are a few people who have theorised the self and are considered be related to development of object relations theory – Ronald Fairbairn, Melanie Klein and Sigmund Freud, to name a few. Freud was first to try and come up with a theory of how the self develops. He rooted it in the emergence of the unconscious and the balance between our primal, animal desires and instincts for reproduction and survival with societal norms, moral codes and obligations.


The ways we interact are believed to be tempered by instinctive human (or primal) drives and our sense of what is socially acceptable


There are three aspects of the self which are considered to be formed in response to external conditions interacting with our internal desires. These are considered to interact together as internal objects in the self which include the id, ego and superego. Three aspects of the self which account for perceptiveness, logic, and organisation (the ego) which mediate between desires (id) and reality which is mediated by critical awareness (superego).


Fairbairn’s approach refers to subpersonalities which are organised in layers which form the personality. The self is one object in relation to an internal child and an internal parent. The self can be considered similar to Freud’s ego. The ego has many ways of navigating the world which is most seen in how we treat ourselves and others.


Klein's approach expands on these objects by associating feelings with them so some aspects are bad and some are good. The theory puts forward that bad objects feel dangerous to us so we put them in others. This is the assumption beneath the concept of projection.


My understanding of object relations


These theories elaborate on what makes us, us, and the ways we relate to different parts of ourselves becomes clearer (more conscious) when we experience this through interacting with others.


I think the object bit refers to our inner representation of the outer world. If what happens relationally is held somewhere in us, we might consider this in an objectified, simple way until it comes back out into awareness through actions outside of our thoughts and then appears more complex. Mechanisms of projection and projective identification add layers to an ever-evolving awareness of our sense of who we are and what we are capable of across different contexts.


 CAT and object relations theory


These objects can be considered to become roles we take up in relation to ourselves, others and the world and CAT theory has an underlying assumption that we are semi-autonomous, social beings.


As a CAT therapist I see our early experiences as relevant and in therapy we become curious about what happened to us because there is an assumption our early encounters shape the development of how we navigate the world around us which then influences our sense of self (otherwise known as a self-concept).


These assumptions form our main ways of relating in terms of us assuming a role and another person taking up the reciprocal pole – a person is doing something and another person is receiving the impact of what is happening. The old saying applies here – it takes two to tango (tangoing in relation to tangoed if you will!) Because these roles happen in relationship and are reciprocal, in CAT we refer to them as either reciprocal roles or relationship roles. These roles can further be understood in object ways as a part that we learn from experiencing from our parent or caregiver and a part we learn to inhabit from the position of being a child. There are then further ways that build on top of these formative ways of relating. We not only perform from the child pole but also take up the parentally-derived pole in relation to ourselves and others (primary roles). The ways others react to us being like we are then shapes us into forming more roles (considered secondary or tertiary roles).


Another way they can be considered is when roles cluster together, or bunch up with emotions that are really intense, then they form states of being. These seem like a part of our selves and are functional when these operate like synchronous performers in an orchestra, it is like a relational dance. Some roles seamlessly flow between each other, seemingly integrate and we feel a sense of a whole person. Some feel clunky, maybe because they are new, maybe because they don’t fit the context, we are applying them in, with the metaphor, it might sound a bit like a performer playing an out of tune instrument, or maybe even the wrong instrument in this symphony. 


The Proposal of this reflective piece


Bringing together the concepts of internalised models of relating to ourselves and others, the sense that we can learn and grow with someone who is alongside us – not too far out of our comfort zone but not too close either, The Proposal is a beautiful example of how two people learned with each other and changed their internal models of relating.


Sandra Bullock’s character, Margaret, operates mainly from a hard, dictatorial, bossy way of relating towards those portrayed as less powerful than her. Her parents passed away and she developed a successful career. Her personality elicits fear from people at work and she holds a position of authority over her colleagues. When the film begins the audience sees her colleagues refer to her as a witch, people hide from her and there is no warmth in response to her. Then the audience is introduced to Andrew, her personal assistant, played by Ryan Reynolds as he cowers in response to striving to meet her needs.


Throughout most of the film Margaret related predominantly from this ‘hard and bossy’ state of being but then, in response to her circumstances changing, she initially struggles to adapt and was forced to learn new ways of relating which starkly contrasted from how she came across in the beginning of the film


Andrew is her personal assistant and comes across as obsequious. For example, he spills her coffee then offers her a spare one which he said was his but Margaret appears sceptical as her order is so unique. Margaret has no softness in her approach to Andrew at the beginning of the film  and operates from the ‘hard and bossy’ state by instructing Andrew to marry her when she is told her Visa has expired and she needs to leave her work position. Seemingly this troubles Margaret so deeply and I wonder whether it is because it seems as if her whole identity (self) is connected with this role?

Andrew tries to understand what happened and Margaret explains this is purely a logical solution to her problem and she will file for divorce as soon as she has her status to remain again. Things become more tense as they are interviewed by an administrator of marriage licenses. Andrew realises what is at stake and operates from his superego – considering the moral and ethical implications of marrying for a visa. He then takes on more of an assertive, bargaining way of relating and says he will marry Margaret on the condition she offers him a promotion and helps publish his manuscript.


The rest of the film involves Margaret meeting Andrew’s family. She softens and learns new ways of relating, having to relinquish her bossy, hard state of being. There are comedy capers and the couple start to relax around each other. Margaret shares more of her personality which was obscured by the dominant way of being that Andrew was only able to experience prior to this proposal.


In the end Margaret’s superego takes over and she tells Andrew’s family she cannot go ahead with the marriage because she loves his family and the deception is too much to bear. She leaves a note and goes back to Chicago knowing that she will be leaving for Canada in 24 hours. Andrew follows Margaret and in a lovely line, he says he wants to marry her because he wants to continue to date her. This spoke to Andrew’s down-to-earth character and his flexibility of roles. He had grown fond of Margaret and seemed to understand her struggle to relate from a place of vulnerability so this offer seems to put the least pressure on Margaret (within her zone of proximal development). Margaret accepts Andrew’s offer even though she says ‘I’m scared’.


I feel this story illustrates the power of loving interactions which can reshape our internal objects. That's if you can put aside the silly premise of forcing someone to marry you so you can keep your job! Though this is why the film had this subtle after-effect with me. Margaret learned she could relate in other ways and was able to let go of the role she had held so tightly onto before. Even if it means losing a familiar part of her identity, she found new ways of relating now which made her less inclined to resist her circumstances.


Though if it is the case that when we are born we internalise objects and they become our ways of relating to ourselves, then later on these internal objects can also be altered when we become vulnerable to letting another into our object world. This reminds me of a lyric from a Biffy Clyro song: ‘I will never break your heart, I will only re-arrange, all the other working parts to stay in place’.  

 

Reference:

Ryle, A. (1999) Object relations theory and activity theory: A proposed link by way of the procedural sequence model in Research on activity theory, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 

 

 

Oct 6, 2024

8 min read

0

3

0

Comments

Share Your ThoughtsBe the first to write a comment.
bottom of page