|
||||||||||||
|
Mary Morgan The Projective Gridlock: A form of projective identification in couple relationships ----------------------------------- This paper is a modified version of a published paper. The full paper is published in, S. Ruszczynski & J. Fisher (Eds) Intrusiveness and Intimacy in the Couple. (pp 33-48) London: Karnac, 1995. We are grateful to Karnac Ltd for giving permission for us to publish this version of the paper here. The couples I am concerned with in this paper seem to have particular difficulties in this area. They have great anxieties about either allowing the other a separate psychic existence and/or in being themselves able to feel psychically separate in the relationship. They often describe a feeling of there being only one person in the relationship or a feeling of confusion between them about who thinks and feels what. Some of these couples (perhaps the more healthy) come for help because, at least in one of the partners, there is an awareness that they are locked together in a way that restricts their capacity to be separate people and to be themselves and to develop. The wife of one couple put it the following way: "I have now come to a point - where I feel I want to be more independent - have my own ideas and thoughts. Up to now I have sort of let my life go to one side and taken on my husband's. I feel sometimes that I haven't been living my own life but his.....I would like to feel my own identity ....." Such a sense of confusion about ego boundaries, does not mean that the individuals are psychotic in the sense that they cannot distinguish between internal and external reality. They do have the capacity at a cognitive level to see themselves and others as separate but, at an emotional level, evidence that the other is different (and therefore separate) is experienced as persecutory. I believe this persecutory experience encourages a paranoid/schizoid state of mind (Klein 1946, 1955) and leads to a solution from the repertoire of defences available in that position, essentially resorting to projective identification as a means of denying the difference. (I do not intend to explore in this paper why evidence of the other is felt as so persecutory, though in my own clinical experience I have found that this tendency towards anxiety in the face of separateness or difference links to two types of experience. One is where the environment is experienced as unsafe or unreliable (perhaps there has been sexual or physical abuse); projective identification is often used to control objects in order to dissipate anxiety. The other is where there seems a wish to avoid frustration or an inability to tolerate envy, as described by Rosenfeld, [1983] and Steiner, [1993]). It could be said that the individuals who form this kind of couple, come together not to form a relationship but to avoid a relationship because relationships require that there are two separate people. When the therapy begins to work they become psychically more separate and the possibility of relationship emerges. The use of projective identification in the projective gridlock (Klein and Rosenfeld) In thinking about the problem these couples face, I have found it useful to explore the particular way in which projective identification operates in such relationships. Projective identification seems often to be used excessively and intrusively with the aim, or result, that the other's separate psychic existence is denied. Instead, a comfortable sort of fusion or feeling of being trapped or imprisoned is created, which stultifies the relationship. Such couples could be said to be in a kind of 'projective gridlock'. This kind of excessive, intrusive and essentially defensive form of projective identification is sometimes termed 'pathological' in contrast to the more apparently 'normal' form of projective identification which has more fluidity, including the capacity to be receptive to the return of projected aspects of the self, as described by Bion in his model of container/contained (Bion, 1962a, 1962b). In this model Bion describes the experience the infant has when his mother is able to receive the projected feelings and, rather than react to them, can process them within her own mind so that she is able to make available to him a modified form of those feelings. The persecutory anxiety which forced the infant to project the feelings into his mother in the first place is then shown to be less destructive than had been phantasised and the possibilities arise that these feelings can, after all, be managed. There are two areas of Klein and Rosenfeld's thinking on projective identification that I wish to highlight. First, Klein's theory of projective identification is born out of the paranoid schizoid position in which persecutory anxieties predominate. Good and bad parts of the self are expelled and projected into external objects who become identified with the projected attributes. We know that projective identification has a range of motivations, including the hope for containment that Bion has described (and that is implicit in a developmental unconscious choice - see below). Klein emphasised, however, that in the paranoid schizoid position, one of the main aims of projective identification is to get rid of unwanted experiences and aspects of the self, whether good or bad, and to control the object now identified with these split off parts of the self. In the course of normal development the infant grows and develops a stronger ego which then makes possible the recognition and taking back of projections. As a result of this process both the individual and other objects are experienced as more whole and separate. It is in this area of development, that the couples I am discussing have a problem. The second point about Klein's theory I want to draw attention to is that she saw the mechanism of projective identification as the means by which the infant, in it's most primitive state, first establishes object relations, even though at the beginning this is 'part object relations' and the distinction between self and other is not clear. On several occasions she comments on the excessive use of projective identification which exacerbates the confusion between self and object. For example she describes how in excessive projective identification parts of the personality are felt to be lost to the ego and can result in an over dependence on these external representatives of oneself. The object may then be felt to be loved as a representative of the self (Klein, 1946). Elsewhere, she writes that some people in empathically projecting their feelings into another, "go so far in this direction that they lose themselves entirely in others and become incapable of objective judgement". In the same way "excessive introjection endangers the strength of the ego because it becomes completely dominated by the introjected object" (Klein, 1959). Rosenfeld, in his conceptualisation of 'narcissistic omnipotent object relations', describes the way in which, "the patient identifies (by projection or introjection) with the object, to the extent that he feels he is the object or the object is himself" (Rosenfeld, 1987). He saw this partly as a defence against recognition of the separateness of self and object and also as a protection against frustration and envy. Unconscious choice of partner Projective identification, usually in a less extreme form, continues to link objects in adult life too. It plays a part in the process whereby couples unconsciously connect up to form a relationship. Rosenfeld observes how projective identification is the process involved in recognising objects and identifying them, sometimes with the aim of making essential links with them (Rosenfeld, 1983). A similar theory underlies the concept of 'unconscious choice' of partner (Pincus, 1960), developed over the years within the Tavistock Marital Studies Institute. This has been understood as the process whereby couples make a choice of partner based on the unconscious recognition in the other of disowned aspects of the self, with which there is at some level, a wish to make closer contact, for developmental or defensive purposes, or both. For example, an active, competent, assertive man may choose a partner who is depressed because he cannot bear to acknowledge these depressed feelings in himself, preferring to locate them in his wife. At the same time the woman may feel anxious about being directly in touch with her more assertive and competent aspects and prefer to locate these aspects in her husband. The unconscious hope behind such a choice is the opportunity for each partner to gradually take back and reintegrate these split off parts of the self. In the kind of relationships I am describing here, there is a different process at work to that conceived of in the usual notion of unconscious choice. In the more usual examples of unconscious choice, the individuals concerned have developed, at an emotional level, an acceptance of difference, even if they are still unable to integrate all aspects of themselves and, therefore, continue to project these unacceptable parts into others. In the relationships under discussion here one or both partners have made a narcissistic object choice and are unable to tolerate separateness. Projective identification is used less as a way of projecting aspects of the self into the other, and more as a way of maintaining a particular state of mind dominated by the phantasy of being one with the object. They either intrusively and concretely project themselves into the other, or have the phantasy that the other resides inside them. Either way the psychic existence of the other is denied. However the phantasy of knowing the other from the inside is very strong. It may be that a prerequisite for being able to make the more usual kind of object choice is the development of some separate sense of self, even though there will be attempts to split off and project aspects of the self into the partner, a process that contributes to the defensive and containing structure of the couple relationship. In the kind of object choice described here the experience of a containing internal object is probably lacking and therefore the partner is not turned to in this way. Instead projective identification is used defensively in an attempt either to control the object or to merge with it to create a state of pre-separate bliss. Clinical illustrations The clinical material in this paper has been modified from the original published version in the interests of confidentiality. All the material is taken from psychoanalytic work with couples, sometimes seen together, sometimes in parallel separate sessions. At this point I should like to describe the kinds of ways this dynamic manifests in couples coming for help. I'll try to illustrate the way in which a projective gridlock is experienced in three areas of object relating: firstly, intrapsychically; secondly, in the transference and countertransference relationship between the couple and the therapist; and thirdly, interpersonally between the couple. A Projective Gridlock: Intrapsychic Manifestations Patients who are in a projective gridlock in their couple relationship, often convey a similar dynamic taking place in their internal world. This is often manifested in states of merger and confusion with internal objects. The wife in one couple, who were being seen in parallel single sessions, described how hard it was for her to have a view about anything because she could not be sure whether this was her view or her mother's and therefore whether to own it or disown it. In one session she spoke of how she had turned to feminist literature to see if she could find out more about herself but then felt completely in the grip of what she read, and once more that she lost herself. It did not seem possible for her to 'consult' her internal objects by flexibly identifying and then disidentifying with them. Her internal situation was one in which there was felt to be very intrusive projective identifications between herself and her internal objects, particularly her maternal introject. Her complaint about her husband was that he did everything for her and denied her the independence she wanted, which was true, but there was a very active part of her that stimulated his controlling behaviour. The husband in another couple described the distressing experience of feeling that his body was so much like his father's that he often felt it was his father's. As a child he lived in terror of his father and remained very persecuted by an internalised paternal object. I think it is often the case with such patients that there is acute anxiety about their internal objects, which are felt to be unpredictable and dangerous. There is then an attempt to get inside the object and control it, to prevent it getting inside and controlling them. This often results in the experience of feeling trapped inside the mind or body of the object and losing any sense of the difference from the object. The process I am describing is one in which the patient forcefully projects into the mind, personality, body or some part of the object and then totally identifies with that object. This kind of projective identification has been described by Joseph (1989) as the patient taking over and becoming identified with the some aspect of the analyst. Someone who functions like this in their internal world is likely to function in a similar way with their external objects, particularly with their intimate, sexual partner. A Projective Gridlock: Manifestations in the Transference and Countertransference Couples who relate through this kind of mutual intrusive projective identification tend to try and create particular kinds of relationships with their therapists. Sometimes there are attempts to control the therapist in subtle ways. This may take the form of trying to gauge the 'mood' of the therapist, particularly at the beginning of a session; once there is a sense of knowing the therapist from the inside, anxieties diminish. When the therapist makes an interpretation which makes it obvious that she has a separate mind, tension can arise and the couple try and create an atmosphere of agreement. One patient constantly used the expression 'you know what I mean' and the therapist had the experience that she did, unaware for a while that she was falling in with this dynamic of believing there was perfect understanding with the patient. What was interesting was that even when the therapist became aware of what was happening it was still very difficult to move out of what felt like a comfortable situation with the patient. I think in this example there are elements of a kind of projective process at work which Rosenfeld has described as 'Nirvana-like experiences' which, "involve a desire to live in a state of pleasurable fusion with an object" (Rosenfeld, 1983). Usually, after a while, what was felt to be comfortable and gratifying situation for the therapist, starts to feel more stifling and arid. With other patients the aggressiveness is more direct and being open to the couple's projective identifications feels like allowing a concrete and controlling intrusion into one's mind. This can manifest in the couple relating to the therapist as if they know what the therapist thinks and the therapist starts to feel as if a conversation had taken place between her and the couple which she had missed. The conversation turns out to be a projective identification whereby the couple or one of the partners feels they are residing in the mind of the therapist and therefore 'knows' what she thinks. Sometimes this is brought to the therapist's awareness quite directly through a transference that has no 'as if' quality, for example, the couple decide they know rather than imagine the therapist has x number of children and lives in north London. A Projective Gridlock: Interpersonal Manifestations In some couples these two ways of relating to the world i.e. the seeking of a benign state of fusion on the one hand, and the need to control and intrude into the other, come together in the 'marital fit'. The wife in one couple, reflected on how she and her husband always did everything together, studied together, shared the same interests and operated as one. It never occurred to her that she might have a different point of view. She often felt that when they talked to each other he would lose awareness of her presence and it seemed that she, for her own unconscious reasons, had gone along with this. For a long time she was quite content in this situation, except that she had never enjoyed sex with him. He said that looking back what had felt awful about the sex with his wife was that he worked out what she thought, felt and wanted to such an extent that it was like having sex with himself; paradoxically, he had not really known what was going on for her at all. I think that for some such couples sexual intercourse becomes experienced psychically as an invasion and intrusion. The wife in this couple was very troubled by her hatred of being penetrated. In unconscious phantasy sexual intercourse was experienced as a concrete intrusion not only into her body but also into her mind, leaving her feeling invaded and completely robbed of herself. It was as if her psychic experience of the (physical) penetration felt like her own ego being threatened by the domination of the introjected object, as Klein described it and as quoted earlier in the paper (see page 3). This wife unconsciously chose someone who fitted into her expectations, in that he would be in control and define her. Gradually however, in the course of their relationship, she found that she had needed to disentangle herself from a position in which she could not be herself. In a sense, she had the opposite problem to her husband in that she expected to be invaded and was vulnerable to this because of her earlier experience and insecurity about her sense of self. Although she had increasingly found this intrusive, I think nonetheless there is a way in which she sought this as a means of experiencing a kind of comfortable fusion and was very anxious about asserting her difference, which meant to her, losing her sense of fusion. Technical Issues Psychotherapists working with couples in a projective gridlock are prone to a transference and countertransference dynamic or enactment in which there are felt to be no differences, disagreements or separateness. This heightens the technical problem of trying to differentiate between what is a useful or 'correct' interpretation and what is simply part of the dynamic or enactment. There can be such a powerful pull to be fused or controlled that what appears to be a feeling of being in tune is in fact a pressure to be of the same mind, a confusion encouraged by the sometimes recurring experience that everything one says appears to be right. The therapist has to be in a separate position in order to make interpretations, as Winnicott says, it is only through being separate that we become objects that are available to be 'used' (Winnicott, 1968). With these couples it can be hard to get into and maintain such a position. This task of maintaining a separate position may be made all the more difficult because it touches a part of all of us that is susceptible to 'Nirvana like experiences' and because as therapists we seek to use our intuitive capacities and stay closely in touch with our patients. I think the key to clinical work with such couples is in paying close attention to the countertransference, watching for a sense of all going too well, or for an uncomfortable level of intimacy, or a sense of intrusiveness and control perhaps when the patient is quite literally picking up what we are feeling and thinking at any moment. Rosenfeld suggests that when such a 'symbiotic phantasy' becomes projected into the psychoanalytic situation, "projective mechanisms ... become part of the symbiotic processes rather than an ordinary process of projective identification, and it is not possible to concentrate on individual elements which have been projected into the analyst". It may then be important to interpret this phantasy as a whole rather than particular projections (Rosenfeld, 1983). Joseph makes a similar point in discussing the importance of thinking of the transference as the 'total situation'. She describes the way in which a patient may hear interpretations and their meaning correctly but instead of using the words and thoughts to think with, uses them to unconsciously act with. The analyst is encouraged to partake in this activity so there is a feeling of words being said but the words are not really being communicated with. She highlights the importance of "focusing our attention on what is going on within the relationship, how...(the patient)...is using the analyst, alongside and beyond what he is saying" (Joseph, 1985). Conclusion Some couples come to psychotherapy because they are in what I describe as a 'projective gridlock'. The container, if it exists, is very rigid and not really a container in the sense that Bion describes in which projections can be processed (Bion 1962a, 1962b). To put it another way, the container is lacking what Bion has called 'alpha-function', therefore thinking cannot occur. The 'container' then is more like the 'claustrum' that has been described by Meltzer and elaborated by Fisher, entered through 'intrusive identification' (Meltzer, 1982, 1992: Fisher, 1999). Sometimes in the course of therapy, as the couple or the partner who feels most trapped gets fully in touch with how deadly this feels, it can seem that the only way to achieve psychic separation is by physical separation and ending the relationship. Separation is usually acutely painful, because it is experienced either concretely as a loss of part of the self or conversely raises massive anxiety about the capacity to function independently. If however the couple are able to feel sufficiently contained by the relationship with the therapist then it is possible to experiment with being psychically separate, a process which leads to really seeing the other, as if for the first time. REFERENCES Bion, W. (1962a) Learning from Experience. London: Heinemann. Bion, W. (1962b) A theory of thinking. International Journal of psychoanalysis 43 306-310. Colman, W. (1993) Marriage as a psychological container, In: Ruszczynski, R. Ed Psychotherapy with Couples (1993), London: Karnac. Feldman, M. and Bott Spillius, E. (1989) Eds. Psychic Equilibrium and Psychic Change: Selected Papers of Betty Joseph. London and New York: Tavistock/Routledge. Fisher, J. (1999) The Uninvited Guest: Emerging from Narcissism towards Marriage. Karnac: London. Joseph, B. (1985) Transference: the total situation. International Journal of psychoanalysis, 66 447-454 Klein, M. (1946) Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. In: Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963 London: Virago Press, 1988. Klein, M. (1959) Our adult world and its roots in infancy. In: Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963 London: Virago Press, 1988. Meltzer, D., Milana, G., Maiello, S., Petrielli, D. (1982) The conceptual distinction between projective identification (Klein) and container-contained (Bion). Journal of Child Psychotherapy 8 185-202. Meltzer, D. (1992) The Claustrum: An Investigation of Claustrophobic Phenomena. Perthshire, Scotland: The Clunie Press. O'Shaughnessy, E. (1988) W. R. Bion's theory of thinking and new techniques in child analysis. In: E. Bott Spillius Ed: Melanie Klein Today. Vol. 2: Mainly Practice. London: Routledge, 1988. Pincus, L. (1960) Ed: Marriage: Studies in Emotional Conflict and Growth. London: Institute of Marital Studies. Rosenfeld, H. (1971). Contribution to the psychopathology of psychotic states: the importance of projective identification in the ego structure and the object relations of the psychotic patient. In Problems of Psychosis. Ed: P. Doucet & C. Laurin. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica. Rosenfeld, H. (1983) Primitive object relations and mechanisms. International Journal of psychoanalysis. 64 261-267. Rosenfeld, H. (1987) Impasse and Interpretation. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd. Ruszczynski, S. (1993) Ed: Psychotherapy with Couples: Theory and Practice at the Tavistock Institute of Marital Studies. London: Karnac Books. Segal, H. (1983) Some clinical implications of Melanie Klein's work . International Journal of psychoanalysis 64 269-276. Steiner, J. (1993) Psychic Retreats; Pathological Organisations in Psychotic, Neurotic and Borderline Patients. London and New York: Routledge. Winnicott, D.W. (1968) The use of an object. International Journal of psychoanalysis 50 711-716. Morgan. June 1999 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
