On: The comments of Dr Steiner

Dear Editors,

In an historical, context-sensitive manner, Riccardo Steiner's comments add to our growing appreciation of what he terms a ‘creative reciprocal influence’ that existed between Klein and her analysand Herbert Rosenfeld (amongst others) in the evolution of her concept of projective identification. The attempt I have made to outline a more contextually accurate development of Klein's notion of projective identification - as elaborated by her analysands and students - is at best tentative and subject to revision based on further research. Steiner has added to this by pointing out further evidence that indicates that a more detailed history is necessary if we are to understand the intellectual and analytic genesis of projective identification. These historical efforts are complementary to the clinically-based commentaries, such as the recent overview by John Steiner (2009) of Rosenfeld's contributions.

To Riccardo Steiner's points: when he mentions the early work done by Rosenfeld (1947, 1949) on Klein's (1946) rudimentary idea of projective identification, I think Elizabeth Spillius comes closest to approximating its immediate and local beginnings in Klein's brief three paragraph description in 1946 (Klein, 1946, p. 102). Spillius (2007, p. 107) writes: “… the concept is not mentioned by name. The actual term ‘projective identification’ is mentioned only in a passing comment two pages later where Klein says, ‘I have referred to the weakening and impoverishment of the ego resulting from excessive splitting and projective identification’” (Klein, 1946, p. 104). What Steiner points out adds to the notion of the creative ferment in the ‘Kleinist’ camp after World War II, where Segal and Bion were also hard at work in defining and refining the many aspects involved in projective identification. Rosenfeld (1964, 1971) would return to these early refinements - indeed, his earlier concept of ‘total confusion of self and other’ as evinced in the psychotic would be fu