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.
