The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2014, 74, (423–424) © 2014 Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis 0002-9548/14 www.palgrave-journals.com/ajp/
Scientific Meeting of the American Institute for Psychoanalysis PSYCHOANALYTIC PLURALISM THROUGH THE LENS OF ENVY AND NARCISSISM Presenter: Kenneth Winarick, Ph.D. Reported by: Jill Zalayet, LCSW. Date: February 27, 2014
In a packed auditorium we welcomed Kenneth Winarick, Ph.D., Senior Faculty, Training and Supervising Analyst, former Director of Training of the American Institute for Psychoanalysis, to present his paper, “Psychoanalytic Pluralism through the Lens of Envy and Narcissism”. This illuminating paper draws on the theories of Klein, Kernberg and Horney to understand the relationship between envy and narcissistic character structure. However, rather than focusing attention solely on differences, of which, yes, there are many, Winarick focuses on connectivity, the ways in which these theories intersect and may subsequently expand our clinical understanding. Klein, Kernberg and Horney agree that envy and destructive fantasies are the “fertile ground” from which narcissistic pathology develops. The difference is the “nature of the fertile ground”. Klein’s emphasis was on innate oral aggression, originally directed inward, toward the self and then ultimately directed outward toward other objects experienced as having the love so desired and longed for by the individual. Horney understands envy as reactive, a byproduct of destructive and traumatic interpersonal experiences beginning in early childhood. Horney identified “the child’s lurking sense of hypocrisy in the environment his feelings that his parents love, honesty and generosity … may only be a pretense” as a significant aspect of this early traumatic experience. The difference here then is between Klein and Kernberg’s emphasis on the internal experience and Horney’s emphasis on external experiences. While this is a meaningful difference, Winarick explains that perhaps there is a more connective way of understanding these perspectives. He cites modern Kleinian, Bott Sphillius, who elaborated on the relationship between the “giver and taker” and how envy is likely to be exacerbated in the receiver if the giver is hostile, inconsistent and/or resentful, much like Horney’s description of the hypocritical parent. Sphillius discusses Kernberg’s concept of “intolerable reality in the interpersonal realm” as well as his description of the “covert” quality of callous and chronically cold parents as also reflecting elements of Horney’s theory. Winarick draws a parallel between Horney’s concept of the basic anxiety with Klein’s concept of persecutory anxiety, with both constructs presenting a depiction of the world as being a dangerous and potentially hostile place, requiring safety and protection. The difference again being Horney’s understanding of the basic anxiety and fears of annihilation, is the result of destructive interpersonal experiences, not innate destructiveness directed toward the self as understood by Klein. For Klein, Kernberg and Horney, a narcissistically inflated idealized self provides a defensive experience of power and control. All three discuss the importance of projection and externalization as
424
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS OF THE AIP
necessary to sustain this sense of omnipotence; “others must be controlled to sustain self-idealizations, provide safety and protect against dangerous projected dissociated split parts of self”. Winarick explains that “recognition of otherness threatens the defensive functions of narcissistic idealization by taking back the projections and externalizations and making conscious the underlying hostility, envy and anxiety, and the unbearable guilt, hatred of self and depressive affect associated with it”. Winarick uses the negative therapeutic reaction, a defense in which following an interpretation and/or partial solution by the analyst, the patient, who would typically get better, gets worse, to further illustrate some meaningful differences, as well as highlight links and connection. All three agree that this defense is utilized by the patient in an attempt to ward off a devalued and hopeless internal experience of self. Horney suggested that the patient will attempt to “triumph” over the analyst, thereby preserving their narcisstically inflated idealized image, defending against possible feelings of envy for the analyst, who is perceived as having something that the patient does not have and feels hopeless about ever having. Klein and Kernberg’s focus is on uncovering the murderous and devaluing early internal introjects that the patient projects onto the analyst as a means of preserving an inflated sense of self and subsequently obverting feelings of envy. The primary difference then is Kernberg and Klein’s understanding of narcissistic character structure as a defense against envy and Horney’s understanding of narcissistic character structure as a source of envy. Winarick describes this more as a difference in emphasis, rather than a fundamental distinction, as all three incorporate both perspectives to some extent. He uses a rich case illustration to further conceptualize the vicissitudes of envy and narcissism as well as discuss the nature of bitter envy as described by Kernberg. This type of envy emerges out of an internal world bereft of love and gratification. A grandiose self provides some safety and “aliveness” from an empty and bitter experience. Winarick utilizes a case illustration presented by Kernberg in his 1975 book Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism to compare and contrast theory and technique. Winarick summarizes by reflecting on differences, while wondering about common ground. He ultimately suggests that we understand these differing perspectives as informing each other, providing us with a richer and more comprehensive lens through which to understand narcissistic character defenses.
Jill Zalayet LCSW 200 West 57th St, Suite 1400, New York, NY, 10019 REFERENCE Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. DOI:10.1057/ajp.2014.47
Copyright of American Journal of Psychoanalysis is the property of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Scientific Meeting of the American Institute for Psychoanalysis PSYCHOANALYTIC PLURALISM THROUGH THE LENS OF ENVY AND NARCISSISM Presenter: Kenneth Winarick, Ph.D. Reported by: Jill Zalayet, LCSW. Date: February 27, 2014
In a packed auditorium we welcomed Kenneth Winarick, Ph.D., Senior Faculty, Training and Supervising Analyst, former Director of Training of the American Institute for Psychoanalysis, to present his paper, “Psychoanalytic Pluralism through the Lens of Envy and Narcissism”. This illuminating paper draws on the theories of Klein, Kernberg and Horney to understand the relationship between envy and narcissistic character structure. However, rather than focusing attention solely on differences, of which, yes, there are many, Winarick focuses on connectivity, the ways in which these theories intersect and may subsequently expand our clinical understanding. Klein, Kernberg and Horney agree that envy and destructive fantasies are the “fertile ground” from which narcissistic pathology develops. The difference is the “nature of the fertile ground”. Klein’s emphasis was on innate oral aggression, originally directed inward, toward the self and then ultimately directed outward toward other objects experienced as having the love so desired and longed for by the individual. Horney understands envy as reactive, a byproduct of destructive and traumatic interpersonal experiences beginning in early childhood. Horney identified “the child’s lurking sense of hypocrisy in the environment his feelings that his parents love, honesty and generosity … may only be a pretense” as a significant aspect of this early traumatic experience. The difference here then is between Klein and Kernberg’s emphasis on the internal experience and Horney’s emphasis on external experiences. While this is a meaningful difference, Winarick explains that perhaps there is a more connective way of understanding these perspectives. He cites modern Kleinian, Bott Sphillius, who elaborated on the relationship between the “giver and taker” and how envy is likely to be exacerbated in the receiver if the giver is hostile, inconsistent and/or resentful, much like Horney’s description of the hypocritical parent. Sphillius discusses Kernberg’s concept of “intolerable reality in the interpersonal realm” as well as his description of the “covert” quality of callous and chronically cold parents as also reflecting elements of Horney’s theory. Winarick draws a parallel between Horney’s concept of the basic anxiety with Klein’s concept of persecutory anxiety, with both constructs presenting a depiction of the world as being a dangerous and potentially hostile place, requiring safety and protection. The difference again being Horney’s understanding of the basic anxiety and fears of annihilation, is the result of destructive interpersonal experiences, not innate destructiveness directed toward the self as understood by Klein. For Klein, Kernberg and Horney, a narcissistically inflated idealized self provides a defensive experience of power and control. All three discuss the importance of projection and externalization as
424
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS OF THE AIP
necessary to sustain this sense of omnipotence; “others must be controlled to sustain self-idealizations, provide safety and protect against dangerous projected dissociated split parts of self”. Winarick explains that “recognition of otherness threatens the defensive functions of narcissistic idealization by taking back the projections and externalizations and making conscious the underlying hostility, envy and anxiety, and the unbearable guilt, hatred of self and depressive affect associated with it”. Winarick uses the negative therapeutic reaction, a defense in which following an interpretation and/or partial solution by the analyst, the patient, who would typically get better, gets worse, to further illustrate some meaningful differences, as well as highlight links and connection. All three agree that this defense is utilized by the patient in an attempt to ward off a devalued and hopeless internal experience of self. Horney suggested that the patient will attempt to “triumph” over the analyst, thereby preserving their narcisstically inflated idealized image, defending against possible feelings of envy for the analyst, who is perceived as having something that the patient does not have and feels hopeless about ever having. Klein and Kernberg’s focus is on uncovering the murderous and devaluing early internal introjects that the patient projects onto the analyst as a means of preserving an inflated sense of self and subsequently obverting feelings of envy. The primary difference then is Kernberg and Klein’s understanding of narcissistic character structure as a defense against envy and Horney’s understanding of narcissistic character structure as a source of envy. Winarick describes this more as a difference in emphasis, rather than a fundamental distinction, as all three incorporate both perspectives to some extent. He uses a rich case illustration to further conceptualize the vicissitudes of envy and narcissism as well as discuss the nature of bitter envy as described by Kernberg. This type of envy emerges out of an internal world bereft of love and gratification. A grandiose self provides some safety and “aliveness” from an empty and bitter experience. Winarick utilizes a case illustration presented by Kernberg in his 1975 book Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism to compare and contrast theory and technique. Winarick summarizes by reflecting on differences, while wondering about common ground. He ultimately suggests that we understand these differing perspectives as informing each other, providing us with a richer and more comprehensive lens through which to understand narcissistic character defenses.
Jill Zalayet LCSW 200 West 57th St, Suite 1400, New York, NY, 10019 REFERENCE Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. DOI:10.1057/ajp.2014.47
Copyright of American Journal of Psychoanalysis is the property of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
