Subject Altruist/Antigone Complex Narcissistic Injury- The Hobbit

I saw The Hobbit.

I heard it wasn't as well received as the Lord of the Rings and I can see why. It is definitely more an altruist's movie than an egoist's (while the former series was more balanced). Instead of being able to identify with the human ranger who is secretly a prince in Lord of the Rings, in this one the dwarves represent subject egoism in a diminutive form that would probably turn the egoists off.  

Plus, instead of being a story of the triumph of the will and potency of the hero over a villain it is more random, filled with several different enemies and side plots, and luck and cleverness plays more of a role than will or head to head force.

I thought it had a lot of imagination and that whoever designed the monsters gave a lot of play over to his or her phantasy in its strongest, most visceral sense.

The reason I'm posting about it is that the relationship between Bilbo (the main Hobbit character) and Thorin (the leader of the Dwarves) really plays out the relationship towards self-assertion and the father imago in the subject altruist.  It isn't the Antigone complex but illustrating the potential narcissistic injury the SA can receive that would cause a defusion to it.

In several scenes in the film the main character is told, overhears, or senses that Thorin and the Dwarves think that this quest/fight is not a place that Bilbo belongs. He's just a hobbit (i.e. just a girl), he should be back at home enjoying his creature comforts (like a girl), etc. and this doesn't cause anger or resentment in him but instead you see him hang his head and feel like they are right. The egoist reacts with anger and the altruist with feeling abandonment or aloneness.

I've mentioned that Polynices not being allowed to take his turn to rule the city represents Antigone's injury at not receiving equal encouragement from the father imago to assert herself (either socially or sexually). This is the SA's narcissistic injury.

It isn't very hard to imagine a little girl out front before the pack here instead of Bilbo. However, as I've always stressed, psychic bisexuality isn't attached to anatomical sex and though SAs are usually women there is a good number of men who have more emphasis (or energy in) these drives than the others (and it's not just a question of the other drives of the libidinal positions being defended against; sometimes the other drives haven't been developed at all).

Of course Bilbo has enough spirit to not succumb to the narcissistic injuries and return home and instead he saves the day. Here is his justification for not leaving:

Bilbo: I know you doubt me, I know you always have, and you're right. I often think of Bag End. I miss my books, and my arm chair, and my garden. See, that's where I belong; that's home, and that's why I came, 'cause you don't have one...a home. It was taken from you, but I will help you take it back if I can. 

This leads to where the Thorin as the father imago embraces him with the words

'I have never been so wrong in all my life'

Very touching stuff for an altruist, but pretty wimpy for an egoist.

Phaedra Complex- homosexuality in the subject egoist

The complex takes its name from Greek mythology; Phaedra, wife of Theseus, fell in love with Hippolytus (Theseus' son born by either Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons or Antiope her sister).  

I've posted before that I've aligned the post-oedipal father complex with Freud's aim-inhibited sexuality that creates the drive to be a "grown-up", be "adult", or want to be regarded as responsible and fair by others. 

I've also posted that I saw Theseus' labors as reflecting the much more grandiose pre-oedipal labors of Heracles from the angle of Theseus representing the Oedipal acceptance of "castration" and being under his father's name. 

I hypothesized that before the moral father imago was internalized into the drive to 'be adult' that it's possible the father could interfere with it if he, not respecting the difference between the generations, was seductive towards his son. This seduction would form the fixation of adult moral man and boy that could explain why so many priests molest boys. They projectively identify with the father imago and force the trauma (attached to the self-representation) into someone else. 

Since doing work in the other complexes and seeing how Orestes can be read as a part of Electra and Polynices can be a part of Antigone it seems fitting to recognize that Phaedra can be a part of Theseus.     

Psychic Bisexuality and the Four Humours.

I've recently come across the four humours in two different contexts and I thought I'd share them and contrast them.

The first comes from Hegel's lecture notes included in the Philosophy of Mind. He writes:

"The main difference between these temperaments is based on whether a person gives himself up to the matter in hand or whether he is concerned about his own individuality. The former case occurs with the sanguine and phlegmatic temperaments, the latter with the choleric and melancholic"  (p. 53).

What is interesting here is that "concerned with individuality" can be taken in the introverted sense of imbuing one's work with one's own understanding of it. Jung uses introvert to refer to rationalist in Psychological Types and contrasts it to extrovert empiricism. The former wants to force reality to bend to laws and categories that are based upon human reason, while the latter eschews this but has his own value in finding examples that disprove the potentially Procrustean tendency of the rationalist and in collecting new data that can be systematized by the introvert. However, Hegel's meaning of "concern" can also mean what I have drawn attention to as the competition and desire to be regarded as the most skilled or most beautiful or tasteful. This means that the competition in egoism produces a wider interest in the work because one wants to be admired, as opposed to people who simply do the work and aren't compelled to investigate it more or be comprehensive because they don't get their self-esteem through being regarded as powerful.  

On the TV tropes site they draw attention to this side of ambition and desire to lead under the heading of extroversion.

As a note, Jung's use of Introvert and Extrovert is confused. He oscillates between introvert as anal-schizoid vs. Extrovert as genital-psycho-neurotic and Introvert as Adler's will to power vs. Extrovert as the hysteric wanting to be interesting and being other-focussed. Because he's not clear about it, no wonder it's misused.  

Extroversion at tvtropes.com seems to be used in its common language sense of social/high-profile vs. shy/loner/socially awkward.  

Choleric (yellow bile): Extroverted and task-oriented. Mainly seeks success and completion of tasks, and likes to be in charge of successful projects. Exhibits leadership, dominance, ambition, and charisma; also tactical and very passionate. On the flip side, highly prideful, easily angered or upset and may show arrogance, narrow-mindedness, obsession, and a Hair-Trigger Temper — but known for not showing any kinds of emotion otherwise. Rather than forgive, tendency to snap and move on while kicking to the curb; tendency to blame others. Likes to be independent and have control over others; could be The Bully or a Bad Boss if in charge. The most likely to be things such as The Leader, The Neidermeyer, Anti-Hero, or The Lancer. If The Smart Guy, it's by being crafty and cunning. If female, will be a fierce Lady of Waror a Tsundere.

·   Will often correspond with the Realist when in a Four Philosophy Ensemble.

I don't think the distinction of social/high-profile vs. shy/loner/socially awkward is helpful. It's more like Reich's distinction between genital vs. neurotic character and there is no reason why the high ideals and good manners that the tropers define the melancholic by can't translate into them being engaged in being social or having a high profile.

Back to Hegel...

"The sanguine person forgets himself in what he is doing, and more specifically in such wise that by virtue of the superficial versatility of his nature, he involves himself in a variety of affairs; the phlegmatic person, on the contrary, steadfastly applies himself to one object." (p. 53).

I think this is an important point. The tendency of he hysteric as the OA libidinal position, and not a term that seeks to encompass the the anti-sex potential of the OE compulsive along with the OA position, has been recognized for a long time to result in dilettantism. Jung has called it the impulse to be interesting. Hans Sachs has mentioned it under the type of person who creates the impression of knowledge but has only superficial understanding that comes from having identified with another person and imitating him or her. Although I have identified it as the masculine form of altruism and Sachs, in line with the misogyny of early analysts, attributed it to women and showed the tendency of them to have sexual relations with their educators. However, this also shows up with boys and male teachers in ancient Greece and there are many superficially educated men or male dilettantes. Wes Anderson and Rushmore comes to mind as an example. Nietzsche writes of the actor type frequently in his work and doesn't connect it to the feminine.

Looking at the Sanguine as the object altruist, the tv tropes site does connect it to the phlegmatic as people-oriented. If we drop their extroverted and introverted designations then people-oriented could be used as altruism. Task-oriented could also bring up the aspect of competition and power that I mentioned for Hegel's designation of "concerned with individuality". However, to do this I am obviously stretching their meaning. They are commenting on work specifically and not the ego drive relations. They write

Sanguine (blood): Extroverted and people-oriented. Generally likes socialization, fun crowds, and showcases of people's talents; highly opposed to dwelling on the past. Exhibits optimism, compassion, good cheer, a love of fun, enthusiasm. On the flip side, they may be impulsive, self-indulgent, lustful, Drama Queens, or even be a space case. Tendency to anger-burst, followed by "forgive and forget"; tendency to move on rather than blame anyone. Can often be a Keet, The Loonie, Spirited Competitor, Boisterous Bruiser, Blood Knight,The Pollyanna, Gentleman and a Scholar, Gossipy Hen, or Motor Mouth; or if female, a more plucky/outgoing Proper Lady, Kawaiiko, Genki Girl, or The Chick.

·   Will often correspond with the Optimist when in a Four Philosophy Ensemble.

Hegel's comment on the phelgmatic having one object I have related to the same Sachs article in the tendency of the SA to work for the egoism of a specific person or group. In the object drives the SA in proto-phallic defusion will be a relationship in which she will be the mother's missing phallus (ie supply the missing glory or recognition for the mother's phallic image-ego). The SA is the helper or assistant to the person's ambitions or career and rounds out the missing aspects of their character. In the ego drives the person may carry on the legacy of the father (-substitute) in devoting themselves to his work or interests. The SA at this stage still doesn't have aggression for her own self-interest but can be an aggressive defender of another. 

The tropers write:

Phlegmatic (phlegm): Introverted and people-oriented. The dreams and passions of this temperament are mainly the spread of kindness, forgiveness, and restoration of peace and harmony. Generally calm, rational, quiet, and reliable; but also docile and timid, lazy, and frequently hides all emotions (other than sympathy). Tends to be dependent on others, either by choice or because of insecurity. This temperament is a people person but sometimes expresses these traits in an awkward fashion. Tendency to perhaps brood temporarily, but then "forgive and forget"; tendency to blame self. Can often be Weak, but Skilled, The Heart, Wide-Eyed Idealist, or a more relaxed version of The Smart Guy and, if female, may be an Emotionless Girl, Yamato Nadeshiko, or more submissive Proper Lady.

   Will often correspond with the Apathetic when in a Four Philosophy Ensemble.

I think that the tv tropes connections are good for the most part and thus provide illustrations of psychic bisexuality but not all. In particular the designation of apathetic for phlegmatic doesn't sit well with me. It's the subject altruist who cares the most for people who is bound to flip into cynic or misanthrope as a reaction formation. Additionally, Reich's connection of the masochist to complaining is important here. The object altruist and the designation of melancholic will relate to an apathy about being too good for the men and community around her. Although there may be antagonism with men a la penis envy and complaining about sexuality in compulsive hysteria (i.e. men being dogs who only care about sex and untrustworthy) the self-love aspect takes them away from the world and into themselves and having pride means they don't get involved in things. Their sense of being attractive is enough self-esteem and if they aren't then the sense of their superior ability to judge beauty and their 'inner values' are enough. 

     

Hegel goes on...

"But in choleric and melancholic persons it is, as we have already indicated, the clinging to subjectivity that predominates; however, these two temperaments in turn distinguished from each other by the fact that in the choleric, versatility predominates, and in the melancholic, apathy; so that in this connection the choleric temperament corresponds to the sanguine and the melancholic to the phlegmatic" (p.53).

I think that is interesting in that the versatility of the OA comes from identification with many others which isn't in the SE. However, the general anal drive to omnipotence or omniscience in the SE does push them to become more comprehensive and subject egoism in general, and more so with schizoid features, will push towards self-sufficiency. Additionally, as I mentioned, the self-esteem from beauty compensates the OE and reduces her interests to her specialized "inner values" or whatever interest gives her an edge in regard to being desirable. 

As I said above, I don't think that all of their examples are correct, but in a general way the phenomenology is correct in the tv trope characterization. Also, the language is more accessible than Hegel's and Hegel's account gives no examples for someone new to characterology to sink their teeth into.  

Melancholic (black bile): Introverted and task-oriented. These characters can be extremely passionate and have high ideals. The intentions and longings found in this temperament are mainly the making and following of rules, good manners being among those rules. These characters focus on the world of internal thought and the best way to apply those thoughts. Independent, courteous, organized, highly refined, hard-working, analytical; but also a detached, neurotic,  obsessive perfectionist whose insanely high standards can lead to depression. Rather than forgive, tendency to withdraw and brood; tendency to blame others, self, and "all of the above" (sometimes all at once). Prone to gluttony or coveting. Often The Sneaky Guy or a very serious form of The Smart Guy. Can often hide in a sour shell and, if female, be a more brooding loner-type Ice Queen, Dark Action Girl, The Ophelia, Femme Fatale or Mysterious Woman. Those melancholics who have taken to lives of action can be the Byronic Hero or a Manipulative Bastard. I Work Alone may also come into play.

·   Will often correspond with The Cynic when in a Four Philosophy Ensemble.

Egoism, Altruism, and Group Psychology.

My previous post on altruism and the other world has been coalescing with older posts. I've pointed out that because paternity isn't known in early cultures that the biological father would have to follow the model of the spiritual father or 'procreator'. This relates to the phallus being a symbol of the negation of the mother (or mother's body). It's not that males aren't naturally superior it's that they are the not-mother that the phallus comes to be identified with the perfection (negatively created) that the child follows to escape the mother. Thus, the primal father or a biological father for an individual child isn't needed for the father function to come up. Additionally, in the Antigone myth and complex I pointed out that the trauma incurred is that Polynices (understood as an aspect of Antigone) never got his agreed upon turn to rule and wasn't treated as equal to his brother.

All of these ideas have begun circling around Freud's work on the army and church in Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego. These two groups, as I understand them, represent the two different paths that defusion at the phallic Oedipus complex can go based upon active-egoism and passive-altruism. Freud even sees this:

It is to be noticed that in these two artificial groups each individual is bound by libidinal ties on the one hand to the leader (Christ, the Commander-in-Chief) and on the other hand to the other members of the group. How these two ties are related to each other, whether they are of the same kind and the same value, and how they are to be described psychologically—these questions must be reserved for subsequent enquiry (ibid., p. 95)

Fusion to the phallic Oedipal father imago for the subject altruist, as I've posted many times before, is related to the altruist being able to be assertive for her own desire, happiness, and well-being. If there is defusion then she returns to passive phallic drives to sacrifice herself for the another person's egoism or devote herself to the flourishing of a small group or business, defend another person or group, rescue or 'fix' others, (etc.). In fusion there is a sense that she has the goodwill of her employers, teachers, or father-substitutes and that they want to foster independence in her and they are fair. 

However, since the Oedipus complex father imago of the procreator needn't be tied to one's father, head of family, or mother's desire, it appears like early cultures had a totem above the tribe as the father and the tribe was conceived of as a family. Thus, it appears that the link between the phallic oedipal father imago and the recognition of the individual family as a model can potentially become unhinged and the individual can slide back to the procreator as something spiritual or, as I mentioned in the last post, of the 'other world'. 

Freud observes both this 'surrogate family' sense, the democratic (i.e. altruistic) leanings of the church, and the importance that the leader is fair and loves all equally (contra the real world father substitute who made the altruist feel inadequate or like she was less than others (the boys who possess a penis which is conflated with the phallus):

In a Church (and we may with advantage take the Catholic Church as a type) as well as in an army, however different the two may be in other respects, the same illusion holds good of there being a head—in the Catholic Church Christ, in an army its Commander-in-Chief—who loves all the individuals in the group with an equal love. Everything depends upon this illusion; if it were to be dropped, then both Church and army would dissolve, so far as the external force permitted them to. This equal love was expressly enunciated by Christ: ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’ He stands to the individual members of the group of believers in the relation of a kind elder brother; he is their substitute father. All the demands that are made upon the individual are derived from this love of Christ's. A democratic strain runs through the Church, for the very reason that before Christ everyone is equal, and that everyone has an equal share in his love. It is not without a deep reason that the similarity between the Christian community and a family is invoked, and that believers call themselves brothers in Christ, that is, brothers through the love which Christ has for them. There is no doubt that the tie which unites each individual with Christ is also the cause of the tie which unites them with one another (Group Psychology, p. 93-4).

         

Freud goes on to contrast the role of aggression and fear in the two groups. In regards to the army he sees the leader of supreme importance in managing fear or panic: 

The loss of the leader in some sense or other, the birth of misgivings about him, brings on the outbreak of panic, though the danger remains the same; the mutual ties between the members of the group disappear, as a rule, at the same time as the tie with their leader. The group vanishes in dust, like a Prince Rupert's drop when its tail is broken off (ibid., p.97)

While the army is about co-ordinating aggression and killing others in this world and managing individual fear, the church seems the opposite. In the church you are supposed to hold back aggression and it is what shows up when the religious community breaks down:

The phenomenon which accompanies the dissolution that is here supposed to overtake a religious group is not fear, for which the occasion is wanting. Instead of it ruthless and hostile impulses towards other people make their appearance, which, owing to the equal love of Christ, they had previously been unable to do (ibid., p. 98).

    

Freud also has another point to make about the church:

Therefore a religion, even if it calls itself the religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it. Fundamentally indeed every religion is in this same way a religion of love for all those whom it embraces; while cruelty and intolerance towards those who do not belong to it are natural to every religion. However difficult we may find it personally, we ought not to reproach believers too severely on this account; people who are unbelieving or indifferent are much better off psychologically in this matter [of cruelty and intolerance]. If to-day that intolerance no longer shows itself so violent and cruel as in former centuries, we can scarcely conclude that there has been a softening in human manners. The cause is rather to be found in the undeniable weakening of religious feelings and the libidinal ties which depend upon them. If another group tie takes the place of the religious one —and the socialistic tie seems to be succeeding in doing so— then there will be the same intolerance towards outsiders as in the age of the Wars of Religion; and if differences between scientific opinions could ever attain a similar significance for groups, the same result would again be repeated with this new motivation (ibid., 98-9).

This follows the devotion to an individual that is possible at phallic defusion. The altruist can't be assertive for herself but she can defend and work for the egoism of the object. The all male character of the army and para-military groups also makes it clear that competition, jealousy, and rivalry over sexual objects is defended against. 

The dichotomy here seems very simple:

army: express aggression to outside groups and defend against aggression inside

church: express love to one's group and defend against outside ones 

To this we can add from my last post.

Membership to a religion allows the altruist to express her hostility towards others through identifying with the punishment they will receive from God.

Membership to an army or conquering group allows access to the 'spoils' of war, the 'rape and pillage' that takes place in which the egoist gains access to his "love" through its displacement onto possessions or things (including 'ass', 'tail', or the woman reduced from Oedipal level love object to pre-oedipal thing). 

Additionally, while the army is formed under the banner of the good and just there are groups that, in comparison, form under 'evil'. Pirates, criminal gangs, etc. still take a similar framework to the army and show, as Fairbairn observed, that if the father imago becomes associated with its 'bad aspect' then one will chose to belong to evil rather than be alone. I imagine that various pagan cults that continued to exist through Christian times also provided the alternative to the church. Even though 'evil' may still characterize the choice to move from dominant culture to sub-culture and choosing the imperatives to enjoy the body instead of renouncing it, the acts the pagans would perform hardly seem worthy of the name in comparison with what criminal groups would do.

Again, I am only pointing out the pre-oedipal regressions of the egoist and altruist here and the groups also have to contend with a great variety of character structures. 

I do have one final thought. Scanning the 7 deadly sins I don't want to underestimate the church as an organization that 'saves the will' in the sense that neurosis is a practical nihilism in which the person does nothing. For example, the phobic altruist or the depressed altruist who may be guilty of 'sloth' or 'gluttony' may, through the church, be brought to exercise their will and fight against their self-destructive, dissociative, and isolating tendencies. Additionally, regarding the army it seems to me that many egoistic defensive reactions can be sublated and their destructiveness and paranoia can be kept out of the community at large and displaced onto the cultural Other.        

 

displaced aggression and affection

I saw 12 Years A Slave last night and I was reminded of something I've observed before concerning the use of religion, and specifically those with an afterlife, to provide a displacement for aggression.

The sadistic punishments and tortures of hell aren't dreamt up by egoists but by the altruists who, as Nietzsche points out, are impotent and unable to be direct in their aggression in the world.

I've written before that I conceive of object relations and the ego and object drives/ego ideal to be the same thing (except in the sense in which Kleinians use it to refer to the interpretation of parental imagos). I've also acknowledged that the primacy of the relationship means that aggressive and affectionate drives may be, but aren't necessarily, displaced onto idiosyncratic objects or zones in childhood development. In an older post I wrote:

Externalization of aggression onto objects makes them into weapons, as Klein shows (feces as missiles, urine as poison), and following the same logic, externalization of libido onto things makes them greedily desired. Does the masculine always externalize on things, while the feminine projects onto objects [people]? 

I think the altruist displacing or externalizing aggression into the 'other world' is an extreme event brought up by severe abuse. However, understanding this has also made me sensitive to the more common aspect of producing monsters in the 'other world' not to punish others in hell but in order to take away blame for the cruelty and malice in this world by people who the altruist is close to but also from just her general attitude that "deep down" all people are good.

(Then, as a compromise formation with egoism, aren't monsters also objects of power and perfection that can be contemplated and overcome by human heroes because of carefully accorded weaknesses?)

Additionally, doesn't idealization, awe, and "the magic" accorded to the object in altruism also become displaced onto other parts of the "other world" where mystical places can heal, angels exist, and the "veil between the two worlds is thin". This externalized impulse, as I remarked on with commodity fetishism, can occur with other cultures and/or a preoccupation with the past or future. For example, an American altruist can "romanticize"Argentina and believe the all the women there are beautiful or that their style of features makes them more attractive than at home and he can read stories about Argentina, buy certain commodities, etc. to indulge in this fantasy. Another example, is for him to daydream about being around in the 60s and buying things or listening to music from that time and imagining that he would have found acceptance there and people were better and more authentic then.  

In the same post I pointed to the trope of the Dwarves and Elves. The former are obsessed with finding precious things and manufacturing them to perfection. The latter live in harmony with nature and are often depicted as able to heal or help humans while choosing to hide from them.

Does this mean that the egoistic with its desire to control/possess will settle for things (possessions) when relationships aren't forthcoming, and that the altruistic with its desire to merge/resonate with will create another world, or allow another culture to provide the basis for, a place where magic exists if it can't be found in his or her relationships or a place that destruction can exist so that his or her relationships can be maintained?

Is the transitional object the commodity or thing that is chosen over the relationship to a person a compensation for the lack of relationship for the egoist? Is it a fetish object that allows for contact with the 'other world' where the relation can be pleasurably be contemplated/produce pleasurably phantasies for the altruist?

E: people to things

A: people to the 'other world'