You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Explanation. The aim of Part Three is to show that projective and introjective processes can be seen in a new, fruitful way if the dichotomy ‘in–out’ is enriched with the help of the concepts of bi-logic.
In spite of the fact that Freud and other authors have expressly affirmed that projection is also observed in normal conditions, there is a tendency to link this mechanism with pathology or with something undesirable for a normal individual. It is difficult, for instance, not to think that this is implied in Meltzer's (1967) proposal to call projective identification by the name of intrusive identification. There is also a tendency among some people to use the notion of paranoid reaction or paranoid attitude in a promiscuous way. This may spring, at least in part, from an unnecessary use of the conception of the paranoid-schizoid position. This is a tendency which restricts openness of thought.
Projection and projective identification are not just emergency mechanisms which function only when anxiety and conflicts are at very high levels, but are regularly present and play a central role in mature and well-balanced adults. They may be very important both in the maintenance and expression of the normal personality as well as in its development. An instance of this would be parents who satisfy, in an ego-syntonic, non-ambivalent manner, some of their own desires through the achievements of their children.
Next let us consider aggression and the question of levels. There is a tendency to associate only pathology with extreme aggression, without taking into consideration the distinction between the structural strata of the mind (first, second, third, fourth, deeper) which I introduced in Chapter 2, section 2. It seems clear to me that aggressive wishes which are extremely strong at the first or presentational