One and One Makes One

Before July 4th, Jonathan was talking, without enthusiasm, of the planned weekend visit to his father and stepmother. He resents his stepmother for the way she disrupts his attempts to engage his father. When they engage in “talking about things”—politics, religion, or family matters—his stepmother fastens on a detail, repeating her comment or question until Jonathan becomes flooded with annoyance. Lacking capacities to self-soothe and self-right, he defends with an outburst of narcissistic rage. Jonathan is left humiliated and convinced, again, that he is at fault.

I responded that the situation he described sounded intolerable, and asked Jonathan what he hoped to get from me to help him. What he needed was a way to protect himself. He did not want to become enraged and be left feeling at fault for the conflict. I suggested that Jonathan, whenever he could, avoid initiating “talking about things.” I clarified to him that such discussions inevitably arise; the dysfunction that emerges is not his “fault.” If necessary, he could call me, and I would remind him.

Returning, Jonathan reported a changed ambience and a good visit. I reviewed the new approach he had taken. Prior to the visit, he had told his father, for the first time, that he found his stepmother's disruptions intolerable. Jonathan speculated that his father had insisted to his stepmother that she change her behavior; and he himself had avoided starting troublesome

discussions. Then, Jonathan added, offhandedly, “I guess I was just imagining things in the first place.”

Jonathan's reversion to self-blame can be described within the concepts of repetitive or representational transference or pathological accommodation. However, to me, these concepts describe a secondary defense—an attempt to compensate for a primary deficit, a psychological “digestive failure.” Without a functioning digestive system, an infant could not transform a diet, however adequate, into bone and organ tissue. Similarly, an