Narcissism and the Self: Psychoanalytic Considerations

Abstract

This article addresses the relation of narcissism to the concept of the self. Based on the concept of the self-as-person, distinction is drawn between the self as a substantial, relatively autonomous source of agency and of both conscious and unconscious mentation and action on one hand and the self as the object of narcissistic investment on the other. The argument presumes abandonment of both the concept of narcissism as libidinal drive cathexis of the self (the most common understanding of narcissism among analysts) and the converse proposition defining the self as derived from and reflecting narcissistic origins. It is proposed that development of self structure arises on the basis of other than narcissistic considerations, but once established it can become the object of narcissistic investment. As such the self cannot be reduced to or defined in terms of narcissistic derivation. Implications for the understanding of self-esteem are explored and clinical implications suggested.

Reflections on Kohut’s theory of self psychology and pathological narcissism—Limitations and concerns.

“…Grandiosity is at the core of narcissism, and hence its presence as a dominant personality trait, whether overt, as displayed by the grandiose narcissist, or covert, as presented by the vulnerable narcissist, is essential for a valid diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, as shown below. However, the model proposed by Kohut, according to which the concepts of narcissism and the self are assumed to be synonymous, as critically noted by Meissner (2008), and Kohut's diagnostic method (Kohut, 1984(Kohut, /2009b, primarily based on selfobject transferences emerging in the context of therapy, could be misleading and result in an erroneous diagnosis of narcissism even in the absence of grandiosity as a dominant personality trait.…”

“…In this context, Kohut noted later on in his book, “I am referring here only to the narcissistic personality and behavior disorders and am disregarding the fact that I believe the oedipal neuroses, too, should be viewed as self-disorders in a wider sense” (p. 218). The conceptual ambiguity surrounding Kohut’s model of narcissism and notion of the self is referred to by Rothstein (1980) and discussed at length by Meissner (2008). In his essay on narcissism and the self, Meissner specified critical processes involved in the development of the self that are not necessarily narcissistic, such as separation and individuation, consolidation of a sexual identity, and interpersonal and intersubjective relationships.…”

“…These subjective experiences of the self, when consistently recurring throughout childhood, leave an indelible mark and form a lasting and integral part of an individual’s sense of self, identity, manner of thinking, behaving, and feeling, and the way he perceives himself and the world. Yet they are not essentially associated with narcissism, which, as noted, is primarily characterized by a grandiose sense of self and, as observed by Meissner (2008), “. .…”