3. The way SPs are
formed: a hypothesis based on Ferenczi’s theory
Introjection and “dissociative
introjection”
First, we look at
the mechanism of introjection. Many of the above-mentioned clinical examples
seem to involve this process. B (the SP in charge of expressing anger), who
starts scolding her pupil in a tone of voice reminding her of her own mother,
especially exemplifies this process. Generally, introjection is regarded as a process
in which the subject replicates in itself attributes and behaviors of other
subjects.
To look into the history of analytic theory, it was Sandor Ferenczi who introduced the term ‘introjection’, which he coined as the opposite of ‘projection’. In ‘Introjection and Transference’ (1909)( Ferenczi, S. (1909) First Contr.:40) he writes: ‘Whereas the paranoiac expels from his ego the impulses that have become unpleasant, the neurotic helps himself by taking into the ego as large as possible a part of the outside world, making it the object of unconscious phantasies. ”(Laplanche and Pontalis.) “In adopting the term, Freud distinguishes it clearly from projection. His most explicit text on this point is ‘Instincts and their Vicissitudes’ (1915SE19,p.111), which envisages the genesis of the opposition between subject (ego) and object (outside world) in so far as it can be correlated with that between pleasure and unpleasure: the ‘purified pleasure-ego’ is constituted by an introjection of everything that is a source of pleasure and by the projection outwards of whatever brings about unpleasure.”（L & P, p. 229）
Although the above-mentioned process of introjection appears to be compatible with the way SPs are formed, there is one decisive point which makes the latter distinct from the former; when SP is formed, introjection occurs literally and concretely instead of figuratively in a sense opposite of projection. If introjection occurs on the level of imagination, introjection in dissociative disorders occurs beyond that level. It occurs outside of one’s imagination. It seems as though there is some locus formed in the individual’s central nervous system where an independent ego function is allowed to exist, which exercises some influence on the host personality. It addresses to, talks to, observes, and takes by surprise the host personality, in a way that other person outside does. I would like to call it “dissociative introjection” in order avoid confusion of two distinct types of introjection.
To look into the history of analytic theory, it was Sandor Ferenczi who introduced the term ‘introjection’, which he coined as the opposite of ‘projection’. In ‘Introjection and Transference’ (1909)( Ferenczi, S. (1909) First Contr.:40) he writes: ‘Whereas the paranoiac expels from his ego the impulses that have become unpleasant, the neurotic helps himself by taking into the ego as large as possible a part of the outside world, making it the object of unconscious phantasies. ”(Laplanche and Pontalis.) “In adopting the term, Freud distinguishes it clearly from projection. His most explicit text on this point is ‘Instincts and their Vicissitudes’ (1915SE19,p.111), which envisages the genesis of the opposition between subject (ego) and object (outside world) in so far as it can be correlated with that between pleasure and unpleasure: the ‘purified pleasure-ego’ is constituted by an introjection of everything that is a source of pleasure and by the projection outwards of whatever brings about unpleasure.”（L & P, p. 229）
Although the above-mentioned process of introjection appears to be compatible with the way SPs are formed, there is one decisive point which makes the latter distinct from the former; when SP is formed, introjection occurs literally and concretely instead of figuratively in a sense opposite of projection. If introjection occurs on the level of imagination, introjection in dissociative disorders occurs beyond that level. It occurs outside of one’s imagination. It seems as though there is some locus formed in the individual’s central nervous system where an independent ego function is allowed to exist, which exercises some influence on the host personality. It addresses to, talks to, observes, and takes by surprise the host personality, in a way that other person outside does. I would like to call it “dissociative introjection” in order avoid confusion of two distinct types of introjection.
Incorporation
The notion
incorporation appears to be more relevant to the phenomenon that I just refered
to as “dissocciative introjection”. Freud introduces the term ‘incorporation’
while developing the notion of the oral stage (1915, SEVII, p.125);
its use puts the emphasis on the relationship to the object, where
formerly–notably in the first edition of the Three Essays on the Theory of
Sexuality (1905,)–Freud had described oral activity from the relatively
limited viewpoint of pleasure derived from sucking(L&P, p.210).
The process of incorporation connotes more direct, concrete and intrusive
process, as it is considered to be the “[p]rocess
whereby the subject, more or less on the level of phantasy, has an object
penetrate his body and keeps it ‘inside’ his body”(L&P, p.210). In fact, if the process of
introjection and internalization are mental and gradual, incorporation is a more
reflective, abrupt, automatic process that occurs often out of one’s
consciousness. It happens in such a way that the individual feels that the
incorporated part is foreign to him/her. For example, B (A SP with a voice of
her mother) was aware neither that her voice would switch into that of the
mother, nor that the mother-like agent is inside of herself.
