Kohut and Freud discussion on Narcissism - Essay Example

? Table of Contents Page I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...3 II. Kohut and Freud discussion on Narcissism……………………………………………..4 III. The extent to which Heinz Kohut's views on narcissistic disorders represent an extension and revision of Freud's psychoanalytic theory……………………………………….6 Mirroring and idealizing…………………………………………………………7 A comparison of Kohut and Freud approaches to narcissism…………………..…8 Critique of Kohut approach to narcissism……………………………………….12 IV. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….13 V. Reference List……………………………………………………………………………15 I. Introduction The psychoanalytic theories provide clinical insight into the manner in which an individual inner world can yields to complexities in living within the real world of people and relationships. The psychoanalytic tradition has progressed in a number of directions since its revolutionary start during the first quarter of the twentieth century (Colman 2009, p.492). The developments have largely extended the theory and psychotherapeutic technique to psychological conditions, which Freud initially thought as incurable. According to Freud, the core concern of psychoanalytic centre on the internal neurotic conflicts that feature in the oedipal period, at age 3-6. The central intervention supported by the theory centres on the interpretation and illumination of the unconscious conflicts. Nevertheless, during the 1930s, psychoanalysts started to encounter cases of patients whose difficulties appeared to have arisen much earlier; hence, were much more deeply entrenched within the unconsciously. Such conflicts are responsible for more severe pathological conditions such as psychoses, narcissistic conditions (representing an inflated and unreal sense of self), and borderline conditions (the absence of a stable sense of self). Early conflicts are also fundamental as they appear to be the cause of the common situation where normal people suffered from feelings of unreality, loss of meaning, and emptiness, situations that can only be relieved via classical interpretive techniques. As demonstrated, the therapeutic progresses that were made after Freud and new psychotherapeutic techniques that flowed from the psychoanalytic theory. The paper explores the degree to which Heinz Kohut's perceptions on narcissistic disorders mirror an extension and revision of Freud's psychoanalytic theory. II. Kohut and Freud discussion on Narcissism The development of narcissism is fostered by the sustenance and creation of self-objects that are a representation of an individual’s self organization. Self objects play the role of maintaining the child’s equilibrium by modifying to shifts in internal emotional vulnerability. Parent play the role of the first self-objects via the provision of an empathic relationship to the child that reflects the child’s self state (Shane and Shane 1993, p.777). In playing the function of self-object, parents avail a transforming or transmuting function for the child’s painful emotional experiences. Pathology emanates from emphatic failures that hinder the integration of the two spheres of self, leaving one or the other sphere to serve in a compensatory fashion (Kohut 1971, p.38). For example, a failure of grandiosity can be compensated by a symbiotic re-fusion with an idealized parental imago self-object, or a disappointment by a fallen ideal can be compensated by a grandiose inflation pursuing validation from the world. In the pathological conditions persist, the dynamic tension manifest between the two poles of self oscillates to extreme levels of compensation that prevent fundamental essential integration and sustain the self-fixed at an infantile level. Kohut, in this case, is referring to the development of self as separate from ego in which the development of self and ego are independent. Kohut’s model proposes forms of narcissistic transferences that correspond to the self-object representations of the grandiose and idealized parental imago spheres, which are immensely helpful in comprehending the distinct requirements of the therapeutic alliance detailing mirroring, idealized, merger, and mirroring functions (Kohut 1984, p.36). Self psychology theory comprises of a developmental model and a model for clinical consultation and therapy. At the centre of the theory is the concept of self, which is conceptualized as a mental system that structures an individual’s subjective experience in relation to a set of developmental needs (which Kohut labelled as self-object needs since they are linked to self and are not satisfied by external figures within an individual’s life) (Banai, Shaver, and Mikulincer 2005, p.224). Heinz draws from the psychoanalytic school of thought referred to as self psychology. Kohut viewed personality as progressing along two lines of development in which one line leads towards ego maturity in the same way that Freud understood the term, and the other line leading to self-maturity, a novel area in which he was to define (Banai, Shaver, and Mikulincer 2005, p.225). Heinz Kohut considered idealization and ambition as central to the analysis of self. Kohut recognized that individuals have innate narcissism, which is a fundamental part of development of self; whereby narcissistic processes are pertinent to throughout an individual’s development. The development of self necessitates the integration of two core “spheres”: the grandiose self and the idealized parental imago (Shane and Shane 1993, p.778). The grandiose self represents the residue of infantile grandiosity while the idealized self represents the residue of dependency and protective symbiosis. The combination of the two spheres represents the “bi-polar self.” In the same as Freud, Kohut grounded his innovative thinking on observation within the psychoanalytic setting. Kohut was not satisfied with the Freudian psychoanalytic diagnosis relating to repressed sexual and aggressive energies. Instead, Kohut conclude that his patients suffered from a lack of development of the self emanating from the loss of inner substantiality. Kohut’s pioneering work on the self made self become a term that gathered together a shared sense of reality and purpose, an individual’s ambitions and ideals (Banai, Shaver, and Mikulincer 2005, p.224). The self represents the core of an individual’s sense of meaning. Kohut unearthed that deep empathic listening rather than interpretation, was central to cure. Interpretation, the traditional psychoanalytic intervention for ego development made matters worse for the self. III. The extent to which Heinz Kohut's views on narcissistic disorders represent an extension and revision of Freud's psychoanalytic theory All psychoanalytic theorists and therapists and concerned in the individual’s inner world; nevertheless, they may elaborate that inner world differently highlighting diverse aspects owing to theoretical orientation. In the case of elaborating the child’s behaviours, the classical Freudian model stresses the presence of early, primitive passions. Self psychology would approach the case in a different approach by emphasizing the self and possibly narcissistic rage. The term narcissistic rage was invented by Heinz Kohut (1972), and delineates the rage that occurs on a continuum from irritation to severe outbursts accompanied by violent attacks. T The term “narcissism” can be regarded as highly problematic and can be highlighted as sources of controversy and misunderstanding, especially when applied to psychological development (Colman 2009, p.492). Freud’s theory provided a powerful and compelling account of the diverse forms of neurosis; train them via intricate associative pathways of transformation and disguise, as well as conflict over libidinal wishes. Jung’s response detailed an objection to what he considered the narrowness of Freud’s account of human motivations, stipulating that other kinds of issues, totally independent of sexuality played a prominent role in mental health and psychopathology, especially in psychotic disturbances such as schizophrenia Freud accounted for schizophrenia in libidinal terms and derived its interpretation based on psychosexual wishes and conflicts. In introducing narcissism as a pre-stage of object relations, Freud succeeded in generating plausible (though misleading and inaccurate) account of schizophrenic phenomenology and symptomatology as the outcome of a libidinal regression (Mollon 2001, p.26). Kohut explored narcissistic rage is connected to narcissistic’ urge for control over the environment, such as the urge for revenge, fighting a wrong, or undoing a hurt. The theory highlights that the rage draws from the individual perceive to have slighted them while to others the rage is considered as incoherent and unjust. The rage may impair their cognition; thus impairing their judgement. Kohut instituted an element of Freud’s concept of narcissism that enabled him to bypass drive theory and directly propose a theory of the self (Banai, Shaver, and Mikulincer 2005, p.224). Before Kohut came into the picture, narcissism was considered a pathological condition. It is a common occurrence for some people to talk only about themselves or their experiences while placing little importance on the thoughts or feelings of others. Kohut recognized that such a condition represents an aberration of an essential normal process as most children need to feel to be the centre of the universe at some instance in life; only in instances in which this is deprived of does the resulting emptiness draw a narcissistic hunger that for attention, which can become a personality defect (Kohut 1984, p.36). Indeed, Kohut perceived normal narcissism as the central element of the self. Mirroring and idealizing The core focus centred on two normal narcissistic processes, which are pertinent in the development of self; mirroring centres on cases where the baby looks to its mother and views its own self reflected in the mother’s delighted gaze. The internal qualities of its own self, including, perfection, goodness, omnipotence, feeling of reality and meaning are projected unto the subject so that the child can feel close to the person. Both mirroring and idealizing of object relation plays a critical role in helping the child know itself with the help of another. Kohut labelled the mirroring and idealizing persons selfobjects since the child perceives them to be an extension of self (Kohut 1971, p.38). Overtime, the child internalizes the relations with selfobjects to ensure that he or she can undertake the functions of mirroring and idealizing internally. Similarly, when the idealized father has been internalized, the child can pursue realistic ideals. Mirroring and idealizing makes up the core of a healthy self and generate the heartfelt ambitions and ideals that avail a sense of meaning and purpose (Sandler 1975, p.35). According to Kohut, either of the processes would enable the successful development of the self. In the event that one pole functions well, the deficiencies within the other pole can be restored later. Nevertheless in the event that both poles fail, Kohut argued that feelings of unreal, emptiness, and meaningless life my crop up given that internal structure, which can generate feelings of self-worth are absent development (Colman 2009, p.492). A comparison of Kohut and Freud approaches to narcissism Kohut found that deficiencies in self-structure are made apparent in three transference situation, or means of seeing one’s psychoanalyst. In a mirroring transference, the patient seeks to make up the deficits occasioned by the therapist captivated with the patient (Kohut 1984, p.36). The patient experiences a voracious urge to talk about all aspects of his or her life and view the therapist’s happy to mirror the response. The patient no longer harbours feelings of emptiness or loneliness. In all the three transference modes, the psychotherapeutic intervention is essentially the same heightened understanding by the analyst. Following Freud, Kohut labelled people as “objects” of instincts; nevertheless, Kohut significantly changed Freud’s theory as demonstrated by de-emphasizing sexual and aggressive instincts. Theories of object relations and self psychology, on the other hand, contrast Freud’s approach in the sense that they focus on pre-oedipal development (Kohut 1977, p.220). Self psychology theories view mental illness or pathology mainly in terms of developmental arrest instead of structural conflicts. Developmental arrest yield in unfinished and uninterrupted structures of the personality, whereby there is a basic damage to object relationships of the individual or the structures of the self. Such changes in perspective generate a diverse theoretical emphasis and a different utilization of terms as theory applied to the understanding and explanation of troubled persons (Kohut 1971, p.38). Kohut contends that the self (perceived as a process or system that structures subjective experience) represents the essence of an individual’s psychological being and comprise of sensations, thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and attitudes toward self and the world. Kohut viewed narcissism (a prominent concept in Freud theory detailing libidinal investment within the self) as a normal developmental phenomenon rather than a defensive or pathological condition. Kohut hypothesized a line of healthy narcissistic development that progresses toward consolidation of a cohesive self-structure, availing a sense of identity, meaning, value, and permanence, and fostering the actualization of an individual’s potentialities (Kohut 1977, p.222). Kohut stipulates that the narcissistic line of development is active from the start of life and is a precondition for sufficient personality functioning. The phenomena of fixation and regression illuminate the understanding of personality development. Freud outlined and explained a child’s oedipal experiences in conformance with his theoretical outlook, which he had adopted from the physical sciences of his day with regard to forces (drives), counter-forces (defences), and interaction of forces. Kohut challenged the adequacy of the theoretical framework in which the data was put, which raises the question in the significance. The classical theory of objects and drives elaborates on the child’s conflicts, especially on the child’s guilt (Kohut 1977, p.224). Nevertheless, the approach fails to avail a sufficient framework for some of the most significant experiences of man, which relate to the development and vicissitudes of the self. Freud maintained that libidinous drives are fundamental, and that ego libido cannot be separated from the object-libido. Freud stipulated that caring for someone is analogous to converting ego-libido into object-libido by giving love to the other, which reduces the ego-libido available for primary narcissism and safeguarding and nurturing of self (McLean 2007, p.41). Failure to strike a balance between ego-libido and object libido may yield to psychological disturbances. Self psychologists such as Heinz Kohut approach the self and its structures within a different way compared to object relations theorists or those utilizing the traditional Freudian model. Self psychologists explore how early relationships shape the self and the structures of self, and mainly award more emphasis to the self compared to the emphasis laid on the ego or self representations of instincts (Mollon 2001, p.26). According to Kohut, it is not the ego that is the fundamental expression of identity, but the self, which is considered as the most significant aspect of identity. All psychoanalytic theories are interested in explaining how the past impacts on the present and how the inner world of the patient deforms and influence the external experience. However, the diverse focus and emphasis of diverse psychoanalytic schools of theory generate diverse approaches to psychotherapy (McLean 2007, p.41). For instance, in the case of a famous person in society who marries and divorces repeatedly, the Freudian model might approach such a client in terms of unresolved oedipal conflict, or a conflict between instincts and the superego and ego (McLean 2007, p.40). Object relations theorists might view such an individual’s inner world filled with distorted, idealized representations of nurturing women, generating fantasy world that disturbs the individual’s relationship with real women. The manifestation of a distorted representation of himself women may make the man feel very needy any aspire for these temporarily idealized women. In such cases, the man may project his fantasies that every woman is the one to satisfy his unmet needs; however, the agonizing discrepancy between the man’s inner world and his actual wives yields in disappointment, new relationships, and multiple divorces. Advocates of self psychology might highlight the client’s exhibitionism and grandiosity that he pursues an omnipotent object that, at an unconscious level, will supports an individual’s self-esteem, which may be absent. Self psychology highlights early relationships within inner objects (or self objects). According to Kohut, the appearance of narcissistic illusions within the analytic situation (primitive grandiosity or idealization) mirrors the patient’s attempt to establish crucial developmental opportunities representing a self-object that was not available in childhood. These phenomena do not necessarily a defensive retreat from reality, but rather the growing edge of an aborted developmental process that was stalled owing to parental failure to enable the child sustained experiences of illusions of grandeur and idealization (Shane and Shane 1993, p.777). Hence, the appearance of narcissistic illusions in the analytic relationship comprises a shaky chance for the reinvigoration of self and must be promoted, warmly embraced, and not challenged This can play a big role in allowing a reanimation of the ordinary developmental process via which the illusions will eventually be altered by exposure to reality with an emotionally sustaining environment in which there are more realistic images of self and other. Kohut viewed danger of interference and warned against “slight over-objectivity of the analyst’s attitude within the analysts’ voice.” According to Kohut, anything that is short of warm acceptance of narcissistic illusions relating to self and the analyst runs the risk of constraining the subtle, pristine narcissistic longings, which eliminates the possibility of the re-emergence of healthy self-development. Freud strongly stress the defensive function of illusions has been largely sustained in what might consider the mainstream of contemporary Freudian; nevertheless, the object of the defence differ in diverse accounts based on the larger set of theoretical premises that shape that account (Kohut 1971, p.39). Critique of Kohut approach to narcissism The theories fail to explore the experiences that relate to the crucially important task of building and sustaining a cohesive nuclear self (Mollon 2001, p.27). The concept of Oedipus complex can be best approached from two diverse sides, which necessitates probing questions on how the conception of Oedipus complex itself is altered when it is viewed from the point of view of the psychology of self. In theory, there exist two possibilities relating to the emotional retreat from the conflicts and anxieties of the oedipal period, which may lead to the chronic adoption of defensively held narcissistic position. The second possibility relates to the mortification to which the child is exposed by perceiving that his self is fragmenting, or lacking in vitality may lead him to the chronic adoption of the defensively held oedipal positions. Furthermore, the proposal to question the acceptance of the patient’s illusion to diminish of their own accord represents a collision with the patient’s defences, whereby the analysts never comes out as a figure who can meaningfully aid the patient in any meaningful way. Based on the traditional approach the Kohut approach over-identifies with the patient’s narcissistic needs. Kohut appears to avoid any focus on the confirmation of the positive and enriching elements of limitations of both self and others (Kohut 1977, p.221). The unresolved narcissist conflicts manifest in the analysts may facilitate excessive acceptance or rejection of the patient’s idealization. IV. Conclusion The introduction of the concept of narcissism has larger implications that merely providing a theory of schizophrenia. Freud successfully heralded psychodynamic consideration to the whole realm of issues and phenomena relating to self-esteem regulation. Narcissism address a number of questions, which have become central to a relational model theorists such as Kohut. The question relate to how individuals come to experience and visualize himself the way they do, as well as questions relating to development and maintenance of self-regard. Both approaches (Freudian and Kohutian) approach similar questions from varying perspectives. Freud’s model of the personality examines the structure of the personality. Freud outlines the components of personality, namely: the id, ego, and super-ego representing the conceptualizations that exist only in writings on personality and divorced from people’s experience of self. Freud perceived development in terms of instincts in which the most significant developmental challenge being oedipal crisis. According to Freud, disturbance or psychological illness mainly lies in conflicts between the diverse parts of the structures of the personality including sexual instincts and the demands of the ego. References List Banai, E., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). “Selfobject” needs in Kohut’s self psychology, Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22 (2), pp.224-260. Colman, A. M. (2009). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.492. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic treatment of narcistic personality disorders, Monograph No. 4 of The Psychoanalytic study of the child, ed. Ruth S. Eissler et al., New York, International Universities Press. Pp.38-45. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self, New York, International Universities Press, Inc. pp. pp.220-224. Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.36-38. McLean, J. (2007). Psychotherapy with a Narcissistic patient using Kohut’s self psychology model, Psychiatry (Edgmont), 4 (10), pp.40-47. Mollon, P. (2001). Releasing the self: The healing legacy of Heinz Kohut, London, Whurr Publishers. Pp.25-28. Sandler, J. (1975). Sexual fantasies and sexual theories in childhood, In studies in child psychoanalysis: Pure an applied. Monograph series of the psychoanalytic study of the child, Monograph no.4, the analysis of the self, New Haven: Yale University Press. Pp.35-40. Shane, M. & Shane, E. (1993). Self psychology after Kohut: One theory of many? Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41, pp.777-797. Read More