THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SATANIC CULT INVOLVEMENT: AN ...

216
The first part of this chapter will explore the Jungian dialogue with object relations
theory, I while the second will attempt to formulate an 'archetypal object relations'
approach to understanding demonic possession and satanic cult involvement.
12.1 Analytical psychology's dialogue with object relations theory
In recent years, a number of Jungian theorists have begun to explore ways of integrating
object relations theory into analytical psychology (Astor, 1990; Lambert, 1981; Samuels,
1985; Solomon, 1991; Zinkin, 1991). Undoubtedly, the impetus for the Jungian dialogue
with object relations theory came from Michael Fordham's clinical work as a child
analyst, and his attempts to understand both normal and abnormal child development
from a Jungian perspective. This task was hampered by the classical analytical emphasis
on the second half of life, together with the professional animosity between analytical and
psychoanalytical thought. Fordham's work in London with children, however, brought
him into contact with the theory and technique of Klein. His analysis of children
confronted him with classical analytical theory's failure to conceptualise child
development and, to this end, he adopted the Kleinian notion of internalised object
relations. Fordham also participated in a regular London forum with British object
relations psychoanalysts (Astor, 1990). The result was a productive interaction with
psychoanalysis, in particular the Kleinian school, with its emphasis on unconscIOUS
fantasy and countertransference (Samuels, 1985). Speaking of the Kleinians, Fordham
noted that although the idiom was different the two discourses were closely analogous
(Fordham, 1993). Fordham's attention to these aspects ofKleinian thought led to conflict
with the classical Zurich school of analytic thought, and the emergence ofwhat he termed
the London school. In Samuels' (1985) typology of post-Jungian analytic thought, this
second grouping of analysts, with its specific theoretical and technical emphases, is
referred to as the developmental school. This term is more descriptive and is the one that
will be employed here.
I It should also be kept in mind that the dialogue in this dissertation is between three, and not two parties,
because Klein and Fairbairn had significantly divergent perspectives on the nature, origin, and function of
internal object relations. Owing to Fordham's influence, however, the focus of the developmental school
has been on Klein rather than Fairbairn.