Splitting is a process that occurs within social entities at many different levels. … When a social entity is involved in splitting and projective identification, we have the precondition for the unfolding of social paradox. It is to this that we now turn.
To discuss this at a theoretical level, we will talk about subgroup A and subgroup B, but these entities could also be individuals or groups… and the dynamic would be the same.
Three summarizing comments are important.
First, when subgroup B voluntarily or unknowingly introjects parts of A, it does so because these internalizations fit into… or help modify some already existing internal situation.
Second, when subgroup A projects part of itself onto B, it does so as an act of extruding something that is disquieting to A’s inner situation or whose elimination will enable that situation to be modified in a desired way.
Third, when A gets B to carry and express its displaced parts, A will be invested in remaining in the vicinity of B to obtain vicarious gratification as the disowned parts of itself are enacted. …
If subgroup A splits off a part of itself that it disowns, then it is saying that this is not A. It does not belong here. … B’s “otherness” for A will, at least in part, be a result of its not-A quality.
This issue is important because an entity’s self-knowledge is deeply rooted in a process of social comparison. … If B seems intimidated in A’s presence, A might deduce something about its own strength. If, however, A is intimidated in C’s presence, A might conclude that the reason that it felt so strong when with B was not because of its own strength but because of B’s weakness.
The implication of this is that the distinction between self and other, in social reality, is somewhat arbitrary. … To claim that subgroup A and subgroup B are separate is both true and false. … and we are reminded of the territory inhabited by statements such as “I am lying” … which contains the vicious cycle of self-referential renunciation.
One difference in the situation, however, is that the paradox is often not evident, for only one-half of the statement gets made. … the piece that would point us to the paradox is left out; accordingly, the paradox does not strike us: the self-referential quality is hidden, and the part that triggers the self-renunciation is left unsaid or unnoticed.
