Critique of an Intrinsic/Natural Narcissism

[M Winther]

"Critique of an Intrinsic/Natural Narcissism"

~ The notion that narcissism is at the root at human psychology is
faulty ~


"Self psychology", a post-Freudian variant, teaches that 'narcissism'
is fundamental to human psychology. Wikipedia says:

"In contrast to traditional psychoanalysis, which focuses on drives
(instinctual motivations of sex and aggression), internal conflicts,
and fantasies, self psychology thus placed a great deal of emphasis on
the vicissitudes of relationships. Kohut demonstrated his interest in
how we develop our "sense of self" using narcissism as a model."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Kohut

Freud discussed "His Majesty the Baby", but this notion never took
precedence over instinctual motivation. Of course, there cannot be
narcissism when there is no ego. One cannot exclaim "Everything to
me!" when there is no me. When a toddler demands attention it's
because it is hungry, has constipation, or needs to be reassured,
because it is instinctively afraid that wild animals are going to eat
it. All living beings love having their own existence acknowledged,
except gravely autistic people who aren't aware of other beings.

The fact that the toddler demands attention is not coupled to an
egotistic wish to magnify its ego. Its behaviour depends on instinct.
Narcissism is a secondary phenomenon - the dark backside of the ego
phenomenon. This disease can only arise after the emergence of the
ego. That's why narcissism is not foundational to the psyche. It is
secondary to the ego, and the ego is secondary to the psyche.

Had narcissism been foundational, then we should be able to observe it
among animals. But there is no such thing, which explains our love of
animals, I believe. They are guaranteed to be free of narcissistic
motives. The "animal" in us is the basis of our psychology. This is
what we are at the most fundamental level. We should pride ourselves
on this, that we have emerged from animals. In our groundwork, we are
free of narcissism, just like our pets.

The theories that build on an innate narcissism as formative factor,
are illogical, and cannot be verified empirically. Hence this notion
is both foolish and unscientific. So what's the explanation for its
persuasive power? How come a senseless notion that is wholly
unscientific and lacks empirical evidence, can survive and continue to
be taught? There must be a psychological explanation for this. It must
be a matter of projection.

A theory of formative narcissism (e.g., Kohut's Self psychology;
Winnicott's theory of destruction and merger) will reinforce the
narcissistic therapist. He will be strengthened in his conviction that
his narcissistic outlook is wholly normal, his destructive
narcissistic demeanor worthy of imitation. The idea is to create a
theoretical framework to accommodate a narcissistic economy, to peddle
narcissism as normal and normalcy as pathological. The psychic economy
of narcissism provides relative stability. Scapegoating and vicarious
suffering plays a central role. Some authors argue that it represents
a psychological "atavism", a throwback to an archaic pre-Christian
psychic constitution.

In this way, narcissists can come to be viewed as mentally sound, and
wholly suitable for the profession as therapist. As narcissists like
to dominate and enfetter people psychologically, the therapeutic
profession represents a strong lure, similar to how pedophiles are
drawn to certain professions. This very destructive development of
psychoanalysis can go on without psychoanalysts are ringing the alarm
bell. Why is this?

When reading Freud on the subject, we must keep in mind that he uses
the term 'narcissism' differently than we do today. In Three Essays on
Sexuality, he says that "the narcissistic libidinal cathexis of the
ego is the original state of things", which implies that it is not an
ego-less state:

"We can follow the object-libido through still further vicissitudes.
When it is withdrawn from objects, it is held in suspense in peculiar
conditions of tension and is finally drawn back into the ego, so that
it becomes ego-libido once again. In contrast to object-libido, we
also describe ego-libido as 'narcissistic' libido. From the
vantage-point of psycho-analysis we can look across a frontier, which
we may not pass, at the activities of narcissistic libido, and we may
form some idea of the relation between it and object-libido.
Narcissistic or ego-libido seems to be the great reservoir from which
the object-cathexes are sent out and into which they are withdrawn
once more; the narcissistic libidinal cathexis of the ego is the
original state of things, realized in earliest childhood, and is
merely covered by later extrusions of libido, but in essentials
persists behind them." (Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, III:3)

What precedes the emergence of the ego is *instinctual libido*, but it
formulates itself in ways that mimic narcissistic investments. One
example is castration anxiety. The child has no ego to be protective
about, so he is protective about his penis instead. So 'primary
narcissism' is not narcissism proper (i.e. how we understand the
notion today). Primary narcissism is libidinal instincts functioning
in a stage where ego- and object-libido have not yet come apart.
'Primary narcissism'is an ego-less condition, despite the fact that
narcissism, per Freud's own definition, is ego-libido. This is because
he thinks it is the body-version of real narcissism, as focus is on
bodily needs. But it is a very bad choice of words.

The toddler does not think that the external reality is an extension
of himself, as he has no notion of himself. Nor can cats and dogs be
narcissistic, as they lack an ego. Experiments have been performed
with pre-ego children (age 5ą1). Similar to cats and dogs, they are
incapable of recognizing themselves in a mirror. After this age, when
experimenters surreptitiously put some paint on their forehead (or
something) then they immediately notice this in a mirror and start to
rub it. Before this age they don't recognize the colour patch, because
they don't 'see' themselves. Adult orangutans, however, recognize
themselves in a mirror (they see the colour patch), so they have a
rudimentary ego.

If Freud had in later life abandoned his view of narcissism as
ego-libido, and the notion that the ego is a prerequisite of
narcissism, then he would have revised the Three Essays on Sexuality,
but he never did. The pre-ego libido (which is instinctual, and in
which object-libido and ego-libido are fused) disunites into
ego-libido ("narcissism") and object-libido. The ego-libido can be
viewed as "the great reservoir from which the object-cathexes are sent
out and into which they are withdrawn once more".

The ego-libido is not the same as the libido of the pre-ego child.
That's why Freud says that prior to the emergence of the ego,
object-libido and ego-libido are fused. Thus, what Freud calls
'primary narcissism', is not the same as ego-libido. Primary
narcissism is a bodily-oriented instinctive state, where the child
focuses on his needs, guided by instinct, because it has no ego to
tend for its needs.

C.G. Jung was in an interview questioned about what personality type
he believed Freud belonged to. Jung answered that this was difficult
to answer in his own terms because Freud belonged to the "neurotic
type". Today we know what is implied be the "neurotic personality
type". It is a relatively stable neurotic system, today known as
"personality disorder". This could explain why he projected narcissism
on the innocent little toddler, "His Majesty the Baby". It also
explains why he came close to contradicting his own theoretical
achievements by implying that narcissism is innate and formative of
personality.

Conclusion: adult people are either narcissistic or non-narcissistic.
The pre-ego child is neither. It cannot be defined in those opposites.
The underlying source of libido in human psychology is not
narcissistic.

Mats Winther, 2011
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/