You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The term narcissism has been entering current usage and practice with increasing frequency during the past few years. Its usage has become so ubiquitous as to be what Hardin has designated a panchreston, an explain-all, analogous to the panacea or cure-all.1 The term narcissism expresses concepts whose meaning everyone seems to understand, yet whose meaning may be quite different for each. Its definition still remains confused and controversial since it has gotten caught up in the complexities of psychoanalytic theory and jargon.
The term narcissism has variously been referred to (1) a sexual perversion; (2) a stage of infantile development, as primary and secondary forms; (3) a placement of libidinal energy (upon the self); (4) a type of interpersonal (object) relations; (5) aspects of the complex ego-state called self-esteem; and (6) a clearly defined clinical syndrome.
There are many questions about this condition. Does it imply feelings of superiority or inferiority, self-admiration or self-hate? Does it relate to physiological elements like emptiness or bloatedness? Is it a normal, healthy, or a pathological state? How is it related to emotional, behavioral, or cognitive factors?
These very relevant questions exist because they relate to a fundamental aspect of narcissism, the phenomenological or subjective experience, and as such they are only poorly answered by classical theory.2 Pulver has tried to bring some clarification by distinguishing between the term - a description of psychic phenomena-and the concept-a metapsychology or dynamic explanation.3 However, in view of the continued loose usage, this distinction remains of limited value.