Transactional Analysis Journal

ISSN: 0362-1537 (Print) 2329-5244 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtaj20

Confusion and Introjection: A Model for

Understanding the Defensive Structures of the
Parent and Child Ego States

Heather Fowlie

To cite this article: Heather Fowlie (2005) Confusion and Introjection: A Model for Understanding
the Defensive Structures of the Parent and Child Ego States, Transactional Analysis Journal, 35:2,
192-204, DOI: 10.1177/036215370503500209

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1177/036215370503500209

Published online: 28 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 407

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtaj20
 Confusion and Introjection:
A Model for Understanding the Defensive
Structures of the Parent and Child Ego States
Heather Fowlie

Abstract fixated ego states" and the Parent ego state as

This article discusses the interrelated pro- "the collection of introjected ego states from
cesses of confusion and introjection, which other people" (p. 76), I refer to the concept of
take place in the Child and Parent ego states the integrating Adult as first presented by
respectively. Drawing on British object rela- Gobes (as cited in Novey, Porter-Steele, Gobes,
tions theory, the author explores the devel- & Massey, 1993). Given that babies are born
opment of the Parent and Child ego states both wanting and needing to be in relationship
based on the original model of structural ego with others (Bowlby, 1979/1992; Erskine,
states (Berne, 1961). Viewing both as patho- 1989/1997a; Fairbairn, 1952; Guntrip, 1968/
logical structures, she examines the kind of 1992; Stern, 1985), I suggest that the Child and
experiences that act as catalysts for their de- Parent ego states develop as a direct, defensive
velopment and the defenses that are adopted consequence of relationship failure and that the
as part of this process. A model for decon- individual has been unable to integrate the
fusion and a relational methodology for work resulting experience and feelings into the Adult.
with these defenses is suggested.
The Development of Defensive Ego
Structures
The term "confused child" evokes the picture Berne (1961) described the Adult ego state
of a shocked and bewildered little child who is as "the new-each-moment part" (p. 76). The
trying to make sense ofand come to terms with original ego state model proposed by Berne has
something he or she does not understand. Ever been further expanded by Erskine (1988, 1991,
since I first heard the term, I have wondered, I989/1997a, 2003), Summers and Tudor (2000),
what is it that is so confusing to the child? How and Tudor (2003). Tudor (2003), building on
does the child respond to the confusion that he Gobes's (1990) work, illustrates ego state de-
or she feels? Why does the child respond to the velopment in the integrating Adult model as
confusion as he or she does? shown in Figure I.
The term "introjection" goes some way in
explaining how the child becomes confused.
Erskine (1994!l997b) defines introjection as
"an unaware identification with the beliefs,
feelings, motivations, behaviors, and defenses
of the other" (p. 53). But what is it that the
child takes in? What prompts him or her to take
into the selfsomething that effectively belongs
to another? Why does he or she identify with
this adopted part?
In this article I address these questions and 1 2 3 4 5
propose that a relational methodology is the most
appropriate way to work with the defense ofin- Figure 1
Ego State Development in the Integrating
trojection. Drawing on Berne's (1961) original
Adult Model (from Tudor, 2003, p. 221)
model of structural ego states, in which he de-
scribed the Child ego state as "the collection of

192 Transactional Analysis Journal

 CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION

In Figure I, number I relates to the individual his or her feelings and relational needs" (p. 35).
at conception, number 2 to the individual in Likewise, Erskine and his coauthors (Erskine,
utero, number 3 to the individual at birth, num- 2003; Erskine & Moursund, 1988/1998; Ers-
ber 4 to the person at any age, and number 5 to kine, Moursund, & Trautmann, 1999) have
the individual at the idealized end of therapy. written extensively on how important it is for
This model of ego states suggests that we are children to have their relational needs met and
born Adult and views this ego state as appro- how failure in this area results in them develop-
priate, age specific, integrating, and responsive ing defenses as a means of coping with and
to the here and now; it also supposes that the compensating for these relationship failures.
Child and Parent ego states, which can be de- On this basis, it makes sense to me to view
fined respectively by their archaic and intro- the Child ego state as arising out of and con-
jected nature, are by definition pathological. taining those experiences in which the indi-
This can to some extent be compared with vidual's significant needs for contact were not
the work of Fairbairn (1952), who took the met and, in particular, comprising all ofthe de-
view that the infant starts out at birth with a fenses developed to protect the individual from
single, dynamic ego, which is relationship seek- the ensuing discomfort.
ing and reacts to trauma by splitting. Black- Using this model, the Parent ego state can be
stone (1993) found many similarities between understood as a simultaneously developed re-
Fairbairn's theory and transactional analysis pository that contains the child's internalized
and suggested that these split-off parts of the representation of the person(s) who did not
ego were consistent with and could be easily meet his or her significant needs for contact.
translated into the second-order ego state The unconscious purpose of internalizing such
model. Erskine (2003), drawing on Fairbairn representations is that the child feels as though
(1952) and Guntrip (1971/ 1991, 1968/1992), he or she is gaining some form of pseudocon-
describes this process as follows: trol over the conflict that is experienced as a re-
In the presence of fear, a child may split sult of this relational failure.
off parts of him or herself, and form an Given that the Parent and Child ego states de-
ego state that is both a combination of an velop in this way, we can see the obvious link
internalized parental control, and a child's with the following well-known observations:
fearful compliance with that control. They I. The Parent and Child ego states contain
tenn this state "anti-libidinal ego" to em- numerous and varied experiences, perhaps
phasise how it suppresses and controls the grouped together in what Stern (1985) calls
"libidinal ego"-an ego state that has the Representations of Interactions that have been
remnants of what would have been the na- Generalized (RIGs).
tural nature of the person. They describe 2. While most of these experiences occur
this conflict as occurring intrapsychically during our early childhood development, they
for the purpose of maintaining a sem- can be added to later in life and, in particular,
blance of relationship with the caretakers, reinforced by later traumatic incidents when
by keeping the natural nature ofthe person and ifthe individual is not able to appropriately
suppressed. (pp. 84-85) process and integrate into Adult what has
Fairbairn (1952) described trauma as arising occurred.
out ofrelationship failures between a child and 3. The Parent and Child ego states develop in
his or her primary caregiver, a view that has tandem and, as such, are locked together in
been supported by many other theorists. For what Little (2004) calls "relational units" (p.
instance, Winnicott (1965) wrote of the "false 4). In these units, "the Child and Parent rela-
self' as arising out of the child's need to pro- tionship is an internalized representation of an
tect the self against the parent's "impingements" earlier experience between the self and other,
(p. 99). Little (200 I) suggests that "when the or object"; they both constantly influence each
infant experiences neglect, impingement, or other and "are bonded together by affect" (p.
lack of attunement accompanied by a lack of 4). In other words, it is the whole relationship
reparation, the child may go into hiding with that has been internalized.

Vol. 35. No.2. April 2005 193

HEATHER FOWLIE

4. Sufficiently attuned contact and adequate Attuned contact is vital to ensuring the
meeting ofthe child's relational needs strength- young child's physical, personal, and psycho-
ens and supports the development ofthe Adult logical development. This is not to minimize
ego state. Thus, the developing child is able to the impact ofthe child's innate personality, but
assimilate and integrate these appropriate forms rather to emphasize the real and almost total
of contact into the Adult ego state as positive dependence the child has on his or her primary
self-defining memory that can then be called on caretaker during the formative years-and, as
to support the self and/or others. a consequence, the inherent enormity ofparen-
5. Because ofthe child's immaturity and de- tal influence on development.
pendence on the caretaker, poor-quality or in-
appropriate contact cannot be integrated and A Model for Deconfusion Based on British
assimilated into the Adult; as a result, such Object Relations Theory
contact acts as a catalyst for the development Children begin life both wanting and expect-
ofthe pathological Child and Parent ego states. ing others to be there for them. This expecta-
I tum now to our need for contact with others tion is at its highest when they experience a
and how this impacts ego state development. need for some kind of contact, which arises ap-
propriately in A2 In full expectation that care-
Our Need for Others takers will meet that need, the child reaches
Many authors have written about our need out. Ifthe caretaker is able to understand what
for others, including Winnicott (1965), Bowlby the need is and respond appropriately, the need
(1979/1992), Fairbairn (1952), Guntrip (1968/ is met and the child experiences satisfaction
1992),Erskine (1988), Schore (1994), and Stem (see Figure 2). This simple act communicates
(1985). I therefore start from the premise that three things to the child: that his or her need is
babies are born both wanting and needing to be acceptable, that he or she can be understood,
in relationship. The relationship between a child and that the other will respond.
and his or her primary caretaker has been shown
to influence profoundly all areas of the child's
development. Bowlby (1972/1992) identified
attachment needs that shape a child's behavior
and emphasized the importance ofearly as well
as prolonged physical bonding in the develop-
ment ofan internal core out ofwhich all experi-
ences of self and other will be defined. Stem
(1985) suggests that it is out of the reciprocity
ofcontact between an infant and caretaker that
)
the infant's sense of self begins to emerge and
out of which he or she forms an internal blue- (
print about the nature ofrelationships with oth-
ers. Shore (1994) details the central role that
the first relationship plays in both affective and
psychological development and in the physical
development of the brain; he suggests that this
growth is "dependent upon and influenced by
the socio-emotional environment" (p. 78). In Figure 2
their theory of the self, Hargaden and Sills The Child Experiences Satisfaction
(2002) suggest that the relationship between
the primary caretaker and the infant is the
"foundation on which the rest of the self is If, however, the caretaker does not appropri-
built" (p. 19); it supports the healthy (or other- ately respond, the child will feel the need inten-
wise) development of the core self. Without sifying. This disturbs the child's innate expec-
"an other" to attune to, a child cannot develop. tation that the caregiver will be there for him or

194 Transactional Analysis Journal

 CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION

her, and in response to both his or her confu- original need or to the feelings aroused in re-
sion about this failure and the growing inten- sponse to the failure, the child will eventually
sity of the need, the child tries again and again stop remonstrating and back down. While the
to obtain a satisfactory response (see Figure 3). timing of this is affected by, for instance, the
The more the child must try, the more frus- use or threat of violence or recognition of the
trated, aggressive, and angry and desperate he futility oftrying, it is ultimately the child's fear
or she feels about not obtaining satisfaction for of losing the caregiver in some way that actu-
the original need as well as with any others that ally motivates him or her to stop. Stolorow
are activated by the unsatisfactory response. (1994) describes this process and offers insight
Stolorow (1994) suggests that the child experi- into what the child is thinking at the time:
ences relationship failure in two phases: "a The child perceives that his painful reac-
painful emotional response" and "a longing" tive feelings are unwelcome or damaging
(p. 50). It is my belief that these two responses to the caregiver and must be defensively
form the basis ofboth the feared and the longed sequestered in order to preserve the need-
for relationship. ed bond.... These walled-offpainful feel-
ings become a source of lifelong inner
conflict and vulnerability to traumatic
states. (p. 51)
The child acts to both protect himself or her-
self from further injury and to maintain the
relationship in the only way that he or she can:
by maintaining faith in the caregiver and re-
moving that which is assumed to be the offend-
)
ing object: the child himself or herself. In this
way we can define "confusion" as the process
by which a developing child-in response to
relationship failure and in service of maintain-
ing a relationship with a caregiver-assumes
responsibility for that failure and makes a de-
cision to foreclose on any associated or similar
Figure 3 relational needs that he or she has.
The Need Intensifies The child's need to shut down and offfrom
his or her own relational needs stimulates the
development of the Child ego state, with the
If the caregiver reacts well to the child's re- split-off part forming C\. The extent of the
peated attempts to get his or her need met by deficit in parenting, coupled with the interre-
recognizing and attending to both the painful lated strength of both the painful emotional re-
emotional response and the longing, the child action and the longing, quite naturally influ-
will feel responded to and satisfied. While the ences the degree to which the resulting feelings
child experiences this process as painful, a cer- in the Child will need to be excluded and the
tain amount of relationship failure is inevitable depth to which C\ will need to be repressed.
in life. Provided the caregiver is able to repair Guntrip (1968/1992) described this process as
the rupture and not repeat it too often, this fail- the "regressed ego" (p. 144), which may be un-
ure will not necessarily be damaging to the derstood as a schizoid process. The C I Child
child. In fact, it may be used positively to help retreats from contact (see Figure 4).
him or her develop patience, learn to deal with However mistaken the child's conclusion
disappointment, discover that people can be an- may be, the fact that he or she has been able to
gry with him or her and still be loving, and so arrive at one and, as a result, repress the C I
on. Child suggests that the child has developed
If, however, the caregiver does not react well some capacity to make meaning. This is, for
and neither responds appropriately to the child's me, the origins of AI' It should be obvious that

Vol. 35, No.2. April 2005 195

HEATHER FOWLIE

Figure 4
The Child Retreats from Contact

the earlier, more negative, and more extreme AI Child adopting behaviors that he or she be-
the circumstances in which this capacity has lieves will make him or her more acceptable to
been forged, the more confused the child's the caregiver and that, at the same time, maxi-
thinking is likely to be. mize the number of strokes available to him or
lt is out of this place that the child takes re- her. I think of these behaviors as the earliest
sponsibility for and settles on a way of main- form of drivers (Kahler, 1975) and believe that
taining the relationship that the caregiver did as long as the AI Child relates from this place,
not or could not repair. The AI Child moves he or she can secure a false sense of OKness
into the place vacated by the retreat of the C I (e.g., "I can be OK with you as long as I'm per-
Child (see Figure 5). This occurs through the fect, strong, pleasing, etc."). This is, in effect,

Figure 5
The Development of the False Self

196 Transactional Analysis Journal

 CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION

a narcissistic process in that the child gives up person ifhe or she feels the C I Child is in dan-
on who he or she is in order to become who the ger of being discovered or is trying to make
child thinks he or she is required to be. contact with that person. The extent to which
This attempt by the AI Child to maintain a the person lashes out from this place is directly
relationship with the caregiver and, at the same proportionate to the cumulative extent to which
time, to protect the C I self has many flaws. the child had to repress his or her sequestered
From the perspective of the AI Child, the most feelings and the degree to which the discovery
serious of these is the possibility that the C I of the C I self feels life threatening.
Child, will-s-out ofdesperation and in response Although P 1_uses intimidation to scare the C I
to a new need arising inside-s-emerge out of Child into submission, the protective and lov-
hiding and try to reach out to the caregiver ing intention behind these actions needs to be
once more. This situation feels extremely dan- understood and valued. This point was vali-
gerous to the AI Child, who believes it both dated by Kalsched (1996): "While everyone
threatens to disrupt the reconnection with the agrees how maladaptive these defences are in
caregiver and returns the child to the very dan- the later life ofthe patient, few writers have ac-
ger from which he or she previously removed knowledged the miraculous nature ofthese de-
himself or herself. fences-their life-saving sophistication or their
To keep himself or herself safe, I believe the archetypal nature and meaning" (p. 2). Scared,
child develops the PI part ofthe self, which has hurt, and in desperate need of a parent himself
two parts: PI. and P I+. The child uses both of or herself, she (PI.) is totally unsuited, ill pre-
these to try to keep the C I Child from reaching pared, and far too little to parent anyone, never
out to the caregiver. The size and potential mind a Child who is only a little bit younger
power available to these structures is propor- than himself or herself. It is from this place,
tionately linked to the amount of repressed and motivated by a desire to protect the self, that he
sequestered feeling in C I that they are required or she strikes out at both the C I Child and any-
to contain. The more sequestered feelings there one else who comes near (see Figure. 6).
are in C I, the bigger the PI self must be; and the The P I+ Child, at its most extreme, manifests
more these sequestered feelings threaten to as an adoring, idealizing, clinging, and needy
break through, the more intensely will the PI Child who longs for a perfect parent who will
self feel the need to act. protect, love, and understand him or her. This
The PI. part manifests, at its most extreme, as Child is modeled on bits of his or her own ex-
a self-destructive, attacking, vicious, angry part perience of being parented that were appropri-
ofthe self. While modeled on and hugely influ- ate but which, because they occurred in the face
enced by those parts of the child's experience of so much deficit, could not be integrated. It
of being parented that resulted from times can also be modeled on "fantasy parents" based
when his or her needs were not met, I see this on either real or imagined possibilities ofposi-
part of the self as a self-invented concept aris- tive contact with teachers and/or characters from
ing out of a desire to protect the self from fur- fairy tales or television. The P 1+ Child works to
ther harm. This part uses threats, cynicism, and keep the C I Child hidden by soothing and at-
suspicion to convince the C I Child that it is in tending to some of his or her needs for contact
his or her best interests to stay hidden (e.g.,"If through daydreams and fantasies about empathic
people see how stupid, bad, disgusting, needy contact with these manufactured parents.
you are, they will hate you, laugh at you, leave Lastly, the P I + Child works to keep the C I
you, be overwhelmed by you"). As part of this Child hidden by reinforcing the perceived wis-
defense, the child develops a set ofrules for the dom of the approach adopted by the AI Child
C I Child to follow, which I think of as the in- and by leading the C I Child to believe that the
junctions (Goulding & Goulding, 1979) (e.g., caregiver will only stay positive providing the
"As long as you don't get close, well, suc- Child is "Trying hard," "Hurrying up," "Pleas-
cessful, etc., you won't be seen and therefore ing," and so on. Although the tactics of Pj, are
hurt"). While this part is mainly focused on the much softer than those of the PI. Child, the
self, the child will lash out and threaten another message is the same: "The more you become

Vol. 35, No.2. April 2005 /97

HEATHER FOWLIE

Figure 6
The Development of the Protective Self

like the AI Child, the more your caregiver, or gains a sense of safety because he or she can
the other that you are longing for, will be able now view the "badness" as residing within the
to love you; until then, you better stay hidden." self rather than within the caregiver. In other
words, the child takes the badness into his or
The Parent Ego State: Introjection her own inner world in an attempt to make the
While the Child ego state is developing in outer world safer and to preserve hope.
this way, corresponding development is occur-
ring simultaneously in the Parent ego state. In
a defensive maneuver, the child whose rela-
tional needs are not met and continue to be un-
met, takes into P2 (introjects) and then iden-
tifies with the nonresponsive, overstimulating,
or abusive caretaker (see Figure 7).
The main reason for the introjection, accord-
ing to Fairbairn (1952), is that it enables the
child to stay attached, bonded, and loyal to the
much needed caretaker. By splitting off the
parts of the caretaker that hurt, frighten, disap-
point, or frustrate from the parts that soothe, re-
assure, satisfy, and comfort, and then introjec-
ting into P2 and repressing into unconscious- Figure 7
ness the former, the child manages to keep the Introjection
caretaker "good" and in the process secures for
himselfor herselfa pseudorelationship with the
caretaker that minimizes separation anxiety. Fairbairn explained that children persistently
By effectively removing responsibility for blame themselves for bad experiences so that
the misattunement from the caregiver and loca- they can maintain objects as good and maxi-
ting it instead within the self, the child also mize the chance of being loved. Expanding on

198 Transactional Analysis Journal

 CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION

these ideas, Skolnick and Scharff( 1998) wrote, upbringing, and it had been reinforced by her
If the object is seen as bad, then nothing mother, who suffered from paranoid personal-
the child can do, not even atonement for ity disorder. In fact, her mother had been vic-
badness, will secure love-a condition he ious in her attacks on Annette, even suggesting
[Fairbairn] termed "unconditional bad- that she was not married because no man
ness." But if the child sees itself as bad would look at her "since everyone who knew
and the object as good, there is a chance of her thought that she was working as a prosti-
being loved if only the child can right him- tute." One day when a colleague came into
self-"conditional badness." (p. xii) work overjoyed to show off her new engage-
Brown (1977) suggested that introjection ment ring, Annette found herselfpossessed by
allows the individual to fill the psychological a rage that she could hardly contain. This usu-
vacuum left by the absence of interpersonal ally self-contained woman reexperienced the
contact. The child identifies with those parts of full extent of her rage as she recounted the in-
the caregiver that have been introjected, which cident in therapy: "She was shoving her ring in
means that rather than acknowledge and main- my face, and it was a tiny diamond. Who would
tain his or her own sense of reality, the child want a ring like that? She was trying to humili-
adopts the reality and attitude of those parts of ate me, I could tell." The incident had triggered
the caregiver that have been introjected (e.g., Annette's own feelings of worthlessness in C 1,
"People who show their feelings really are stu- which she avoided feeling in the moment by
pid and annoying to other people"). In this jumping into Parent and attacking the woman
way, the child develops and sets into motion and her ring instead, just as her mother often
three further defensive functions. attacked her.
I. He or she gains another ally for the protec- The child's feelings of rage and contempt
tive P, Child, one who will help the child to arise from two sources. The first is the intro-
control and frighten the C, Child into staying jected feelings ofthe caregiver, which if the in-
hidden, thereby in his or her mind maximizing trojection occurred at a time when the caregiver
the chances that the caregivers will continue to was relating to the child from the "sequestered"
be loving. parts of his or her own personality, are particu-
2. By projecting his or her "weakness" onto larly powerful and extreme. The other is the
another, the child manages to achieve feelings child's repressed feelings that he or she felt at
of superiority and empowerment over "those the time of the misattunements but sequestered
weak others." In those moments, he or she be- in C 1 in order to secure his or her relationship
comes the strong one who has the power to with the caregiver and that the child took along
hurt and humiliate rather than be hurt and hu- when he or she went into hiding.
miliated. While these sequestered feelings are held
3. Because the child believes the other de- structurally within the Child ego state, I think
serves to be devalued, he or she secures for of them at times being sent hurriedly and ur-
himself or herself a means by which to justi- gently into the Parent ego state, where they can
fiably and without any apparent psychological be expelled in an attempt to ward off any per-
harm to the self experience and express the ceived and imminent threat to the bond with
contempt and rage that is stored deep within his the caregiver and/or whenever relief from the
or her Child and Parent ego states. The relief rage and contempt that is turned against the self
that this outward expulsion brings should not is required and sought (see Figure 8).
be underestimated as it enables the individual These P2 expulsions-perhaps because they
to escape the very feelings that are usually involve a double whammy offeelings, includ-
experienced and turned in on the self. ing those from the introjected caretaker and
To illustrate, I offer the following case ex- those that arise from the Child-have the po-
ample. Annette, age 37, held within her Parent tential, maybe even more than those from PI'
ego state a strong beliefthat her role in life was to disorient, intimidate, terrify, and in many-
to marry and have children. She had introjected other ways send us reeling in the counter-
this view culturally from her Irish Catholic transference. This description ofP 2 transference

Vol. 35. No.2. April 2005 199

HEATHER FOWLIE

attracted to me and began to flirt with me. I felt

uneasy, experiencing his flirtations and com-
ments as intrusive. Unsure at first ofwhat this
could mean, I simply explored his attraction to
me and held my countertransferential responses
within myself. As the weeks went by, my un-
ease began to tum into terror; I dreaded the ses-
sions with Stuart and felt trapped and over-
whelmed by his advances. I began to feel that
there was no place to hide from him. During
one particularly difficult session, I looked at
him and found he was staring at me with a
mocking smile on his lips that sent a shiver
Figure 8 down my spine. Clearly, he was enjoying my
P2 Expulsion discomfort and was even toying with me. A
difficult time followed as I challenged what
was occurring between us. During this work
differs from Moiso's (1985) description of PI Stuart was able to identify how he had often
and P2 transference in that the former contains felt "that there was no place to hide from my
"primitive self and primitive object-represen- mother."
tations" (p. 200) while the latter arises after In a way that was similar to how his mother
"the onset of secondary thinking" (p. 195) and had treated him, Stuart had tried to frighten and
thus contains less primitive object-represen- bully me away from further deepening the rela-
tations. Using a different model of ego states tionship I was building with his hidden C 1
than Moiso and adopting Little's (2004) sug- Child, a relationship that, because it was appro-
gestion that the Child and Parent ego states are priate and geared toward meeting his needs,
linked together in relational units, it makes threatened and challenged the very foundation
more sense to me to suggest that both ego on which his attachment to his mother had been
states are likely to contain some primitive and forged. Additionally, by challenging me in the
some less severe self- and object-representa- way that he did, he showed me quite graphi-
tions, with the Child ego state containing the cally how it had felt for him as a child to be
self-object and the Parent ego state the object- pursued by his mother. My sense, however, is
representation. that this projective identification was a useful
Deciphering which part of the sequestered but secondary by-product that arose out of this
structure the client is transferring from depends set of transactions.
on the therapist having carried out a proper di-
agnosis of each ego state and, in particular, on A Relational Methodology
trusting and examining his or her own counter- Relational transactional analysis already has
transferential responses to what the client is at- a history in the TA literature (Blackstone, 1993;
tempting to communicate and protect: namely, Clark, 1991; Erskine, 1991,2003; Hargaden &
the selfor the bond with the caretaker. The for- Sills, 2002; Haykin, 1980; Moiso, 1985; Novel-
mer often has a wounded animal feel to it, lino, 1984; Shmukler, 1991,2003; Sills & Har-
where the animal hits out in pain to ward the gaden, 2003; Summers & Tudor, 2000). Draw-
other off; the latter, on the other hand, has a ing on the coconstructed meanings that have
more sadistic feel, like a well-fed cat that evolved on the relational transactional analysis
catches and then plays with its prey simply to Internet discussion forum set up by Hargaden
amuse itself. (see www.relationalta.co.uk), I choose to define
To illustrate, I offer another case example. relational transactional analysis as described in
Stuart, age 25, was sexually abused by his the following paragraphs.
mother when he was young. A year into our Relational transactional analysis involves the
work together, he began to say that he was creation of a transitional space in which the

200 Transactional Analysis Journal

 CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION

therapist and client together are able to reenact, feelings, I would break down and then leave
bring into awareness, make sense of, and ulti- him (which mirrored his experience of his
mately transform and integrate into Adult the mother, who would literally collapse if he
client's destructive and unhelpful ways ofrelat- showed strong feelings). I felt that any attempt
ing to self and others. Often these ways of re- to intervene in an interpretative way would be
lating have their roots in and are based on the futile because the strength of his projections
client's earliest and principally unconscious provided an effective, defensive barrier to him
self- and object-relationships. being able to differentiate me from what he
As a means of achieving this transformation was projecting onto me (see Figure 9). Instead,
and integration, the therapist not only observes I nondefensively held the projections and my
but participates in the client's relational world, countertransferential feelings of quite extreme
actively reenacting with the client the many and confusion and helped Chris to explore his di-
varied aspects ofthese self- and object-relation- lemma, a maneuver that resulted in Chris gradu-
ships as they occur in the process between them. ally allowing himself to cry. After a long time,
To do this, the therapist needs to make himself he looked up at me and said, "You didn't go."
or herself available to be affected and influ- "No I didn't go," I said in return.
enced by the client's transferential reactions
and to use his or her own countertransferential
responses to what is happening to understand
and make meaning of these reenactments.
Successwithin a relationaltransactionalanaly-
sis framework rests on the therapist's ability to
enter into and engage with the transference-
countertransference reenactments as they occur
in the therapy and then to detach from them
enough to be able to consider, contain, and
process with the client what has occurred
between them. The therapist's willingness and
ability to participate in the client's relational
world in this way and then to help the client
CUENT THERAPIST
make meaning out ofwhat has happened offers
the possibility ofboth transforming the client's
old, pathological ways of relating and opening
up opportunities for creating new and healthier
self- and object-relationships (which are then Figure 9
assimilated into A2) that the client can draw on Projections
to support and sustain himself or herself.
The main component ofrelational methodol-
ogy is working with and particularly in the While I am sure we will need to repeat this
transference. The therapist accepts, experi- pattern often during our therapeutic relation-
ences, and holds the projections until such time ship, words would not have helped Chris to re-
as they have been fully explored and the mean- appraise the projections that he was trans-
ing behind them has become more explicit, as ferring onto me whereas the fact that I stayed
demonstrated in the following example. with him did. I have drawn the lines in Figure
Chris, age 30, stated his contract for therapy 9 thickly to represent the primitive nature of
as learning to express his feelings appropri- the projections that Chris was transferring onto
ately. In a recent therapy session, he berated me.
me because he did not feel I was strong enough As this vignette demonstrates, the therapist's
to contain his feelings (in the same way that his nondefensive reaction to clients' projections as
father would criticize his mother). At the same well as his or her capacity and ability to be at-
time, he was worried that if he did show his tentive, empathic, and skillful in understanding

Vol. 35, No.2, April 2005 201

HEATHER FOWLIE

his or her countertransferential responses, fa- enough within the therapeutic relationship, they
cilitates and encourages clients to venture project one part of these frozen relational units
deeper into themselves and enables them to onto the therapist while retaining and experi-
make contact and to experience for themselves encing the corresponding part. In this way, the
those parts of the self that they long ago sent various different parts of the client's self will
out ofconscious awareness, namely the hidden be brought into and experienced within the re-
C\ Child, the protective P\ Children, and the in- lationship. At times, for instance, the therapist
trojected aspects of their caregiver's person- may find himself or herself experiencing via
ality. Little (2004) describes this as "creating a projective identification a hidden, frightened C I
space in which the intra-psychic can become part of the client and be faced in response with
the interpersonal" (p. 8). Within this created or the client who is enacting the dismissive and un-
transitional space, the therapist and client to- responsive introjected caregiver. At other times,
gether can become aware, through the use of he or she may experience an introjected care-
well-timed interpretations, of the repeated ele- giver who is annoyed and impatient with the
ments of the reenactment and from this gain a client, who may be in touch instead with a con-
deeper understanding of the therapeutically fused and anxious C\ part of himselfor herself.
needed relationship. The facility to project onto the therapist the
In psychotherapy generally, including trans- corresponding parts of these relational units-
actional analysis, it is now commonly accepted which until now have remained locked inside
that the therapist's countertransferential re- and experienced only by the client--offers
sponses can provide him or her with rich and three previously inaccessible possibilities:
valuable clues about what is going on with the 1. The potential to receive from the therapist
client. Moiso (1985), for instance, suggested the needed relational response to what the cli-
that working in this way "requires permission ent is experiencing, rather than a repeat ofwhat
to have a countertransference and analyze it" he or she actually received from the original
(p. 200). Likewise, Hargaden and Sills (2002) caregivers. This response, in effect, reconfuses
emphasize that the therapist's receptivity to his the confused Child and gently challenges the
or her subjective responses and, in particular, meanings, conclusion, and decisions that the A I
"her willingness to engage with her experience" Child made in response to the previous rela-
(p. 63) is a central feature of relational metho- tionship failures he or she encountered.
dology. They also underscore the need to en- 2. The opportunity for the client to explore,
gage with unconscious process by providing uncover, and bring into conscious awareness
space for it to evolve. the repressed and disavowed parts of the self.
Allowing for the unconscious process in this These can then be-in the context ofthe past-
way allows for the emergence ofprimitive ways both understood and honored for the role they
ofrelating and functioning that will involve the played in helping the client to survive and-in
therapist's subjective experience and his or her the context ofthe present-be analyzed and ac-
own primitive parts. In this way, the therapist know ledged as problematic for the role they are
experiences firsthand the unprocessed experi- playing in attempting to prevent the very con-
ence of the client. We can understand this as tact that the client needs.
the client trying to obtain two remarkably dif- 3. The opportunity to work through, reappro-
ferent outcomes. The first is script bound and priate, and eventually integrate into A 2 the
revolves around attempts to resist the therapy, split-off painful emotional reactions and long-
to defend both the self and the bond with the ings that are held in the Child and Parent ego
caregiver. The second is restorative and in- states and, in the process, to "spit out those ex-
volves the client's efforts to heal, understand, periences or introjects which are or are no
and integrate unprocessed experiences into A2• longer relevant" (Tudor, 2003, p. 218).
Following Little's (2004) ideas about rela-
tional units, in which the Child and Parent ego Conclusion
states are linked together, it follows that when In this article I have discussed the defensive
clients are feeling either threatened and/or safe processes of confusion and introjection and

202 Transactional Analysis Journal

 CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION

shown how they are linked to the development articles (pp. 46-67). San Francisco, CA: TA Press.
(Original work published 1994)
of the Parent and Child ego states. Drawing on
Erskine, R. G. (2003). Introjection, psychic presence and
the British object relations school, I have pro- parent ego states. In C. Sills & H. Hargaden (Eds.), Ego
posed a model ofdeconfusion that, when linked states (Vol. I of Key concepts in transactional analysis:
with a relational methodology, offers a way of Contemporary views, pp. 83-108). London: Worth Pub-
working with the resulting defense processes in lishing.
Erskine, R. G., & Moursund, J. P. (1998). Integrative
the adult client. This approach presupposes that psychotherapy in action. Highland, NY: The Gestalt
disruptions in early self and object bonds can Journal Press. (Original work published 1988)
be ameliorated effectively within the confines Erskine, R. G., Moursund, J. P., & Trautmann, R. L.
ofa potent and intense therapeutic relationship, (1999). Beyond empathy: A therapy of contact-in-
relationship. Philadelphia: BrunnerlMazel.
a relationship in which the client is enabled Erskine, R. G., & Trautmann, R. L. (1997). The process of
both to rework the old self- and object-relation- integrative psychotherapy. In R. G. Erskine, Theories
ships and to cocreate the new. and methods ofan integrative transactional analvsis: A
volume ofselected articles (pp. 79-95). San Fra~cisco:
TA Press. (Original work published 1993)
Heather Fowlie is a Provisional Teaching
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). An object relations theory of
and Supervising Transactional Analyst (psy- the personality. New York: Basic Books.
chotherapy) in private practice in South West Gobes, L. (1990). Ego states-Metaphor or reality. Trans-
London, England. She teaches in the M.Sc. actional Analysis Journal. 20. 163-165.
program in transactional analysis psycho- Goulding, M. M., & Goulding, R. L. (1979). Changing
lives through redecision therapy. New York: Brunner/
therapy at the Metanoia Institute in West
Mazel.
London and is coordinator ofthe transactional Guntrip, H. (1991). Psychoanalytic theory. therapy and the
analysis counseling course there. She can be self London: Kamac Books. (Original work published
reached at 264 Cannon Hill Lane, Raynes 1971)
Park, SW20 9HN, England. or by email at Guntrip, H. (1992). Schizoid phenomena. object relations
and the self London: Hogarth Press, Kamac Books.
[email protected] . (Original Work published 1968)
Hargaden, H., & Sills, C. (2002). Transactional analvsis.
REFERENCES
A relational perspective. London: Brunner-Routl;dge.
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis inpsychotherapy:
Hargaden, H., & Sills, C. (2003). Who am I for you? The
A systematic individual and social psychiatry. London:
child ego state and transferential domains. In C. Sills &
Souvenir Press.
H. Hargaden (Eds.), Ego states (Vol. I of Key concepts
Bowlby, J. (1992). The making and breaking ofaffectional
in transactional analysis, pp. 185-200). London: Worth
bonds. London: Routledge. (Original work published
Publishing.
1979).
Haykin, M. (1980). Typecasting: The influence of early
Blackstone, P. (1993). The dynamic child: Integration of
childhood experience upon the structure ofthe child ego
second-order structure, object relations, and self psy-
state. Transactional Analysis Journal. 10,354-364.
chology. Transactional Analysis Journal. 23. 216-234.
Kahler, T. (1975). Structural analysis: A focus on stroke
Brown, M. (1977). Psycho-diagnosis in brief Ann Arbor,
MI: Huron Valley Institute. rationale, a parent continuum. Transactional Analysis
Clark, B. (1991). Empathic transactions in the deconfusion Journal. 5. 267-271.
of the child ego state. Transactional Analysis Journal. Kalsched, D. (1996). The inner world oftrauma: Arche-
21.92-98. typal defenses ofthe personal spirit. London: Brunner-
Erskine, R. G. (1988). Ego structure, intrapsychic function, Routledge.
and defense mechanisms: A commentary on Eric Little, R. (2001). Schizoid processes. Working with the
Berne's original theoretical concepts. Transactional defenses ofthe withdrawn child ego state. Transactional
Analysis Journal, 18.15-19. Analysis Journal, 31. 33-43.
Erskine, R. G. (1991). Transference and transactions: Cri- Little, R. (2004). Ego states, relational units and resistance
tique from an intrapsychic and integrative perspective. to change: An integration of transactional analysis and
Transactional Analysis Journal. 21. 63-76. object relations. Transactions: The Journal ofthe Insti-
Erskine, R. G. (l997a). A relationship therapy: Develop- tute of Transactional Analysis. 1,3-10.
mental perspectives. In R. G. Erskine, Theories and Moiso, C. (1985). Ego states and transference. Transac-
methods of an integrative transactional analysis: A tional Analysis Journal, 15. 194-201.
volume ofselected articles (pp. 75-78). San Francisco: Novellino, M. (1984). Self-analysis of countertransference.
TA Press. (Original work published 1989) Transactional Analysis Journal, 14.63-67.
Erskine, R. G. (1997b). Shame and self-righteousness: Novey, 1., Porter-Steele, N., Gobes, L., & Massey, R.
Transactional analysis perspectives and clinical inter- (1993). Ego states and the self-concept: A panel presen-
ventions. In R. G. Erskine, Theories and methods ofan tation and discussion. Transactional Analysis Journal,
integrative transactional analysis: A volume ofselected 23. 123-38.

Vol. 35. No.2. April 2005 203

HEATHER FOWLIE

Schore, A. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin ofthe Stolorow, R. (1994). The nature and therapeutic action of
self Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. psychoanalytic interpretation. In R. Stolorow, G. At-
Shmukler, D. (1991). Transference and transactions: Per- wood, & B. Brandchaft (Eds.), The intersubjective per-
spectives from developmental theory, object relations, spective (pp. 43-55). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
and transformational process. Transactional Analysis Summers, G., & Tudor, K. (2000). Cocreative transactional
Journal. 21, 127-135. analysis. Transactional Analysis Journal, 30,23-40
Shmukler, D. (2003). Ego states: A personal reflection. In Tudor, K. (2003). The neopsyche: The integrating adult
C. Sills & H. Hargaden (Eds.), Ego states (Vol. I of Key ego state. In C. Sills & H. Hargaden (Eds.), Ego states
concepts in transactional analysis: Contemporary views, (Vol. I of Key concepts in transactional analysis, pp.
pp. 135-148). London: Worth Publishing. 201-231). London: Worth Publishing.
Skolnick, N., & Scharff, D. (Eds.). (1998). Fairbairn: Then Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and
and now. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world ofthe infant: emotional development. New York: International Uni-
A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psy- versities Press.
chology. New York: Basic Books.

MOVING? BE SURE YOUR JOURNAL MOVES WITH YOU

1. Attach your old mailing label here. If you do not

have a mailing label, please print your name and
old address to the right in this box.

2. Print your new address below. This is my 0 business 0 home address.

NAME

ADDRESS

CITYISTATE POSTAL CODE

COUNTRY EMAIL

3. Mail to: ITAA, 43614 th ST.. STE. 1301, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-2710, USA. Please allow
six weeks for your change of address to take effect.

204 Transactional Analysis Journal