On Introjection1

The term 'introjection' is used much more often in this country than in any other psycho-analytical society I know. This does not necessarily imply that the process thus designated is realized elsewhere to a lesser extent. As I consider it my foremost task to dwell on the historical evolution of the idea of introjection, I can obviously devote comparatively only little time to the work done in recent years in this country on our topic. There is no need, however, to suspect any insufficient consideration of this work on my part in any way. On the contrary, the very fact of my choosing this theme shows my appreciation of its importance and springs from my hope of contributing something to it if only in an indirect way.

Projection, introjection and identification are three mechanisms so intimately interwoven that it is impossible to present one of them altogether in isolation. As a matter of fact, I have studied them together, but must for lack of time concentrate merely on introjection. There is one more reason for this: whereas much has been written on projection and identification, introjection has not been treated systematically as yet in analytical literature. It has mostly been confounded with identification, the two being used sometimes almost as synonyms. In Nunberg's textbook, for instance, introjection occurs only once (p. 199) in brackets behind identification. Still, my extracts piled up in front of me so that a sorting out of the material according to one aspect or other was required. All I can assure you of in compensation is that I tried to be impartial and to let the material find its own shape as it presented itself to me. Even so I will have to drop most quotations and I can only give you the barest outline, but I hope you will appreciate, if not what I have to say, at least what I have left out.

Since one important part of our task will consist in defining more clearly the relation between introjection and identification, let us start by re