Confusion and Introjection: A Model for Understanding the Defensive Structures of the Parent and Child Ego States Heather Fowlie Abstract ‘This article discusses the interrelated pro- esses of confusion and introjection, which take placein the Child and Parent ego states respectively. Drawing on British object rela- tions theory, the author explores the devel- ‘opment of the Parent and Child ego states based onthe original modelofstructuralego states (Berne, 1961). Viewing both as patho- logical structures, she examines the kind of ‘experiences that act as catalysts for their de~ ‘velopmentand the defenses that are adopted 8 part of this process. A model for decon- fusion and relational methodology for work with these defenses is suggested, The term “confused child evokes the picture ofa shocked and bewildered litle child who is trying to make sense of and come to terms with something he or she does not understand. Ever since {first heard the term, [ have wondered. what it that s so confusing wo the child? How does the child respond tothe confusion that he orshe feels? Why does the child respond o the confusion as he or she does? ‘The term “introjection” goes some way in explaining how the child becomes confused. Erskine (1994/1997) defines introjection as “an unaware identification with the beliefs. feclings. motivations. behaviors, and defenses of the other” (p. $3). But what is it that the child takesin? What prompts him or her totake into the elf something that affeotively belongs to another? Why does he or she identify with this adopted part? In this article { address these questions and propose tata relational methodology isthe most appropriate way to work with the defense of in- ‘rojection. Drawing on Beme's (961) original ‘model of sietare] ego states, in which he de- seribed the Child ego state as “the collection of 12 fixated ego states” and the Parent ego state as “the collection of introjected ego states from other peopie” (p. 76). I refer to the concept of the integrating Adult as frst presented by Gobes (as cited in Novey, Porter Steele, Gobes, & Massey. 1993), Given that babies ere born both wanting and needing to bein relationship with others (Bowlby, 1979/1992; Erskine. 1989/1997a: Faitbaim, 1952: Gantrip, 1968/ 1992; Stem, 1985). soggest that the Child and Parent ego states develop as a direct, defensive consequence of relationship failure and that the individua} has been unable to integrate the resulting experience and feelings into the Adal. The Development of Defensis Steuctares Beme (3961) described the Adult ego state as “the new-each-raoment part (p. 76). The ‘original ego state mode! proposedby Bere hes ‘been furtherexpanded by Erskine (1988, 1991 1989/1997, 2003), Summers ard Tudor (2000), and Tudor (2003). Tudor (2003), buitding on Gobes’s (1980) work, illustrates ego state de- velopment in the integrating Adult model as shown in Figure 1. OOM aCa OC) OO® 1 YF Fs Figure 1 Ego State Development inthe integrating ‘Adult Modo! {from Tudor, 2003. p. 221) Ego Transactional Analsis lowJn Figure 1. number 1 relates o the individual at conception, number 2 40 the individual in blero, number 3 tothe individual atbirth. muem- ber 4to the person at any age, and number 5 to the individval at the idealized end of therapy. This model of ego states suggests that we are ‘bom Adalt and views this ego state as appro- priate. age specific integrating. and responsive 1 the here and now; it also supposes that the Child and Parent ego states, which can be de- fined respeciively by their archaic and intro- jected nature, are by definition pathological Tris can to some extent be compared with the wotk of Fairbaim (1952). who took the ‘view that the infant starts out at birth with a single, dynamic ego, which is relationship seck- ing and reacts (0 trauma by splitting. Black stone (1993) found many similarities between Fairbaim’s theory and transactional analysis and suggested that these split-off parts of the ‘ego were consistent with and could be easily translated into the second-order ego state model. Erskine (2003) drawing on Fairbaire (1952) and Guntrip (1971/1991, 1968/1992), describes this process as follows: in the presence ot tear, chile may split off parts of him or herself, and form an 0 state that is both a combination of an internatized parental control,and achild’s fearfuleompliance with that control. They term this sate “ent-Ibidinal ego” to em- hasise how it suppresses and controls the libidinal ego”—an ego state that has the remnants of what would have been the na- tural nature of the person. They deseribe this conflict as occurring intrapsychically for the purpose of maintaining a sem- blance of relationship with the caretakers, by keeping the natural nature ofthe person suppressed. (pp. 84-85) Falrbairs (1952) described trauma as arising ‘outof relationship faflures between achild and his or her primary caregiver, « view that hoo been supported by many other theorists. For instance, Winnicot 1965) wrote of the “fase sel?” 4s arising out of the child's need to pro- tect the self against the parent's “impingements” {p. 99). Little (2001) suggests thet “when the infant experiences neglect, impingement, ot lack of attunement accompanied by a lack of reparation. the child may go into hiding with Vol. 28, Mo 2, Apt 2008 CONFUSION AND INTROFECTION, his orher feelings and relational needs" {p. 35) Likewise. Erskine and his coauthors (Erskine, 2003: Erskine & Moursund, 1988/1998: Ers- kine, Moursund, & Trautman, 1999) have writen extensively on how important it is for children to have their relational needs met and how failure in this area results in them develop- ing defenses as a means of coping with and ‘compensating for these relacionship failures. ‘On this basis, it makes sense to me to view the Child ego slate as arising out of and eon- taining those experiences in which the indi- viduals significant needs for contact were not met and, in particular, comprising all ofthe de- fenses developealto protect the individual rom the ensuing discomfor. Using this model, the Parent ego state can be understood as a simoltaneously developed re- pository that contains the child's internalized representation of the person(s) who did not eet his or her sigeficant needs for contact. “The unconscious purpose of internalizing such representations is thatthe child feels as though hie or she is gaining some form of pscudocon trol over the conflict that is experienced asare- sult of this relational faite. Given that the Parent and Chilé ego states de velop in this way, we can see the obvious link “with the following well-known observation 1. The Parent and Child ego states con umerons and vatied experiences. perhaps grouped together in what Stern (1985) calis Representations of Interactions that have been Generalized (RIGS). 2. While most of these experiences oceur during our early chitdhood development, they ‘ean be added to later in lie and. in particular. reinforced by Inter traumatic incidents when andif the individual s potable tozppropriately process and integrate into Adult what hus ‘occurred. 3. The Parentand Child ego states develop in tandem and, as such. are focked together in ‘what Little (2004) cals “relational units” (p. 4), In these units, “the Child and Parent cela- tionship is an intemalized representation of an ‘earlier experience between the self and other, ‘or object" they both constantly influence cach ‘other and “are bonded together by affect” (p. 4), In other words, its the whole relationship ‘that has been iaternalized. i)HEATHER FOWLIE 4, Sufficienty attuned contact and adequate ‘meeting ofthe chiles relational needs stength- ens and supports the development ofthe Adult ‘ego siate. Thus, the developing child is able to assimilate and integrate these appropcate forms of contact into the Adult ego state as positive self-defining memory that can thenbecalledon to suppor: the seif andor others 5. Because of the child's immaturity and de- pendence on the caretaker, poor-quality or in- Appropriate contaet cannot be integrated and assimilated into the Adult: as a result such contact acis as 2 catalyst for the development of the pathological Child and Parent ego states. rum now fo our need for contact with others ‘and how this impacts ego state development. Our Need for Others Many authors have written about our need forothers. including Winnicott (1965),Bowiby (197911992), Faicbaira (1952), Guntrip (1968/ 1992), Erskine (1988), Schore (1994). end Stem (1985). 1 therefore start from the premise that babies are bor both wanting and needingto be inrelationship. The lationship between achild and his or her pnmary caretaker has been shown to influence profoundly all areas ofthe child's evelopment. Bowlby (1972/1992) identified attachment needs that shape a child's behavior and emphasized the importance ofeazly 25 well 4s prolonged physical bonding in the develop- ‘ment of an internal core out of which all experi ‘ences of self and other will be defined. Stern (1985) suggests that itis out ofthe reciprocity ‘of contact besween an infant and caretaker that the infant's sense of self begins fo emerge and ‘out of which he or ske forms an internal biue- printabout the nature of relationships with oth- ers, Shore (1994) details the central role that the first relationship playsin both affective nd psychological development and in the physical development of the brain: he suggests tat this growth ie “depondent upon and influenced by the socio-emotional environment” (9. 78). in their theory of the self. Hargaden and Sitls (2002) suggest that the relationship between the primary caretaker and the infant is the “foundation on which the rest of the self is built" (p. 19): it supports the healthy or othes- wise) development of the core self. Without “an other to attune io, achild cannot develop. 198 Ateaned contact is vital to ensuring the young child's physical, personal. end prycho- logical development. This is not to minimize ‘the impact of the chill's innate personality. but rather to emphasize the reat and almost total ‘dependence the child has on his or her primary caretaker during the formative years—and. as consequence. the inherent enormity of paten- {at intiuence on development, ‘A Model for Deconfusion Based on British Object Relations Theory Chilicen begin fe both wanting and expect- ing others 10 be there for them. This expecta- tion is at is highest when they experience a need for some kind of contact, which arises ap- propriately in A, In full expectation that care~ lakers will ace! that need, the child reaches out. the caretaker i able to understand what the need is and respond appropriately, the need is met and the child experiences satisfaction (see Figuce 2), This simple act communicates three things to the child: that his or her need is acceptable, that he or she can be understood, and that the other will spond. Figure 2 ‘The Child Experiences Satisfaction If, however, the caretaker does not appropri- ately respond, the chitd will fee] the need inten sifying, This disturbs the child's innete expec- tation thatthe caregiver will be there for hima or Trumsccionl leis Journal‘her, and in response to both his or her confi sion about this failure and the growing inten- sity of the need. the child tries again and again to obtaina satisfactory response (See Figure3). ‘The more the child must try. the more frus- trated, aggressive, and angry and desperate he ‘orshe feels abozt not obtaining satisfaction for the original ned as well as with any others that are activated by the unsatisfactory response. ‘Stolorow ((994) suggests that the child experi fences relationship failure in two phases: “a painful emotional response” and “a fonging {p.50). tis my belief that these two responses form the basis ofboth the feared and the longed for relationship. Figure 3 The Need Intensifies. If the caregiver reacts well tothe child's re- peated attempts to get his or her need met by recognizing and attending to both the painful motional response ard the longing. the child will feel responded to and satisfied, White the child experiences this process as painful. acer- tain amount of relationship failureis inevitable if. Provided the caregiver is able to repair re and net repeat too often this fl- ture will not nevessavily be damaging to the child, In fact. it may be used positively to help him or her develop patience, learn to deal with disappointment, discoverthat peopiecanbe an- it him or her and still be loving, and so 1 however, the caregiver does not react well and neither responds appropriately tothe child's Vol 35, No.2. Apel 2005 ‘CONFUSION AND INTROJECTION ‘original need or to the feelings aroused in re sponse to the failure, the chitd will eventually slop remonstrating and back down, While the timing of this is affected by. for instance, the use oF threat of violence or recognition of the futility of trying, tis witimately the child's fear ‘of losing the caregiver in some way that actu ally motivates him or hee to stop. Stolorow (1994) describes this process an offers Insight into what the child is thinking st the tine: ‘The chiid perceives that kis painful reac tive feelings are unwelcome or damaging, to the caregiver and must be defensively sequestered in order to preserve the need: ex bond. ... These walled-off painful fee! ings become a source of lifelong inner conflict and vulnerability to traumatic states. (p. 51) “The child acts to both protect himsclfor her self from further injury and to mainiain the relationship in the only way that he or she can: by mainiaining faith in the care ‘moving that which is assumed tobe the offend- ing object: the child himself or herself. In this ‘way we ean define “confusion as the process ing a relationship with a earegiver—assumes responsibility for that failure and makes a de cision to foreclose on any associated or similar relational needs that e or she has, ‘The child's need to shat down and off from his or her own relational needs stimulates the development of the Child ego state, with the split-off part forming C,. The extent of the deficit in parenting, coupted with the interre lated strength of both the painful emotional re action and the longing, guite naturally in‘lu- leces the degree o which the resulting Feelings in the Chiid will need to be excluded and the depth to which C, will need to be repressed. Guntrip (1968/1992) described this process as the tregressed ego" (p. 4d), which may be un- dersiood as a schizoid process. The C, Child retreats from contact (sce Figure 4), However mistaken the child's conclusion may be, the fact that he or she has been abie to arrive at one and, as a result, repress the Cy ‘Child suggests that the child has developed some capacity to make meaning. This is, for ime, the origins of A,. It should he obvious that wsHEATHER FOWLIE Figure 4 ‘The Child Retreats from Contact the easier, more negative, and more extreme the circumstances in which this capacity has been forged, the more confused the child's thinking is likely tobe. tis out of this piace thatthe child tkes re sponsibility for and settles on a way of main taining the relationship that the caregiver did not or could not epait. The A; Child moves into the place vacated by the zeueat ofthe C, Child tsee Figure 5). This occurs through the ‘A, Child adopting behaviors that he or she be- lieves will make him or her more acceptable to the caregiver and that, atthe same time, maxi- mize the number of strokes available to him or her. think of these behaviors as the earliest {form of drivers (Kahler. 1975) and believe that as long as the A, Child relates from this place. he or she can secure a false sense of OKness (eg."l ean be OK with you as fongas I'm per fect, strong, pleasing, tc.”). This is, in effect, _ — Figure 5 ‘The Development of the Faise Self Transactional Aalst Journala narcissistic process in thet the child gives up ‘on who he or she isin orderto become who the child thinks he or she is required tobe, ‘This attempt by the A, Child to maintain 2 ‘lationship with the caregiver and, atthe same time. to protect the C, self bas many flaws From the perspective of the A, Child, the most serious of these is the possibility that the C, Child, will—outof desperation andinresponse to a new need arising inside—emerge out of hiding and try to reach out to the caregiver ‘once more. This situation feels extremely dan- serous to the A, Child, who believes it both threatens to disrupt the reconnection with the caregiverand returns the child to the very dan- ger From which he or she previously removed himself ox herself ‘To keep himself or herself safe, I believe the child develops the P, part ofthe sel. which has two parts: P, and Py... The child uses both of these to ty to keep the C, Child from reaching ‘out to the caregiver. The size and potential power available to these structures is propor- tionately linked to the arnount of repressed and sequestered feeting in C, that they are required soconiuin, The more sequestered feelings there are in Cy the bigger the P, self must be: and the more these sequestered feelings threaten to break through. the more intensely will the P, sel feel the need to act. The P part manifests. a its most extreme. as self-destructive. attacking. vicious. angry part ‘ofthe self. While modeled on and hugely inf ‘enced by those parts ofthe child's experience ‘of being parented that resulted from times ‘when his or her needs were not met, I ee this part of the seif as a self-invented concept ars- ing out ofa desire to protect the self from fur- therherm. This partuses threats, cynicism, and suspicion to convince the C, Child that itis in his or her best interests to stay hidden (e.g."1F people see how stupid, bad, disgusting. needy ‘you are, they will hte you, lough at you, leave you. be overwhelmed by you"), As partof this ‘defense, the child developsa set ofrales forthe ; Child to follow, which I think of asthe in- junctions (Goulding & Goulding, 1979) (e.. “As long a8 you don’t get close, well, sue- ‘cessfil, et.. you Won't be seen and therefore trun), While this partis mainly focused on the self. the child will lash outand threaten another ol 38.2, April 2008 ‘CONFUSION AND INTROSECTION person if he or she feels the C, Childs in dan- {ger of being discovered or is tying to make contact with that person. The extent t0 which the person lashes out from this places directly proportionate to the cumulative extent towhieb te child had to repress his or her sequestered feelings and the degree to which the discovery of the C, self fels life threatening ‘Although P, uses indimication to stare the C, Child into submission, the protective and tov ing intention behind these actions needs to be ‘understood and valued. This point was vali ‘ated by Kalsched (1996): “While everyone agrees how maladaptive these defences are in the later life ofthe patient, few writers have ac- knowledged the miraculous nature ofthese de- fences—their life-saving sophistication or their ‘archetypal nature and meaning” (p. 2). Scared, dnurt, and in desperate need of a parent himself lor herself. she (P,.is totally unsuited i} pre- pated, and far too litle to parent anyone. never mind a Child who is only alittle bit younger than himself oF herself. tis from this place. motivated by a desire to protect the self, thet he or she strikes out at both the C; Child and any. lowe else whe cores near (see Figure. 8) The P,, Child, at its most extreme, manifests ‘as an adoring, ideatizing, clinging. and needy ‘Child who iongs fora perfect parent who will protect, love, and understand him or her. This Child is modeled on bits of his or her own ex- perience of being parented that were appropri- ate but which, because they occurred in the face fof so much deficit, could not be integrated. It ccanalso be modeled on “fantasy parents” based con either real or imagined possibilies of posi- tive contact withteachers and/or characters from fairy tales or television, The P,. Child worksio keen the C, Child hidden by soothing and at- tending to some of his or her needs for contact, through daydreams and fantasies aboutempathic contact with these manufactured parents, Lacy, the Py, Child works to keep the Cy Child hidden by reinforcing the perceived wis. doi of the approach adopted by the Ay Child and by leading the C, Child to believe that the caregiver will only stay positive providing the Chile is “Trying hard,” "Hurrying up."*Pleas- ing.” and so on. Although the tactics of P, are such softer than those of the P,. Child. the message is the same: “The more you become werHEATHER FOWLIE Kt Figure ‘The Development ofthe Protective Seif like the A, Child, the more your caregiver, or the other that you are longing for, will beable (0 love you: ui den, you beter sway hidden.” The Parent Ego State: Introjection While the Child ego state is developing in this way. corresponding development is oceur- ring simultancously in the Parent ego siate. In a defensive maneuver, the child whose :2la- tional needs are not met and continue tobe un- ret, takes into P. (introjects) and then iden- tifies with the nonrespansive. overstimlating or abusive caretaker (see Figure 7) ‘The main reason forthe introection, accord ing to Fairvaim (1952), is that it enables the child to stay attached, bonded, and loyal to the much needed caretaker. By spliting off che parts of the caretaker that hart, frighten, disap- point, o frustrate ftom the parts that soothe, r- assure satisfy. and comfort and then intrajen- ting into Py and repressing into unconscious- sess the former, the chikd manages to keep the caretaker”"good” and inthe process secures for hirnselforherselfa pseudorelationshipwith the ‘caretaker that minimizes separation anxiety By effectively removing responsibility for ‘themisattunement from the caregiver and loca- ting it instead within the self the child also 198 gains a sense of safety because he or she can now view the “badness” as residing within the self vather Una within the caregives, fn eter words. the child takes the badness into his or her own inner world in an attempt to make the outer world safer and to preserve hope. Faitbaimexplained that children persistently blame themseives for bad experiences so that they can maintain objects ax good and maxi ‘mize the chance of being loved. Expanding on Transactional Aalsis Journalthese ideas, Skoinickand Scharff(1998) wrote, If the object is seen as bad, then nothing the child can da, not even atonement for badness, will sere love—a condition he [Fairbaim] termed “unconditional bad- ness.” But ifthe child sees itself as bad and the object as good, there isa chance of| being loved if only the child can right him- self—“conditional badness." (p. xii) Brown (1977) suggested that introjection allows the individual to fil the psychological vacuum left by the abscnce of interpersonal contact. The chil identifies with those parts of the caregiver that have been introjected, which :eans that rather than acknowledge and main- tain his or her own sense of reality. the child adopts the reality and atitude of those parts of the caregiver that have been introjected (e.g, "People who show their feelings really are st pid and annoying to other people"). In this ‘way. the child develops ard sets inio motion three further defensive functions 1. He or she gains another ally forthe protec- tive P, Child, one who will help the child 10 ‘control and frighten the C, Child into staying hidden, thereby mn his of her mind maxunizing the chances tht the caregivers will continue io be loving. 2. By projecting his or her “weakness” onto another, the child manages to achieve feelings of superiority and empowerment over “those ‘weak others.” In those moments, he or she be- comes the strong one who has the power 10 hurt and humiliate rather than be hurt and hu- riliesed, 3, Because the child believes the other de- serves 10 be devalued, he or she secures for himself or herself a means by which to just fiably and without any apparent psychological harm to the self experience and express the contempt and rage thats stored deep within his co her Child and Parent ego states. The relief that thie outward expulsion brings should not be underestimated as it enables the individual to escape the very feelings that are usually ‘experienced and turned in on the self. To illustrate. {offer the following case ex- ample. Araette, age 37, held within her Parent ego state strong belief that her role in life was tomemry and have children, She had introjected this view culturally from her Irish Catholic Vel 35, No.2, Apt 2008, ‘CONFUSION AND INTROIECTION ‘upbringing, and it had been reinforced by her mother, who suffered from paranoid persoral- ity disorder. In fact. her mother bad been vie- ‘ous iniberattecks on Annette, even suggesting that she was not marred because no man ‘would look at her “since everyone who knew ther thought that she was working as a prosti- tute.” One day when a colleague came ito ‘work overjoyed fo Show off ReF nev engage: ment ring, Annette found herself possessed by arage that she could hardly contain. This usu~ ally self-contained woman reexperienced the fall extent of her rage as she recounted the in- cident in therapy: “She was shoving her ring it amy face. and it was tiny diamond, Who would wanta ring ike that? She was trying to husmili- ate me, [could tell.” The incidenthad triggered “Annette's own feclings of worthlessress it Cy. which she avoided feeling in the moment by Jumping into Parent and attacking the woman and herring instead, just as her mother often attacked her. ‘The child's feelings of rage and contempt arise from two sources. The first i the intro- [jected feelings ofthe caregiver. which ifthe in- trojectionoccurredsta time whenthe caregiver was relating othe child fromthe “sequestered” paris of is or her own personality. are partieu- Jatly powerful atd extreme. The other is the child's repressed feelings that he or she felt at the time ofthe misertinements but sequestered in G; in order to secure his or her relationship ith the caregiver and thatthe child took along, when he or she went into hiding While these sequestered feelings are held structurally within the Child ego state, [think ‘of them at times being sent hurriedly and ur- gently into the Parent ego state. where they can be expelled in an attempt to ward off any per- ceived and imminent threat to the bond with the categiver andor whenever relief from the rege and contempt thats tumed against the self ie required ond sought (0 Figure 8) These P, expulsions—perhaps becuse they involve a double whammy of feeiings. includ- ing those from the introjected caretaker and those that arise fromm the Chilé——have the po- tential, maybe even more than those from P, todisorient, intimidate, tery. and in many- ‘other ways send us reeling in the counter ‘ransference, This description of P, transference 18HEATHER FOWLIE O@ CO) CY EY & Figure 8 P_ Expuision