What do you think?
Rate this book
Narcyzm. Nowa teoria
"Każdy, kto jest zainteresowany współczesną psychoanalizą, powinien przeczytać tę książkę! Neville Symington przedstawia w niej – zarówno od strony teoretycznej, jak i klinicznej – własne koncepcje dotyczące natury narcyzmu. Myślę, że Melanie Klein, którą niezbyt przekonywała Freudowska koncepcja pierwotnego narcyzmu, doceniłaby podejście Symingtona odnoszące się do relacji z wewnętrznymi obiektami, a w szczególności – do odrzucenia tych relacji. Symington uważa, iż tak rozumiany narcyzm leży u podstaw wszelkiej psychopatologii. Swój wywód ilustruje przykładami zaczerpniętymi z Anny Kareniny Tołstoja oraz licznymi winietami z własnej praktyki klinicznej".
William Gillespie
"Neville Symington skupia się na wielokrotnie podejmowanym temacie narcyzmu, oferując nam świeże spojrzenie oparte na wieloletnich doświadczeniach klinicznych w pracy z pacjentami narcystycznymi. W swoich rozważaniach obiera niezwykłą, a zarazem pouczającą perspektywę. Rozpatruje stan narcystyczny nie tylko w kontekście znanej teorii Kleinowskiej, ale też w kategoriach koncepcji Fairbairna, Winnicotta, Balinta i Kohuta podkreślających rolę traumy-deficytu, a także z unikalnej perspektywy dogłębnej ontologicznej niepewności. Choć autor wywodzi się z brytyjskiej szkoły niezależnej, to przedstawia uniwersalne spojrzenie na narcyzm, przyjmując punkt widzenia, który moglibyśmy dzisiaj określić jako egzystencjalny".
James S. Grotstein, z Przedmowy
William Gillespie
"Neville Symington skupia się na wielokrotnie podejmowanym temacie narcyzmu, oferując nam świeże spojrzenie oparte na wieloletnich doświadczeniach klinicznych w pracy z pacjentami narcystycznymi. W swoich rozważaniach obiera niezwykłą, a zarazem pouczającą perspektywę. Rozpatruje stan narcystyczny nie tylko w kontekście znanej teorii Kleinowskiej, ale też w kategoriach koncepcji Fairbairna, Winnicotta, Balinta i Kohuta podkreślających rolę traumy-deficytu, a także z unikalnej perspektywy dogłębnej ontologicznej niepewności. Choć autor wywodzi się z brytyjskiej szkoły niezależnej, to przedstawia uniwersalne spojrzenie na narcyzm, przyjmując punkt widzenia, który moglibyśmy dzisiaj określić jako egzystencjalny".
James S. Grotstein, z Przedmowy
175 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
18 people are currently reading
316 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
May 25, 2015
This is a text that I continually return to. It is difficult to distill all of the ideas, as I seem to find something new every time I read it. In general, I think it’s an essential book for anyone in the therapeutic or social work realm. The ideas that Symington presents regarding narcissism speak to individuals with psychosis, personality disorders, and even the more neurotic type. He posits that narcissism is the core of all mental disturbance, and he is certainly persuasive in this argument.
Central to this theory is the idea of a ‘lifegiver,’ a kind of mental choice that embraces creativity and life. Narcissism, in its essence, requires that an individual has no awareness of their feelings, behaviors, symptoms, etc. He uses the story of Anna Karenina as a narrative woven throughout the theory in order to better illustrate his ideas. He also uses illuminating case studies.
One of the ideas that stay with me include destroying separateness as a way to avoid self-knowledge. This has helped me to gain empathy with severely disordered clients, whom I can now see as provoking my own rage or dissociation not by attacking, but by attempting to destroy that which brings awareness of difference and otherness.
This book has also had an impact on my own personal development. As I continue to read it, I find myself stripping away layers and getting closer to the core of my own narcissistic wounds. It has helped me to understand relational dynamics, as well as patterns of depression and anxiety. I would highly recommend this as an essential psychoanalytic text.
Central to this theory is the idea of a ‘lifegiver,’ a kind of mental choice that embraces creativity and life. Narcissism, in its essence, requires that an individual has no awareness of their feelings, behaviors, symptoms, etc. He uses the story of Anna Karenina as a narrative woven throughout the theory in order to better illustrate his ideas. He also uses illuminating case studies.
One of the ideas that stay with me include destroying separateness as a way to avoid self-knowledge. This has helped me to gain empathy with severely disordered clients, whom I can now see as provoking my own rage or dissociation not by attacking, but by attempting to destroy that which brings awareness of difference and otherness.
This book has also had an impact on my own personal development. As I continue to read it, I find myself stripping away layers and getting closer to the core of my own narcissistic wounds. It has helped me to understand relational dynamics, as well as patterns of depression and anxiety. I would highly recommend this as an essential psychoanalytic text.
February 4, 2017
I found the insights quite compelling. We are relational beings, as Symington notes, and we all have narcissistic traits. In the developmental years, narcissism emerges when a child turns away from the caregiver (lifegiver) and essentially away from relationship, and soothes the self, or turns to self to meet one's needs. This posture though is turning away from life and relationship. This becomes a pattern that continues to operate throughout life. Shame is also core to narcissism. There is a lot to distill from this book, and it's not possible to cover all, but the concepts are presented well, and in a way that challenges the reader to re-evaluate your understanding of narcissism. Well worth the time to read, and if you are a therapist, I highly recommend this book for your library. You will refer to it often.
June 13, 2021
This was the first book I read on narcissism before beginning my PhD on the subject, it was nice to return to it now that I am nearly at the end of that journey. A perhaps inauspicious start! Analogous to reading Harry Potter as a precursory attempt to prepare for university life. But as a result, Symington took up residence rent free in my head for years to come. His ideas are truly unique, and his concept of accepting or rejecting the 'lifegiver' as constituting the narcissistic dilemma is a remarkable one.
His passing in 2019 was a great loss, and I consider myself lucky to have attended one or two of his lectures during my studies. In particular, his essay on mental pain and moral courage has often been a balm to me in both my personal life and clinical work.
His passing in 2019 was a great loss, and I consider myself lucky to have attended one or two of his lectures during my studies. In particular, his essay on mental pain and moral courage has often been a balm to me in both my personal life and clinical work.
February 4, 2019
This is so much more than just a theory of narcissism. He maps out an amazingly lucid and human lens to understand how we unfold in the context of relational trauma. I found myself rereading many sentences, not because they were hard to grasp, but because there was so much to take from them.
July 10, 2025
Narcissism: A New Theory by Neville Symington is a crucial book in understanding the current pitfalls that plague modern society. Symington, a British psychoanalyst who emigrated to Australia in 1986, published at least fifteen books and clinical papers in his career. However, Narcissism: A New Theory might just be his most well known and most referenced work.
The reason perhaps that the book continues to be read by analysts as well as the general public is because Symington based his thesis on bridging the gap between the two passions of his life: psychoanalysis and religion. Before becoming a psychoanalyst, he had the unique distinction of first being a Catholic priest and working for several years in East London. His break with the church caused great distress and influenced much of his future work as a practicing clinician. Also, in this work of great psychological depth, Symington frequently utilizes passages from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina to provide a more realistic, literary example of what he is describing. This, in turn, makes the read more enjoyable.
In this book, Symington makes the bold claim that narcissism is the source of all mental disturbance. Later in his career, he argued that it was the root cause of disorders such as borderline personality disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, and other neuroses. This claim could at least be backed up by fellow psychoanalyst James Grotstein when he stated that “the borderline is nothing more than a failed narcissist.” According to Symington, many psychological disturbances are more or less a symptom cluster stemming from narcissism. As an analyst, he had developed a type of “unified theory” regarding his treatment of patients and he describes that very well throughout this work. Although one could argue he overreached when he described autism as narcissism, the overlapping characteristics are no doubt evident.
Symington starts the book by describing narcissism. He states that its key characteristics are the inability to receive criticism, the hatred of being small and opening oneself to others who can show them something, the illusion of self-sufficiency, a tendency towards self-righteousness, and a fear of the unknown or confrontation. He states that none of us is free from narcissism and so it is important to be able to recognize its undercurrents in our own character. It is in this recognition (or lack thereof) that Symington delineates his conception of what this disorder entails. He says that a fundamental aspect of narcissism is that it blinds us to self-knowledge, and in this description I was reminded of C.S. Lewis’ book The Silver Chair. In this story, two children are sent by Aslan the lion to rescue Prince Rilian, who is bound to a silver chair by a manipulative green serpent masquerading as the Lady of the Green Kirtle. Prince Rilian is encapsulated in this world and no longer knows who he really is. Narcissism, as Symington describes it, operates in much the same way.
He also states that “Psychic choices and actions affect people in the environment, especially those in the intimate environment.” In this statement, Symington is again relating to what is going on underneath that people usually fail to recognize. If a narcissistic patient is viewed as someone who has fallen under a spell, much like Prince Rilian in The Silver Chair, then it takes a certain amount of conscious, “psychic” action to avoid that trance and also bring the patient out of it. This would be similar to psychologist James F. Masterson’s insight that the narcissistic personality disorder requires carefully timed interpretations of his or her narcissistic vulnerability in order to give up the self-defeating orbit of defenses.
Perhaps Symington's most unique contribution to the study of narcissism is his principle of “omission.” He states:
“If the narcissistic situation is one where someone takes his own self as love object, the question then is, what is the alternative object?” Or in other words, “... if Narcissus can fall in love with his own reflection, the alternative is that he can fall in love with another.”
Narcissism could be seen as putting oneself first (the ego taking its own self as love object) as a result of trauma, parental neglect, loss, etc. However, in so doing, they are also anaesthetizing their “true self” in favor of a grandiose “false” self. At its very core, they are denying their own development as an individual by foregoing what Symington calls the lifegiver. A general way to describe the lifegiver is that in life, there are always multiple choices or paths one can choose when faced with adversity. The narcissistic option always omits the lifegiver (growth-oriented choice) for the more regressive option. Much like when a populace chooses a political leader who goes against their interests, to deny the lifegiver (the narcissistic option), according to Symington, is akin to favoring that which will destroy you over that which provides healing and wholeness. People turn against themselves due to anxiety and fear of the unknown.
In order to better explain his theories, Symington describes the impact guilt and shame play in narcissism. Through a detailed use of object-relations theory, he shows the reader that guilt and shame are part and parcel of what’s going on underneath. For instance, a narcissistic person manipulates people for their own gain, and with that guilt there is a feeling of “badness” felt below the level of consciousness. Also, to the extent that the different parts of the individual are not integrated, the person feels shame and tries to hide those parts. The reason why this is important is because of the energy required by narcissistic people to alleviate these bad feelings. They are constantly employing those around them to give them a boost. In terms of object-relations theory, the feeling when bad objects are introjected is so intolerable, that compensatory activities to make the person feel better have to be sought out.
Symington differed from some of his object-relations predecessors in terms of how he viewed bad inner objects. While both Melanie Klein (another famous psychoanalyst) and Symington more or less agreed that people take flight from unbearable anxiety within by projecting the anxiety situation (or bad inner objects) into an external object and then taking flight from that, Klein kept in line with the Freudian theory that the source of the anxiety was a fear of annihilation, and its source the death instinct within. Symington, on the other hand, believed that the source of this phobic impulse was the refusal of the lifegiver.
The most frightening aspect of this book is Symington’s observation that when someone chooses the narcissistic option, this is accompanied by an inner attacker and he occasionally refers to it as an inner assassin. This inner critic is so intolerable that it is projected outwards unconsciously to an outer person, outer group, or outer ideology. He added:
“The negativity in narcissism is partly due to the fact that the disowned child part of the self, the spontaneous, emotional source within the personality – it may be a jealous child, an envious child, a resentful child – is not given a chance to speak.”
Symington emphasizes that there is an excitement generated by self-killing, by cruelty to the self. It is sadism that’s acting like a drug and difficult to give up – what’s more scary, is that this excitement occurs below the threshold of awareness. Going back to one of his core tenets that in narcissism one must not know himself or herself, that lack of awareness also refers to one’s actions as well. Persecutorial behavior is too guilt-producing to bear and so Symington explains that when people are very destructive to their own selves, dissociation is often extreme. Finally, and this would be a connection to tyrannical, abusive governments throughout history – “in taking up the narcissistic option, people propel themselves into the persecuting pattern rather than challenging it.”
Fortunately, Symington has a chapter on the reversal of narcissism and how it’s best treated. A person can truly know themselves and their actions when the destructive nature is less intense. As psychologist Carl Jung once described, inner wounds need to be suffered through, so that the toxic-contamination of the present is outgrown. Or, as psychologist James Hollis once described, there needs to be a lot of emotional releasing so that the patient can build an alternate experience of self that is not based on the vagaries of the "Other" out there.
However, for a more immediate answer, it seems like Symington advocates an increase in inner creative activity. He writes: “When there is a light shining, you can see shadows.” This thought is echoed in Jungian psychologist Nathan Schwartz-Salant, when he stated that “if we are to engage the subtle body (of the complex), the imagination must be employed.” In his work with borderline patients documented in The Borderline Personality: Vision and Healing, Salant highlighted the need for recovery of the imagination, the capacity to play and most crucially, to see. James F. Masterson also reiterated this fact in The Search For The Real Self, when he described the lives of different artists and showed how it is in human creativity and imagination that people can engage their true selves. Where Symington took his treatment approach a step further, was by underlining the need to see what path or what “other” the patient had refused. In what ways have they refused the lifegiver?
The unfortunate aspect of a lot of this topic comes from research by Jungian psychoanalyst Donald Kalsched in Trauma and the Soul. Kalsched writes that “The longer self-encapsulation continues, the worse the inner world becomes and the more aggression seems to be directed back at the child’s vulnerability.” Someone violated again and again cannot express anger to their persecutors so the aggression is re-directed back into the inner world. The resulting split that occurs in the psyche forces the need for love and aggression to later be humanized in order to re-integrate properly. Kalsched also states that what allows "angels to appear" is the surrendering of all ego-pretense and acceptance of one’s own neediness. It seems like Symington would agree, but would re-state it as accepting the lifegiver and not choosing the easy way out in response to pain.
I don’t think it needs to be stated where a lot of this psychology applies to the real world and today’s current events. Social media encourages narcissism, political leaders reinforce narcissism, and capitalism takes advantage of narcissism. If one is not consciously aware or has no knowledge of self, they will not only be bound to a silver chair, but they will also invite their own persecution. Just because one’s inner attacker is not visible, does not mean that it won’t be projected into the outer world and become reality. My advice is to read Neville Symington’s book. Then, read it again.
The reason perhaps that the book continues to be read by analysts as well as the general public is because Symington based his thesis on bridging the gap between the two passions of his life: psychoanalysis and religion. Before becoming a psychoanalyst, he had the unique distinction of first being a Catholic priest and working for several years in East London. His break with the church caused great distress and influenced much of his future work as a practicing clinician. Also, in this work of great psychological depth, Symington frequently utilizes passages from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina to provide a more realistic, literary example of what he is describing. This, in turn, makes the read more enjoyable.
In this book, Symington makes the bold claim that narcissism is the source of all mental disturbance. Later in his career, he argued that it was the root cause of disorders such as borderline personality disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, and other neuroses. This claim could at least be backed up by fellow psychoanalyst James Grotstein when he stated that “the borderline is nothing more than a failed narcissist.” According to Symington, many psychological disturbances are more or less a symptom cluster stemming from narcissism. As an analyst, he had developed a type of “unified theory” regarding his treatment of patients and he describes that very well throughout this work. Although one could argue he overreached when he described autism as narcissism, the overlapping characteristics are no doubt evident.
Symington starts the book by describing narcissism. He states that its key characteristics are the inability to receive criticism, the hatred of being small and opening oneself to others who can show them something, the illusion of self-sufficiency, a tendency towards self-righteousness, and a fear of the unknown or confrontation. He states that none of us is free from narcissism and so it is important to be able to recognize its undercurrents in our own character. It is in this recognition (or lack thereof) that Symington delineates his conception of what this disorder entails. He says that a fundamental aspect of narcissism is that it blinds us to self-knowledge, and in this description I was reminded of C.S. Lewis’ book The Silver Chair. In this story, two children are sent by Aslan the lion to rescue Prince Rilian, who is bound to a silver chair by a manipulative green serpent masquerading as the Lady of the Green Kirtle. Prince Rilian is encapsulated in this world and no longer knows who he really is. Narcissism, as Symington describes it, operates in much the same way.
He also states that “Psychic choices and actions affect people in the environment, especially those in the intimate environment.” In this statement, Symington is again relating to what is going on underneath that people usually fail to recognize. If a narcissistic patient is viewed as someone who has fallen under a spell, much like Prince Rilian in The Silver Chair, then it takes a certain amount of conscious, “psychic” action to avoid that trance and also bring the patient out of it. This would be similar to psychologist James F. Masterson’s insight that the narcissistic personality disorder requires carefully timed interpretations of his or her narcissistic vulnerability in order to give up the self-defeating orbit of defenses.
Perhaps Symington's most unique contribution to the study of narcissism is his principle of “omission.” He states:
“If the narcissistic situation is one where someone takes his own self as love object, the question then is, what is the alternative object?” Or in other words, “... if Narcissus can fall in love with his own reflection, the alternative is that he can fall in love with another.”
Narcissism could be seen as putting oneself first (the ego taking its own self as love object) as a result of trauma, parental neglect, loss, etc. However, in so doing, they are also anaesthetizing their “true self” in favor of a grandiose “false” self. At its very core, they are denying their own development as an individual by foregoing what Symington calls the lifegiver. A general way to describe the lifegiver is that in life, there are always multiple choices or paths one can choose when faced with adversity. The narcissistic option always omits the lifegiver (growth-oriented choice) for the more regressive option. Much like when a populace chooses a political leader who goes against their interests, to deny the lifegiver (the narcissistic option), according to Symington, is akin to favoring that which will destroy you over that which provides healing and wholeness. People turn against themselves due to anxiety and fear of the unknown.
In order to better explain his theories, Symington describes the impact guilt and shame play in narcissism. Through a detailed use of object-relations theory, he shows the reader that guilt and shame are part and parcel of what’s going on underneath. For instance, a narcissistic person manipulates people for their own gain, and with that guilt there is a feeling of “badness” felt below the level of consciousness. Also, to the extent that the different parts of the individual are not integrated, the person feels shame and tries to hide those parts. The reason why this is important is because of the energy required by narcissistic people to alleviate these bad feelings. They are constantly employing those around them to give them a boost. In terms of object-relations theory, the feeling when bad objects are introjected is so intolerable, that compensatory activities to make the person feel better have to be sought out.
Symington differed from some of his object-relations predecessors in terms of how he viewed bad inner objects. While both Melanie Klein (another famous psychoanalyst) and Symington more or less agreed that people take flight from unbearable anxiety within by projecting the anxiety situation (or bad inner objects) into an external object and then taking flight from that, Klein kept in line with the Freudian theory that the source of the anxiety was a fear of annihilation, and its source the death instinct within. Symington, on the other hand, believed that the source of this phobic impulse was the refusal of the lifegiver.
The most frightening aspect of this book is Symington’s observation that when someone chooses the narcissistic option, this is accompanied by an inner attacker and he occasionally refers to it as an inner assassin. This inner critic is so intolerable that it is projected outwards unconsciously to an outer person, outer group, or outer ideology. He added:
“The negativity in narcissism is partly due to the fact that the disowned child part of the self, the spontaneous, emotional source within the personality – it may be a jealous child, an envious child, a resentful child – is not given a chance to speak.”
Symington emphasizes that there is an excitement generated by self-killing, by cruelty to the self. It is sadism that’s acting like a drug and difficult to give up – what’s more scary, is that this excitement occurs below the threshold of awareness. Going back to one of his core tenets that in narcissism one must not know himself or herself, that lack of awareness also refers to one’s actions as well. Persecutorial behavior is too guilt-producing to bear and so Symington explains that when people are very destructive to their own selves, dissociation is often extreme. Finally, and this would be a connection to tyrannical, abusive governments throughout history – “in taking up the narcissistic option, people propel themselves into the persecuting pattern rather than challenging it.”
Fortunately, Symington has a chapter on the reversal of narcissism and how it’s best treated. A person can truly know themselves and their actions when the destructive nature is less intense. As psychologist Carl Jung once described, inner wounds need to be suffered through, so that the toxic-contamination of the present is outgrown. Or, as psychologist James Hollis once described, there needs to be a lot of emotional releasing so that the patient can build an alternate experience of self that is not based on the vagaries of the "Other" out there.
However, for a more immediate answer, it seems like Symington advocates an increase in inner creative activity. He writes: “When there is a light shining, you can see shadows.” This thought is echoed in Jungian psychologist Nathan Schwartz-Salant, when he stated that “if we are to engage the subtle body (of the complex), the imagination must be employed.” In his work with borderline patients documented in The Borderline Personality: Vision and Healing, Salant highlighted the need for recovery of the imagination, the capacity to play and most crucially, to see. James F. Masterson also reiterated this fact in The Search For The Real Self, when he described the lives of different artists and showed how it is in human creativity and imagination that people can engage their true selves. Where Symington took his treatment approach a step further, was by underlining the need to see what path or what “other” the patient had refused. In what ways have they refused the lifegiver?
The unfortunate aspect of a lot of this topic comes from research by Jungian psychoanalyst Donald Kalsched in Trauma and the Soul. Kalsched writes that “The longer self-encapsulation continues, the worse the inner world becomes and the more aggression seems to be directed back at the child’s vulnerability.” Someone violated again and again cannot express anger to their persecutors so the aggression is re-directed back into the inner world. The resulting split that occurs in the psyche forces the need for love and aggression to later be humanized in order to re-integrate properly. Kalsched also states that what allows "angels to appear" is the surrendering of all ego-pretense and acceptance of one’s own neediness. It seems like Symington would agree, but would re-state it as accepting the lifegiver and not choosing the easy way out in response to pain.
I don’t think it needs to be stated where a lot of this psychology applies to the real world and today’s current events. Social media encourages narcissism, political leaders reinforce narcissism, and capitalism takes advantage of narcissism. If one is not consciously aware or has no knowledge of self, they will not only be bound to a silver chair, but they will also invite their own persecution. Just because one’s inner attacker is not visible, does not mean that it won’t be projected into the outer world and become reality. My advice is to read Neville Symington’s book. Then, read it again.
November 16, 2024
Neville Symington is an interesting guy. He makes the case that narcissism is not just something that has it's origins in childhood, but is an activity and a facing away from what he calls the 'lifegiver'. He defines the lifegiver as the thing in our lives/psyches to enable us to be creative architects in our own lives. He empathizes that demonizing narcissism is unfair: "when pointing out to patients that they are being cruel, or seem to be behaving in a possessive or jealous way, analysts disown those aspects of themselves". The lifegiver is also based around the idea of receptivity, and that narcissism partly has to do with a hatred of the relational and an allergy to dependency. He has an interesting point about how when the person with narcissistic tendencies sees another as like himself, he does not have to have a relationship with him (example given being that two glasses of milk cannot be in relation to each other when poured into the same jug, then it's just milk) he uses this to demonstrate the omnipotence of narcissism aka the belief that everyone thinks the same as him. Symington advocates for a concept of self as being made up of parts: he quotes Jung, also, "a complex with its given tension or energy has the tendency to form a little personality of itself. It has a sort of body. A certain amount of its own physiology.", he also makes the point that empathy is done through finding the same part of the other within yourself, and that much of the psychotherapeutic work done with narcissistic individuals consists of 'feeling-for' instead of 'feeling-in' which is a disidentified approach. Symington often emphasizes the willfulness in maintaining narcissism: "If I am antagonistic to some part of my- self-not in relation to some part of myself-I cannot know it. This determination on my part not to know about it is what is referred to as the unconscious." (pg. 24). Shame being key in narcissism, he states that shame occurs when we come into contact with a part of ourselves in that is not integrated into the 'whole'. We are aware of the discord of our actions and our identity/values. When you're self focused and unrelated to the other, you may have to hide your motives and the ways you're 'secretly' working against them/antisocial. "Let us say there is a part of myself that is exceedingly jealous and that I disown it. It nevertheless keeps operating and affecting the way I behave towards others." Symington references "creative fashioning of the social environment" through an example: "Complete honesty born of complete experience had entered the room and unobtrusively taken a chair."
Later, Symington defines the lifegiver as the same emotional object which constitutes 'the breast', or what exists between people in a long distance friendship, or what lives on in you of a person long after they've died. To act to the service of others goes against the current of contemptuousness found in the narcissistic individual. We feel some sort of guilt for this wrongdoing against the other, and try to appear to be in a state of goodwill towards the other, but that can lead to a discordant neurotic attitude in the individual who is trying to compensate "the person in the narcissistic situation spends a great deal of energy trying to look as if he were acting in a coherent way when in fact he is not" and "one of the difficult things about narcissism as a character structure is that the whole of the individual's efforts are geared to hiding the reality of the situation, both from himself and from others." Additionally, the idea of the lifegiver is presented in many different ways, not all of them clear. Sometimes, too, it is presented as the force of life that allows one to grow. It is cut being cut off from the choice to accept and grow in life, to be in action, or to stagnate and distort ones perception of the world to prove that one is stagnant: "choice is always confronting the individual". Another element is to be unacceptant of help, and unacceptant of friendships. Symington is different from other conceptualizations in narcissism in that he conceptualizes it as somewhat reversible/voluntary, for example, to him it was not that Cassius could not actually give of himself but that he held the belief that he could not give of himself. "One of the dominant notes of narcissism is an absolute hatred of being small, being at the beginning, of opening oneself to someone who can show one something". "One of the most fundamental narcissistic complaints is. "Nobody loves me"". Symington also differs from others in the refusal of the idea that narcissism is about the taking of oneself as an erotic object. Rather, it's more about working on a situation, seeing it clearly, and making it right, allowing it to live on (which usually demands creative/loving power), an 'agent of action' or to be manipulative to maintain stasis: "the one who says yes to the lifegiver has incorporated a source of action." and "one of the tragedies about neuroses is that they take up so much energy that could be available for creative use." and "I am constantly employing people close to me to give me a boost. I may make a great display of concern about them, but at the emotional level I am completely callous, I do not care at all." From this idea, too, narcissists need constant boosting to help with the void: "I will avoid company that does not support me." (Does it need to be always about qualities of the self since shame is a more core feature than guilt?). "It is fine to praise someone for a good piece of work. There is only a problem when I have to have praise, so much so that I do not even do the work in order to get it." Too, part of the reason that narcissism keeps one trapped is the idea around how, as chimps may celebrate as a group around a kill: "the same excitement is generated by self-killing,by cruelty to the self. Although this excitement is generated below the threshold of awareness, my clinical experience convinces me that this is so." We do not get narcissism without self hatred and cruelty, and there's a lot of narcissism in the pleasure of self hatred, which also seems to be linked to the victimhood of narcissism, etc.
"Human beings have a natural tendency to be frightened of each other."
Narcissism is, by definition, something someone is oblivious to, which Symington emphasizes. Though, as someone becomes aware of the narcissistic currents in themselves, that it when the person has entered into a relationship with them. That said, a part of narcissism is to locate the feelings of the self in the other, instead of locating it in oneself: "But one of the cardinal aspects of narcissism is that self-knowledge is to be avoided at all costs. There is a fundamental terror looking in." Confrontation is painful and may bring about change. This also lies in harmony with the idea that narcissism is generally thought of as omnipotent in perception, if you do not confront, there's no new knowledge and you are already certain. We may misinterpret and distort situations in order to fit our truth: if I believe that he hates me, then his smiles must be secretly laughing at me, proving what I think to be true. We need self knowledge to get out of this. Similarly to being cut off from self knowledge, the person is also cut off from the other, asking them to dote on them in a passive state, instead of being active in their own lives.
Symington makes the connection between trauma and narcissism: "There is a preparation through life for particular losses, separations, deaths, and so on. The essence ,of trauma is that a stability based on steady expectation has been shattered." and explains that a grandiose position is a way to suspend oneself (hold oneself back re: Kafka) from emotional pain. Symington makes a very interesting point that the only way that one may be able to interact with these traumas under the guise of a grandiose defense is to enact them. When grandiose, you are the 'top dog', and "people propel themselves into the persecuting pattern rather than challenging it" (interesting anecdote on pg. 76 about reenacting patterns), and that people can be traumatized by the emotional character of their parents.
Symington also emphasizes that the reversal of narcissism must involve an almost intolerable leap in the dark towards dependency, towards trusting the other, and being truly vulnerable: "The fear in the human heart is enormous when taking one of these major emotional steps." (pg. 85). It seems to be a turning away from certainty and towards the very confusing, humbling world on the outside -> creating a new reality fashioned out of ones own soul. Deciding to get better. To dare. But this has to come from within.
Symington leaves us with a few notes on technique: 1. A patient comes in and says, "I came here today, and I felt down, and I didn't really want to come", and the therapist answers. "I understand that you're feeling depressed". This does not do anything. Instead of mirroring. the therapist has a job to do. Instead of gabbling, the therapist should be thinking about why the patient is depressed. In my second case when I was training to be an analyst, I had the good fortune to mirror in this way, and the patient said to me. "But I just said that". Good for him: but you seldom get someone so candid. 2. If the therapist just says, "Don't worry. I won't be disapproving", nothing has been done to solve the patient's problem. I think a more useful response would be, "Why does my disapproval prevent you from speaking?"
--
Turning towards the lifegiver seems to be about truth, love, self expression, 'the other', the ability to receive, and to believe/depend. My overall impression at this point is that narcissism is sort of a compliant last ditch effort split to maintain oneself in the midst of some sort of traumatic event/over stimulation. It's the suppression of a resentful attitude, which becomes a true attitude in the person to compensate for sad feelings and unmet needs in childhood.
A great example of this was when Symington was comparing his ideas around the lifegiver to Winnicot's false self: At a party, she may be extremely polite to a self-satisfled, middle-aged man, while inwardly she thinks he is a fool and wants to get away from him. She shows no sign of this, however. In fact, she is extremely contemptuous inwardly of people. So there is a dichotomy between her state of mind and her outer behavior; she displays a false self. Inwardly she has spumed the presence-to-the-other. but outwardly she feigns extreme politeness. Where did she acquire this garment of politeness, which she wears with such care? Mary speaks regularly of her mother who is always so polite but by whom she felt betrayed.
It seems that this betrayal puts wool over her eyes in the context of any potential for connection, and assumes ill will in others due to the unfortunate initial connection. Simultaneously she is aware of the social need to be cooperative (and also maybe her feelings of longing for the mother) that she has a split and discordant statehood, where her fragmented parts are puppetting themselves into a whole. She must also separate herself from the reality with the protection of grandiose features, to be 'unlike' the persecutor in this scenario, which also makes them delusionally unattractive as connective partners.
It seems now, that correcting narcissism lies in a humility on many levels, and a very scary ability to trust others. This could be identified in the self where there is any hatred at all, as Symington claims that hatred is generally the first step in narcissistic defense. Later, with the story of the 'cauliflower man' he describes a situation where a man could not be direct or honest about his feelings, and avoided by being somewhat passive aggressive, instead of expressing his actual feeling of 'God, you're merciless' when Symington ended a particular session. It is a profound avoidance of being affected by another.
I really enjoyed the tidbits I got from this book, noted here. But it's not ever entirely clear what the lifegiver is, as it's defined many times. I still liked it though, this little book, that I've tried to summarize for myself here.
We cannot blame a person for not being a hero, but we can be encouraged when someone does take the high path.
Later, Symington defines the lifegiver as the same emotional object which constitutes 'the breast', or what exists between people in a long distance friendship, or what lives on in you of a person long after they've died. To act to the service of others goes against the current of contemptuousness found in the narcissistic individual. We feel some sort of guilt for this wrongdoing against the other, and try to appear to be in a state of goodwill towards the other, but that can lead to a discordant neurotic attitude in the individual who is trying to compensate "the person in the narcissistic situation spends a great deal of energy trying to look as if he were acting in a coherent way when in fact he is not" and "one of the difficult things about narcissism as a character structure is that the whole of the individual's efforts are geared to hiding the reality of the situation, both from himself and from others." Additionally, the idea of the lifegiver is presented in many different ways, not all of them clear. Sometimes, too, it is presented as the force of life that allows one to grow. It is cut being cut off from the choice to accept and grow in life, to be in action, or to stagnate and distort ones perception of the world to prove that one is stagnant: "choice is always confronting the individual". Another element is to be unacceptant of help, and unacceptant of friendships. Symington is different from other conceptualizations in narcissism in that he conceptualizes it as somewhat reversible/voluntary, for example, to him it was not that Cassius could not actually give of himself but that he held the belief that he could not give of himself. "One of the dominant notes of narcissism is an absolute hatred of being small, being at the beginning, of opening oneself to someone who can show one something". "One of the most fundamental narcissistic complaints is. "Nobody loves me"". Symington also differs from others in the refusal of the idea that narcissism is about the taking of oneself as an erotic object. Rather, it's more about working on a situation, seeing it clearly, and making it right, allowing it to live on (which usually demands creative/loving power), an 'agent of action' or to be manipulative to maintain stasis: "the one who says yes to the lifegiver has incorporated a source of action." and "one of the tragedies about neuroses is that they take up so much energy that could be available for creative use." and "I am constantly employing people close to me to give me a boost. I may make a great display of concern about them, but at the emotional level I am completely callous, I do not care at all." From this idea, too, narcissists need constant boosting to help with the void: "I will avoid company that does not support me." (Does it need to be always about qualities of the self since shame is a more core feature than guilt?). "It is fine to praise someone for a good piece of work. There is only a problem when I have to have praise, so much so that I do not even do the work in order to get it." Too, part of the reason that narcissism keeps one trapped is the idea around how, as chimps may celebrate as a group around a kill: "the same excitement is generated by self-killing,by cruelty to the self. Although this excitement is generated below the threshold of awareness, my clinical experience convinces me that this is so." We do not get narcissism without self hatred and cruelty, and there's a lot of narcissism in the pleasure of self hatred, which also seems to be linked to the victimhood of narcissism, etc.
"Human beings have a natural tendency to be frightened of each other."
Narcissism is, by definition, something someone is oblivious to, which Symington emphasizes. Though, as someone becomes aware of the narcissistic currents in themselves, that it when the person has entered into a relationship with them. That said, a part of narcissism is to locate the feelings of the self in the other, instead of locating it in oneself: "But one of the cardinal aspects of narcissism is that self-knowledge is to be avoided at all costs. There is a fundamental terror looking in." Confrontation is painful and may bring about change. This also lies in harmony with the idea that narcissism is generally thought of as omnipotent in perception, if you do not confront, there's no new knowledge and you are already certain. We may misinterpret and distort situations in order to fit our truth: if I believe that he hates me, then his smiles must be secretly laughing at me, proving what I think to be true. We need self knowledge to get out of this. Similarly to being cut off from self knowledge, the person is also cut off from the other, asking them to dote on them in a passive state, instead of being active in their own lives.
Symington makes the connection between trauma and narcissism: "There is a preparation through life for particular losses, separations, deaths, and so on. The essence ,of trauma is that a stability based on steady expectation has been shattered." and explains that a grandiose position is a way to suspend oneself (hold oneself back re: Kafka) from emotional pain. Symington makes a very interesting point that the only way that one may be able to interact with these traumas under the guise of a grandiose defense is to enact them. When grandiose, you are the 'top dog', and "people propel themselves into the persecuting pattern rather than challenging it" (interesting anecdote on pg. 76 about reenacting patterns), and that people can be traumatized by the emotional character of their parents.
Symington also emphasizes that the reversal of narcissism must involve an almost intolerable leap in the dark towards dependency, towards trusting the other, and being truly vulnerable: "The fear in the human heart is enormous when taking one of these major emotional steps." (pg. 85). It seems to be a turning away from certainty and towards the very confusing, humbling world on the outside -> creating a new reality fashioned out of ones own soul. Deciding to get better. To dare. But this has to come from within.
Symington leaves us with a few notes on technique: 1. A patient comes in and says, "I came here today, and I felt down, and I didn't really want to come", and the therapist answers. "I understand that you're feeling depressed". This does not do anything. Instead of mirroring. the therapist has a job to do. Instead of gabbling, the therapist should be thinking about why the patient is depressed. In my second case when I was training to be an analyst, I had the good fortune to mirror in this way, and the patient said to me. "But I just said that". Good for him: but you seldom get someone so candid. 2. If the therapist just says, "Don't worry. I won't be disapproving", nothing has been done to solve the patient's problem. I think a more useful response would be, "Why does my disapproval prevent you from speaking?"
--
Turning towards the lifegiver seems to be about truth, love, self expression, 'the other', the ability to receive, and to believe/depend. My overall impression at this point is that narcissism is sort of a compliant last ditch effort split to maintain oneself in the midst of some sort of traumatic event/over stimulation. It's the suppression of a resentful attitude, which becomes a true attitude in the person to compensate for sad feelings and unmet needs in childhood.
A great example of this was when Symington was comparing his ideas around the lifegiver to Winnicot's false self: At a party, she may be extremely polite to a self-satisfled, middle-aged man, while inwardly she thinks he is a fool and wants to get away from him. She shows no sign of this, however. In fact, she is extremely contemptuous inwardly of people. So there is a dichotomy between her state of mind and her outer behavior; she displays a false self. Inwardly she has spumed the presence-to-the-other. but outwardly she feigns extreme politeness. Where did she acquire this garment of politeness, which she wears with such care? Mary speaks regularly of her mother who is always so polite but by whom she felt betrayed.
It seems that this betrayal puts wool over her eyes in the context of any potential for connection, and assumes ill will in others due to the unfortunate initial connection. Simultaneously she is aware of the social need to be cooperative (and also maybe her feelings of longing for the mother) that she has a split and discordant statehood, where her fragmented parts are puppetting themselves into a whole. She must also separate herself from the reality with the protection of grandiose features, to be 'unlike' the persecutor in this scenario, which also makes them delusionally unattractive as connective partners.
It seems now, that correcting narcissism lies in a humility on many levels, and a very scary ability to trust others. This could be identified in the self where there is any hatred at all, as Symington claims that hatred is generally the first step in narcissistic defense. Later, with the story of the 'cauliflower man' he describes a situation where a man could not be direct or honest about his feelings, and avoided by being somewhat passive aggressive, instead of expressing his actual feeling of 'God, you're merciless' when Symington ended a particular session. It is a profound avoidance of being affected by another.
I really enjoyed the tidbits I got from this book, noted here. But it's not ever entirely clear what the lifegiver is, as it's defined many times. I still liked it though, this little book, that I've tried to summarize for myself here.
We cannot blame a person for not being a hero, but we can be encouraged when someone does take the high path.
February 19, 2021
Small, but mighty--this book packs a punch. I found it to be an eye-opening invitation to begin examining the narcissistic wounds in us all, including my own.
Symington claims that narcissism is developed as a reaction to pain and is the source of all psychopathology and mental disturbance. His theory is well supported throughout the book by a thoughtful and thorough amount of data and research. I will be reflecting on this definition, and how it differs from what we read in the DSM about NPD, for a very long while.
Symington claims that narcissism is developed as a reaction to pain and is the source of all psychopathology and mental disturbance. His theory is well supported throughout the book by a thoughtful and thorough amount of data and research. I will be reflecting on this definition, and how it differs from what we read in the DSM about NPD, for a very long while.
August 14, 2012
This a book everybody should read, and definitely one of those which substantially enriched me. Throughout the characters of classics, and of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina in particular, Symington explains the root causes of modern narcissism and provides a new perspective on possible therapeutic approaches. But more than a handbook for professionals, it is a priceless reading for all those who want to understand the narcissistic currents within the own self and within society. Not an easy reading sometimes (better approaching it with some command of psychoanalytic theories) but absolutely insightful and fascinating.
March 13, 2024
Невилл Симингтон. Нарциссизм: новая теория
Одна строчка на то, чтобы выразить всю мою усталость от этой изнуряюще недружелюбной к читателю книги, убивающей отсутствием структуры и забитой психоаналитической терминологией – ну и перейдём к сути.
[будет трудно, сразу говорю]
Чтобы обозначить левый и правый края фарватера, приведу две цитаты:
1) Признание зависимости от другого глубоко противоречит сути нарциссической диспозиции;
2) Отчуждение во всех его проявлениях есть источник современного нездоровья.
Цитату с отчуждением я здесь беру не случайно, в теории Симингтона отчуждение (оно же диссоциация) играет главную роль в протекании нарциссических процессов.
Нарциссизм как реакция на родительское отчуждение. Нарциссизм как способ диссоциировать собственные разочарование и боль. Нарциссизм как способ избегать встречи с Другими. С собственной интенциональностью (намеренностью действий). С источником своих действий.
В общем, нарциссизм сущностно во многом состоит из этого отвержения, отказа от встречи и от отношений.
Попробую обо всём по порядку.
Симингтон постулирует – развитие нарциссизма есть интенциональный ответ на отвергающего родителя. То есть, по сути, результат выбора (и в этом смысле отвечает на вопрос "а почему не у всех детей с _такими_ родителями есть нарциссизм").
Отвергающий родитель интериоризируется в качестве критикующего внутреннего объекта, нападение которого (объекта) настолько невыносимо, что в качестве ответной меры приводит к формированию нарциссической оболочки.
Оболочка эта является набором черт, способствующих идеализации самого себя (и может, кстати, копировать поведение отвергшего родителя), отвергнутые черты характера в это время "помещаются" в других (отказ от отношений с другими в этом смысле означает отказ от от сопряжения собственных различных частей).
Сюда же по смыслу прикладывается идеализация других (и ненависть к ним, когда идеализация рушится). Хотя, говоря о ненависти, Симингтон толкует её позитивно, как, пусть и болезненную, но всё же встречу с другим как Другим, как один из первых шагов в реверсии нарциссизма.
То есть, разворачивании нарциссического процесса вспять.
Для того, чтобы описать нарциссические выборы, Симингтон вводит понятие о бессознательном психическом объекте по имени жизнедатель, но описывает он его как что-то, что ни учуять, ни пощупать, так что я тут много времени на это тратить не хочу. Я думаю по контексту будет проще догадаться, что он имеет ввиду.
Рассматривая источники психической активности, Симингтон описывает два полюса: автономный источник, и источник раздора.
Автономный источник (как результат принятия жизнедателя) подразумевает творческую способность, исходящую из собственного источника действия.
Источник раздора (как результат отвержения жизнедателя) подразумевает как источник действия внутреннюю фигуру, противостоящую мне. Ту фигуру, что отвергает мою боль, моё разочарование, и, как следствие подавления собственных тяжёлых чувств, рождает иллюзию грандиозного всемогущего Я.
Грубо говоря, если я смог успокоить себя сам, без участия того, кто меня ранил, без самораскрытия, то и всё остальное мне тоже по плечу.
И, поскольку я уже устала структурировать разбросанный там и сям материал теории, хочется, минуя очевидные выводы про важность подлинных отношений и выстраивание контакта со своей аутентичностью, перейти сразу к моему мнению.
Мне эта книга помогла соединить два круга Эйлера под названиями "встреча с другими как с частями себя" и "встреча с другими как с другими". И увидеть в этом дополнительный инструмент пристального взгляда на себя – как особенно острые реакции на других могут быть дорогой из жёлтого кирпича к пониманию самого себя, и, скорее всего, не с ожидаемых или резко приятных сторон.
Ну и, конечно, как, проходя через это способом узнавания, сверки, принятия подходящего или отвержения неподходящего, можно приблизиться ещё на шаг к гармоничным и наполняющим отношениям с другими
ಠ ͜ ʖ ಠ
Одна строчка на то, чтобы выразить всю мою усталость от этой изнуряюще недружелюбной к читателю книги, убивающей отсутствием структуры и забитой психоаналитической терминологией – ну и перейдём к сути.
[будет трудно, сразу говорю]
Чтобы обозначить левый и правый края фарватера, приведу две цитаты:
1) Признание зависимости от другого глубоко противоречит сути нарциссической диспозиции;
2) Отчуждение во всех его проявлениях есть источник современного нездоровья.
Цитату с отчуждением я здесь беру не случайно, в теории Симингтона отчуждение (оно же диссоциация) играет главную роль в протекании нарциссических процессов.
Нарциссизм как реакция на родительское отчуждение. Нарциссизм как способ диссоциировать собственные разочарование и боль. Нарциссизм как способ избегать встречи с Другими. С собственной интенциональностью (намеренностью действий). С источником своих действий.
В общем, нарциссизм сущностно во многом состоит из этого отвержения, отказа от встречи и от отношений.
Попробую обо всём по порядку.
Симингтон постулирует – развитие нарциссизма есть интенциональный ответ на отвергающего родителя. То есть, по сути, результат выбора (и в этом смысле отвечает на вопрос "а почему не у всех детей с _такими_ родителями есть нарциссизм").
Отвергающий родитель интериоризируется в качестве критикующего внутреннего объекта, нападение которого (объекта) настолько невыносимо, что в качестве ответной меры приводит к формированию нарциссической оболочки.
Оболочка эта является набором черт, способствующих идеализации самого себя (и может, кстати, копировать поведение отвергшего родителя), отвергнутые черты характера в это время "помещаются" в других (отказ от отношений с другими в этом смысле означает отказ от от сопряжения собственных различных частей).
Сюда же по смыслу прикладывается идеализация других (и ненависть к ним, когда идеализация рушится). Хотя, говоря о ненависти, Симингтон толкует её позитивно, как, пусть и болезненную, но всё же встречу с другим как Другим, как один из первых шагов в реверсии нарциссизма.
То есть, разворачивании нарциссического процесса вспять.
Для того, чтобы описать нарциссические выборы, Симингтон вводит понятие о бессознательном психическом объекте по имени жизнедатель, но описывает он его как что-то, что ни учуять, ни пощупать, так что я тут много времени на это тратить не хочу. Я думаю по контексту будет проще догадаться, что он имеет ввиду.
Рассматривая источники психической активности, Симингтон описывает два полюса: автономный источник, и источник раздора.
Автономный источник (как результат принятия жизнедателя) подразумевает творческую способность, исходящую из собственного источника действия.
Источник раздора (как результат отвержения жизнедателя) подразумевает как источник действия внутреннюю фигуру, противостоящую мне. Ту фигуру, что отвергает мою боль, моё разочарование, и, как следствие подавления собственных тяжёлых чувств, рождает иллюзию грандиозного всемогущего Я.
Грубо говоря, если я смог успокоить себя сам, без участия того, кто меня ранил, без самораскрытия, то и всё остальное мне тоже по плечу.
И, поскольку я уже устала структурировать разбросанный там и сям материал теории, хочется, минуя очевидные выводы про важность подлинных отношений и выстраивание контакта со своей аутентичностью, перейти сразу к моему мнению.
Мне эта книга помогла соединить два круга Эйлера под названиями "встреча с другими как с частями себя" и "встреча с другими как с другими". И увидеть в этом дополнительный инструмент пристального взгляда на себя – как особенно острые реакции на других могут быть дорогой из жёлтого кирпича к пониманию самого себя, и, скорее всего, не с ожидаемых или резко приятных сторон.
Ну и, конечно, как, проходя через это способом узнавания, сверки, принятия подходящего или отвержения неподходящего, можно приблизиться ещё на шаг к гармоничным и наполняющим отношениям с другими
ಠ ͜ ʖ ಠ
October 31, 2021
I really enjoyed this book. It is written in a simple and direct style and presents a compelling and interesting theory. I was convinced by Symington's argument that it is not enough to see narcissism simply as trauma but the element of choice needs to be included. I am not sure how much choice there necessarily is at the point of trauma but there is certainly choice afterwards. Symington presents the choice in terms of whether we opt for the lifegiver or not and personally I did not find the phrase "the lifegiver" that helpful (although others might). I was convinced that the narcissitic shuts him or herself off from the world and the Other and in so doing does violence to himself/herself and loses touch with the fundamental life-oriented essence of his or her self. I think these two aspects (a creative connection with the Other and a connection with the creative inner self) are what Symington means by choosing the life-giver (and conversely rejecting the life-giver) but as I say that particular phrase did not help me. I found the book's use of examples from Anna Karenina very helpful as were the clinical vignettes Symington included. So I would definitely recommend to anyone interested in psychoanalysis or more broadly interested in trying to understand narcissism.
April 5, 2019
Illuminating
The book explains narcissism in a way that is extremely relatable and profoundly stimulating both on a personal level and as a theoretical endeavour.
I found it to be clinically helpful in approaching and identifying concepts and stimulating interventions to address narcissistic currents in patients.
Symington has a wonderful way of writing in a genuine and simple way that cuts through the convoluted and often unnecessarily complicated psychoanalytic language.
The book explains narcissism in a way that is extremely relatable and profoundly stimulating both on a personal level and as a theoretical endeavour.
I found it to be clinically helpful in approaching and identifying concepts and stimulating interventions to address narcissistic currents in patients.
Symington has a wonderful way of writing in a genuine and simple way that cuts through the convoluted and often unnecessarily complicated psychoanalytic language.
September 20, 2023
I read this book at the behest of my clinical supervisor when I was still an undergraduate psychotherapy student, and then again as I wrote my dissertation on working with narcissistic patients
I found Symmingtons' idea of the lifegiver to be an accessible way to begin the process of understanding the psychodynamics of narcissism. I also see a clear parallel between the concept of the lifegiver as an object and Lacan's "objet petit a"
I found Symmingtons' idea of the lifegiver to be an accessible way to begin the process of understanding the psychodynamics of narcissism. I also see a clear parallel between the concept of the lifegiver as an object and Lacan's "objet petit a"
March 27, 2025
Understanding the deep nuance of narcissism allows me to conceptualize it as a "spectrum" rather than the thing I call the villain in my life (yyeeeeeshhh!). Meaning... we all have narcissistic attributes and recognizing this in yourself is an important step away from pathological narcissism. It's a dense read and feels like a difficult place to begin to understand these concepts. I imagine I could re-read this book after outsourcing and swimming in more readable material.
August 9, 2020
One of those books which you really have to analyze and re-read. There's so much information packed in here. Symington's theory seems well thought out and, most importantly, helpful in order to tackle this great problem.
January 3, 2021
Very original and insightful thoughts.
I think it's something I'll return to periodically.
I think it's something I'll return to periodically.
June 11, 2023
it was good. idk :^)
August 28, 2023
A beautiful book in both form and content. The theme is narcissism and the book proceeds playfully, never stating too rigidly what is or is not the case. The feel of the book is like a stroll rather than a definitive route, a nice place to be theoretically. The content itself is rich and will no doubt leave you thinking more about the topic. Some main take away points are the abandonment of the idea of "healthy" narcissism, narcissism as a defensive choice, and the lifegiver: roughly a term Symington uses to denote the choice to choose for oneself and to accept ones condition and painful emotions.
February 27, 2011
masih harus membaca satu kali lagi, tapi dibanding buku2 lain dengan topik yg sama, saya lebih memahami karya Symington ini. tadinya mau kasih bintang 3, tapi mengingat dia mempelajari setiap teori tentang narsisme sebelum akhirnya menghasilkan pemikirannya sendiri mengenai topik yg sudah jauh terkenal sebelum dibicarakan Freud.
May 1, 2016
A series of lectures presented in book form. Symington uses literature (Anna Karenina) and refers to other psychoanalytic theorists without becoming too technical. Sort of an introduction to psychoanalysis and the inner landscape without the mainstream simplifications. Very interesting read.
March 3, 2017
Pioneer, while hundreds of experts are echoing 'there is no cure,' he and his predecessor Francis Tustin demonstrate what the cure is and why we are all walking around with it. The extreme of Narcissism is Autism: "they are a clinical unity."
October 1, 2007
very enlightening...
August 21, 2009
Interesting theory on Narcissism. Thought-provoking.
March 21, 2012
It's always a pleasant surprise when something I am required to read for school actually turns out to be interesting.
August 8, 2012
Great book
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews