Identifying With the Aggressor: When the Abuser’s Voice Lives On

One of the more painful paradoxes of trauma is that harm does not always end when the abusive relationship ends. For many people, especially those who grew up in emotionally, physically, or psychologically unsafe environments, the aggressor can be taken inside. Long after the external threat is gone, the internal one remains. This may look like persistent and relentless shame, guilt, negative self-talk, and self-punishment.

Psychoanalysis has a name for this phenomenon: identification with the aggressor.

The Origins of Identifying With the Aggressor:

The concept was first articulated by Sándor Ferenczi (1933), who observed that children faced with overwhelming threat often cope not by resisting the aggressor, but by becoming psychologically aligned with them. When escape or protection is impossible, the child’s mind does something remarkably adaptive: it internalizes the aggressor in an attempt to regain a sense of control, safety, or predictability.

From a psychodynamic perspective, this is not a conscious choice. It is a survival strategy. By taking in the values, attitudes, or behaviors of the caregiver, the child may feel less vulnerable—“If I think like them, maybe I won’t be hurt.”

Over time, this internalization becomes an introject: an internal object that carries the tone, judgments, and emotional stance of the original relationship.

The Internal Aggressor as an Inner Voice

Many adults who have experienced early relational trauma describe a harsh, critical, shaming, or demanding inner voice. Sometimes this voice is clearly recognizable as a parent, caregiver, or authority figure. Other times, it feels indistinguishable from one’s own thoughts—as if it simply is who they are.

Object relations theorists, including Fairbairn, Klein, and later Winnicott, emphasized that internal objects (internalized relationships/voices) are not just memories; they are lived relationships that continue internally. The child does not merely remember the parent—they relate to the parent internally, often by turning the aggression inward.

This helps explain why self-criticism, shame, and self-punishment can feel compulsive and deeply entrenched. The psyche is repeating a familiar relational pattern in the only place it still exists: inside.

A Relational Lens: The Need to Stay Connected

From a relational psychoanalytic perspective, identifying with the aggressor also preserves attachment. For a child, losing the caregiver—physically or emotionally—can feel more threatening than enduring mistreatment. Internalizing the caregiver allows the bond to continue, even at great psychological cost.

As Jessica Benjamin and other relational theorists have noted, the mind organizes itself around relationships. When those relationships involve domination, fear, or humiliation, the internal world often mirrors those dynamics.

In this way, the internal aggressor is not only punitive—it is also protective. It maintains continuity, structure, and a sense of connection to the original object.

For Many People This Inner Critic Motivates Them. Others Rebel Against the Internal Aggressor

What is less often discussed is what can happen next.

While many people submit to the internalized aggressor, helping motivate them. Others can also rebel against it.

This rebellion can take many forms:

• Acting impulsively or self-destructively

• Defying authority figures

• Sabotaging success

• Refusing care, structure, or limits

• Engaging in behaviors that feel “forbidden” or shame-laden

Clinically, this can look confusing. Why would someone who is already so harsh toward themselves also engage in behaviors that provoke more self-criticism?

Psychodynamically, rebellion can be understood as an attempt to reclaim agency. If submission to the internal aggressor recreates childhood helplessness, rebellion becomes a way to say no—even if that “no” is costly.

However, rebellion often remains trapped within the same internal system. One voice says, “You’re worthless.” Another responds, “I’ll prove you wrong—or I’ll burn everything down.” Both voices remain organized around the original aggressor.

As Freud observed in his writings on repetition compulsion, what is not worked through tends to be repeated—sometimes in inverted form.

Acting Out as Communication

From a relational standpoint, acting out is not simply resistance or pathology. It is communication. It may express rage that was once forbidden, grief that had no witness, or a protest against internalized domination.

The tragedy is that rebellion against the internal aggressor often lacks a third position—a reflective space from which to observe and name what is happening. Without that space, the psyche oscillates between compliance and defiance or self-attack and self-sabotage.

Therapeutic Work: Making the Voice Visible

In psychodynamic and relational therapy, a key task is helping patients recognize the internal aggressor as an internalized relationship, not an inherent truth.

This involves:

• Identifying whose voice it is

• Naming when it shows up

• Exploring what function it once served

• Grieving what was lost or never received

• Developing compassion for the part that needed it

Over time, the goal is not simply to silence the voice, but to differentiate from it. As Winnicott emphasized, psychological growth requires moving from compliance to authenticity—from living in reaction to others, to living from a true self.

Therapy offers a new relational experience in which authority does not require humiliation, and care does not require submission. Within that relationship, the internal aggressor can be slowly disarmed—not through rebellion, but through understanding.

From Survival to Choice

Identifying with the aggressor is a testament to the mind’s ingenuity under threat. What once protected the child, however, may imprison the adult.

Healing does not mean erasing the past. It means recognizing when an old survival strategy is running the present—and gently, relationally, learning that there are now other ways to live.

What was once adaptive, is now maladaptive.

⸻

Selected Psychoanalytic References

• Ferenczi, S. (1933). Confusion of Tongues Between Adults and the Child

• Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense

• Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality

• Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment

• Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love

• McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic Diagnosis