It vexed me for a long time and I couldn't believe how simple it was when I finally figured it out. For example, my father projected the intolerable aspects of himself, his unconscious shadow, onto me, using me as a scapegoat container. I then identified as what he had projected onto me, I began to behave and think in ways that he could not. I became all the aspects of himself that he could not accept, and his conscious persona became my shadow.
@@VigiliusHaufniensis Magical thinking is superstitious beliefs. Projective Identification is induction. If I unconsciously feel worthless and project my worthlessness onto you and treat you as if you are a worthless person for years on end, you will most likely start to feel worthless. I have induced my feelings in you. You might begin to identify as a worthless person. You have identified as what was being projected. You will begin to act like a worthless person.
I think projective identification is a very interesting concept and think it would help if Klein's original definition of it were clearer. I sometimes see it used as a name for various interpersonal exchanges of emotions. Many of them could reasonably be considered subtypes of projective identification. For example, for the initial projection of an affect into the analyst, you could differentiate between: 1) affect transmitted by intensely affectively charged facial expressions and body language; 2) aggressive projection wherein the crescendoing displays of affect cause the analyst to introject the affect by way of emotional contagion; 3) manipulative projection where the analysand behaves in such a way that can be expected to produce the disavowed affect in the analyst, whose consequent behaviour allows the analysand to identify with the previously disavowed affect under the egosyntonic rationalisation that it was the analyst who projected the affect into the analysand. I have also read about analyses where what the analyst terms projective identification is actually the analyst entering the paranoid-schizoid position. The "aggressive projection by the analysand" and "introjection by the analyst" are the how the paranoid-schizoid analyst experiences the countertransference: as having been intentionally elicited by the analysand. The analysand's subsequent identification with "their previously disavowed affect" is experienced by the analysand as reactive, as having been elicited by the analyst's behaviour. On this occasion, it is the analysand whose reality testing is superior, because that is generally a fair assessment. It is worth noting that this kind of reversal of projective identification is the consequence of an essential feature of this defence mechanism: in the original formulation, the subjective experience the aggressive projector has of their failure to disavow their unwanted affect is that it is the other (the analyst) who has forcefully projected the affect into them. But in either case, the analyst and/or the analysand must be in the paranoid-schizoid position for this defence mechanism to function. Disgracefully, the most common usage of this defence that I have seen in the literature is as a way for the analyst to attempt to retroactively justify their highly inappropriate and unprofessional outbursts of anger, hate, or rage towards the analysand by passing the blame onto them. Often these descriptions have a non-sensical and/or supernatural component in the description, such as the projection of an actual physical object into the other party, or of literal mind control. I don't care how much an analyst feels a subjective total loss of agency, it simply cannot be the case that the analysand actually managed to control them in this way. If they had that ability, they would probably be using it for other things and not needing analysis.
I wonder what place does the following conventional, non-alaytical, experience between people play for you if you don't believe in the possible existence of projective identification: first, when something or someone "make you feel" this or that (shit, ashamed, proud, scared, repulsed, attracted) without any direct communication (medium) save their presence, proximity, body, moves. If the mere presence of someone makes you feel something, then it's not so far-fetched as you believe, that this presence of the other is also filled with a state of mind, which will be transported, transmitted, offloaded into you, without your consent, or even often awareness. Have you ever felt shit after being with someone even you went happily to the meeting? Countertransference is no more and no less magical than finding oneself deeply enmeshed with someone's presence, with someone's energy, with someone's state of mind, before or, also, because something is verbally said. "You make me feel", and in turn, because you make me feel this or that way, I can start to construct how you must have felt, or must be feeling...this seems to be the crux of what you call magical/telepathic (impossible), but is a very common human experience. Hello, anyone? Hence countertransference makes perfect sense to me. And, yes, if you are putting infantile fantasies/wishful thinking on the same level with science fiction/telepathic communication, it only proves that we indeed are capable of projecting, and projective identification. Reality is stranger than fiction, too, and where is the infantile human being magically making things happen supposed to go later in life, if not projected into others and the world? If not in countertransference and projective identification dynamics as adults, in analysis and outside of it. Finally, I understand for Lacan one should focus on the speech, and lay understanding and own feelings to rest. But if you lay them to rest, it means you have them nonetheless, you can contain some contents of the other's intrapsychic 'stuff'. Therefore it's not impossible that the other can implant their feelings into you, and make you angry in turn, even if you had no prior reason (to the best of your knowledge) to be angry on your own account.
Dear Havok, thank you for your detailed and engaging comment. Let me just stress that in the video I do not progress a view that argues that there's no such thing as projective identification. Melanie Klein coined this term and provided rigorous theoretical and clinical support to it. What I object is the idea that projective identification is an inter-psychic rather than intra-psychic phenomena. Meaning, I argue that the former is quite mysterious and call for anyone who supports it to provide some theoretical rigor to it. I argue that it cannot be solely based on non-verbal cues, as the communicative capacity of these is very limited. Basically, I argue that analysts should be a bit more humble and accept the fact that every subject is radically different. In this sense, I suggest to be sensitive to the otherness of the other, not being an expert on how someone else feels or what they thing but being attentive to what they say and how they say it.
@@leonbrenner895 I do think there are interpersonalists who take the position you are endorsing-- to take one's countertransference experience as but one channel of information in the relationship that must be cross-referenced with other lines of evidence from mainly verbal and nonverbal channels. Not to take it for granted as the truth about the patient's unconscious. We cannot assume that any hypothesis gleaned from any single channel of information alone is a valid one; to do so is a kind of reductive, stereotyped thinking. I recommend to you the work of Tansey and Burke, namely their book Understanding Countertransference. They offer an extremely balanced perspective. They note that countertransference experiences can be important indicators about the patient's transference, but that countertransference signals must be checked against all other communications and information and not relied on in isolation or in a "wild" way. They advocate the use of converging lines of evidence (verbal, nonverbal, countertransference) in the formulation and testing of our hypotheses about what is happening in the patient's mind, and are also quite careful to discuss how the analyst's subjectivity is ineradicable-- that our perception of the patient's internal states as reflected in our own internal states will always be biased; but that does not make it a useless or pseudomagical data point.
I totally agree, even though I'm not qualified and it's complicated, because it (involuntary identification) has happened to me in a very disturbing, life ruining manner. Yesterday I read "The Effort to Drive Another Person Crazy" by Harold Searles. I wrote in my journal "It's *not true* that no one can 'make you feel' a certain way." When after very careful examination I did not have these hostile feelings and bordering on psychotic thought patterns before being with a person, something like involuntary projective identification has, in fact occurred. It wasn't telepathic (which could be argued is a real thing), though I did feel a 'bad vibe'. There were many subtle and not so subtle manipulations employed. So masterfully so that I have difficulty believing in my case, in this instance, that it was done unconsciously. Here, I think it may have begun with unconscious actions and verbalizations, but as the projector became aware of the impact, they purposefully stepped it up. They enjoyed the ability to hurt, confuse, scare, and control me, but I did not yet know *what* was happening. I acknowledge that I had prior ( "hooks") negative feelings of anger, shame, fear, and the like within me, but they weren't active at the time, and I 've never been or felt so suddenly on the verge of paranoia or psychosis in my life. I guess this might be valuable, we're I the person's therapist. But would have to be teased apart from my own feelings very carefully, and corroborated.
Thanks for the interesting point of view. I guess that different usages of "projective identification" is connected to the different position of analysts toward counter-transferance. If you do not consider counter-transferance as a useful tool in an analysis it's a logical consequence that there's no such thing as projective identification. This position is fascinating and definately rigorous, but it makes me think that an analysis is merely look into the analysand and fail to see the process as a relationship (is not MERELY a relationship, but it's ALSO a relationship).
Dear Massimiliano, thank you for the serious and engaging comment. Let me just stress that in the video I do not progress a view that argues that there's no such thing as projective identification. Melanie Klein coined this term and provided rigorous theoretical and clinical support to it. What I object is the idea that projective identification is an inter-psychic rather than intra-psychic phenomena. Meaning, I argue that the former is quite mysterious. Also, I very much agree with your articulation that analysis is not merely a relationship but also a relationship but the question remains: a relationship of what nature? This is a subject open for further discussion. Hopefully we can have it very soon.
Not agree with he argues. Depresive & Paraoind phases are forever, not only in the first year. Absolutamente en desacuerdo, creo que existe un "misreading" de los postulados de los autores mencionados y de su concepción de lo que es el psicoanálisis. La identificación proyectiva es un proceso fundamental en el ser humano y en su constitución como sujeto.
It vexed me for a long time and I couldn't believe how simple it was when I finally figured it out. For example, my father projected the intolerable aspects of himself, his unconscious shadow, onto me, using me as a scapegoat container. I then identified as what he had projected onto me, I began to behave and think in ways that he could not. I became all the aspects of himself that he could not accept, and his conscious persona became my shadow.
Projective Identification or magical thinking?
@@VigiliusHaufniensis Magical thinking is superstitious beliefs. Projective Identification is induction. If I unconsciously feel worthless and project my worthlessness onto you and treat you as if you are a worthless person for years on end, you will most likely start to feel worthless. I have induced my feelings in you. You might begin to identify as a worthless person. You have identified as what was being projected. You will begin to act like a worthless person.
I think projective identification is a very interesting concept and think it would help if Klein's original definition of it were clearer. I sometimes see it used as a name for various interpersonal exchanges of emotions. Many of them could reasonably be considered subtypes of projective identification. For example, for the initial projection of an affect into the analyst, you could differentiate between: 1) affect transmitted by intensely affectively charged facial expressions and body language; 2) aggressive projection wherein the crescendoing displays of affect cause the analyst to introject the affect by way of emotional contagion; 3) manipulative projection where the analysand behaves in such a way that can be expected to produce the disavowed affect in the analyst, whose consequent behaviour allows the analysand to identify with the previously disavowed affect under the egosyntonic rationalisation that it was the analyst who projected the affect into the analysand.
I have also read about analyses where what the analyst terms projective identification is actually the analyst entering the paranoid-schizoid position. The "aggressive projection by the analysand" and "introjection by the analyst" are the how the paranoid-schizoid analyst experiences the countertransference: as having been intentionally elicited by the analysand. The analysand's subsequent identification with "their previously disavowed affect" is experienced by the analysand as reactive, as having been elicited by the analyst's behaviour. On this occasion, it is the analysand whose reality testing is superior, because that is generally a fair assessment. It is worth noting that this kind of reversal of projective identification is the consequence of an essential feature of this defence mechanism: in the original formulation, the subjective experience the aggressive projector has of their failure to disavow their unwanted affect is that it is the other (the analyst) who has forcefully projected the affect into them. But in either case, the analyst and/or the analysand must be in the paranoid-schizoid position for this defence mechanism to function.
Disgracefully, the most common usage of this defence that I have seen in the literature is as a way for the analyst to attempt to retroactively justify their highly inappropriate and unprofessional outbursts of anger, hate, or rage towards the analysand by passing the blame onto them. Often these descriptions have a non-sensical and/or supernatural component in the description, such as the projection of an actual physical object into the other party, or of literal mind control. I don't care how much an analyst feels a subjective total loss of agency, it simply cannot be the case that the analysand actually managed to control them in this way. If they had that ability, they would probably be using it for other things and not needing analysis.
Excellent, I totally agree with this.
I wonder what place does the following conventional, non-alaytical, experience between people play for you if you don't believe in the possible existence of projective identification: first, when something or someone "make you feel" this or that (shit, ashamed, proud, scared, repulsed, attracted) without any direct communication (medium) save their presence, proximity, body, moves. If the mere presence of someone makes you feel something, then it's not so far-fetched as you believe, that this presence of the other is also filled with a state of mind, which will be transported, transmitted, offloaded into you, without your consent, or even often awareness. Have you ever felt shit after being with someone even you went happily to the meeting? Countertransference is no more and no less magical than finding oneself deeply enmeshed with someone's presence, with someone's energy, with someone's state of mind, before or, also, because something is verbally said. "You make me feel", and in turn, because you make me feel this or that way, I can start to construct how you must have felt, or must be feeling...this seems to be the crux of what you call magical/telepathic (impossible), but is a very common human experience. Hello, anyone? Hence countertransference makes perfect sense to me. And, yes, if you are putting infantile fantasies/wishful thinking on the same level with science fiction/telepathic communication, it only proves that we indeed are capable of projecting, and projective identification. Reality is stranger than fiction, too, and where is the infantile human being magically making things happen supposed to go later in life, if not projected into others and the world? If not in countertransference and projective identification dynamics as adults, in analysis and outside of it. Finally, I understand for Lacan one should focus on the speech, and lay understanding and own feelings to rest. But if you lay them to rest, it means you have them nonetheless, you can contain some contents of the other's intrapsychic 'stuff'. Therefore it's not impossible that the other can implant their feelings into you, and make you angry in turn, even if you had no prior reason (to the best of your knowledge) to be angry on your own account.
Dear Havok, thank you for your detailed and engaging comment. Let me just stress that in the video I do not progress a view that argues that there's no such thing as projective identification. Melanie Klein coined this term and provided rigorous theoretical and clinical support to it. What I object is the idea that projective identification is an inter-psychic rather than intra-psychic phenomena. Meaning, I argue that the former is quite mysterious and call for anyone who supports it to provide some theoretical rigor to it. I argue that it cannot be solely based on non-verbal cues, as the communicative capacity of these is very limited.
Basically, I argue that analysts should be a bit more humble and accept the fact that every subject is radically different. In this sense, I suggest to be sensitive to the otherness of the other, not being an expert on how someone else feels or what they thing but being attentive to what they say and how they say it.
@@leonbrenner895 I do think there are interpersonalists who take the position you are endorsing-- to take one's countertransference experience as but one channel of information in the relationship that must be cross-referenced with other lines of evidence from mainly verbal and nonverbal channels. Not to take it for granted as the truth about the patient's unconscious. We cannot assume that any hypothesis gleaned from any single channel of information alone is a valid one; to do so is a kind of reductive, stereotyped thinking. I recommend to you the work of Tansey and Burke, namely their book Understanding Countertransference. They offer an extremely balanced perspective. They note that countertransference experiences can be important indicators about the patient's transference, but that countertransference signals must be checked against all other communications and information and not relied on in isolation or in a "wild" way. They advocate the use of converging lines of evidence (verbal, nonverbal, countertransference) in the formulation and testing of our hypotheses about what is happening in the patient's mind, and are also quite careful to discuss how the analyst's subjectivity is ineradicable-- that our perception of the patient's internal states as reflected in our own internal states will always be biased; but that does not make it a useless or pseudomagical data point.
@@mauricejoseph6894 Thank you for your informative comment and book recommendation. I will surely give it a read!
I totally agree, even though I'm not qualified and it's complicated, because it (involuntary identification) has happened to me in a very disturbing, life ruining manner. Yesterday I read "The Effort to Drive Another Person Crazy" by Harold Searles. I wrote in my journal "It's *not true* that no one can 'make you feel' a certain way." When after very careful examination I did not have these hostile feelings and bordering on psychotic thought patterns before being with a person, something like involuntary projective identification has, in fact occurred. It wasn't telepathic (which could be argued is a real thing), though I did feel a 'bad vibe'. There were many subtle and not so subtle manipulations employed. So masterfully so that I have difficulty believing in my case, in this instance, that it was done unconsciously. Here, I think it may have begun with unconscious actions and verbalizations, but as the projector became aware of the impact, they purposefully stepped it up. They enjoyed the ability to hurt, confuse, scare, and control me, but I did not yet know *what* was happening. I acknowledge that I had prior ( "hooks") negative feelings of anger, shame, fear, and the like within me, but they weren't active at the time, and I 've never been or felt so suddenly on the verge of paranoia or psychosis in my life. I guess this might be valuable, we're I the person's therapist. But would have to be teased apart from my own feelings very carefully, and corroborated.
Thanks for the interesting point of view. I guess that different usages of "projective identification" is connected to the different position of analysts toward counter-transferance. If you do not consider counter-transferance as a useful tool in an analysis it's a logical consequence that there's no such thing as projective identification.
This position is fascinating and definately rigorous, but it makes me think that an analysis is merely look into the analysand and fail to see the process as a relationship (is not MERELY a relationship, but it's ALSO a relationship).
Dear Massimiliano, thank you for the serious and engaging comment. Let me just stress that in the video I do not progress a view that argues that there's no such thing as projective identification. Melanie Klein coined this term and provided rigorous theoretical and clinical support to it. What I object is the idea that projective identification is an inter-psychic rather than intra-psychic phenomena. Meaning, I argue that the former is quite mysterious. Also, I very much agree with your articulation that analysis is not merely a relationship but also a relationship but the question remains: a relationship of what nature? This is a subject open for further discussion. Hopefully we can have it very soon.
Not agree with he argues. Depresive & Paraoind phases are forever, not only in the first year.
Absolutamente en desacuerdo, creo que existe un "misreading" de los postulados de los autores mencionados y de su concepción de lo que es el psicoanálisis. La identificación proyectiva es un proceso fundamental en el ser humano y en su constitución como sujeto.
Its not misused its overused