p.145
In a previous publication -- 'How Infants Grow Mothers in North London' -- I wrote about the way academics have focused on how the infant develops a gradual sense of itself as an independent being through a series of stages of separation from the mother [e.g. Melanie Klein]. But it seemed to me that three beings were born simultaneously: the infant but also the parents, and in particular the mother. The mother, at first was entirely bonded to the infant, and saw the infant, in effect, as her re-birth in a much purer, more natural state. It was as though she had a second chance -- to live her life again, through the infant, but this time to avoid being sullied by the world, as had inevitably occurred in her own life. I saw this projection of a perfect version of oneself in the pure infant as a form of narcissism. Over time, however, the mother had to learn that the infant was not a pure extension of herself, that she, too, was a separate being and had to pass through various stages of separation in order to let go of this more narcissistic aspect of parenting... While psychoanalysts write about a series of stages it is thought infants go through, in many respects it us us, the parents, who are experiencing them. It is the parents who have to grow up gradually and leave behind an initial image of pure idealized good and bad projected onto their infant, leading eventually to a maturity that accepts the inevitable contradictions embodied in their own children.
p.152
Material things are often like that. They have a certain humility... They don't theorize themselves or abstract themselves... Normally they just serve, in their relatively humble way, as forms through which relationships are expressed and developed; the simple technology through which -- with some play, some passion, some muddling through -- we come to accept and occasionally celebrate our various relationships.
p.217
James is charming, in the deepest sense of that word--where to charm is to induce, magically, a more benign view of the world. You are simply delighted to be in his company, because there is an aura of interest, concern, dignity and politeness that acts to make the room warm and welcoming. He is solicitous, and puts you at ease, but there is nothing remotely obsequious, because ames has about him something of the contradiction conjured up by the image of a dignified puppy: a potential exuberance of giving and wanting affection, but held in check, so as to include and not overwhelm those more reticent in these matters than himself.
p.279
My own convoluted means of legitimating the strange mix of discipline and hedonism, egotism and empathy that is my life is rather different than his, but I have no problem at all in recognizing their common nature and contradictions.
p.282-3
In the social science founded by figures such as Durkheim, it is humanity which created religion and cosmology. It is not the Gods who demand that we undertake rituals; we create these Gods in order to justify the rituals which give us the fundamental bonds and obligations that allow us to live together as social beings and to legitimate the orders and laws by which we live in society.
...Durkheim himself was concerned that, if modern life was lived under the conditions posed by Nietzsche's death of God, then people needed to keep faith with some alternative transcendent object -- ideally, society itself. Otherwise, as is implied by his study of suicide, there was a danger that life itself would seem, and indeed become, pointless.
(Note: He goes on to argue that modernism may have loosened the bonds of individuals to society, and that individuals actually place highest value on their relationships with others. And that his investigation of peoples' relationships to their material objects illuminates their relationships to others.)