the metaphor of twinship in personality development

The Metaphor of Twinship inPersonality Development

Susan Fisher

ABSTRACT: To develop one's own separate identity and sense of personal authority is aparticularly difficult task within a twinship relationship. Twinship creates the additionalobstacle of separating from a need-satisfying sibling before progressing to the struggle forseparation from mother. This paper examines these difficulties within the metaphor oftwinship, linking them to the development of identical twins, object relationships andpsychotherapeutic practice. Twinship is discussed as a schizoid phenomenon, withreference to reality, narcissism, relatedness, mirroring, dependency needs, boundaries andspace.

Introduction

In this paper I shall study the nature of twinship and the development of identical twinsso as to formulate a basis for recognising twinship relationships in psychotherapeuticpractice. There exists a large body of knowledge about identical twins; however, mypersonal experience as an identical twin and my clinical experience lead me to concludethat this specific knowledge about twins should be applied more generally to non-twins. Iuse the term 'twinship' as a metaphor to explain a unique type of sibling-like alliance (narcissistic union) founded on the actual experience of identical twins (i.e. singletonsbehaving `as if' they are relating to a co-twin). It refers to a specific way of relating which isnot exclusively seen between twins. Siemon (1980) comments that 'judging from theattention paid to twins, it might seem that having someone who knows "just how it is" is abasic human desire'.

The metaphor can contribute to a deeper understanding of patients. I find that twinshiprelationships exist more frequently than is usually recognised. I am especially alert topatients who bring a family background of a bad `fit' with mother, an absent father, aclosely-spaced sibling, and an indifferent environment. This combination may suggest thatin early childhood the patient turned to a sibling for needed attention and recognition.Adults may seek therapy at a point of loss, threatened or real, of an important partner orwhen they feel bored, disillusioned or 'stuck' in an unfulfilling twosome. After aconsiderable time together married couples may physically resemble each other, dress insimilar manner, have their own special means of communicating and share hostile attitudestowards the outside world. The mutual support and security which a twinship relationshipprovides may cease to counterbalance a powerful urge toward independence.

Twinship is a particular type of schizoid phenomenon based on unrelatedness,withdrawal and regression. It provides a cocoon existence. Individuals, alienated andisolated from an environment which is unable to satisfy their needs, take on

Mrs. Susan Fisher is an Analytical Psychotherapist in private practice. Address for offprints andcorrespondence is 33 Albion Street, London W2 2AX.

British Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 2(4), 1986© The author

272 British Journal of Psychotherapy

twinship as a strategy for surviving childhood. Twinship is maintained as a defence againstthe unfulfilled need for containment, acceptance and love. It inhibits the separation-individuation process and ensuing object relationships (including the therapeuticrelationship).

Over the years twins have stimulated envy, excitement, curiosity and fantasies. Apopular fantasy is that twinship means being attached to a reliable, friendly companionwho can magically satisfy narcissistic needs. Frazer (1983) found a widespread belief thattwin children have supernatural powers over nature and that their wishes are alwaysfulfilled. Twinship is thought to be similar to what Frazer called `sympathetic magic', whenit is assumed that things act on each other at a distance through a secret sympathy.

The desire to maintain a romantic view of twinship has mitigated the possibility ofhumanising the relationship. Often the ambiguities, conflicts and complexity of twinshipare ignored. My approach is to try to redress the imbalance of the `positive' one-sided viewby emphasising a number of `negative' factors. I regard being a twin as both a problem anda solution in personal development. It can be an experience both enriching and destructive,both giving and taking identity. It leads to mutual love and admiration together with hateand envy. Twins share the same needs, anxieties and wishes common to those ofsingletons. However, since they begin life with the intra-uterine experience of shared genesand womb and have a constant companion, their perception of the world is fundamentallydifferent. Discovering the integrity of one's own personality is especially difficult for atwin.

Nature of Twinship

What is generally referred to as the `twinning reaction' is a mutual interidentificationand part fusion of self representation and object representation of the co-twin causing theblurring of boundaries (Joseph & Tabor 1961). This results in excessive projection,introjection and identification. Twins see themselves as intimately connected andundifferentiated parts of an inseparable social unit (Siemon 1980).

The two concepts of twinship are 'one-into-two' and 'two-into-one'. An egg splitvertically is a symbol of 'one-into-two'. The two halves are too close to perceive each otheras a differentiated part. A mirror has been a symbol of 'twointo-one' since primitive mandiscovered his image in still water. The first reflections of an infant in the mirror of hismother's eyes are the beginning of separation-individuation. A mirror image can stand foraspects of the self, of the object, or of the self pictured in the parent's eyes. Mirrors are wellsuited for vertical splits of the mind, the self representation `me' against the objectrepresentation `not me', good against bad self and object representations (Shengold 1975).A mirror symbolises both inside and outside. In mythology the `other half' may either beviewed as a guardian angel or as a carrier of madness and death.

The myth of Narcissus, the Greek youth trapped by fascination as he tries vainly toembrace his own reflection, illustrates the 'two-into-one' aspect. It expresses the universalwish for/fear of blissful fusion with an idealised object, and the mystery of identity - `Whoam I?'. It represents the narcissistic promise of magical power, specialness, and wholeness,obtainable through fusion.

Susan Fisher 273

In one version of the Narcissus myth, the nymph Echo falls in love with Narcissus buthe rejects her because she cannot initiate her own words, only repeat his words. Echo diesof a broken heart, and the Gods punish Narcissus by making him fall in love with his ownimage. Narcissus catches sight of his own reflection in the fountain waters and cannot tearhimself away; he pines away and dies. According to another version Narcissus, son of RiverGod, distinguished for his beauty, goes to a spring to console himself for the death of histwin sister, his exact counterpart. He gazes into the spring to recall her features by his own.The ancient Greeks regarded as an omen of death if a man dreamed of seeing himselfreflected in water because they feared that the soul would be drawn from the body by thewater-spirits (Frazer 1983). Water in all forms, sea, lake, river, spring, is one of thecommonest symbols for unconsciousness (Jung 1955/56). The Greek attitude could beinterpreted as death (i.e. not being fully alive) occurring when the spirit (emotions) are splitoff from the body.

Defensive withdrawal into twinship hides the weak, needy, vulnerable and potentiallydestructive parts of the personality within a protective `skin'. Emotions are split off from thebody. Individuals may hide their insecurity and half-alive selves from an unsafe worldwithin the twinship. It incorporates aspects of Winnicott's (1960) `false self', Balint's (1979)`basic fault' and Guntrip's (1980) `schizoid compromise'.

Winnicott (1960a) places the aetiology of the `false self' defence in the stage of theinfant's first object relationship. The compliant `false self' is split off from the 'true self'. The`true self' containing aliveness, creativity and spontaneity, and linked to the outer world, ishidden. Creativity and originality are sacrificed in the need for support. The 'false self' ismistaken for the whole child. In my view twinship is a form of 'false self' protecting theindividual 'true self'.

Balint's (1979) 'basic fault' originates in the pre-oedipal, pre-verbal, nonconflictual twoperson relationship. The 'fault' is lack of 'fit' between child and environment. Balint pointsout that in primitive two person relationships, which he calls ocnophilia, the object is vitallyimportant. Any threat of being separated creates intense anxiety and there is a comparativeinhibition of developing personal skills which might make the individual independent fromthe object. I will point out later how the twin/sibling becomes the important object ratherthan an adult.

Guntrip (1980) describes 'schizoid compromise' as a successful schizoid 'half-inhalf-out' relationship. It is a systematic non-committal alliance with the outer world which ismaintained by being forever on the move. The compromise is used as a defence against realprogress and commitment. By maintaining a middle position one is neither completelyisolated nor fully committed to object relationships, so progress is at a stalemate. There is awithdrawal into an unconscious state of infantile regression. In the case of twinship it canmean. a lifelong compromise.

Developmental Factors

The biology of twins is bound to affect their development. Identical twins begin as asingle embryo enclosed by a common membrane 'skin' (chorion). Some speculate that earlyarrest of development is caused by an environmental disturbance in the unity of the embryoso that two growth centres develop, forming two distinct foetuses. Perhaps this is the basisfor identical twins' deep sense of being


only half a person. The two foetuses closely coexist in a womb/space intended for one.There is little space to stretch, kick, or reach out and grab.

Dibble and Cohen's study (1981) showed that, even before birth, parents see their twinsas either lacking or having individuality, and as either having the capacity to providepleasure or not. The two infants cannot emerge simultaneously; therefore they havedifferent antenatal, birth, and delivery experiences which will have some effect on theirindividual development. Singletons have the additional help towards individuation ofhaving a wider space between births and different status within the family. If twins are the `only child', they depend more on each other and have more trouble separating from themother (Terry 1975).

Each twin probably goes through an undifferentiated phase, where no boundaries existbetween himself and outside world, until the time comes when he becomes aware thatmother is not an extension of himself (Winestein 1969). Twins develop two earlyattachments simultaneously, one with mother and one with the twin. In the first weeks ofinfancy, to the extent that one twin is aware of the existence of the other, there must be astrong sense of oneness, or rather the lack of perception of separateness (Leonard 1961).This preceeds the awareness of body boundaries.

The first subphase of the individuation process, differentiation, begins at about four tofive months of age (Mahler 1972a). In a Hampstead wartime nursery, Burlingham (1949)observed a four month old twin smiling at his brother and another set of twins looking ateach other during the fifth and sixth months. Leonard (1961) found that at around fivemonths twins are sufficiently aware of each other to have a quietening effect on each otherwhen brought together. They were left to themselves as long as they were reasonablycontent; little sounds and movements seemed to be enough to give them a sense of notbeing alone. By six months the scene is set for twins to identify with each other rather thanwith an object adult. This identification with the twin often retards the maturation of bothtwins, causing language difficulties and interfering with the formation of other objectrelationships (Leonard 1961). The interdependency of one infant on another causes theirself images to remain blurred.

Twins, like singletons, need `optimal mirroring' which involves the acceptance of achild's separate identity by a loving mother (Shengold 1974). The more twins look alike,the more attracted they are to each other, and the harder it is for a mother to relate to themas individuals (Terry 1975). It is difficult for any mother to relate physically andemotionally to more than one child at a time, especially if mother is preoccupied with herown needs. If a mother's face is unresponsive, then the mirror is a thing to look at but notinto (Winnicott 1971b). If twins are disappointed at being unable to get the mother mirrorto notice and approve, they turn to each other. Schwartz-Salant (1982) writes of narcissisticfusion which forces the object to be a mirror in a controlling manner. A twin could feelcompelled to be a mirror for mother and co-twin. Mirroring occurs continuously betweentwins and they develop communications between each other. This may serve to compensatefor deluded `maternal preoccupation' (Ackerman 1975). What could be called `twinpreoccupation' supplies a mirroring, narcissistic object which can be relied on for love andaffection. The need for mirror acceptance and approval from another persists with lesseningurgency throughout life. When a

Susan Fisher 275

twin fills the need-satisfying role too well, there is not the frustration and gradual disillusionnecessary for separation.

In the early practising phase of the individuation process the infant's interest in motherspills over to inanimate objects, at first those provided by her such as bottles and toys. Oneor other of these objects becomes a transitional object, used to indulge the infant's buddingrelationship with the `other than mother' world. Twinship sets up a perpetual 24-houropportunity for an animated transitional object, one that sometimes intrudes whether it iswanted or not (Leonard 1961). Ackerman (1975) reported on a twin who served as atransitional object that was not given up. A twin can be a real toy, a cross between a dolland a dog, an everpresent container for projections. According to Grunberger (1979), alittle girl playing with her doll recreates with it the same narcissistic union she had with themother. She may be unwilling to give it up; only force can tear it away, causing tears andgrief. Winnicott (1971a) points out that a transitional object is never under magical controllike the internal object, nor is it outside control like the mother is. The co-twin is notinternalised but remains as an idealised self object, as a protection against a bad externalworld.

As the separation-individuation process progresses, the ambivalent feelings becomemore complicated and conflictual. Simultaneously the twins struggle to separate frommother and their twin while at the same time trying to hold on to the security of twinship.They attempt to find a separate identity without giving up unit identity. In Siemon's (1980)view the intimacy and intensity of twinship help to decrease the pain when twins separatefrom mother. In my view twinship defensively disrupts the separation process from motherand inhibits the exploration of a wider world. As described in Guntrip's `schizoidcompromise' the 'halfin-half-out' relationship, the twinship, inhibits real progress andcommitment and creates a stalemate. Available energy tends to go towards preserving anequilibrium with the twin at the cost of individuation. The competitive situation betweentwins is increased by the attempt to receive narcissistic gratification from mother for anynew accomplishment. Copying becomes an expression of closeness and a game between thetwins (Burlington 1949). Each twin begins to renounce demands on the condition that anequal renunciation can be counted on from the twin rival. The demand that they shareequally, to which the twins complied passively with their parents, is transformed into anactively asserted insistence by the twins that they should be treated equally. They changeroles repeatedly in order to check on negative feelings which arise from envy, jealousy andcompetitiveness (Arlow 1960). As the twins grow older they begin to resent not having aunique and separate identity, but their hostility and resentment stimulate a great deal ofguilt about separation. They find that it is generally easier to project, deny and split offaggressive impulses than to face the guilt and anxiety about loss of shared parts whichmake them feel whole. Raised as a unit they cannot occupy the same space in the family, sothey establish complementary positions by sharing the space. Compliance is the mainfeature of the `false self' with imitation as a specialty (Winnicott 1960a). Differences whichneed to be recognised and encouraged in order to facilitate separation-individuation aredenied in order to support the narcissistic gratification of twinship and to decrease the painof the original narcissistic injury.


Optimal distance in the early practising phase of development is one that allowsfreedom and opportunity for exploration and some physical distance from mother (Mahler1972b). The toddler continues to need to return to `home base' for emotional `refuelling'. Inthe case of twins they are generally `refuelled' by each other rather than mother. Ordinarypeek-a-boo games, when objects are lost and gained, distanced and reunited, are toothreatening to play with need-satisfying twin objects. This links with Balint's concept of theprimitive two-person relationship where separation creates intense anxiety anddevelopment is inhibited. The `rapprochement crisis' (Mahler 1972b) is a crisis based onseparation anxiety, fear of loss of love object, and an extra-sensitive reaction to approvaland disapproval. A twin toddler feels 'stuck'/immobilised by fear of a double loss; and isfrequently reluctant to accept the reality of his separateness and new accomplishments. In asense this is like Narcissus who dies because of his longing for a part object relationshipwhich will make him feel alive and whole. He cannot withstand the pull toward unitidentity, so relinquishes a life of his own. On one hand he desires unity, on the other hedefends against relatedness.

As with singletons, a twin's sense of identity depends on his impression of having abody with limits and boundaries. The stronger the identification with the body, the strongerthe sense of self. A twin's illusionary image of common skin boundary is intended to denythe reality of separateness. A twin can find it very difficult to develop a sense of himself inhis body and feel contained. Holding is a way of showing love, leading to an infant's firstobject relationship. Parents under stress may not have the time or energy to hold their twinsindividually or to recognise needs. A mother on her own may compromise by doing herhousework and leaving the twins to satisfy each other; they will feel as if they belongtogether. Overworked parents of twins are likely to accept any helping hands available,leading to inconsistent handling and impingement. Caretakers may not know which twinthey are handling and vice versa. When an infant does not know who is picking him up, hemust always be on guard - unable to relax. Winnicott (1960b) writes about the importanceof consistency of care in facilitating integration. He notes that in extreme case ofunreliability and unpredictability, infants react only on the basis of continuing reaction toimpingement. Deprived of consistent holding, it is difficult for a twin to develop a sense ofbeing, a sense of reality. Consistent `good enough' parenting/holding will facilitate a senseof identity.

Clothing becomes an extension of the body image, so twins who insist on wearingidentical clothing as they grow older illustrate a strong residual interidentification (Winestein 1969). Dressing alike reinforces primitive feelings of unity and bringsnarcissistic gratification when twins become aware of being of special interest. Twins mayexperience both enjoyment and resentment from exhibitionism and voyeurism. A frustratedneed to be properly seen and listened to may be sublimated in adulthood by listening to andobserving others, as in early childhood.

Verbal development can also be impaired by twinship. A study by Lytton, Conway andSauve (1977) found a crucial difference between twins and singletons. The amount ofspeech by twins was less and was graded less mature. Parents of singletons engaged inmore commands, prohibitions, more reasoning and more suggestions. Lytton et alcommented that `secret language' among twins could be

Susan Fisher 277

immature speech understood only by the other twin. Using a `secret language' facilitatescommunication with the twin but inhibits contact with the wider world because it isunintelligible to others. Leonard (1961) considers echolalia to be the probable reason fornonsense words or syllables in twins' vocabulary. Like the nymph Echo, a twin tries tomaintain a special relationship by imitation and sympathetic mirroring. Echoing isdescribed by Schwartz-Salant (1982) as a circular process, one that depends on hearing thearchetypal meaning in what seems like senseless babbling - the attempt to be born, tobecome alive.

Reality about abilities and skills can be confused when both twins are praised andpunished for the behaviour of one. They are called `the twins' and treated as a unit. Lidz (1962) gives clinical examples of both twins both being praised and punished for the deed ofone. There is an example (Pauluszny 1974) of one twin being kept at home when the otherwas sick. In the analysis of a twin, experiences are often described as if they happen to bothtwins regardless of who is involved (Joseph & Tabor 1961). It is not unusual for twins to beunaware of reality since it is clouded by copying and contagion of feelings. When the objectis a mirror image whose experiences are shared, it is more difficult to differentiate theinternal motive from the external and in a sense reality from fantasy (Lidz et al 1962).

Discussion

The metaphor of twinship (based on actual identical twins) adds a new dimension toempathic perception of psychotherapy patients. There are numerous reasons why siblingsunconsciously take on this cocoon, `two against the world' defence, and there are numerousreasons why it satisfies parents to raise them as a unit. Twinship is a closed, interdependentsibling relationship which has not been neutralised by corrective experience in the outerworld. Being `stuck' with an addiction to this type of relationship limits growth and adultobject relationships. Of course these patients share many problems, anxieties and defenceswith those we described as schizoid or narcissistic personalities. It is beyond the scope ofthis paper to study therapeutic practice in detail, but I will briefly mention aspects oftherapeutic boundaries, transference and omnipotence which seem particularly relevant.

Therapeutic boundaries

The image of a womb, where two foetuses co-exist in a space for one, without sufficientspace to reach out and grab, stretch or kick aggressively, helps me to understand theimportance of these activities within the boundaries of a 'therapeutic womb'. Saying `NO'and surviving aggressive feelings toward an idealised therapist/twin may be the turningpoint in therapy. Redfearn (1972) points out the necessity for a child to say `NO' with hiswhole body before being able to say `YES' to another person. It may take a patient, stuck ina twinship relationship, a long time before he is able to contain his anxiety enough to risk a `NO' which could mean a triple loss i.e. therapist/twin/mother. It could mean risking loss oflove and identity. These twinship patients need clear therapeutic boundaries and sufficientneutral space to explore similarities and differences in order to grow towards autonomy.


In Winnicott's terminology one needs `potential space' - a space between the objects forcreative play (Winnicott 1971c). Casement's (1985) helpful chapter `The Search for Space,An Issue of Boundaries' gives clinical material illustrating the creative use of destructivefeelings towards the therapist in the process of discovering one's own separateness andcreativity.

Transference

In therapeutic sessions, exaggerated compliance, imitation, copying, denial ofachievements, differences and hostility, high sensitivity to attention and approval, guiltabout separation, etc., on the part of either patient or therapist, offer clues that they areunconsciously trying to find the `common skin' of twinship. Patients try to recreate anidealised sibling relationship from childhood. There will be a greater expectation of `knowing just how it is' and an exaggerated frustration at having to explain verbal and non-verbal communication. The patient will resist internalising the therapist/twin, wanting tokeep him as a transitional object.

I find the concept of triangles useful in sorting out transference projections. It isimportant to keep in mind that twins develop two attachments simultaneously. The twoobjects (mother and twin) will initially be used interchangeably. Since the three-personrelationship was established in infancy as a defence against what Balint calls the `basicfault' in the primitive two-person relationship, it must be partially relinquished before thebasic `fault' can be reached and worked through. Twinship is a way of avoiding the realissues of self-definition and separation from mother. Real commitment and progress canonly be achieved after the `schizoid compromise' has been worked through.

Kohut (1971) uses the terms 'alter-ego transference' and `twinship' to describe how acertain type of patient with a narcissistic personality establishes a mirror transference withthe therapist. The patient tries to maintain his fantasies about the therapist being like orsimilar to himself and resists the reality of differences. Greenson (1981) describesdefensive transference reactions which are applicable in twinship transference. The patientidealises the therapist because he is afraid that his hostility will destroy the therapist,leaving him alone - `nothing'. The patient (or therapist) may be conscientious andcooperative or show no reaction as a defence against rebelliousness and fiercecompetitiveness. A submissive attitude is intended to ward off aggressive feelings. If thetherapist is seduced by the need to gratify his own narcissistic and omnipotent urges, thepatient will have succeeded in achieving twinship and the aims of therapy will not beachieved. Ordinary disappointments and failures of therapists will lead to gradualdisillusion and a better relationship with reality.

Omnipotence

The most difficult thing for the schizoid patient to give up is his fantasised superiority (Storr 1979). For years a patient's whole self-esteem (and identity) may have depended onpower achieved through twinship. The task of the therapist is to help the patient discoverfor himself that love is a better source of self-esteem than power. Individuals too dependenton continued approval and admiration may become addicted to attention from the object,which is not healthy (Jacoby 1981).

Susan Fisher 279

Since individuals in twinship relationships generally are not treated as individuals intheir own right, they resemble patients in Fenton's (1982) clinical examples. Fenton's thesisis that the capacity to tolerate oneself as ordinary is based on the experience of beingacknowledged and responded to as a unique individual with personal authority. This linkswith what Kohut (1977) refers to as stunted development of grandiose-exhibitionist aspectsof the self. The therapist/mother can be used as a mirror to neutralise grandiosity andexhibitionism into creative expression. Primitive fantasies about twins' magical powersand omnipotence face the test of reality in the process of psychotherapy.

References

Ackerman, P. H. (1975) Narcissistic personality disorder in an identical twin. In International Journalof Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Vol. 4, pp. 389-409.

Arlow, J. A. (1960) Fantasy systems in twins. In Psychoanalytic Quarterly Vol. 29, pp.175-199.Balint, M. (1979) The Basic Fault (reprint). London: Tavistock Publications.Burlingham, D. T. (1949) The relationship of twins to each other. In Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,

Vol. 3, pp. 57-72.Casement, P. (1985) On Learning from the Patient. London: Tavistock Publications.Dibble, E. D. & Cohen, D. J. (1981) Personality development in identical twins: the first decade of life.

In Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Vol. 36, pp. 45-70.Fenton, R. (1982) Ordinariness: fear of it and contempt for it. In Journal of Analytical Psychology,

Vol. 27(3), pp. 263-272.Frazer, J. G. (1983) The Golden Bough (reprint). London: Macmillan Press.Greenson, R. (1981) The Technique and Practice of Psycho-Analysis (7th edn.). International Psycho-

Analytical Library, No. 74. London: Hogarth Press.Guntrip, H. (1980) Schizoid Phenomena, Object Relationships and the Self (4th edn.). The

International Psycho-Analytical Library, No. 77. London: Hogarth Press.Grunberger, B. (1979) Narcissism. New York: International Universities Press Inc.Jacoby, M. (1981) Reflections on Heinz Kohut's concept of narcissism. In The Journal of Analytical

Psychology, Vol. 26(1), pp. 19-32.Joseph, E. D. & Tabor, J. H. (1961) The simultaneous analysis of a pair of identical twins and the

twinning reaction. In Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Vol. 16, pp. 275-299. Jung, G. G. (1955/56) Rex and Regina in Mysterium Conunctionis. In Collected Works,

Vol. 14. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Kohut, H. (1971) The Analysis of the Self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (

1977) The Restoration of the Self. New York: International Universities Press. Leonard, M. R. (1961) Problems in identification and ego development in twins. In Psychoanalytic Study of theChild, Vol. 16, pp. 300-320.

Lidz, T., Schafer, S., Fleck, S., Cornelison, A. & Terry, D. (1962) Ego differentiation andschizophrenic symptom formation in identical twins. In Journal of American PsychoanalyticAssociation, Vol. 10, pp. 74-90.

Lytton, H., Conway, D. & Sauve, R. (1977) The impact of twinship on parent-child interaction. InJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 97-107. Mahler, M. S. (1972a)On the first three subphases of the separation-individuation process. In International Journal ofPsychoanalysis, Vol. 53, pp. 333-338.

Mahler, M. S. (1972b) Rapprochement subphase of the separation-individuation process. InPsychoanalytic Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 487-506.


Pauluszny, M. & Gibson, R. (1974) Twin interactions in a normal nursery school. In American Journalof Psychiatry, 131-3, pp. 293-296.

Redfearn, J. W. T. (1972) Parting, Clinging and Individuation. Guild Lecture 166, Guild of PastoralPsychology.

Schwartz-Salant, N. (1982) Narcissism and Character Transformation. Toronto: Inner City Books.Shengold, L. (1974) The metaphor of the mirror. In Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association,

XX11, pp. 97-115.Siemon, M. (1980) The separation-individuation process in adult twins. In American Journal of

Psychotherapy, Vol. 34(3), pp. 398-400.Storr, A. (1979) The Art of Psychotherapy. London: Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd.Terry, G. E. (1975) The separation-individuation process in same-sex twins: a review of the literature.

In Maternal Child Nursing Journal, Vol. 4(2), pp. 121-128.Winestein, M. C. (1969) Twinship and psychological differentiation. In Journal of American Academy

of Child Psychiatry, Vol. 8, pp. 436-455.Winnicott, D. W. (1960a) Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In The Maturational Processes

and the Facilitating Environment. London: Hogarth Press.Winnicott, D. W. (1960b) The theory of the parent-infant relationship. In The Maturational Processes

in Facilitating Environment. London: Hogarth Press.Winnicott, D. W. (1971a) Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. In Play and Reality.

London: Penguin.Winnicott, D. W. (1971b) Mirror-role of mother and family in child development. In Play and Reality.

London: Penguin.Winnicott, D. W. (1971c) Playing: a theoretical statement. In Play and Reality. London: Penguin.

the metaphor of twinship in personality development

Documents