Jan. 3 07
Yesterday we got wireless internet at our apartment. Its good because I can then access the internet on my laptop in the studio which is seperated by a staircase and walls. So far, it works well.
I read a tiny bit more in the book I mentioned previously. It is called, "Narcissism - Denial of the true self" by Alexander Lowen, M.D.. There was a part that I thought I could post here, that I liked. Ch.3 - The Denial of Feeling - "What does it mean no to feel? Let us begin with an extreme example-a catatonic man who stands motionless in a corner for hours like a statue. He has suppressed all feeling, including pain, which is why he can stand immobile for long periods of time. It is as if his body were in rigor mortis, without impulse or internal movement. Having deadened himself, he is anesthetized to pain. Of course, this deadening is not complete but only extends to the voluntary musculature. The other organs still function normally.
All neurotics, including narcissists, use this mechanism of deadening parts of the body to suppress feelings. One can set one’s jaw to block an impulse to cry. If the set is maintained indefinitely, the jaw becomes frozen in this position and crying becomes impossible. One can suppress anger by "freezing" or deadening the muscles of the upper back and shoulders through chronic tension. Yet although this mechanism is used by narcissist, there is another, more important defense typical of this disorder-denial of feeling.
The concept of denial of feeling requires some elucidation. First, it must be recognized that a feeling is the perception of some internal bodily movement or event. If there is no such happening, there is no feeling because there is nothing to perceive. If one lets one’s arm hand motionless for five minutes, it will become numb and one will not feel one’s arm. To regain feeling, one must move one’s arm. Thus, by inhibiting movement, one can deaden oneself, much like the catatonic I described. But there is another way to cut off the access of impulses and actions to consciousness: One can block the function of perception. This is the mechanism by which feelings are denied.
A common example of the denial of feeling is a person who shouts and yells in a discussion as if he or she were angry. But when one asks what he or she is angry about, the person answers: "Who’s angry?" The explanation I would offer is that this person’s image if of a rational and logical being; nothing is allowed to enter consciousness that might contradict this image. Another example is a young psychologist I know. This man kept trying to convince me that he was a great therapist. Every time we met he harangued me with "I know," "I can do that," etc. Almost every sentence began with the word "I," in typical narcissistic fashion. Whenever I became annoyed and pointed out his narcissism, he countered with the argument that I refused to recognize his superiority. He refused to see his narcissistic need to impress me. To sense his desperate need for approval might undermine his image.
The need to project and maintain an image forces the person to prevent any feeling from reaching consciousness that would conflict with the image. Behavior that might contradict with the image is rationalized in terms of the image. Thus, our angry person might explain the "necessity" of shouting by saying: "People weren’t really listening. They didn’t hear me. I was simply trying to present my views." Similary, the young psychologist rationalized his behavior by blaming me. In a normal person, actions are associated with the feelings that motivated them. In the narcissistic individual, however, the action is dissociated from the feeling or impulse.
THE EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR TOWARD OTHERS
The denial of feeling characteristic of all narcissists is most manifest in their behavior towards others. They can be ruthless, exploitative, sadistic, or destructive to another person because they are insensitive to the other’s suffering or feeling. This insensitivity derives from an insensitivity to one’s own feelings. Empathy, the ability to sense other people’s moods or feelings, is a function of resonance. We can feel another person’s sadness because it makes us sad; we can share another’s joy because it evokes good feelings in us. But if we are incapable of feeling sadness or joy, we cannot respond to these feelings in another person, and we may even doubt that they have such feelings. When we deny our feeligs, we deny that others feel.
Only on this basis can we explain the ruthless behavior of some narcissists like the corporate executive who drive thier employees remorselessly and create a reign of terror by their indifference to human sensibilities and indiscriminate firings, without regard for a people’s feelings. Of course, they are equally hard on themselves; their goals of power and success demand an equal sacrifice of their own sensibilities and feelings. These executives see themselves as generals in some war in which business success spells victory. With such an image of themselves, they can only treat their subordinates as dispensable soldiers in the drive to win.
One of the ways in which our culture fosters the narccissistic personality is by its exaggerated emphasis upon the importance of winning. There is a popular slogan that says winning is the only thing that counts. Such an attitude minimizes human values and subordinates the feelings of others to this one overriding goal to win, to be on top, to be number one. But the commitment to this goal also demands the sacrifice or denial of one’s own feelings, for nothing must stand in the way of winning. However, the image of success derives its power to dominate behavior only when feelings are denied. We are confronted with that old dilemma: Which can first, the chicken or the egg?(alex here: a good answer to the question of which can first, the chicken or the egg?, is, the chicken is the egg. Or another one that I like is, the egg-yok came first(credit for that one goes to a kid in Virginia at a lecture on raising Poltury). Another is, the chicken is the egg-the egg is the chicken, a la Dune style…The worm is the spice, the spice is the worm.)In this case, the same question can be asked: Which came first, the image or the denial of feelings? The answer to these questions is that each is an aspect of the other. Without the denial of feeling, the image would not gain its position of dominance, but only when it does become dominant are feelings continually denied.
Behavior that is injurous to or destructive of others can only be fully understood in terms of the denial of feeling, the goal of winning, and the image of power. Executives who exploit their employees and con artists who swindle elderly pensioners operate on the same principle. Both fail to see others as real people; in their eyes, others exist only as objects to be used. Specifically, the elderly pernsioners are not seen as human beings, because the swindlers don’t see themselves in human terms. They live by their wits and are identified with their ability to outsmart or outmaneuver others. That they lie or cheat is unimportant to the goal of winning or their ego image of superiority based on their ability to put one over on another person.
The connection between the overriding imprtance of winning, the denial of feeling, and the role of the image is most evident in warfare. Since victory or defeat is seen as a matter of life or death, there is no room for feelings. Soldiers function largely in terms of images. However, they retain their humanity by their feelings for a buddy or the squad members with whom they have personal contact. Without these feelings they risk becoming killing machines or going insane. A soldier is not a narcissist, but war forces him to act like one.
Unfortunately, warfare is not limited to armies fighting each other. In most large cities, there are gang wars in which the members of a gang function like soldiers denying feeling and human values. But we also have business wars, political wars, and family warefare which promote a narcissistic attitude and encourage behavior that is injurious and destructive to others. The enemy is not pictured in terms of real people, for it is not easy to kill real people. Soldiers are taught to see the enemy as an image-the "Jap," the Hun, the Nazi, etc.-which it is their duty to destroy. But to do this, they, too, must become an image. They are soldiers whose role is to obey ordrs, to fight but not to question, to act but not to feel. They must not let themselves feel their fear or their pain or their sadness. To be in touch with these feelings would undermine the soldier image and make it impossible for them to function effectively on the battlefield. And they cannot reject this image, for that would bring them into conflict with their leaders, which might also endanger their survival.
When one is identified with an image, one sees the other as an image that in many cases represents some rejected aspect of the self. Narcissism splits the reality of an individual into accpeted and rejected aspects, the latter being projected, then, upon others. The attact upon these others stems partly from the desire to destroy this rejected aspect. For example, the con man who thinks of himself as shrewd and superior must see his victim as as gullible and stupid. Similarly the soldier whose image is of fighting for the right, for justice and for honor will, often, see the enemy as cruel and dishonorable. If the narcissistic image is one of toughness and strength, one will project upon others an image of vulnerability and weakness which must be destroyed.
Does this principle also explain acts of gratuitous violence in peacetime? A case in point was the action of a gang of boys who set fire to an old vagrant sleeping on a park bench. It was an inhuman act that most people were shocked and confounded by it. Where were their feelings? Obviously, they had none for the old man. They did not see him as a real person but only as an image, an image of decrepit age which they found repulsive and so destroyed. But unlike soldiers who have no personal contact with the human beings they kill, these boys were in the presence of a living person. In killing him so wantonly, they denied his humanity and in the process denied their own. Most likely they had lost their humanity before they committed this crime. Most probably the horror and insanity of their own lives had caused them to deny their feelings.
