S elma Fraiberg used the term “Ghosts in the nursery” to describe the traumatic childhood experiences of parents that have not been processed and are unconsciously reactivated in their relationship with their child. These “ghosts” do not belong to the present, yet they intrude upon it, affecting parents’ capacity to create and sustain a warm, safe, and emotionally attuned relationship with their child.
More specifically, individuals who have experienced neglect, abuse, or inconsistent caregiving in their childhood—such as in cases of unresolved grief, severe parental mental illness, or substance use—are likely to filter the reality of their relationship with their child through these early experiences of their own. In this way, the present loses its clarity and is automatically infused with the past.
The earliest relationships of infancy thus function as the template upon which we form an internal map of how relationships work in our lives (Bowlby, 1969). These internal working models of relationships are not conscious; they are organized through unconscious processes and psychological defenses that protect us from painful contact with the reality of our earliest relational experiences.
Fraiberg describes the “ghosts” as unconscious thoughts, fantasies, and emotional representations of parents who were abused or neglected and who, without awareness, project these early experiences onto their relationship with their child. In this way, distorted perceptions develop, such as: “the baby is punishing me with its crying,” “the baby is manipulating me,” or “the baby is tormenting me.”
Fantasies, behaviors, and intentions of a “perpetrator” are projected onto the child, similar to what occurred in the past with someone else. The crying infant can no longer be seen as a helpless being in need of my care, but is instead perceived as an entity that torments me (as I was tormented in the past). This occurs because there are unprocessed, painful relational experiences that the parent carries within, without having integrated or processed them. As a result, they function like black boxes that open in every very close relational experience. Caring for a child is one of the most demanding relational situations, characterized by closeness, dependency, and emotional intensity, and for this reason it activates early experiences that have not been verbally processed.
Such perceptions appear more frequently in parents with a history of domestic violence, where these experiences shape internal representations—that is, a set of emotions, expectations, and meanings about what a relationship is and how it functions. The past becomes the filter through which the present is interpreted. Thus, instead of seeing their child for who they are, the parent often sees the shadow of their past relational trauma.
A core characteristic of trauma is the confusion between past and present. The brain and the body do not adequately distinguish “then” from “now,” and activation in the present is experienced somatically as an immediate threat. As a result, parents do not respond to the actual child, but to the traumatic memories that are being activated. This leads to frightened or frightening behavior toward the infant (Main & Hesse, 1990). The frozen gaze of the mother or father, their withdrawal, the inability to regulate the child’s emotions, their confusion in contact, abrupt movements and bodily tension, unpredictable reactions, anger, or a threatening stance without clear cause may all be indications of this pattern of relating to the child. This is not a psychological defense, but a psychic disorganization due to trauma.
Under conditions of unprocessed trauma, the parent’s capacity to perceive the child as a separate subjectivity is reduced. The child becomes the carrier of unconscious meanings, and emotions and intentions that do not belong to the child are attributed to them (Fonagy et al., 1991). At the same time, the capacity to mentalize—the ability to make sense of the child’s inner world and to imagine the world through the child’s particular needs—is disrupted, resulting in the parent being unable to respond to what the child truly needs.
All children have a need for safety and therefore naturally turn towards their parents. However, when the parent is simultaneously a source of fear, the child experiences an impasse. The one who should protect them is also the one they fear the most. This is the environment in which a particular type of relational pattern with one or both parents becomes established, where the need for closeness coexists with the need for avoidance. This pattern often later becomes replicated in the individual’s other close relationships.
In contrast to the “ghosts” and the intergenerational transmission of trauma, Lieberman and colleagues wrote about the concept of the “Angels in the nursery” (Angels in the Nursery: The Intergenerational Transmission of Benevolent Parental Influences, 2005), describing how experiences of care, safety, tenderness, and other positive emotions can have a reparative effect on development, thereby contributing to the health and well-being of individuals who have experienced “ghosts” in their relationships with their parents. These benevolent relational experiences may be sufficient to interrupt the cycle of trauma repetition into the next generation.
The authors describe how angels and ghosts coexist. This is the point at which intergenerational trauma does not repeat itself mechanically—where, despite difficulties, something different can occur. Not because the parent does not carry trauma, but because they also carry care and love.
References:
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G., & Higgitt, A. (1991). The capacity for understanding mental states: The reflective self in parent and child. Infant Mental Health Journal
Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status.
Lieberman, A. F., Padrón, E., Van Horn, P., & Harris, W. W. (2005). Angels in the nursery: The intergenerational transmission of benevolent parental influences. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26(6), 504–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20071
