Research-Informed Reflections on the Processes of Introjection and Identification: Commentary on Olds

David Olds's essay gives us a great deal to think about. Multiple readings are required to assimilate his synthesis of the rapidly accumulating information generated from studies of the basic mechanisms of the brain, the biological underpinnings of imitative learning, the genetic components of identification, and the varied forms of human memory. The primary aim of my commentary is to extend and reflect on the implications of his essay in terms of the complex interplay of the processes of internalization and representation as they manifest themselves in the context of psychotherapy and psychotherapy supervision.

Three questions will be addressed. Does the current intellectual climate support Olds's conviction that psychoanalysis will move in a convergent path with the neuro- and cognitive sciences? How shall we conceptualize the relation between introjective and identificatory modes of internalization? Can empirical research on the ways in which patients in psychotherapy internalize the therapeutic relationship enhance our understanding of mental disorders and sharpen our therapeutic skills?

The literatures of all psychotherapies offer important teachings. But for the most part the intellectual traditions that guide the work of psychotherapists have developed in separate, noncommunicating worlds.