In some recent posts, I’ve gone in depth about my thoughts on the forms of mass projection that our society engages in, so I felt it would be useful to set aside some time to write about what psychological projection is and how it manifests. “Projection” is one of the most common psychological terms used by laypeople, and for good reason; it’s also a very frequent psychological phenomenon. However, projection may not always be what you think it is. In this article I will explain how the term is sometimes misunderstood and how it could be interpreted to apply to a vast range of complex and profound psychological functions.

To start, it’s important to acknowledge that “projection” has had different definitions almost from the get-go depending on the practitioner you ask. Although Sigmund Freud may not have been the first person to use the term “projection” in the psychological sense, he was the most influential and earliest thinker to coin the phrase and put it to good use. To Freud, projection is a process by which an individual who does not want to acknowledge something repellant about themselves acts as if another person is embodying that behavior. This is apparent in the unfaithful spouse who is chronically vigilant to their own partner’s activities, the arguing person who yells at you that YOU are the one that’s angry, and many prejudicial beliefs about “others” that likely apply more to the labeling group than the labeled. It’s important to understand that Freud’s view of projection goes back to his perception of the nature of the unconscious mind. Freud said that the unconscious mind is a powerful force in the human psyche, but that it was solely used as a repository for unwanted feelings and urges, mostly sexual. To Freud, the unconscious mind is just a storehouse for ugly things that people don’t want to face about themselves and the world, and because of this understanding, Freudian projection is solely about trying to foist off that unwanted content onto others. However, Carl Jung, a long-time student of Freud’s, eventually broke with him over their disagreement about how the unconscious mind worked. To Jung, repressed emotions and unwanted urges do make up some of the unconscious mind, but he didn’t believe that was all there was to it. To Jung, the unconscious mind is a force much more powerful and far-reaching than the conscious; one that holds resonant universal images that can provide inspiration and vision as well as possession and torment. And since Jung sees the unconscious mind this way, his definition of psychological projection is of course different. To Jung, when an individual acts as if a part of their inner psyche is embodied in a source outside of themselves, it is not always because of their own repressed tendencies. It can also be a way of communing with powers locked within the human mind that are not amenable to reason or logic. Jung often spoke of projection in terms of mythology, art, and religion. To Jung, projection is the process by which we get fairy tales, sacred literature, and every significant piece of art ever made. If there were nothing present in the unconscious mind to be made visible by projection, he might argue, we wouldn’t have art, literature, or even dreams.

So what is the more everyday, applicable significance of psychological projection? What does it have to do with day to day life? Both Freud and Jung would argue that it is active in most, if not all, of our intimate and formal interactions with other human beings. It isn’t possible for us to completely and fully know another person, so our minds have to fill in the gaps to create working models for what other people are “like.” And the content we use to fill in those gaps comes from the unconscious mind.

For all his genius and for all his ideological contributions to the world, Freud still defined falling in love as a narcissistic ego projection. He asks: "Isn't what we mean by 'falling in love' a kind of sickness and craziness, an illusion, a blindness to what the loved person is really like?" Not only is this possibly the least romantic intepretation of love, it’s also neurotically color-blind as a description of the emotional process that fuels the deepest acts of care and compassionate in human history. And yet on another level, I don’t disagree with Freud. I think he’s essentially right that falling in love is a process of reciprocal projection. But he only conveys the act of projection as something aberrant, delusional, and avoidant rather than the more robust Jungian interpretation - that projection is a process by which the individual human being forms a relationship with their unconscious minds; that projection is the vast majority of what we mean by the terms “religion” and “spirituality.” While Freud would reduce spirituality to a neurosis, I have to say I side with Jung on viewing it as a more complex and not innately dysfunctional phenomenon.

I remember having a perception when I first entered graduate school that transference (the projection of feelings onto the therapist by the client) and counter-transference (the projection of feelings by the therapist onto the client) were major disruptions to the therapeutic process and things to be avoided as much as possible. I’ve since come to a deeper understanding of the role of projection in human society. Not only are transference and counter-transference not hindrances to therapy, they may describe essentially what therapy is. Our ability to project onto others is the same process as “getting to know” someone. It’s important to be aware of what we project on others, as not being conscious of this process can lead us down some very destructive paths, but it isn’t “bad” in and of itself to project. In fact, it can be seen as a beautiful testament to the human mind that we are able to see near-divine virtue and beauty in others, because this in turn proves that there is virtue and beauty within ourselves.