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.
I agree with Dr. Ingram that the term “narcissism” readily may lead the reader to conceptual confusion, and in retrospect, the Symposium on Narcissism might better have been titled “Symposium on Self Psychology.” “Narcissism” may be used in a number of ways with various meanings, which is not unusual for a term with such a lengthy and important history in psychoanalytic theory and explanation. Many terms possess a similar characteristic; context must determine meaning. When a word is taken out of context, its usage may mystify the reader.
The usage of narcissism which engenders confusion hinges upon two senses of the word: first, as a descriptive term for a certain personality syndrome and, second, as a general term for the quality of self-cathexis, self-feeling, or self-love. As Dr. Ingram points out, Horney favored the typological usage as does, not surprisingly, DSM III. In contrast, Freud, Mahler, Jacobson, A. Reich, Kernberg, and Kohut among others apply the term in the descriptive and general sense.
To analyze narcissistic disturbances in the general sense inevitably leads to the investigation of the self which is disturbed, its development and dynamics. In particular, Kernberg's and Kohut's paradigm of self-psychology approximates Horney's views in important respects. Such duplication of discovery is not infrequent in other branches of science and confirms earlier work.
However, it would be incorrect to conclude that Kohut or Kernberg simply reiterate Horney's observations. This is true only with reference to certain general facets of self-pathology. Kohut, for example, differs from