I have often pondered the fact that an individual can have an "inner
child" that will remain within a person regardless of how that
person ages externally. This inner child can remain hidden, but
alive and well, until its needs are met; and unless its needs are
met, it will continue to adversely affect that individual.

What is an inner child -- is it a separate but whole aspect of an
individual, similar to a second identity? For some time I believed
this, but I have a separate theory now:

The inner child is not a "separate aspect" per se. Rather, I
believe it is a set of behaviors associated to and functioning in an
attempt to meet a need.

Every individual has a set of needs they struggle to meet. Some
needs were unable to be met at an earlier age. At that earlier age,
the individual developed a set of behaviors in an attempt to meet
those needs, but those behavior patterns resulted in failure; thus,
the individual was left in permanent conflict between having a need,
and practicing behavior patterns that could not meet that need.
This would then result in repression.

Now, if the individual tries to meet a need 20 years after the
initial failures and repression, the behavior patterns (ingrained 20
years ago) still model that of a child. The emotional responses to
those behavior patterns would also remain intact and seemingly as
old.

Once the conflict is resolved, what about all the other emotions and
memories one suddenly has access to? Well, at one time before the
conflict arose, the individual experienced life with that need
fulfilled/unrepressed. Once that need is again fulfilled/de-
repressed, an individual has access to those parts of the mind that
depend on that need's fulfillment (all of which existed prior to the
repression, and thus, from the past). This last may be somewhat
vague, but I have not fully considered how needs interact with
access to various parts of the mind.

Does anyone else have some thought on the relationship between
existence of an inner child and unmet needs?

Christopher