Chapter 12. Primary Love

The assumption of primary narcissism — though offering us a neat, tidy, and logical theory — has landed us into insoluble contradictions and uncertainties. In our theoretical considerations we can easily indicate the source of libido, namely the id, but it has proved impossible to define topologically either ‘the great reservoir of the libido’ or the anchorage point of primary narcissism. The various descriptions given by Freud himself are contradictory and inconsistent, and the new propositions of Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein on the one hand, and by James Strachey on the other, while solving some problems, have created new ones. The other insoluble contradiction is about dating: primary object relationship, primary auto-erotism, primary narcissism, were each described by Freud in turn equally categorically as the earliest, most primitive form of the individual's relationship with his environment.

In this predicament, analytic theory resorted to a well-proved escape route: antedating. Whereas Freud spoke of ‘the primary narcissism of children’, modern theory has found it necessary to attribute primary narcissism to the foetus. In the previous chapter I tried to show that what is acquired by this attempt is a ‘suitcase theory’; you can find in it only what you have put in.

During all the fifty years since the introduction of the psychoanalytic concept of narcissism, no new clinical observations have been described to prove the existence or acceptability of primary narcissism, a highly suggestive historical fact. Whereas the literature on primary narcissism is scanty and hardly goes beyond repeating the various statements and suggestions made by Freud, the literature on secondary narcissism is very rich and is based on excellent clinical observations.

A good theory must possess at least some of the following qualities: (1) It must be free from inherent contradictions; as we have seen, the theory of primary narcissism was faulty in this respect