Is Jealousy a Normal Affective State - Essay Example

? TOPIC “Jealousy is one of those affective s, like grief, that may be described as normal” (Freud, 1922). Discuss this ment with referenceto psychoanalytic theories of jealousy. (Name) (Institution) SUMMARY SHEET ESSAY TITLE: Jealousy AIMS This essay will attempt to provide reasoned and comprehensive answers to the central question: Is jealousy truly a mild, innocuous and “normal” emotion? In order to do so, jealousy will be explored from a number of perspectives, based on the psychoanalytical theory developed to clarify our understanding of this human response. Thus, a number of related answers will be used to substantiate the response to the central question above. These questions are listed below: 1. What is the difference between jealousy and envy in psychoanalytic theory? 2. Is sexual jealousy “normal” and is it a sign that one loves another? 3. How can one distinguish between jealousy and pathological jealousy? 4. Do men and women experience jealousy differently and, if so, why? 5. Is jealousy a socially taboo emotion today? And if so, why? CONTENT This essay will concentrate on the theoretical framework established by Sigmund Freud, as a vast quantity of theory surrounding jealousy has derived from the writings around sexual identity, and the sources and classifications of degrees of jealousy proposed by Freud. Some consideration of evolutionary psychology will also be included, and a social-cognition approach will also be examined. The paper will examine the theoretical explanations of jealousy in a fairly broad approach, starting with a brief overview of contemporary theories of jealousy, and whether sexual jealousy is a normal occurrence within love relationships, which will narrow to the categorisations of jealousy according to levels of intensity, as suggested by Freud – normal jealousy, paranoid jealousy and morbid jealousy – and the writings of later psychologists stemming from this work. Consideration will be given to the work of Klein, and also to the proposals of some evolutionary psychologists, and the opposition viewpoint of social-cognitive theorists. Social behaviours surrounding jealousy will also be outlined, within the frame of theoretical proposals. A view of the approaches to male and female jealousy will be covered – first the traditional views and later a proposal that male jealousy, particularly, can be a normal desire to preserve a valued relationship. Male jealousy, traditionally viewed as more violent and aggressive in its reaction behaviours, is seen as based on sexual threat, and this will be considered in some depth. Some comment will also be made on the possibility that jealousy has become a taboo emotion in contemporary culture and society. As an example, the 1985 film, Fatal Attraction will be sketched and its messages regarding jealousy will be used to show that not only is jealousy not able to be attributed to people in a stereotypical way, but also can be truly destructive to the structures within society – such as the family. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baumgart, H. (1990) Jealousy: Experiences and Solutions London: University of Chicago Press. 135-250 Bevan, J. (2004) “General partner and relational uncertainty as consequences of another person’s jealousy expression” in Western Journal of Communication, 68. 195-218 Freud, S. (1922) “Some Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia and Homosexuality” Reprinted 1953-1974 in Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud Vol. XVIII (translated and edited by Strachey, J.) London: Hogarth Press Harris, C. (2004) “The Evolution of Jealousy” in American Scientist Volume 92. 62-71 Minsky, R. (1996) Psychoanalysis and Gender. London: Routledge Springer, S. (2011) Jealousy Is a Dangerous Sword – Are You Ready for Some Tips? From the website of the Clinical Associates of North Central Florida (CPNACF.com) and available at http://cpancf.com/articles_files/jealousyinrelationships.asp accessed October 17, 2011 White, G. (1981) “Jealousy and Partners’ Perceived Motives for Attraction to a Rival” in Social Psychology Quarterly 44. 24-30 Yates, C. (2000) “Masculinity and Good Enough Jealousy” in Psychoanalytic Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2000. 78-88 Film: Fatal Attraction (1985) Starring Glenn Close and Michael Douglas ABSTRACT In order to arrive at a clearer understanding of the origins, effects and theoretical constructs around jealousy in humans, this essay focuses both on contemporary definitions and theories around jealousy, as well as an exploration of the traditional and historically based offerings by theorists in the field of psychology, with some emphasis on psychoanalytic theory. The differences between jealousy and envy are explored; it is questioned whether sexual jealousy is “normal” and merely a sign of love between parties; levels, or degrees of jealousy in terms of its intensity are proposed, according to theory; the gender differences evident (or not evident) in this emotion are clarified; and the proposal that jealousy is socially taboo in contemporary Western cultures made. Outlines and comments are constructed to show the many differing views of jealousy among researchers and theorists with the conclusion drawn that only in very limited circumstances could jealousy be considered “normal”. The essay concludes with the observation that jealousy is an emotion that continues to be displayed by people throughout society and across all cultures, and that continued research into this phenomenon reveals more and more about its manifestations. Indeed, we continue to move closer to, but seem not to arrive at, a complete understanding of this emotion, jealousy. INTRODUCTION Jealousy is a widely experienced emotion within contemporary society. While it is felt by people in all cultures, its effects in Western culture are far-ranging and may even pose a risk to society and its members. A simplified definition of jealousy will be used initially in this essay. It is widely accepted that in a basic form jealousy is a feeling that there is risk of loss of another person/s within an intimate relationship. This relationship may be a sexual, a love, a friendship or even a family relationship. The reaction of the jealous person is to keep, protect or prevent the loss of the other party. The emotion felt by the party who believes that the risk exists is jealousy (Goffman, 1967, p. 56). Similar but essentially different to the emotion of jealousy, is envy. While the two words are used by many in the English-speaking world as synonyms of each other, it is useful to clarify the difference. Envy is the realisation of personal inadequacy within a situation, and the consequent desire of a trait, a condition, a possession or a relationship that someone else has (Ashwin, 2006, p.44). Thus envy relies on the feeling of personal inadequacy more than on the risk of loss inherent in feelings of jealousy. The focus of this paper is, however, on jealousy rather than envy, even though these emotions do seem to overlap, and often occur at the same time. Certainly, the many varieties and degrees of intensity observable in jealousy provide for a complex and wide-ranging set of theories and explanations. The definition provided by Sigmund Freud in 1922 serves as the initial theory of this emotion within psychoanalytic thought. He proposed that “jealousy is one of those affective states, like grief, that may be described as normal. If anyone appears to be without it, the inference is justified that it has undergone severe repression and consequently plays all the greater part in his unconscious mental life...”(Freud, 1922, p.197). It is from this basic postulation that psychoanalytic theories have continued to be developed and adapted in order to explain this human affect. Shauna Springer, a contemporary American therapist, provides what could be considered a summary of current Western social perspective on jealousy: “While it is normal to feel mildly jealous on occasion, if jealousy is a frequent emotion or something which is irrational ... psychological or psychiatric consultation is very important.” (Springer, 2011, website). Hence it is that in modern society in the Western world, jealousy is acknowledged, but often frowned upon as a totally negative emotion, requiring intervention from professionals. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This essay, by examining literature and research in the field of psychology from a number of sources, will show that comprehensive psychological theories do serve to explain aspects of jealousy. But a definitive, complete and absolutely comprehensive understanding of jealousy continues to be sought. By exploring this emotion within a number of theoretical frameworks, it will be shown that jealousy is “normal” only in very limited circumstances, and that, indeed, jealousy can and does evolve into behaviours which can threaten the stability of society and its norms. RESEARCH QUESTION Is jealousy truly a mild, innocuous and “normal” emotion? Sub-questions 6. What is the difference between jealousy and envy in psychoanalytic theory? 7. Is sexual jealousy “normal” and is it a sign that one loves another? 8. How can one distinguish between jealousy and pathological jealousy? 9. Do men and women experience jealousy differently and, if so, why? 10. Is jealousy a socially taboo emotion today? And if so, why? FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Contemporary Views on Jealousy and Envy Jealousy is not easily identifiable as a single behaviour or even as a single emotion (Clanton & Smith, 1977, p.276). In fact, because jealousy can be seen in such a diverse range of emotions and behaviours, a comprehensive, conclusive and scientific definition of jealousy does not yet exist, to satisfy all theorists (Bram Buunk, 1984, p. 108). Modern definitions consequently tend to break down jealousy into components, defined by general characteristics. Thus romantic jealousy occurs when a threat is perceived by one partner in another partner’s understood attraction to someone outside the relationship, according to White (1981, p. 24). Or jealousy is a “cognitive, emotional and behavioural response to a relationship threat (White, 1981, p.26). Or jealousy is a protective reaction in response to what an individual understands to be a partner’s behaviour that is in conflict with the definition of the relationship (Bevan, 2004, p. 195). And, as noted in the Introduction, a close relationship exists between the concepts of jealousy and envy, particularly in the English-speaking world. To clarify once again the distinction between the two, the proposal of a modern philosopher, John Rawls is useful. His claim is that jealousy requires the individual’s desire to keep what he/she has, whereas envy implies the desire to get what he/she does not have (Rawls, 1971, pp. 71-74). In short, then, numerous understandings of jealousy are offered in modern literature, academic discourse and even in the public’s awareness. It is nonetheless possible to trace psychoanalytic and other psychological thinking on this subject as it has developed historically. A Theoretical Overview – The Basis of Psychoanalytic Thought Surrounding Jealousy Psychoanalysis proposes that jealousy is a part of all humans’ daily life, albeit a painful, unhappy emotion (Mullen, 1991, p. 594). It is certainly an emotionally ambivalent state, involving both love and hate (Yates, 2000, p. 78), but it is in reasonable and realistic jealous reaction that the individual’s tolerance for ambivalent emotion can be seen. When extreme forms of jealousy manifest, though, it is evidence of an “inability to cope with emotional ambivalence” (Yates, 200, p.79). The current development of such thought, however, is rooted in the history of psychoanalytic thinking. The significance of the work of Sigmund Freud in stimulating the development of theories surrounding jealousy has already been alluded to in this essay. Freud argues that jealousy is part of the human condition, and normal, since it is experienced by everyone at some point in their lives (Freud, 1922, p. 197). He outlines three degrees of jealousy, and suggests that these three degrees – defined by their increasing intensity – could overlap in certain circumstances. Normal jealousy, according to Freud, starts with a feeling of mourning due to the perceived loss of a loved person or object. This is followed by feelings of rejection with the jealous subject experiencing humiliation and personal pain. Thereafter feelings of aggression toward the rival occur, and finally the jealous subject becomes self-critical and self-blaming (Freud, 1922, p. 197). Stemming from this definition of the normal course of jealousy, theorists have extrapolated a bisexual element within normal jealousy. A male partner may be in jealous grief for his female partner’s infidelity with another man – but the jealous male may unconsciously be grieving for the loss of the unconsciously loved man, whom his female partner has taken away from him (Baumgart, 1990, p. 150). While this proposal may have stemmed from Freud’s original writings on the sources of sexual development in humans, it is certainly a novel, and perhaps contentious extension to the theory of jealousy within love relationships. Freud’s second and third degrees of jealousy are named neurotic and morbid jealousy, respectively. Neurotic jealousy manifests in a jealous subject who projects his/her wish to be unfaithful onto the love partner (Freud, 1922, p. 197). Morbid jealousy the jealous partner projects his/her unresolved homosexual desires onto a beloved: those who are “unfaithful or would like to be unfaithful, as well as people with strong but repressed homosexual impulses” (Baumgart, 1990, p. 152) are likely to become morbidly jealous. Thus in these instances, desire is limitless, and jealousy becomes a means to allay guilt about the subject’s bisexuality and wish to be adulterous (Yates, 2000, p. 80). And in a paper by Freud in 1910, “A Special Object Choice Made by Men” (Yates, 200, p. 80) he suggests that the presence of a third party allows a man to assuage the guilt felt from the idea that he will succeed his father in competing for his mother – he consequently chooses female partners who are already attached to other men. Excessive oedipal ambivalence and its relationship to neurotic jealousy is further explored by Earnest Jones, as further development of Freud’s theories (Yates, 2000, p.81). Jones suggests that the differing feelings of neurotic jealousy stem from the individual’s self-hatred. Rather than a response to loss, neurotic jealousy is evidence of narcissistic love, and an inability of the jealous subject to recognise others’ worth. Hence this type of jealousy is particularly aggressive and it is really only a further defence mechanism to protect the jealous subject’s fragile sense of self. Indeed, writers like Baumgart (1990, p. 203) argue that this kind of jealousy causes partners to feel “sucked dry and consumed”. Melanie Klein and subsequent writers emphasised the destructive nature of this kind of narcissistic jealousy, and based it in the Freudian oral phase, when the baby is at the breast, and experiences a primitive wish for immediate oral gratification (Yates, 2000, p. 86). And it is in these postulations that a further understanding of jealousy can be found. Klein argued in 1957 that jealousy begins with a paranoid envy, already experienced at the breast (Yates, 2000, p. 81). In order for this jealousy to exist, it has to involve a subject and two imaginary objects, and the psychic meanings which those objects have for the subject later take on significance in later jealousy situations. When the child realizes that the mother is able to represent both love and hate, neurotic jealousy does not develop as the subject has acknowledged the ambivalent nature of the mother, according to Klein. If the subject has not worked through the original, primitive, narcissistic emotions, future jealousies can take on a “manic or delusional quality ... relationships are impossible to sustain” (Yates, 2000, p.81). Klein further suggests that a depressive position – more or less the second six months of life – occurs, during which an infant learns to differentiate between “good” and “bad” objects. Similarly, the infant is able to establish that his/her own emotions of love and hate creates the conceptions of “good” and “bad”. In this depressive position, the leading emotions are about loss of the good object, and thus may be the cause of manic and perverse pathologies later in life (Klein, 1957, 233). Introjections and projection are further essential to development, and thus jealousy is differentiated by Klein from envy: Pain caused by the loss of love in a three person relationship, as opposed to pain related to differing circumstance and possessions in a two person relationship. As an infant becomes aware of destructive impulses, and thus fears the loss of a loved object – for example the infant boy’s mother – due to these destructive impulses. Therefore destructive impulses are inhibited, and a position of tolerance for ambivalence in emotional relationships is developed. When this tolerance is not developed, the irrational jealousies result (Klein, 1957, p. 203) and early envy continues to hamper the psychological development of the individual until it is resolved. Lacan, in Aggresivity in Psychoanalysis, highlights the jealous response in pre-verbal infants to show that individuals’ sense of selfhood is intrinsically bound to other people. Social conventions, then, and the individual’s increasing knowledge of them, cause people to develop an “ideal I.” Jealousy of others who represent that ideal results (p. 23). Harris (2004, 64-71) outlines a social-cognitive theory of jealousy which takes as its starting point the perception of threat to self and an important relationship posed by a potential rival. These perceived threats then form actions in the jealous subject that will break up the interaction between the partner and the potential rival, in accordance with the level of intensity of this interaction, as evaluated cognitively by the jealous subject. The secondary appraisal, referred to elsewhere in this essay, thus determines the actions to be engaged in. Similarly to emotions such as anger, jealousy in this view is argued as being part of a group of social and moral emotions (Harris, 2004, p. 64). Thus although there is some internal emotive content to jealousy – the innate sense of the evolutionary psychology theory – there is also a form of jealousy determined by cultural norms and meanings. It is clear that the cognitive, social factors do become more important as the child develops. Harris (2004) refers to the research conducted by Masciuch and Kienapple with 4-year old subjects, where children seemed to be more jealous of peers similar in age to themselves, than they did of infants. Essentially, jealousy is the emotion that stems from the recognition that something is good. Individuals recognise that they want something for themselves, and hence, also, that they may want a person who is good. When this is recognised in terms of sexual relations, the feeling is that only “I”, not anyone else, should “have” this person (Craib, , p. 47). In addition to the Freudian school of thinking, and the theories which stem from these, there is also a particular view of jealousy from the perspective of evolutionary psychology that has gained some acceptance. This perspective suggests that human psychology was determined and formed by evolutionary pressures that existed for all human ancestors. Thus all modern emotion stems from an age when survival of the species was first priority. Psychologists such as David Buss suggest that a “specific set of brain circuits” determine human reaction to threats to sexual relationships (Harris, 2004, p. 63). And it is within the thinking of these theorists that the differences between male and female jealousy can be explored. Male Jealousy versus Female Jealousy: The Traditional View Using an emotional-cognitive model, these psychologists propose that men are naturally “wired” to respond with jealousy to a mate’s sexual betrayal. In contrast, women respond with jealous emotions to their partner’s “emotional infidelity” (Harris, 2004, p. 63). Furthermore, the theory of natural selection is used to assume that our ancestors were constantly at risk of sexual betrayal by their partners, and a primitive man could not waste his resources on the children of another man. Thus, the male brain has been formed to respond with intense emotion to threats to the survival of a personal male genetic code. Is the proposed vast difference in the male and female response to jealousy justified according to all theorists, however? Women, still in light of the theories of evolutionary psychologists, would be at risk of men with whom they have mated focusing on another woman and her offspring, thus reducing their and their children’s chances of survival in a primitive world. Thus the emotional betrayal would cause feelings of jealousy it is proposed even today, in modern women (Harris, 2004, p. 63). These theorists focus on a cognitive stance, suggesting that jealousy is going to arise as soon as perceptions of the threat of a potential rival to that which the subject believes to be valuable both in herself and in an important relationship (Harris, 2004, p. 69). Drawing on the work of Richard Lazarus, Harris (2004, p. 69) cites the contention that individuals make primary and secondary appraisals of threat. A subject assesses an event as having “positive, negative or no consequences” (Harris, 2004, p. 70) for him/herself in a primary assessment. When threats are understood to be negative, the nature of the threat is weighed, and the secondary appraisals attempt to find mechanisms to cope with the threat. This pattern, according to Harris (2004, p.71) is not unique to only one gender, though. Importantly, the differences are reflected in “cognitive judgements” rather than “hardwired structures” (Harris, 2004, p. 71) and that the same type of jealousy may exist in both men and women. Some argument can be found, nonetheless, for the unique nature of male jealousy particularly. Based on the theoretical perspectives offered by Sigmund Freud, boys’ rivalry with their fathers is dealt with in an imagined scenario of castration and the threat of the father’s reaction to the boy’s oedipal feelings toward the mother (Minsky, 1996). Thus boys are able to begin to identify with their paternal figure. Freud therefore argues that boys adopt the internal prohibition of the taboo desires within their super ego (Yates, 2000, p. 83) and ambivalence is set up in the boy causing him to both idolise and fear the father. Yates also on page 83 cites Butler (1990) who proposes that “woman comes to signify ‘otherness’ for the boy: he has to give up the femininity that exists within himself, and comes to be in opposition to the mother, as she represents something not to be trusted in the boy’s conception. An imagined, even recalled jealous triangle thus can come into play later in life, when forbidden bisexual desires and a mother object – “unmourned”, according to Yates (2000, p. 83) – are the source of projected feelings by the jealous subject onto the partner and the imagined rival. This is particularly so in the case of paranoid jealousy, where possession and unconscious wishes about “past, lost oedipal objects” (Yates, 2000, p. 83) may be influencing the jealous subject to engage in destructive behaviours. Hence later threats, or potential losses may be cause far more intense feelings of jealousy in men, as compared to women, since according to Freud, women have less to lose. Men it is suggested are concerned with the loss of possession, whereas women would tend toward feelings of self-blame in the face of threats of loss of the object of love (Baumgart, 1990, p. 187). Furthermore, the first maternal relationship of men with their mothers is again complicated by the feelings of the dependent boy, resenting the mother for the power she has, and envious of her for her ability to provide (Klein, 1957, in Yates, 2000, p. 84). Masculinity is thus formed as a defence against femininity. When male jealousy of a concealed lover is present in a subject experiencing paranoid jealousy, it appears that the unconscious desire for the father and his phallic potency is projected onto the woman, who, like the mother, has “robbed him of his father and stolen the penis and now enjoys the father’s potency at his expense” (Yates, 2000, p. 84). However, not all theoretical perspectives are so damning. Bollas (1993) is referred to in Yates (2000, p.86-87) as claiming that not all processes in the Freudian oral stage are completely determined by fear and narcissistic loss. Instead, the oedipal wish in boys is viewed as a necessary developmental stage, required to build the child’s ego. Also, Bollas’ model provides for both male and female influences in identity formation, which are not always purely threatening to the male identity. The masculine identity is therefore in this view not unnecessarily defensive, and is able to manage gender within the psychosocial context, and allowing a sense of “perspective in relation to oneself and others (Yates, 2000, p.87). Indeed, masculine jealousy in this framework is more from a need to guard a precious relationship that from a narcissistic and controlling starting point. Thus male and females experiencing jealousy are viewed from some perspectives as radically different, but some thinking within psychotherapy does allow for a normal jealousy, inspired by the need to protect valued relationships, on an emotional level, by both men and women. Jealousy: Contemporary Culture and Society It can be suggested that it is becoming increasingly difficult for men to cope within the social framework prevalent today. The changing relationships between men and women and the shifts in gender identification identifiable today are creating a very new masculine subjectivity (Yates, 2000, p.87). According to writers such as Mullen, 1991, Stenner, 1996, and Van Sommers, 1998 (cited in Yates, 2000) normal jealousy, to say nothing of the more extreme forms of jealousy, has become unacceptable within current western society. The perception that women are beginning to dominate men in society, and are able to live out their lives at the expense of men can be pervasive in some sections of society. Craib ()postulates that the most contemporary view is to consider faithfulness wrong – since people do not own each other and that a partner wanting someone else is not something to which an intense response is appropriate (p. 47). It is in this context that Bollas’ thinking on a more balanced male emotional experience can be more beneficial than the “all-or-nothing” views deriving directly from Freud or Klein (all referred to above). Yet there are still instances of modern men for whom jealousy is the prime motivation when they violently attack women (Yates, 2000, p. 86). Yates proposed, thus, a more balanced male: one who is able to cope with “normal if painful and conflictual feelings” and is evidence of the possibility of “new, less rigid and more reflexive modes of masculinities” (2000, p.86). In contrast to this is the fairly contemporary, and certainly shocking and controversial at the time, scenario presented in the film, Fatal Attraction. In this film, the betrayal of a mistress – the Glenn Close character, by her married lover – the Michael Douglas character – sets off a chain of events in which the female character reacts with a level of jealousy normally or traditionally more in line with the concept of masculine jealousy. From the boiling of the family pet, to life-threatening actions, this woman reacts in the most morbidly jealous fashion imaginable. Simultaneously, the role of the wife displays a fairly regular, socially based form of jealous reaction – she is hurt and feels betrayed but ultimately accepts that her love partner has strayed, and that this is an aberration, rather than his nature. Her response is to the emotional threat, rather than to the sexual threat. Of course, when her family is seriously threatened, she retreats into the stereotypical role of protective mother, even to her husband. And, of course, the husband becomes the avenging, heroic protector of his family, despite the fact that it is his infidelity that has directly caused the threat to the continued existence of his family. Hence it is that the traditional concepts of jealousy – with women being less prone to violence and irrationality, and certainly aggression, than men, are overturned by this portrayal. The inversion of the roles of female and male in this film reveal the possibilities that revenge and betrayal are able to affect both genders equally. And simultaneously, the reactions of one gender should not lightly be considered to be less severe in response to jealous feelings than those of another gender. CONCLUSION It is evident, then, that jealousy is an aspect of human emotion not easily categorised, or simply explained. The degrees of jealous emotion defined by Freud, and extrapolated on by numerous subsequent theorists seem to hold true – there are situations in which jealousy is “normal”, and there are manifestations of the emotions associated with jealousy which certainly justify intervention by mental health professionals. Even though jealousy has become frowned upon in modern culture and society, it is still widely experienced in all its forms, to the most extreme of reactions and behaviours. While some evidence exists to suggest that there is a fundamental difference in the jealous reactions of men as opposed to women, there is also evidence of the vast similarity in the motivating factors, and even the behaviours in reaction to relationship threats, in both women and men. And it is not only in the emotional relationships between adults love partners that jealousy exists – perhaps an innate, evolutionary jealousy can be observed even in infants. Jealousy can therefore not be defined exclusively as a basic negative emotion, or a primordial instinct. Neither can it be dismissed as a purely social set of reactions based on a particular situation. It seems, therefore, that numerous perspectives on this condition of human existence will continue to be researched, debated and formulated upon. And jealousy will continue to be neither an innocuous, mild emotion, nor an exclusively pathological, dangerous state for all humans in all situations. REFERENCES Ashwin, M. (2001) Cronos and His Children: Envy and Reparation London: University of London Press. 30-75 Baumgart, H. (1990) Jealousy: Experiences and Solutions London: University of Chicago Press. 135-250 Bevan, J. (2004) “General partner and relational uncertainty as consequences of another person’s jealousy expression” in Western Journal of Communication, 68. 195-218 Bram Buunk, B. (1984) “Jealousy as related to attribution for the partner’s behaviour” in Social Psychology Quarterly, 47. 107-112 Clanton, G. & Smith, L. (1977) Jealousy New York: Prentice-Hall. 276 Freud, S. (1922) “Some Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia and Homosexuality” Reprinted 1953-1974 in Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud Vol. XVIII (translated and edited by Strachey, J.) London: Hogarth Press Goffman, E. (1969) Interaction Ritual New York: Doubleday. 1-112 Harris, C. (2004) “The Evolution of Jealousy” in American Scientist Volume 92. 62-71 Klein, M. (1957) Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963. Reprinted London: Virago (1993) Minsky, R. (1996) Psychoanalysis and Gender. London: Routledge Minsky, R. (1998) Psychoanalysis and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Mullen, P. E. (1991) “The pathology of passion” in British Journal of Psychiatry 158. 593–601. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 71-74 Springer, S. (2011) Jealousy Is a Dangerous Sword – Are You Ready for Some Tips? From the website of the Clinical Associates of North Central Florida (CPNACF.com) and available at http://cpancf.com/articles_files/jealousyinrelationships.asp accessed October 17, 2011 White, G. (1981) “Jealousy and Partners’ Perceived Motives for Attraction to a Rival” in Social Psychology Quarterly 44. 24-30 Yates, C. (2000) “Masculinity and Good Enough Jealousy” in Psychoanalytic Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2000. 78-88 Read More