Prologue: Specialness, Grandiosity, Omnipotence, Entitlement, and Indulgence: Changing Theories of Narcissism, Attitudes, and Culture

Emanating from Freud’s (1914) theory of narcissism and developed within a particular cultural context, descriptions of a person’s experience using the concepts of specialness, grandiosity, omnipotence, entitlement, and indulgence have carried, connotatively and denotatively, a pejorative cast. Within Freud’s theoretical framework, these concepts depict the assumed initial experience of a baby in a primary narcissistic phase of development. The baby/child is viewed as reluctant to give up this Garden-of-Eden experience of grandiosity, omnipotence, indulgence, entitlement, and specialness. Over time these infantile experiences, wishes, and fantasies need, gradually, to be renounced to grow up and deal with reality. In terms of drive theory, the libido is initially directed toward the ego (or one’s self) and developmentally must be redirected from one’s ego toward others, demarcating a primary developmental thrust to become object related. Any feeling or wished-for sense of specialness, grandiosity, omnipotence, or entitlement is either a yet-to-be-renounced infantile wish (primary narcissism) or a defensive retreat in the face of frustrations in the object world (secondary narcissism).

Contemporary theories of narcissism and development within a changing sociocultural context are transforming these concepts within both psychoanalysis and our culture at large. Kohut (1971, 1977, 1984) provided an alternative theory of narcissism. Initially, he (1971) proposed narcissism to be a line of self-development, with its own libido, distinct and complementary to Freud’s object relational developmental line. Subsequently, eschewing drive and energy theory, Kohut (1977, 1984) evolved his theory into the psychology of the self in which the development of the self within its selfobject matrices serves as the central developmental scenario within which object relational development takes place. Within his theory, grandiosity (the grandiose self) is part of the original state, similar to Freud, but, in contrast to an infantile state that must be renounced, serves to expand the self in its development and creation of ambitions. According to Kohut, grandiosity does not need to be renounced; reality will slowly chip away at it soon enough. In addition, each person requires some sense of specialness to develop and maintain the self (self-esteem).

This issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry is devoted to the reassessment of these concepts, concepts that play an important role in understanding development throughout the life span, parenting, and clinical process. We believe that these concepts and their corresponding developmental models serve to frame analysts’ understanding of their patients, as well as their complex cognitive/affective responses, including interpretative responses, to patients at both implicit and explicit levels.

In an attempt to achieve breadth and depth, we have chosen to address these concepts from a variety of perspectives: an interdisciplinary perspective on the dialectic between self-interest and social responsibility, psychoanalytic theory and clinical process, developmental theory and parental issues, sociocultural perspective, and the creative process. We are delighted to offer our readers the following distinguished roster of authors, listed under these headings:

• An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Dialectic Between Self Interest and Social Responsibility — Gerald Stechler¹

• Psychoanalytic Theory and Clinical Process — Steven J. Ellman — Irwin Hirsch — Lester Lenoff — Estelle Shane

• Developmental Theory and Parental Issues — Jack and Kerry Kelly Novick — Susannah Sherry and Anna Ornstein

• Sociocultural Perspective — Lynne Layton — Jerrold M. Post

• Underpinnings of the Creative Process — Sue Erikson Bloland — Frank M. Lachmann

• Epilogue — James L. Fosshage and Sandra G. Hershberg

We thank our contributors for accepting our invitation to participate in this venture and for their highly thoughtful, scholarly, and creative discussions. Enjoy the fruits of their labor! We rejoin you on the other side in the Epilogue and attempt to highlight and synthesize some of the major themes, as well as add our concluding theoretical suggestions and ideas.

James L. Fosshage, Ph.D.

Sandra G. Hershberg, M.D.

Issue Editors

Notes

1. ¹We were saddened to hear that Gerry Stechler died on December 18, 2013, during the time this volume was in press. It is an honor and privilege to have one of his last, if not his last, paper published posthumously in this issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry.