The Handbook of Solitude. Группа авторов
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу The Handbook of Solitude - Группа авторов страница 41
![The Handbook of Solitude - Группа авторов The Handbook of Solitude - Группа авторов](/cover_pre940447.jpg)
Gradually, the infant proceeds in unifying his/her body image and establishing the ego, cathected with libido. This means that the infant is in a state of primary narcissism, in which the self and the object are undifferentiated (Freud, 1914/1957b). Later, Freud (1916–1917/1963) regarded primary narcissism as the first stage of life, prior to the emergence of the ego and not different from autoerotism, which came to be regarded as the sexual activity typical of the narcissistic stage.
In Freudian theory, development is conceived as a gradual differentiation of the subject from the object, as the process of cathecting objects (initially the mother) and as the reduction of omnipotence. Although primary narcissism declines by the end of infancy, the ego is still cathected with libido, and an energy balance between ego libido and object libido occurs (i.e., an increase in the one entails a decrease in the other). Moreover, the residues of primary narcissism are manifest throughout the life span in the individual’s ego ideal (e.g., ideals, ambitions). However, a regression to primary narcissism is likely, even from the early years of life, and takes the form of the reinvestment of the ego, which means that libido is withdrawn from objects, and the narcissistic identification with objects, which means relating with objects on the basis of ego libido. This state is called secondary narcissism and is observed, albeit with varying degrees and qualities, in both normal and pathological psychic organizations (Freud, 1914/1957b).
Autoerotism and primary narcissism seem to represent a state of primary aloneness, in Freudian theory. The infant is immersed in omnipotent self‐sufficiency, in which satisfaction is achieved through an equally omnipotent other, who is not perceived as a separate being and is not yet internalized by the infant. This undifferentiated state may be regarded as an aloneness state because it is an objectless or pre‐objectal period of life, during which, paradoxically, being one with the caregiver reduces the typical infant helplessness and ensures survival. However, Freudian texts reflect an ambivalence toward the infant’s ability to perceive a separate other from the start. For example, in one of his earliest essays Freud (1895/1966) articulated the existence of another, a fellow human‐being, early in infancy. He argued that the relation with this being, the mother, who is the first object of love and hate, and the only source of help, is the context within which “a human‐being learns to cognize” (p. 331). If a mirror relation is what characterizes primary narcissism (in mythology Narcissus was in love with his own image or the image of his twin sister), then, as Laplanche and Pontalis (1967/1973) argued, it is not an objectless state. Put differently, it is an aloneness state in the sense that the infant experiences the mother as a “mirror” or “double” of his/her emerging ego. Furthermore, during moments when the infant is inevitably alone, he/she may not be overwhelmed by despair, but is able to sustain the investment on his/her own body and the outer world by resorting to fantasy as a means of wish fulfillment.
In addition, the notion of secondary narcissism may be regarded both as expressing defensive withdrawal in front of pressure and beneficial solitude enhancing creativity (see Paulus, Kenworthy, & Marusich, Chapter 19). Evidence supporting this argument comes from Freud’s own life experiences. When recollecting the early years of his career, Freud (1914/1957c) admitted that he suffered from loneliness, caused mainly by the difficulties he encountered in his psychoanalytic investigations and in the reception of his ideas by his contemporaries. Therefore, he seems to have experienced a mixture of involuntary and voluntary isolation, which was “not without its advantages and charms” (p. 22). He described this solitude as freedom from daily pressures and as a domain of discoveries, creativity and originality, which required effort and courage but yielded much narcissistic gratification – he felt as Robinson Crusoe in that “glorious heroic age” (p. 22). Splendid isolation (a term used to describe the British foreign policy) was the name Freud used for this beneficial solitude (in a letter to Jung; see Freud et al., 1976), which was a necessary prerequisite for scientific contribution. I argue that, when revealing his own experiences of aloneness, isolation, and solitude, Freud is referring to secondary narcissism, as described above.
Further evidence supporting that voluntary isolation when faced with adversity is likely to be a regression to primary narcissism (i.e., secondary narcissism) comes from Freud’s (1930/1961) famous essay on civilization. He argued that in order to avoid the suffering which stems from human relations, we withdraw ourselves, and in the resulting state of peacefulness, we search for solutions – on our own. We may build a private world through, for example, working, creating in art and science, and enjoying art and beauty, or by surrendering ourselves to intoxicating substances. This withdrawal is a form of defensive self‐protection, but it can also be a context of psychopathology. However, secondary narcissism should be balanced with what seems to be a necessity: object relations in a community (for this balance see Paulus, Kenworthy, & Marusich. Chapter 19). Hallucinatory wish‐fulfillment, as solitary connection with oneself and others in fantasy, is not enough. Freud (1914/1957b, p. 85) concluded in his essay on narcissism: “A strong egoism is a protection against falling ill, but in the last resort we must begin to love in order not to fall ill, and we are bound to fall ill if, in consequence of frustration, we are unable to love.”
The Stimulus Barrier
As described above, in Freudian theory the initial state of the human being is that of autoerotism and primary narcissism. The stimulus barrier seems to be the mechanism that ensures the preservation of this way of being. Freud (1920/1955a) first described the stimulus barrier as an innate organization that functioned as “a protective shield against stimuli” (p. 27) in the neonate. This protection against noxious, overwhelming stimuli is regarded as a more important function for the vulnerable neonate than the reception of stimuli.
Freud (1920/1955a) has ascribed a biological‐neurological character to this metaphor. He regarded it as a sensory and perceptual threshold for incoming stimuli, an external membrane, under which other, deeper layers exist. The stimulus barrier is the forerunner of an intermediary between the id and the external world, which later came to be called the ego. Therefore, the stimulus barrier is a threshold for internal stimuli too. Tension is reduced and homeostasis is maintained through this barrier.
However, this merging of biological and psychological concepts has led to some confusion about the stimulus barrier (Esman, 1983). Daniel Stern (1985/2000) was critical toward this concept because Freud had placed it in the framework of autoerotism and primary narcissism, a conceptualization that Stern disputed. Other writers from the psychoanalytic field have reformulated the concept. According to Esman (1983), the stimulus barrier is “an innate, selective, maturing screening mechanism” (p. 204), an active mechanism with a dual self‐regulatory function: (i) to accept stimuli of certain kind and intensity and (ii) to ward off other stimuli, according to the degree to which these contribute to the adaptation of the organism. In this regard, the stimulus barrier seeks to preserve optimal stimulation (Esman, 1983; Gediman, 1971). This means that the infant both seeks and avoids stimuli. The