Arthur Miller's Drama from the Standpoint of Self Psychology

Kohut (1984, p. 137) has made a clear distinction between aggressions directed at other people who are perceived as blocking cherished goals and aggressions directed at self-objects. In the latter instance, the self-objects, viewed by Kohut as having damaged the self, are thought to give rise to narcissistic rage which persists indefinitely. By contrast, anger directed at an external object is presumably dissipated when the object ceases to frustrate one's aims. The potential for psychopathology is much greater in the case of negative self-objects which, by their very nature, have become part of the individual's permanent self-concept.

I wish to examine the thesis that negative introjections are not only the basis for narcissistic rage and low self-esteem (with the attendant need for excessive self-enhancing reflection from others), but also give rise in some instances, to self-hatred expressed in ideological terms. By “ideology” I mean an enduring set of sociopolitical beliefs that is the affect-laden, intellectualized analogue of a person's attitudes toward the self and towards objects. Such a matrix of beliefs draws upon culturally patterned belief systems that are available to the individual, but ideological “choices” are made on the basis of each person's need system and how a given ideology satisfies that system. Although people appear to be indoctrinated by their elders or peers it is perhaps more accurate to say that such indoctrination can only be successful if it is congruent with the psychological self system formed early in life. Where the firm establishment of the self has been blocked, the resulting defenses will preserve the damaged self at the price of arrested development or neurosis. I am suggesting that certain ideological formulations, particularly those that imply idealism and self-sacrifice, are tied significantly to hostility