a href = ‘ web ‘ Sam Vaknin’s Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites A. The Loved Enemies – an Introduction An oft-overlooked fact is that the child is not sure that it exists. It avidly absorbs cues from its human environment.” Am I present? “, “Am I separate? “, “Can I be noticed? ” – these are the questions that compete in his mind with his need to merge, to become a part of his caregivers. Granted, the infant (ages 0 to 2) does not engage in a verbal formulation of these “thoughts” (which are part cognitive, part instinctual). This nagging uncertainty is more akin to a discomfort, like being thirsty or wet. The infant is torn between its need to differentiate and distinguish its SELF – and its no less urgent need to assimilate and integrate by being assimilated and integrated.
H. Kohut:” Just as we know, from the point of view of the physiologist, that a child needs to be given certain foods, that he needs to be protected against extreme temperatures, and that the atmosphere he breathes has to contain sufficient oxygen, if his body is to become strong and resilient, so do we also know, from the point of view of the depth-psychologist, that he requires an empathic environment, specifically, an environment that responds (a) to his need to have his presence confirmed by the glow of parental pleasure and (b) to his need to merge into the reassuring calmness of the powerful adult, if he is to acquire a firm and resilient self.” (From: “The Dynamics and Treatment of Alcoholism”) The child’s nascent Self must first overcome its feelings of diffusive ness, of being an extension of its caregivers (also parents, in this text), or a part of them. Kohut says that the parents perform the functions of the Self for their child. More likely, a battle is joined from the first breath of the child: a battle to gain autonomy, to usurp the power of the parents, to become a distinct unit. The child refuses to let the parents be its Self for him. It rebels and seeks to depose them and take over their functions.
The better the parents serve as self objects (in lieu of the child’s Self) – the stronger the child’s Self becomes, the more vigorously it fights for its independence. The parents, in this sense, are like a benign, benevolent and enlightened colonial power, which performs the tasks of governance on behalf of the uneducated and uninitiated natives. The more lenient the colonial regime – the more likely it is to be abolished in a popular uprising. Kohut: “The crucial question then is whether the parents are able to reflect with approval at least some of the child’s proudly exhibited attributes and functions, whether they are able to respond with genuine enjoyment to his budding skills, whether they are able to remain in touch with him throughout his trials and errors. And, furthermore, we must determine whether they are able to provide the child with a reliable embodiment of calmness and strength into which he can merge and with a focus for his need to find a target for his admiration. Or, stated in the obverse, it will be of crucial importance to ascertain the fact that a child could find neither confirmation of his own worth whileness nor a target for a merger with the idealized strength of the parent and that he, therefore, remained deprived of the opportunity for the gradual transformation of these external sources of narcissistic sustenance into endo psychic resources, that is, specifically into sustaining self-esteem and into a sustaining relationship to internal ideals.” (same) C.
The “When the habitual narcissistic gratifications that come from being adored, given special treatment, and admiring the self are threatened, the results may be depression, hypochondriasis, anxiety, shame, self destructiveness, or rage directed toward any other person who can be blamed for the troubled situation. The child can learn to avoid these painful emotional states by acquiring a narcissistic mode of information processing. Such learning may be by trial-and-error methods, or it may be internalized by identification with parental modes of dealing with stressful information.” (Jon Mardi Horowitz – “Stress Response Syndromes: PTSD, Grief, and Adjustment Disorders”, Third Edition) Narcissism is fundamentally an advanced version of the splitting defense mechanism. The Narcissist cannot regard humans, situations, entities (political parties, countries, races, his workplace, whatever) as a compound of good and bad elements.
He is an “all or nothing” primitive “machine” (a common metaphor among narcissists). He either idealizes his object – or devalues it. The object is either all good or all bad. The bad attributes are always projected, displaced, or otherwise externalized. The good ones are internalized in order to support the inflated (“grandiose”) self-concepts of the narcissist and his grandiose fantasies – and to avoid the pain of deflation and disillusionment. The Narcissist’s earnestness and his (apparent) sincerity make people wonder whether he is simply detached from reality, unable to appraise it properly – or willingly and knowingly distorts reality and reinterprets it, subjecting it to his self-imposed censorship.
I believe that the Narcissist is dimly aware of the implausibility of his own constructions. He has not lost touch with reality. He is just less scrupulous in reshaping it, remolding its curvatures and ignoring the uncomfortable angles.” The disguises are accomplished by shifting meanings and using exaggeration and minimization of bits of reality as a nidus for fantasy elaboration. The narcissistic personality is especially vulnerable to regression to damaged or defective self-concepts on the occasions of loss of those who have functioned as self-objects. When the individual is faced with such stress events as criticism, withdrawal of praise, or humiliation, the information involved may be denied, disavowed, negated, or shifted in meaning to prevent a reactive state of rage, depression, or shame.” (Jon Mardi Horowitz – same) The second mechanism which the narcissist employes is the active pursuit of “Narcisstic Supply.” The Narcissist actively seeks to furnish himself with an endless supply of admiration, adulation, affirmation and attention. As opposed to common opinion (which infiltrated literature) – the narcissist is content to have ANY kind of attention.
If fame cannot be had – notoriety would do. The narcissist is obsessed with the obtaining of narcissistic supply, he is addicted to it. His behavior in its pursuit is impulsive if ever there was any.” The hazard is not simply guilt because ideals have not been met. Rather, any loss of a good and coherent self-feeling is associated with intensely experienced emotions such as shame and depression, plus an anguished sense of helplessness and disorientation.
To prevent this state, the narcissistic personality slides the meanings of events in order to place the self in a better light. What is good is labeled as being of the self (internalized) Those qualities that are undesirable are excluded from the self by denial of their existence, disavowal of related attitudes, externalization, and negation of recent self-expressions. Persons who function as accessories to the self may also be idealized by exaggeration of their attributes. Those who counter the self are depreciated; ambiguous attributions of blame and a tendency to self-righteous rage states are a conspicuous aspect of this pattern. Such fluid shifts in meanings permit the narcissistic personality to maintain apparent logical consistency while minimizing evil or weakness and exaggerating innocence or control. As part of these maneuvers, the narcissistic personality may assume attitudes of contemptuous superiority toward others, emotional coldness, or even desperately charming approaches to idealized figures.’ (Jon Mardi Horwitz, same) Freud versus Jung Freud must be credited with the promulgation and presentation of a first coherent theory of narcissism.
He described transitions from subject-directed libido to object-directed libido through the intermediation and agency of the parents. To be healthy and functional, the transitions must be smooth and unperturbed. Neuroses are the results of such perturbations. Freud conceived of each stage as the default (or fallback) of the next one. Thus, if a child reaches out to his objects of desire and fails to attract their love and attention – the child will regress to the previous phase, to the narcissistic phase.
The first occurrence of narcissism is adaptive. It ‘trains’ the child to love an object. It ensures gratification through availability, predictability and permanence. But regressing to ‘secondary narcissism’ is mal-adaptive. It is an indication of failure to direct the libido to the ‘right’ targets (to objects, such as his parents). If this pattern of regression persists and prevails, a ‘narcissistic neurosis’ is formed.
The narcissist stimulates his self habitually in order to derive pleasure and gratification. He prefers this mode of deriving gratification over others. He is ‘lazy’ because he takes the ‘easy’ route of resorting to his self and reinvesting his libidinal resources ‘in-house’ rather than making an effort (and risking failure) to seek out libidinal objects other than his self. The narcissist prefers fantasy land to reality, grandiose self-conception to realistic appraisal, masturbation and fantasies to mature adult sex and daydreaming to real life achievements. Jung had a mental picture of the psyche as a giant warehouse of archetypes (the conscious representations of adaptive behaviors). Fantasies to him were just a way of accessing these archetypes and releasing them.
Almost ex definition, regression cannot be entertained by Jungian psychology. Any reversion to earlier phases of mental life, to earlier coping strategies, to earlier choices – in other words, any default – is interpreted as simply the psyche’s way of using yet another, hitherto untapped, adaptation strategy. Regressions are compensatory processes intended to enhance adaptation and not methods of obtaining or securing a steady flow of gratification. It would seem, though, that there is little difference between Freud and his disciple turned-heretic. They seem to be sparring in a linguistic field. In other words, it is a matter of semantics.
When libido investment in objects (esp. the Primary Object) fails to produce gratification, mal adaptation results. This is dangerous. A default option is activated: secondary narcissism. This default enhances adaptation, it is functional and adaptive and triggers adaptive behaviors. As a by-product, it secures gratification.
We are gratified when we are at peace with our model of our environment. We are at such peace when we exert reasonable control over our environment, i. e. , when our behaviors are adaptive. The compensatory process has TWO results: enhanced adaptation and inevitable gratification. Perhaps the more serious division between them is with regards to introversion.
Freud regards introversion as an instrument in the service of a pathology (introversion is indispensable to narcissism, as opposed to extroversion which is a necessary condition for libidinal object-orientation). As opposed to Freud, Jung regards introversion as a useful tool in the service of the endless psychic quest for adaptation strategies (narcissism being one of them). The Jungian adaptation repertoire does not discriminate against narcissism. To Jung it is as legitimate a choice as any.
But even Jung acknowledged that the very need to look for a new adaptation strategy means that adaptation has failed. In other words, the search itself is indicative of a pathological state of affairs. It does seem that introversion per se IS NOT pathological (because no psychological mechanism is pathological PER SE). Only the use made of it CAN be pathological. One would tend to agree with Freud, though, that when introversion becomes a permanent feature of the psychic landscape of a person – it facilitates pathological narcissism. Jung distinguished introverts (those who habitually concentrate on their selves rather than on outside objects) from extroverts (the converse preference).
Not only was introversion a totally normal and natural function, it remained normal and natural even if it predominated the mental life. This is where, to my mind, Jung missed the proverbial ‘narcissistic train’. The habitual and predominant focussing of attention upon one’s self, to the exclusion of others is THE definition of pathological narcissism. What differentiates the pathological from the normal and even the welcome is, of course, degree. Pathological narcissism is ex-clus ive and all-pervasive. Other forms of narcissism are not.
So, although there is no healthy state of habitual, predominant introversion, it remains a question of form and degree of introversion. Often a healthy, adaptive mechanism goes awry. When it does, as Jung himself recognized, neuroses form. Freud regards Narcissism as a POINT while Jung regards it as a CONTINUUM (from health to sickness). Kohut’s Approach In a way, Kohut took Jung a step further.
He said that pathological narcissism is not the result of excessive narcissism, libido or aggression. It is the result of defective, deformed or incomplete narcissistic (self) structures. Kohut postulated the existence of core constructs which he named: the Grandiose Exhibitionistic Self and the Idealized Parent Imago (see below). Children entertain notions of greatness (primitive or naive grandiosity) mingled with magical thinking, feelings of omnipotence and omniscience and a belief in their immunity to the consequences of their actions. These elements and the child’s feelings regarding its parents (which are also painted by it with a brush of omnipotence and grandiosity) – coagulate and form these constructs.
The child’s feelings towards its parents are reactions to their responses (affirmation, buffering, modulation or disapproval, punishment, even abuse). These responses help maintain the self-structures. Without the appropriate responses, grandiosity, for instance, cannot be transformed into adult ambitions and ideals. So, to Kohut, grandiosity and idealization were positive childhood development mechanisms. Even their reappearance in transference should not be considered a pathological narcissistic regression. In his ‘Chicago Lectures 1972-1976’ he says: ‘You see, the actual issue is really a simple one…
a simple change in classical [Freudian] theory, which states that auto-erotism develops into narcissism and that narcissism develops into object love… there is a contrast and opposition between narcissism and object love. The[forward] movement toward maturation was toward object love. The movement from object love toward narcissism is a [backward]regressive movement toward a fixation point. To my mind [this] viewpoint is a theory built into a nonscientific value judgment… that has nothing to do with developmental psychology [pp.
277-278]. Kohut’s contention is nothing less than revolutionary. He says that narcissism (subject-love) and object-love coexist and interact throughout life. True, they wear different guises with age and maturation – but they always cohabit ate. Kohut: ‘It is not that the self-experiences are given up and replaced by… a more mature or developmentally more advanced experience of objects.’ This dichotomy inevitably led to to a dichotomy of disorders.
Kohut agreed with Freud that neuroses are conglomerates of defence mechanisms, formations, symptoms, and unconscious conflicts. He even did not object to identifying unresolved Oedipal conflicts (unratified unconscious wishes and their objects) as the root of neuroses. But he identified a whole new class of disorders: the self-disorders. These were the result of the perturbed development of narcissism. It was not a cosmetic or superficial distinction. Self disorders were the results of childhood traumas very much different to Freud’s Oedipal, castration and other conflicts and fears.
These are the traumas of the child either not being ‘seen’ (an existence, a presence which are not affirmed by objects, especially the Primary Objects, the parents) – or being regarded itself as an object for gratification or abuse. Such children develop to become adults who are not sure that they do exist (lack a sense of self-continuity) or that they are worth anything (lack of self-worth, or self-esteem). They suffer depressions, as neurotics do. But the source of these depressions is existential (a gnawing sensation of emptiness) as opposed to the ‘guilty-conscious’ depressions of neurotics. Such depressions: ‘…
are interrupted by rages because things are not going their way, because responses are not forthcoming in the way they expected and needed. Some of them may even search for conflict to relieve the pain and intense suffering of the poorly established self, the pain of the discontinuous, fragmenting, undercathected self of the child not seen or responded to as a unit of its own, not recognized as an independent self who wants to feel like somebody, who wants to go its own way (see Lecture 22). They are individuals whose disorders can be understood and treated only by taking into consideration the formative experiences in childhood of the total body-mind-self and its self-object environment – for instance, the experiences of joy of the total self feeling confirmed, which leads to pride, self-esteem, zest, and initiative; or the experiences of shame, loss of vitality, deadness, and depression of the self who does not have the feeling of being included, welcomed, and enjoyed.’ (From: The Preface to the ‘Chicago Lectures 1972-1976 of H. Kohut, by: Paul and Marian Tol pin) One note: ‘Constructs’ or ‘Structures’ are permanent psychological patterns.
This is not to say that they do not change – rather, that they are capable only of slow change. Kohut and his Self-psychology disciples believed that the only viable constructs are comprised of self-self object experiences and that these structures are lifelong ones. Melanie Klein believed more in archaic drives, splitting defenses and archaic internal objects and part objects. Winnicott (and Balin t and other, mainly British researchers) as well as other ego-psychologists thought that only infantile drive wishes and hallucinated oneness with archaic objects qualify as structures. Karen Horney’s Contributions Horney is one of the precursors of the ‘Object Relations’s chool of psychodynamics.
She said that personality was shaped mostly by environmental issues, social or cultural. She believed that the relationships with other humans in one’s childhood determine both the shape and functioning of one’s personality. She expanded the psychoanalytic repertoire. She added needs to drives. Where Freud believed in the exclusivity of the sex drive as an agent of transformation (later he added other drives) – Horney believed that people (children) needed to feel secure, to be loved, protected, emotionally nourished and so on.
She believed that the satisfaction of these needs or their frustration early in childhood were as important determinants as any drive. Society came in through the parental door. Biology converged with social injunction to yield human values such the nurturance of children. Horney’s great contribution was the concept of anxiety. Freudian anxiety was a rather primitive mechanism, a reaction to imaginary threats arising from early childhood sexual conflicts. Horney argued convincingly that anxiety is a primary reaction to the very dependence of the child on adults for his survival.
Children are uncertain (of love, protection, nourishment, nurturance) – so they become anxious. Defenses are developed to compensate for the intolerable and gradual realization that adults are human: capricious, arbitrary, unpredictable, non-dependable. Defenses provide both satisfaction and a sense of security. The problem still exists, even as the anxiety does, but they are ‘one stage removed’. When the defenses are attacked or perceived to be attacked (such as in therapy) – anxiety is reawakened. Karen B.
Wall ant in ‘Treating Addictions and the Alienated Self’: ‘The capacity to be alone develops out of the baby’s ability to hold onto the internalization of his mother, even during her absences. It is not just an image of mother that he retains but also her loving devotion to him. Thus, when alone, he can feel confident and secure as he continues to infuse himself with her love. The addict has had so few loving attachments in his life that when alone he is returned to his detached, alienated self.
This feeling-state can be compared to a young child’s fear of monsters without a powerful other to help him, the monsters continue to live somewhere within the child or his environment. It is not uncommon for patients to be found on either side of an attachment pendulum. It is invariably easier to handle patients for whom the transference erupts in the idealizing attachment phase than those who view the therapist as a powerful and distrusted intruder.’ So, the child learns to sacrifice a part of his autonomy, of WHO is is, in order to feel secure. Horney identified three NEUROTIC strategies: submission, aggression and detachment. The choice of strategy determines the type of personality, or rather of NEUROTIC personality. The submissive (or compliant) type is fake.
He hides aggression beneath the facade of friendliness. The aggressive type is fake as well: at heart he is submissive. The detached neurotic withdraws from people. This cannot be considered an adaptive strategy. Horney’s is an optimistic outlook. Because she believes biology is only ONE of the forces shaping our adulthood – culture and society being the predominant ones – she believes in reversibility and in the power of insight to heal.
She believes that if an adult were to understand his problem (his anxiety) – he would be able to eliminate it altogether. My outlook is much more pessimistic and deterministic. I think that childhood trauma and abuse are pretty much impossible to re programm, let alone erase. Modern brain research tends to support this sad view – and to offer some hope.
The brain seems to be more plastic than anyone thought. It is physically impressed with abuse and trauma. But no one knows when this ‘window of plasticity’s huts. It is conceivable that this plasticity continues well into adulthood and that later ‘reprogramming’ (by loving, caring, compassionate and empathic experiences) can remold the brain permanently. I believe that the patient has to accept his disorder as a given and work AROUND it rather than attack it directly.
I believe that our disorders ARE adaptive and help us to function. Their removal may not always be wise or necessary to attain a full and satisfactory life. I do not believe that we should all conform to a mold and experience life the same. Idiosyncrasies are a good thing, both on the individual level and on the level of the species.
D. The Issue of Separation and Individuation It is by no means universally accepted that children go through a phase of separation from their parents and through the consequent individuation. Most psychodynamic theories (especially Klein, Mahler) are virtually constructed upon this foundation. The child is considered to be merged with his parents until it differentiates itself (through object-relations). But researchers like Daniel Stern dispute this hypothesis. Based on many studies it appears clearer by the study that, as always, what seems intuitively right is not necessarily right.
In ‘The Interpersonal World of the Infant’ (1985) Stern seems to, inadvertently, support Kohut by concluding that children possess selves and are separated from their caregivers from the very start. In effect, he says that the picture of the child, as depicted by psychodynamic theories, is influenced by the way adults see children and childhood in retrospect. Adult disorders (for instance, the pathological need to merge) are attributed to children and to childhood. This view is in stark contrast to the belief that children will accept any kind of parents (even abusive) because they depend on them for their self-definition. Attachment to and dependence on significant others is the result of the non-separateness of the child, go the classical psychodynamic / object -relations theories. The Self is a construct (within a social context, some add), an assimilation of the oft-imitated and idealized parents plus the internalization of the way others perceive the child within social interactions.
The self is, therefore, an internalized reflection, an imitation, a series of internalized idealizations. This sounds close to pathological narcissism. Perhaps it is really a matter of quantity rather than of quality. E. Childhood Traumas and the Development of the Narcissistic Personality Traumas are inevitable.
They are an inseparable part of life. But in early childhood – especially in infancy (ages 0 to 4 years) they acquire an ominous aura, an evil, irreversible meaning. No matter how innocuous the event and the surrounding circumstances the child’s vivid imagination is likely to embed it in the framework of a highly idiosyncratic horror story. Parents sometimes have to go away due to medical or economic conditions. They may be too preoccupied to stay attuned at all times to the child’s emotional needs. The family unit itself may be disintegrating with looming divorce or separation.
The values of the parent may stand in radical contrast to those of society. To adults, such traumas are very different to abuse. Verbal and psychological-emotional abuse or neglect are judged by us to be more serious ‘offenses’. But this distinction is lost on the child. To him, all traumas are of equal standing, though their severity may differ together with the permanence of their emotional outcomes. Moreover, such abuse and neglect could well be the result of circumstances beyond the abusive or negligent parent’s control.
A parent can be physically or mentally handicapped, for instance. But the child cannot see this as a mitigating circumstance because he cannot appreciate it or even plainly understand the causal linkage. Where even the child itself can tell the difference is with physical and sexual abuse. Here is a cooperative effort at concealment, strong emotions of shame and guilt, repressed to the point of producing anxiety and ‘neurosis’. Sometimes the child perceives even the injustice of the situation, though it rarely dares to express its views, lest it be abandoned by its abusers. This type of trauma which involves the child actively or passively is qualitatively different and is bound to yield long term effects such as dissociation or severe personality disorders.
These are violent, active traumas, not traumas by default and the reaction is bound to be violent and active. The child becomes a reflection of its dysfunctional family – it represses emotions, denies reality, resorts to violence and escapism, disintegrates. One of the coping strategies is to withdraw inwards, to seek gratification from a secure, reliable and permanently-available source: from the Self. The child, fearful of further rejection and abuse, refrains from further interaction. Instead, it builds its own kingdom of grandiose fantasies wherein it is always loved and self-sufficient. This is the narcissistic strategy which leads to the development of a narcissistic personality.
F. The Dysfunctional Family The family is the mainspring of support of every kind. It mobilizes psychological resources and alleviates emotional burdens. It allows for the sharing of tasks, provides material supplies coupled with cognitive training. It is the prime socialization agent and encourages the absorption of information, most of it useful and adaptive.
This division of labour between parents and children is vital both to development and to proper adaptation. The child must feel, in a functional family, that he can share his experiences without being defensive and that the feedback that he is likely to get will be open and unbiased. The only ‘bias’ acceptable (because it is consistent with constant outside feedback) is the set of beliefs, values and goals that will finally be internalized via imitation and unconscious identification. So, the family is the first and the most important source of identity and of emotional support. It is a greenhouse wherein a child feels loved, accepted and secured – the prerequisites for the development of personal resources. On the material level, the family should provide the basic necessities (and, preferably, beyond), physical care and protection and refuge and shelter during crises.
The role of the mother (the Primary Object) has been often discussed and dissected. The father’s part is mostly neglected, even in professional literature. However, recent research demonstrates his importance to the orderly and healthy development of the child. He participates in the day to day care, is an intellectual catalyst, who encourages the child to develop his interests and to satisfy his curiosity through the manipulation of various instruments and games.
He is a source of authority and discipline, a boundary setter, enforcing and encouraging positive behaviours and eliminating negative ones. He also provides emotional support and economic security, thus stabilizing the family unit. Finally, he is the prime source of masculine orientation and identification to the male child – and gives warmth and love as a male to his daughter, without exceeding the socially permissible limits. We can safely say that the Narcissist’s family is as severely disturbed as he is. He is nothing but a reflection of its dysfunction. One or more (usually, many more) of the functions aforementioned are improperly carried out.
Thus, the stage is set for the Narcissistic personality to commence its drawn out journey. The two most important mechanisms are in place and operating: First, the mechanism of self-deception: ‘I do have a relationship with my parents. It is my fault – the fault of my emotions, sensations, aggressions and passions – that this relationship is not working. It is, therefore, my responsibility to make amends. I will write a play in which I am both loved and punished. In this play, I will allocate roles to myself and to my parents.
This way, everything will be fine and we will all be happy. End.’ Second is the mechanism of over-valuation and devaluation. The dual roles of sadist and punished masochist (Superego and Ego), parent and child – permeate, then invade and then pervade all the interactions that a Narcissist has with his fellow humans. He experiences a reversal of roles as his relationships progress. At the beginning of every relationship he is the child in need of attention, approval and admiration.
He becomes dependent. Then, at the first sign of disapproval (real or imaginary), he is revealed as an avowed sadist, punishing and inflicting pain. Another school of psychology is represented by Otto Kernberg (1975, 1984, 1987). G. Otto Kernberg Kernberg is a senior member of the ‘Object Relations’s chool in Psychology (Kohut, Kernberg, Klein, Winnicott). Kernberg disagrees with Freud.
He regards the division between an Object Libido ( = energy directed at Objects, people in the immediate vicinity of the infant and who are meaningful to him) and a Narcissistic Libido ( = energy directed at the Self as the most immediate and satisfying Object), which pr.