Author's Response

It is more than the customary courtesy when I express my appreciation to the discussants for their penetrating comments.

I can only concur with Dr. Weigert's description of the early processes of introjection and idealization. It is a matter of different terminology when she describes the introjects as cornerstones of a false ego ideal. In my conceptualization, they are the cornerstones of every ego ideal, right or false. The difference in the final outcome of introjections depends, of course, on many factors. In the context of my presentation the important factor consists of the preservation or elimination of the distorted images of parental love-hate objects (“the archaic object,” in my terminology).

However, this is the only difference between Dr. Weigert's conceptualization and mine. As for the rest of her discussion, I am happy with her metapsychological description of my cases.

I fully agree with Dr. Székely's criticism of my presentation as lacking the metapsychological scaffolding. He is right indeed in calling my distinction between the two forms of internalization purely descriptive. In his discussion, he contributes to a sharper conceptualization when he points out that some of the conflicts described are intersystemic. Most certainly not all conflicts can be described as lying within the ego. However, the process which I call the struggle of the ego against the introjects takes place within the ego. Here the ego tries to rid itself of nonassimilated, poorly integrated, archaic images of the original love-hate objects.

To Dr. Robbins go my thanks for his appreciative comments. I, too, have reason to believe that the insight gained in the psychoanalytic treatment of ambulatory patients proves helpful in dealing

with more regressed, hospitalized psychotics. I pointed this out in my studies of latent (borderline) psychotics.

I am particularly indebted to Dr. Hoedemaker who, with his rich experience in this field, undertook a thorough analysis of my case presen