We might realize
that we are practically dealing with two distinct types of IWA; the one in A. Freud’s
sense and the other 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 him/herself to the aggressor. Why are we discussing two opposite
circumstances based on the same mechanism of the IWA? Frankel draws on Heinrich
Racker’(1968) s notion of two types of (countertransference) identification, “concordant”
and “complementary”.
Racker, H. (1968), Transference and
Countertransference. New York
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-victim 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.
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-victim 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.
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.
The 3rd. type of IWA
Let us go
back to several clinical types of SPs that we attemted to delineate earlier.
These types were; SP asserting herself on behalf of the host, SP with a voice
of her mother, SP in charge of expressing anger, a Competitive SP and a
depressive/self-destructive SP. Among these types of SPs, IWA in Anna Freud’s
sense is represented most typically by the SP with a voice of her mother and SP
in charge of expressing anger. IWA in Ferenczi’s sense is typically represented
by the depressive/self-destructive SP, the victimized and desperate one.
However, we wonder where the 1st type of SP, i.e., the one being aggressive “on behalf of the host”) comes from. The curious thing about this type of SP is that it does not seem to be associated with neither Anna Freud’s nor Ferenczi’s type of IWA. I would temporarily call it the 3rd type of IWA. We realize that this type of IWA is located in a position of bystander. Let us remind ourself of the way two IWAs are formed; aggressor’s subjectivity and his internal object, which form the aggressor-victim configuration. The 3rd type does not belong to neither of them, but is observant, as a bystander.
However, we wonder where the 1st type of SP, i.e., the one being aggressive “on behalf of the host”) comes from. The curious thing about this type of SP is that it does not seem to be associated with neither Anna Freud’s nor Ferenczi’s type of IWA. I would temporarily call it the 3rd type of IWA. We realize that this type of IWA is located in a position of bystander. Let us remind ourself of the way two IWAs are formed; aggressor’s subjectivity and his internal object, which form the aggressor-victim configuration. The 3rd type does not belong to neither of them, but is observant, as a bystander.
