What we realize that we are practically dealing with two types of IWA; one in A.Freud’s sense and another in Ferenczi’s original sense. In the former sense, through IWA a child becomes like an aggressor, and in the latter sense a child subordinates himself to the aggressor. Why are we talking about two opposite circumstances via the same mechanism of the IWA? Frankel draws on Heinrich Racker’(1968) s notion of two types of (countertransference) identification, concordant and complementary.
In concordant countertransference identification, the analyst identifies with the analysand's id or superego on the basis of his or her same agency. On the contrary, in complementary countertransference, the analyst identifies with the agency the analysand is disidentifying with or objectifying. In aggressor-aggressed child situation, in concordant identification, a child identifies with the aggressive side of the aggressor. In complementary identification, the child identifies with the aggressor’s internal object of the child that is submissive and victimized. Racker, H. (1968), Transference and Countertransference. New York: International Universities Press.
Frankel stresses, however, that these two types of IWA were hinted at in Ferenczi’s own paper. Ferenczi distinguished two mechanisms-identification and introjection. These are like two sides of the same coin, and the identification in Ferenczi’s use of terms, means trying to feel something that someone else feels, essentially by getting into that someone’s head. In introjection, however, one gets an image of someone into one’s own head.