"You see, the actual issue is really a simple one ... a simp_The Developmental Psychology of Psychopathology

The Developmental Psychology of Psychopathology

1st EDITION

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.

Editing and Design:

Lidija Rangelovska

A Narcissus Publications Imprint, Skopje 2003

Not for Sale! Non-commercial edition.

reproduced in any manner without written permission from:

Lidija Rangelovska - write to:

palma@unet.com.mk or to

vaknin@link.com.mk

Visit the Author Archive of Dr. Sam Vaknin in "Central Europe Review":

http://www.ce-review.org/authorarchives/vaknin_archive/vaknin_main.html

Visit Sam Vaknin's United Press International (UPI) Article Archive

Philosophical Musings and Essays

http://samvak.tripod.com/culture.html

Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited

http://samvak.tripod.com/

Created by: LIDIJA RANGELOVSKA

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

C O N T E N T S

I. The Narcissistic Parent

II. The Narcissist's Mother

III. Born Alien

IV. Parenting - The Irrational Vocation

V. The Development of Narcissists and Schizoids

VI. Serial Killers

VII. Sex, or Gender

VIII. The Author

IX. About "After the Rain"

The Narcissistic Parent

By: Dr. Sam Vaknin

Question:

Is there a "typical" relationship between the narcissist and his family?

Answer:

We are all members of a few families in our lifetime: the one that we

are born to and the one(s) that we create. We all transfer hurts,

attitudes, fears, hopes and desires - a whole emotional baggage - from

the former to the latter. The narcissist is no exception.

The narcissist has a dichotomous view of humanity: humans are either

Sources of Narcissistic Supply (and, then, idealised and over-valued)

or do not fulfil this function (and, therefore, are valueless,

devalued). The narcissist gets all the love that he needs from himself.

From the outside he needs approval, affirmation, admiration, adoration,

attention - in other words, externalised Ego boundary functions. He

does not require - nor does he seek - his parents' or his siblings'

love, or to be loved by his children. He casts them as the audience in

the theatre of his inflated grandiosity.

He wishes to impress them, shock them, threaten them, infuse them with

awe, inspire them, attract their attention, subjugate them, or

manipulate them. He emulates and simulates an entire range of emotions

and employs every means to achieve these effects. He lies (narcissists

are pathological liars - their very self is a false one). He plays the

pitiful, or, its opposite, the resilient and reliable. He stuns and

shines with outstanding intellectual, or physical (or anything else

appreciated by the members of the family) capacities and achievements.

When confronted with (younger) siblings or with his own children, the

narcissist is likely to react in three phases:

At first, he perceives his offspring as a threat to his Narcissistic

Supply Sources (his turf, the Pathological Narcissistic Space). He does

his best to belittle them, hurt (also physically) and humiliate them

and then, when these reactions prove ineffective or counter productive,

he retreats into an imaginary world of omnipotence. A period of

emotional absence and detachment ensues. The narcissist indulges

himself in daydreaming, delusions of grandeur, planning of future

coups, nostalgia and hurt (the Lost Paradise Syndrome). The narcissist

reacts this way to the birth of his children or to the introduction of

new foci of attention to the family cell (even to a new pet!). Whatever

the narcissist perceives to be competition for scarce Narcissistic

Supply is relegated to the role of the enemy. Where the uninhibited

expression of the aggression and hostility aroused by this predicament

is considered illegitimate - the narcissist prefers to stay away. He

disconnects, detaches himself emotionally, becomes cold and

disinterested, directs transformed anger at his mate or at his parents

(the more legitimate targets).

Other narcissists see the opportunity in the "mishap". They seek to

manipulate their parents (or their mate) by "taking over" the newcomer.

Such narcissists monopolise their siblings or their newborn children.

This way, indirectly, the narcissist basks in the attention directed at

the infants. An example: by being closely identified with his

offspring, a narcissistic father secures the grateful admiration of the

mother ("What an outstanding father he is"). He also assumes part of or

all the credit for baby's/sibling's achievements. This is a process of

annexation and assimilation of the other, a strategy that the

narcissist makes use of in most of his relationships.

As the baby/sibling grows older, the narcissist begins to see their

potential to be edifying, reliable and satisfactory Sources of

Narcissistic Supply. His attitude, then, is completely transformed. The

former threats have now become promising potentials. He cultivates

those whom he trusts to be the most rewarding. He encourages them to

idolise him, to adore him, to be awed by him, to admire his deeds and

capabilities, to learn to blindly trust and obey him, in short to

surrender to his charisma and to become submerged in his

folies-de-grandeur. These roles - allocated to them explicitly and

demandingly or implicitly and perniciously by the narcissist - are best

fulfilled by ones whose mind is not fully formed and independent. The

older the siblings or offspring, the more they become critical, even

judgemental, of the narcissist. They are better able to put into

context and perspective his actions, to question his motives, to

anticipate his moves. They refuse to continue to play the mindless

pawns in his chess game.

They hold grudges against him for what he has done to them in the past,

when they were less capable of resistance. They can gauge his true

stature, talents and achievements - which, usually, lag far behind the

claims that he makes.

This brings the narcissist a full cycle back to the first phase. Again,

he perceives his siblings or sons/daughters as threats. He quickly

becomes disillusioned and devaluing. He loses all interest, becomes

emotionally remote, absent and cold, rejects any effort to communicate

with him, citing life pressures and the preciousness and scarceness of

his time. He feels burdened, cornered, besieged, suffocated, and

claustrophobic. He wants to get away, to abandon his commitments to

people who have become totally useless (or even damaging) to him. He

does not understand why he has to support them, to suffer their company

and he believes himself to have been trapped. He rebels either

passively-aggressively (by refusing to act or intentionally sabotaging

the relationships) or actively (by being overly critical, aggressive,

unpleasant, verbally and psychologically abusive and so on). Slowly -

to justify his acts to himself - he gets immersed in conspiracy

theories with clear paranoid hues. To his mind, the members of the

family conspire against him, seek to belittle or humiliate or

subordinate him, do not understand him, stymie his growth. The

narcissist usually finally gets what he wants and the family that he

has created disintegrates to his great sorrow (due to the loss of the

Narcissistic Space) - but also to his great relief and surprise (how

could they have let go someone as unique as he?).

This is the cycle: the narcissist feels threatened by arrival of new

family members - assimilation of siblings or offspring - obtaining

Narcissistic Supply from them - overvaluation of these new sources by

the narcissist - as sources grow older and independent, they adopt anti

narcissistic behaviours - the narcissist devalues them - the narcissist

feels stifled and trapped - the narcissist becomes paranoid - the

narcissist rebels and the family disintegrates. This cycle

characterises not only the family life of the narcissist. It is to be

found in other realms of his life (his career, for instance). At work,

the narcissist, initially, feels threatened (no one knows him, he is a

nobody). Then, he develops a circle of admirers, cronies and friends

which he "nurtures and cultivates" in order to obtain Narcissistic

Supply from them. He overvalues them (they are the brightest, the most

loyal, with the biggest chances to climb the corporate ladder and other

superlatives).

But following some anti-narcissistic behaviours on their part (a

critical remark, a disagreement, a refusal, however polite, all

constitute such behaviours) - the narcissist devalues all these

previously over-valued individuals. Now they are stupid, cowardly, lack

ambition, skills and talents, common (the worst expletive in the

narcissist's vocabulary), with an unspectacular career ahead of them.

The narcissist feels that he is misallocating his resources (for

instance, his time). He feels besieged and suffocated. He rebels and

erupts in a serious of self-defeating and self-destructive behaviours,

which lead to the disintegration of his life.

Doomed to build and ruin, attach and detach, appreciate and depreciate,

the narcissist is predictable in his "death wish". What sets him apart

from other suicidal types is that his wish is granted to him in small,

tormenting doses throughout his anguished life.

The Narcissist's Mother

By: Dr. Sam Vaknin

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 urge to

assimilate and integrate by being assimilated and integrated.

"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."

(J. D. Levine and Rona H. Weiss. The Dynamics and Treatment of

Alcoholism. Jason Aronson, 1994)

The child's nascent self must first overcome its feelings of

diffusiveness, of being an extension of its caregivers (to include

parents, in this text), or a part of them. Kohut says that 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 serve as its self. 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

supplanted by an indigenous government.

"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 idealised 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 endopsychic resources, that is, specifically into

sustaining self-esteem and into a sustaining relationship to internal

ideals." [Ibid.]

B. The Narcissistic Personality

"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 internalised by identification with parental

modes of dealing with stressful information."

(Jon Mardi Horowitz. Stress Response Syndromes: PTSD, Grief and

Adjustment Disorders. Third edition. New York, NY University Press,

1998)

Narcissism is fundamentally an evolved version of the splitting defence

mechanism. The narcissist cannot regard humans, situations, entities

(political parties, countries, races, his workplace) as a compound of

good and bad elements. He is an "all or nothing" primitive "machine" (a

common metaphor among narcissists). He either idealises his object - or

devalues it. The object is either all good or all bad. The bad

attributes are always projected, displaced, or otherwise externalised.

The good ones are internalised 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 remoulding it and in ignoring the uncomfortable angles.

"The disguises are accomplished by shifting meanings and using

exaggeration and minimisation 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." [Ibid.]

The second mechanism which the narcissist employees is the active

pursuit of Narcissistic 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 behaviour in its pursuit is impulsive and compulsive.

"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 labelled as

being of the self (internalised) Those qualities that are undesirable

are excluded from the self by denial of their existence, disavowal of

related attitudes, externalisation, and negation of recent

self-expressions. Persons who function as accessories to the self may

also be idealised 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 minimising evil or weakness

and exaggerating innocence or control. As part of these manoeuvres, the

narcissistic personality may assume attitudes of contemptuous

superiority toward others, emotional coldness, or even desperately

charming approaches to idealised figures." [Ibid.]

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 - it regresses to the previous phase,

to the narcissistic phase. The first occurrence of narcissism is

adaptive. It "trains" the child to love an object, albeit merely his

self. It secures gratification through the availability, predictability

and permanence of the loved object (=oneself). 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 to 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 fantasyland 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 behaviours).

Fantasies to him are just a way of accessing these archetypes and

releasing them. Almost ex definitio, 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 only a semantic difference between

Freud and his disciple turned-heretic. When libido investment in

objects (esp. the Primary Object) fails to produce gratification,

maladaptation results. This is dangerous. A default option is

activated: secondary narcissism. This default enhances adaptation, it

is functional and adaptive and triggers adaptive behaviours. As a

by-product, it secures gratification. We are gratified when we exert

reasonable control over our environment, i.e., when our behaviours are

adaptive. The compensatory process has TWO results: enhanced adaptation

and inevitable gratification.

Perhaps the more serious disagreement between Freud and Jung 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 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 (who habitually concentrate on their

selves rather than on outside objects) from extroverts (the converse

preference). According to him, not only is introversion a totally

normal and natural function, it remains normal and natural even if it

predominates 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-clusive 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 recognised, 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

"idealised 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 (who 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 idealisation are positive childhood

development mechanisms. Even their reappearance in transference should

not be considered a pathological narcissistic regression.

"You see, the actual issue is really a simple one ... a simple change

in classical [Freudian] theory, which states that autoeroticism

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 non-scientific value judgement ...

that has nothing to do with developmental psychology."

(H. Kohut. The Chicago Institute Lectures 1972-1976. Marian and Paul

Tolpin (Eds.). Analytic Press, 1998)

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 cohabitate.

Kohut: "It is not that the self-experiences are given up and replaced

by ... a more mature or developmentally more advanced experience of

objects." [Ibid.]

This dichotomy inevitably led 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 (ungratified 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" (that is not being

affirmed by objects, especially the Primary Objects, the parents) - or

being regarded merely 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 recognised 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."

(Paul and Marian Tolpin (Eds.). The Preface to the "Chicago Institute

Lectures 1972-1976 of H. Kohut", 1996)

One note: "constructs" or "structures" are permanent psychological

patterns. This is not to say that they do not change - they are capable

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 defences and archaic

internal objects and part objects. Winnicott [and Balint 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" school of

psychodynamics. She said that the personality was shaped mostly by

one's environment, society, or culture. 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 a determinant as any drive.

Society came in through the parental door. Biology converged with

social injunctions to yield human values such as 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.

Defences are developed to compensate for the intolerable and gradual

realisation that adults are human: capricious, arbitrary,

unpredictable, non-dependable. Defences provide both satisfaction and a

sense of security. The problem still exists, but it is "one stage

removed". When the defences are attacked or perceived to be attacked

(such as in therapy) - anxiety is reawakened.

Karen B. Wallant in "Creating Capacity for Attachment: Treating

Addictions and the Alienated Self" [Jason Aronson, 1999] wrote:

"The capacity to be alone develops out of the baby's ability to hold

onto the internalisation 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 idealising 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 he 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 the NEUROTIC

personality. The submissive (or compliant) type is a fake. He hides

aggression beneath a 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 postulated that 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

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" shuts. It is conceivable that

this plasticity continues well into adulthood and that later

"reprogramming" (by loving, caring, compassionate and empathic

experiences) can remould the brain permanently. I believe that the

patient has to accept his disorder as a given and work AROUND it rather

than confront 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 mould and experience life the same.

Idiosyncrasies are a good thing, both on the individual level and on

the level of the species.

C. 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 N. Stern dispute this

hypothesis. Based on many studies it appears that, as always, what

seems intuitively right is not necessarily right. In "The Interpersonal

World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental

Psychology" [New York, Basic Books - 1985], Stern seems to,

inadvertently, support Kohut by concluding that children possess selves

and are separate 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 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 (in a

social context, some add), an assimilation of the oft-imitated and

idealised parents plus the internalisation of the way others perceive

the child in social interactions.

The self is, therefore, an internalised reflection, an imitation, a

series of internalised idealisations. This sounds close to pathological

narcissism. Perhaps it is really a matter of quantity rather than

quality.

D. 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 "offences". 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 co-operative 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, premeditated 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 where it is always loved and self-sufficient.

This is the narcissistic strategy which leads to the development of a

narcissistic personality.

E. The Narcissist's Family

"For very young children, self-esteem is probably best thought to

consist of deep feelings of being loved, accepted, and valued by

significant others rather than of feelings derived from evaluating

oneself against some external criteria, as in the case of older

children. Indeed, the only criterion appropriate for accepting and

loving a new-born or infant is that he or she has been born. The

unconditional love and acceptance experienced in the first year or two

of life lay the foundation for later self-esteem, and probably make it

possible for the pre-schooler and older child to withstand occasional

criticism and negative evaluations that usually accompany socialisation

into the larger community.

As children grow beyond the pre-school years, the larger society

imposes criteria and conditions upon love and acceptance. If the very

early feelings of love and acceptance are deep enough, the child can

most likely weather the rebuffs and scoldings of the later years

without undue debilitation. With increasing age, however, children

begin to internalise criteria of self-worth and a sense of the

standards to be attained on the criteria from the larger community they

observe and in which they are beginning to participate. The issue of

criteria of self-esteem is examined more closely below.

Cassidy's [1988] study of the relationship between self-esteem at age

five and six years and the quality of early mother-child attachment

supports Bowlby's theory that construction of the self is derived from

early daily experience with attachment figures. The results of the

study support Bowlby's conception of the process through which

continuity in development occurs, and of the way early child-mother

attachment continues to influence the child's conception and estimation

of the self across many years. The working models of the self derived

from early mother-child inter-action organise and help mould the

child's environment 'by seeking particular kinds of people and by

eliciting particular behaviour from them' [Cassidy, 1988, p. 133].

Cassidy points out that very young children have few means of learning

about themselves other than through experience with attachment figures.

She suggests that if infants are valued and given comfort when

required, they come to feel valuable; conversely, if they are neglected

or rejected, they come to feel worthless and of little value.

In an examination of developmental considerations, Bednar, Wells, and

Peterson [1989] suggest that feelings of competence and the self-esteem

associated with them are enhanced in children when their parents

provide an optimum mixture of acceptance, affection, rational limits

and controls, and high expectations. In a similar way, teachers are

likely to engender positive feelings when they provide such a

combination of acceptance, limits, and meaningful and realistic

expectations concerning behaviour and effort [Lamborn et al., 1991].

Similarly, teachers can provide contexts for such an optimum mixture of

acceptance, limits, and meaningful effort in the course of project work

as described by Katz and Chard [1989]."

(Lilian G. Katz - Distinctions between Self-Esteem and Narcissism:

Implications for Practice - October 1993 - ERIC/EECE Publications)

F. The Narcissist's Mother - A Suggestion for an Integrative Framework

The whole structure of the narcissistic disorder is a derivative of the

prototypical relationship with the mother.

This "mother" usually is inconsistent and frustrating in her behaviour.

By being so, she thwarts the narcissist's ability to trust others and

to feel secure with them. By emotionally abandoning him - she fosters

in him fears of being abandoned and the nagging sensation that the

world is a dangerous, unpredictable place. She becomes a negative,

devaluing voice, which is duly incorporated in the Superego.

Our natural state is anxiety, the readiness - physiological and mental

- to "fight or flight". Research indicates that the Primary Object (PO)

is really the child, rather than its mother. The child identifies

itself as an object almost at birth. It explores itself, reacts and

interacts, it monitors its bodily reactions to internal and external

inputs and stimuli. The flow of blood, the peristaltic movement, the

swallowing reflex, the texture of saliva, the experience of excretion,

being wet, thirsty, hungry or content - all these distinguish the

selfless child from its self. The child assumes the position of

observer and integrator early on. As Kohut said, it has both a self and

the ability to relate to objects. This intimacy with a familiar and

predictable object (oneself) is a primary source of security and the

precursor to emerging narcissism. The mother is only a Secondary Object

(SO). It is the second object that the child learns to relate to and it

has the indispensable developmental advantage of being transcendental,

external to the child. All meaningful others are Auxiliary Objects (AO).

A "good enough" SO serves to extend the lessons of the PO and apply

them to the world at large. The child learns that the external

environment can be as predictable and safe as the internal one. This

titillating discovery leads to a modification of naive or primitive

narcissism. It recedes to the background allowing more prominent and

adaptive strategies to the fore. In due time - and subject to an

accumulation of the right positively reinforcing experiences, a higher

form of narcissism develops: self-love and self-esteem.

If, however, SO fails, the child reverts back to the PO and to its

correlated narcissism. This is regression in the chronological sense.

But it is an adaptive strategy. The emotional consequences of rejection

and abuse are too difficult to contemplate. Narcissism ameliorates them

by providing a substitute object. This is an adaptive,

survival-oriented act. It provides the child with time to "come to

grips with its thoughts and feelings" and perhaps to come back with a

different strategy more suited to the new - unpleasant and threatening

- data. So the interpretation of this regression as a failure of object

love is wrong. The SO, the object chosen as the target of object love,

was the wrong object. Object love continues with a different, familiar,

object. The child changes objects (from his mother to his self), not

his capacity for object-love or its implementation.

If this failure to establish a proper object-relation persists and is

not alleviated, all future objects are perceived as extensions of the

Primary Object (the self), or the objects of a merger with one's self,

because they are perceived narcissistically.

There are, therefore, two modes of object perception:

The narcissistic (all objects are perceived as variations of the

perceiving self) and the social (all objects are perceived as others or

self-objects).

As we said earlier, the core (narcissistic) self - precedes language or

interaction with others. As the core self matures it can develop either

into a True Self OR into a False Self. The two are mutually exclusive

(a person with False Self has no functioning True Self). The

distinction of the False Self is that it perceives others

narcissistically. As opposed to it, the True Self perceives others

socially.

The child constantly compares his first experience with an object (his

internalised PO) to his experience with his SO. The internalisations of

both the PO and the SO are modified as a result of this process of

comparison. The SO is idealised and internalised to form what I call

the SEGO (loosely, the equivalent of Freud's Superego plus the

internalised outcomes of social interactions throughout life). The

internalised PO is constantly modified to be rendered compatible with

input by the SO (for example: "You are loved", or "You are a bad boy").

This is the process by which the Ideal Ego is created.

The internalisations of the PO, of the SO and of the outcomes of their

interactions (for instance, of the results of the aforementioned

constant comparison between them) form what Bowlby calls "working

models". These are constantly updated representations of both the self

and of Meaningful Others (what I call Auxiliary Others). The

narcissist's working models are defective. They pertain to his self and

to ALL others. To the narcissist, ALL others are meaningful because NO

ONE has BEEN meaningful hitherto. This forces him to resort to crude

abstractions (imagine the sheer number of working models needed).

He is forced to dehumanise, objectify, generalise, idealise, devalue,

or stereotypise in order to cope with the sheer volume of potential

interactions with meaningful objects. In his defence against being

overwhelmed, he feels so superior, so inflated - because he is the only

REAL three-dimensional character in his life.

Moreover, the narcissist's working models are rigid and never updated

because he does not feel that he is interacting with real objects. How

can one feel empathic, for instance, towards a representation or an

abstraction or an object of gratification?

A matrix of possible axes of interaction between child and mother can

be constructed.

The first term in each of these equations of interaction describes the

child, the second the mother.

The Mother can be:

* Accepting ("good enough");

* Domineering;

* Doting/Smothering;

* Indifferent;

* Rejecting;

* Abusive.

The Child can be:

* Attracted;

* Repelled (due to unjust mistreatment, for instance).

The possible axes are:

Child / Mother

How to read this table:

Attraction - Attraction/Accepting means that the child is attracted to

his mother, his mother is attracted to him and she is a Winnicottean

"good enough" (accepting) mother.

1. Attraction - Attraction/Accepting

(Healthy axis, leads to self-love)

2. Attraction - Attraction/Domineering

(Could lead to personality disorders such as avoidant, or schizoid, or

to social phobia, etc.)

3. Attraction - Attraction/Doting or Smothering

(Could lead to Cluster B Personality Disorders)

4. Attraction - Repulsion/Indifferent

[passive-aggressive, frustrating]

(Could lead to narcissism, Cluster B disorders)

5. Attraction - Repulsion/Rejecting

(Could lead to personality disorders such as paranoid, borderline,

etc.)

6. Attraction - Repulsion/Abusive

(Could lead to DID, ADHD, NPD, BPD, AHD, AsPD, PPD, etc.)

7. Repulsion - Repulsion/Indifferent

(Could lead to avoidant, schizoid, paranoid, etc. PDs)

8. Repulsion - Repulsion/Rejecting

(Could lead to personality, mood, anxiety disorders and to impulsive

behaviours, such as eating disorders)

9. Repulsion - Attraction/Accepting