Had this been the case, the number of children would have risen
together with free income. Yet, exactly the reverse is happening: the
more children people can economically afford - the fewer they have. The
more educated they are (=the more they know about the world and about
themselves), the less they seek to procreate. The more advanced the
civilization, the more efforts it invests into preventing the birth of
children: contraceptives, family planning, abortions. These all are
typical of affluent, well educated societies.
And the more Narcissistic supply can be derived from other sources -
the less do people resort to making children and to other procreative
activities (such as sex). Freud described the mechanism of sublimation:
the sex drive, the Eros (libido), can be "converted", "sublimated" into
other activities. All the sublimatory channels and activities are
Narcissistic in character: politics, art. They all provide what
children do: narcissistic supply.
They make children redundant. It is not by coincidence that people
famous for their creativity tend to have less children than the average
(most of them, none at all). They are Narcissistically self sufficient,
they do not need children.
This seems to be the key to our determination to have children:
To experience the unconditional love that we received from our mothers,
this intoxicating feeling of being loved without caveats, for what we
are, with no limits, reservations, or calculations. This is the most
powerful, crystallized source of Narcissistic supply. It nourishes our
self-love, self worth and self-confidence. It infuses us with feelings
of omnipotence and omniscience. In these, and other respects, it is a
return to infancy.
Narcissists, Inverted Narcissists and Schizoids
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
Question:
Are narcissists also schizoids?
Answer:
This is the definition of the Schizoid Personality Disorder (SPD) in
the DSM-IV-TR [2000]:
A. A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a
restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings,
beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as
indicated by four (or more) of the following:
* Neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part
of a family;
* Almost always chooses solitary activities;
* Has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with
another person;
* Takes pleasure in few, if any, activities;
* Lacks close friends or confidants other than first degree relatives;
* Appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others;
* Shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity.
B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of schizophrenia, a
mood disorder with psychotic features, another psychotic disorder, or a
pervasive developmental disorder and is not due to the direct
physiological effects of a general medical condition.
Or, as the Howard H. Goldman (Ed.) in the "Review of General
Psychiatry" [4th Edition. London, Prentice Hall International, 1995]
puts it:
"The person with Schizoid Personality Disorder sustains a fragile
emotional equilibrium by avoiding intimate personal contact and thereby
minimising conflict that is poorly tolerated."
Intuitively, a connection between SPD and NPD seems plausible. After
all, NPDs are people who self-sufficiently withdraw from others. They
love themselves in lieu of loving others. Lacking empathy, they regard
others as mere instruments, objectified "Sources" of Narcissistic
Supply. With the exception of criterion 6 above - the classic
narcissist would tend to fit all the others.
The inverted narcissist (IN) is a narcissist, who "projects" his
narcissism onto another narcissist. The mechanism of projective
identification allows the IN to experience his own narcissism
vicariously, through the agency of a classic narcissist. But the IN is
no less a narcissist than the classical one. He is no less socially
reclusive.
A distinction must be made between social interactions and social
relationships. The schizoid, the narcissist and the inverted narcissist
- all interact socially. But they fail to form human and social
relationships. The schizoid is uninterested and the narcissist is both
uninterested and incapable due to his lack of empathy and pervasive
sense of grandiosity.
The ethno-psychologist George Devereux [Basic Problems of
Ethno-Psychiatry, University of Chicago Press, 1980] proposed to divide
the unconscious into the Id (the part that was always instinctual and
unconscious) and the "ethnic unconscious" (repressed material that was
once conscious). The latter includes all the defence mechanisms and
most of the Superego. Culture dictates what is to be repressed. Mental
illness is either idiosyncratic (cultural directives are not followed
and the individual is unique and schizophrenic) - or conformist,
abiding by the cultural dictates of what is allowed and disallowed.
Our culture, according to Christopher Lasch, teaches us to withdraw
inwards when confronted with stressful situations. It is a vicious
circle. One of the main stressors of modern society is alienation and a
pervasive sense of isolation. The solution our culture offers - to
further withdraw - only exacerbates the problem. Richard Sennett
expounded on this theme in "The Fall of Public Man: On the Social
Psychology of Capitalism" [Vintage Books, 1978]. One of the chapters in
Devereux's aforementioned tome is entitled "Schizophrenia: An Ethnic
Psychosis, or Schizophrenia without Tears". To him, the whole USA is
afflicted by what came later to be called a "schizoid disorder".
C. Fred Alford [in Narcissism: Socrates, the Frankfurt School and
Psychoanalytic Theory, Yale University Press, 1988] enumerates the
symptoms:
"...withdrawal, emotional aloofness, hyporeactivity (emotional
flatness), sex without emotional involvement, segmentation and partial
involvement (lack of interest and commitment to things outside
oneself), fixation on oral-stage issues, regression, infantilism and
depersonalisation. These, of course, are many of the same designations
that Lasch employs to describe the culture of narcissism. Thus, it
appears, that it is not misleading to equate narcissism with schizoid
disorder." [Page 19]
We have dwelt elsewhere in this book on the developmental phases of the
narcissist and on the psychodynamics of narcissistic development, its
causes and reactive patterns (see the FAQs "The Narcissist's Mother",
"More on the Development of the Narcissist" and "Narcissism - The
Psychopathological Default"). Still, it is worthwhile to study the
theoretical foundations of the comparison between narcissism and the
schizoid disorder.
The first to seriously consider this similarity, if not outright
identity, was Melanie Klein. She broke ranks with Freud in that she
believed that we are born with a fragile, easily fragmentable, weak and
unintegrated Ego. The most primordial human fear is the fear of
disintegration (death), according to Klein. Thus, the infant is forced
to employ primitive defence mechanisms such as splitting, projection
and introjection to cope with this fear (actually, with the result of
aggression generated by the Ego).
The Ego splits and projects this part (death, disintegration,
aggression). It does the same with the life-related, constructive,
integrative part of itself. The result of all these mechanics is to
view the world as either "good" (satisfying, complying, responding,
gratifying) - or bad (frustrating). Klein called it the good and the
bad "breasts". The child then proceeds to introject (internalise and
assimilate) the good object while keeping out (=defending against) the
bad objects. The good object becomes the nucleus of the forming Ego.
The bad object is felt as fragmented. But it has not vanished, it is
there.
The fact that the bad object is "out there", persecutory, threatening -
gives rise to the first schizoid defence mechanisms, foremost amongst
them the mechanism of "projective identification" (so often employed by
narcissists). The infant projects parts of himself (his organs, his
behaviours, his traits) unto the bad object. This is the famous
Kleinian "paranoid-schizoid position". The Ego is split. This is as
terrifying as it sounds but it allows the baby to make a clear
distinction between the "good object" (inside him) and the "bad object"
(out there, split from him). If this phase is not transcended the
individual develops schizophrenia and a fragmentation of the self.
Around the third or fourth month of life, the infant realises that the
good and the bad objects are really facets of one and the same object.
He develops the depressive position. This depression [Klein believes
that the two positions continue throughout life] is a reaction of fear
and anxiety. The infant feels guilty (at his own rage) and anxious
(lest his aggression harms the object and eliminates the source of good
things).
He experiences loss of his own omnipotence since the object is outside
his self. The infant wishes to erase the results of his own aggression
by "making the object whole again". By recognising the wholeness of
other objects - the infant comes to realise and to experience his own
wholeness. The Ego re-integrates.
But the transition from the paranoid-schizoid position to the
depressive one is by no means smooth and assured. Excess anxiety and
envy can delay it or prevent it altogether. Envy seeks to destroy all
good objects, so that others don't have them. It, therefore, hinders
the split between the good and the bad "breasts". Envy destroys the
good object but leaves the persecutory, bad object intact. Moreover, it
does not allow the re-integration ["reparation" in Kleinian jargon] to
take place. The more whole the object - the greater the envy. Thus,
envy feeds on its own outcomes. The more envy, the less integrated the
Ego is, the weaker and more inadequate it is - the more reason for
envying the good object and other people. Envy is the hallmark of
narcissism and the prime source of what is known as narcissistic rage.
The schizoid self - fragmented, weak, primitive - is intimately
connected with narcissism through envy. Narcissists prefer to destroy
themselves and to deny themselves - rather than to endure someone
else's happiness, wholeness and "triumph". They fail an exam - to
frustrate a teacher they adore and envy. They fail in therapy - not to
give the therapist a reason to feel professionally satisfied. By
failing and self-destructing, narcissists deny the worth of others. If
the narcissist fails in therapy - his analyst must be inept. If he
destroys himself by consuming drugs - his parents are blameworthy and
should feel guilty and bad. One cannot exaggerate the importance of
envy as a motivating power in the narcissist's life.
The psychodynamic connection is obvious. Envy is a rage reaction at not
controlling or "having" or engulfing the good, desired object.
Narcissists defend themselves against this acidulous, corroding
sensation by pretending that they DO control, possess and engulf the
good object. This is what we call "grandiose fantasies (of omnipotence
or omniscience)". But, in doing so, the narcissist MUST deny the
existence of any good OUTSIDE himself. The narcissist defends himself
against raging, all consuming envy - by solipsistically claiming to be
the ONLY good object in the world. This is an object that cannot be had
by anyone, except the narcissist and, therefore, is immune to the
narcissist's threatening, annihilating envy. In order not to be "owned"
by anyone (and, thus, avoid self-destruction in the hands of his own
envy) - the narcissist reduces others to "non-entities" (the
narcissistic solution), or avoids all meaningful contact with them
altogether (the schizoid solution).
The suppression of envy is at the CORE of the narcissist's being. If he
fails to convince his self that he is the ONLY good object in the
universe - he is exposed to his own murderous envy. If there are others
out there who are better than he - he envies them, he lashes out at
them ferociously, uncontrollably, madly, hatefully and spitefully. If
someone tries to get emotionally intimate with the narcissist - she
threatens the grandiose belief that no one but the narcissist can
possess the good object (the narcissist himself). Only the narcissist
can own himself, have access to himself, possess himself. This is the
only way to avoid seething envy and certain self-annihilation. Perhaps
it is clearer now why narcissists react as raving madmen to ANYTHING,
however minute, however remote that seems to threaten their grandiose
fantasies, the only protective barrier between themselves and their
envy.
There is nothing new in trying to link narcissism to schizophrenia.
Freud did as much in his "On Narcissism" [1914]. Klein's contribution
was the introduction of immediately post-natal internal objects.
Schizophrenia, she proposed, was a narcissistic and intense
relationship with internal objects (such as fantasies or images,
including fantasies of grandeur). It was a new language. Freud
suggested a transition from (primary, object-less) narcissism
(self-directed libido) to objects relations (objects directed libido).
Klein suggested a transition from internal objects to external ones.
While Freud thought that the common denominator of narcissism and
schizoid phenomena was a withdrawal of libido from the world - Klein
suggested it was a fixation on an early phase of relating to internal
objects.
But is the difference not merely a question of terminology?
"The term 'narcissism' tends to be employed diagnostically by those
proclaiming loyalty to the drive model [Otto Kernberg and Edith
Jacobson, for instance - SV] and mixed model theorists [Kohut], who are
interested in preserving a tie to drive theory. 'Schizoid' tends to be
employed diagnostically by adherents of relational models [Fairbairn,
Guntrip], who are interested in articulating their break with drive
theory... These two differing diagnoses and accompanying formulations
are applied to patients who are essentially similar, by theorists who
start with very different conceptual premises and ideological
affiliations."
(Greenberg and Mitchell. Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory.
Harvard University Press, 1983)
Klein, in effect, said that drives (e.g., the libido) are relational
flows. A drive is the mode of relationship between an individual and
his objects (internal and external). Thus, a retreat from the world
[Freud] into internal objects [object relations theorists and
especially the British school of Fairbairn and Guntrip] - IS the drive
itself. Drives are orientations (to external or internal objects).
Narcissism is an orientation (a preference, we could say) towards
internal objects - the very definition of schizoid phenomena. This is
why narcissists feel empty, fragmented, "unreal" (movie-like) and
diffuse. It is because their Ego is still split (never integrated) and
because they withdrew from the world (of external objects). Kernberg
identifies these internal objects with which the narcissist maintains a
special relationship with the idealised, grandiose images of the
narcissist's parents. He believes that the narcissist's very Ego
(self-representation) fused with these parental images.
Fairbairn's work - even more than Kernberg's, not to mention Kohut's -
integrates all these insights into a coherent framework. Guntrip
elaborated on it and together they created one of the most impressive
theoretical bodies in the history of psychology.
Fairbairn internalised Klein's insights that drives are
object-orientated and their goal is the formation of relationships and
not primarily the attainment of pleasure. Pleasurable sensations are
the means to achieve relationships. The Ego does not seek to be
stimulated and pleased but to find the right, "good", supporting
object.
The infant is fused with his Primary Object, the mother. Life is not
about using objects for pleasure under the supervision of the Ego and
Superego, as Freud postulated. Life is about separating,
differentiating, achieving independence from the Primary Object and the
initial state of fusion with it. Dependence on internal objects is
narcissism. Freud's post-narcissistic (anaclitic) phase of life can be
either dependent (immature) or mature.
The newborn's Ego is looking for objects with which to form
relationships. Inevitably, some of these objects and some of these
relationships frustrate the infant and disappoint him. He compensates
for these setbacks by creating compensatory internal objects. The
initially unitary Ego thus fragments into a growing group of internal
objects. Reality breaks our hearts and minds, according to Fairbairn.
The Ego and its objects are "twinned" and the Ego is split in three
[Guntrip added a fourth Ego]. A schizoid state ensues.
The "original" (Freudian or libidinal) Ego is unitary, instinctual,
needy and object seeking. It then fragments as a result of the three
typical interactions with the mother (gratification, disappointment and
deprivation). The central Ego idealises the "good" parents. It is
conformist and obedient. The antilibidinal Ego is a reaction to
frustrations. It is rejecting, harsh, unsatisfying, against natural
needs. The libidinal Ego is the seat of cravings, desires and needs. It
is active in that it keeps seeking objects to form relationships with.
Guntrip added the regressed Ego, which is the True Self in "cold
storage", the "lost heart of the personal self".
Fairbairn's definition of psychopathology is quantitative. Which parts
of the Ego are dedicated to relationships with internal objects rather
than with external ones (e.g., real people)? In other words: how
fragmented (=how schizoid) is the Ego?
To achieve a successful transition from internal objects to external
ones - the child needs the right parents (in Winnicott parlance, the
"good enough mother" - not perfect, but "good enough"). The child
internalises the bad aspects of his parents in the form of internal,
bad objects and then proceeds to suppress them, together ("twinned")
with portions of his Ego. Thus, his parents become PART of the child
(though a repressed part). The more bad objects are repressed, the
"less Ego is left" for healthy relationships with external objects. To
Fairbairn, the source of all psychological disturbances is in these
schizoid phenomena. Later developments (such as the Oedipus Complex)
are less crucial. Fairbairn and Guntrip think that if a person is too
attached to his compensatory internal objects - he finds it hard to
mature psychologically. Maturing is about letting go of internal
objects. Some people just don't want to mature, or are reluctant to do
so, or are ambivalent about it. This reluctance, this withdrawal to an
internal world of representations, internal objects and broken Ego - is
narcissism itself. Narcissists simply don't know how to be themselves,
how to acquire independence and, simultaneously manage their
relationships with other people.
Both Otto Kernberg and Franz Kohut agreed that narcissism is between
neurosis and psychosis. Kernberg thought that it was a borderline
phenomenon, on the verge of psychosis (where the Ego is completely
shattered). In this respect Kernberg, more than Kohut, identifies
narcissism with schizoid phenomena and with schizophrenia. This is not
the only difference between them. They also disagree on the
developmental locus of narcissism. Kohut thinks that narcissism is an
early phase of development, fossilised, forever to be repeated
(gigantic repetition complex) while Kernberg maintains that the
narcissistic self is pathological from its very inception. Kohut
believes that the narcissist's parents provided him with no assurances
that he does possess a self (in his words, with no self-object). They
did not explicitly recognise the child's nascent self, its separate
existence, its boundaries. The child learned to have a schizoid, split,
fragmented self - rather than a coherent ad integrated one. To him,
narcissism is really all-pervasive, at the very core of being (whether
in its mature form, as self-love, or in it regressive, infantile form
as a narcissistic disorder).
Kernberg regards "mature narcissism" (also espoused by neo-Freudians
like Grunberger and Chasseguet-Smirgel) as a contradiction in terms, an
oxymoron. He observes that narcissists are already grandiose and
schizoid (detached, cold, aloof, asocial) at an early age (at three
years old, according to him!). Like Klein, Kernberg believes that
narcissism is a last ditch effort (defence) to halt the emergence of
the paranoid-schizoid position described by Klein.
In an adult such an emergence is known as "psychosis" and this is why
Kernberg classifies narcissists as borderline (almost) psychotics. Even
Kohut, who is an opponent of Kernberg's classification, uses Eugene
O'Neill's famous sentence [in "The Great God Brown"]: "Man is born
broken. He lives by mending. The grace of God is glue." Kernberg
himself sees a clear connection between schizoid phenomena (such as
alienation in modern society and subsequent withdrawal) and
narcissistic phenomena (inability to form relationships or to make
commitments or to empathise).
C. Fred Alford in "Narcissism: Socrates, the Frankfurt School and
Psychoanalytic Theory" [Yale University Press, 1988] wrote:
"Fairbairn and Guntrip represent the purest expression of object
relations theory, which is characterised by the insight that real
relationships with real people build psychic structure. Although they
rarely mention narcissism, they see a schizoid split in the self as
characteristic of virtually all-emotional disorder. It is Greenberg and
Mitchell, in Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory who establish
the relevance of Fairbairn and Guntrip ... by pointing out that what
American analysts label 'narcissism', British analysts tend to call
'Schizoid Personality Disorder'. This insight allows us to connect the
symptomatology of narcissism - feelings of emptiness, unreality,
alienation and emotional withdrawal - with a theory that sees such
symptoms as an accurate reflection of the experience of being split-off
from a part of oneself.
That narcissism is such a confusing category is in large part because
its drive-theoretic definition, the libidinal cathexis of the self - in
a word, self-love - seems far removed from the experience of
narcissism, as characterised by a loss of, or split-in, the self.
Fairbairn's and Guntrip's view of narcissism as an excessive attachment
of the Ego to internal objects (roughly analogous to Freud's
narcissistic, as opposed to object, love), resulting in various splits
in the Ego necessary to maintain these attachments, allows us to
penetrate this confusion." [Page 67]
Serial Killers
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
Countess Erszebet Bathory was a breathtakingly beautiful, unusually
well-educated woman, married to a descendant of Vlad Dracula of Bram
Stoker fame. In 1611, she was tried - though, being a noblewoman, not
convicted - in Hungary for slaughtering 612 young girls. The true
figure may have been 40-100, though the Countess recorded in her diary
more than 610 girls and 50 bodies were found in her estate when it was
raided.
The Countess was notorious as an inhuman sadist long before her
hygienic fixation. She once ordered the mouth of a talkative servant
sewn. It is rumoured that in her childhood she witnessed a gypsy being
sewn into a horse's stomach and left to die.