An Analyisis of Freud's Essay "On Narcissim: An Introduction"

In his essay "On Narcissism: An Introduction," Freud discusses different scenarios relating to love. His essay is intended to teach the reader about love, whether one agrees with his observations and examinations or not. Although he does give examples, explains different scenarios, and makes it easy for the reader to follow along, he uses too much science and concrete "facts," as he sees them, in his approach of the concept of "love," which I consider to be abstract, and one which cannot be explained in such a methodical manner.

According to Freud, "being in love consists in a flowing-over of ego-libido on to the object" (100). It [being in love] "has the power to remove repressions and re-instate perversions. It exalts the sexual object into a sexual ideal" (100).

One of the main points that Freud examines in this essay is that even love of others stems from narcissism, which is "the attitude of a person who treats his own body in the same way in which the body of a sexual object is ordinarily treated - who looks at it, that is to say, strokes it and fondles it till he obtains complete satisfaction through these activities" (73). The following is perhaps the most important section of the essay in regards to love according to Freud:

With the onset of puberty the maturing of the female sexual organs, which up till then have been in a condition of latency, seems to bring about an intensification of the original narcissism, and this is unfavorable to the development of a true object-choice with its accompanying sexual overvaluation. Women, especially if they grow up with good look, develop a certain self-contentment, which compensates them for the social restrictions that are imposed upon them in their choice of object. Strictly speaking, it is only themselves that such women love with an intensity comparable to that of a man's love for them. Nor does their need lie in the direction of loving, but of being loved; and the man who fulfils this condition is the one who finds favour with them...For it seems very evident that another person's narcissism has a great attraction for those who have renounced part of their own narcissism and are in search of object-love. (Freud 89)

Freud explains that the act of being in love can often actually be interpreted as the enjoyment of being worshipped. He exposes the selfish world of humanity in this way, insinuating that we love ourselves above all else - which is really the basis of narcissism anyway.

In Freud's view, all love can be traced back to narcissism, even the love of a parent for a child. The parent sees the child as a part of himself/herself, and so the parent wants to lavish attention upon that part of itself: "Parental love, which is so moving and at bottom so childish, is nothing but the parents' narcissism born again, which, transformed into object-love, unmistakably reveals its former nature" (91). This cynical view of what may be considered the purest form of love is just one example of an overly analytical Freud.

Freud outlines the ways in which a person may love:

(1) According to the narcissistic type:

(a) what he himself is (i.e. himself),

(b) what he himself was,

(c) what he himself would like to be,

(d) someone who was once part of himself.

(2) According to the anaclitic (attachment) type:

(a) the woman who feeds him,

(b) the man who protects him... (90)

However, all of these ways of loving are so selfish. Freud teaches the reader that all love is selfish in some way. At its root, all love is for the betterment of the self, not of the object-love. So, therefore, narcissism is deep-seated in all love, according to Freud.

If Freud is correct in his observations, then it is necessary to live life in a different manner. One cannot grow up expecting to find the "perfect" love, because the concept of "perfect" has now shifted with an adoption of Freud's beliefs. In a Freudian world, the "perfect" love would be that one in which both lovers manage to worship each other, and are able to bask in this worship without exerting too much effort on behalf of the significant other.

However, that seems impossible. That is the case in which Freud's adoring man comes into play. If Freud is correct, then every woman must find a man who will worship her just as she worships herself. Eventually, however, it seems that the man would be tired of not getting the same in return. Does Freud mean to insist that men are so ignorant that they are happy to please these narcissistic women without question? Are they comparable to dogs - happy just to fetch a ball for their entire lives?

If all love is rooted in narcissism, then I suppose I would live differently than I do now. Knowing for a fact that I only seek to be worshipped, I would have to find someone who would regard me in such a high manner. As it is, most people go through life believing that their true loves are those that are most compatible with them in other ways. How easy it would be to just grab the nearest female-worshipper and call it "love." If true happiness lies in such selfish ways, then many people are going about life all wrong.

If narcissism is so prominent in all stages and aspects of life, then isn't it really just the famous people who are happy? We tend to worship the rock stars, actors, and other public figures, so, do we not in fact all fit into Freud's description of the masculine worshipper. We lavish attention upon these celebrities and receive nothing in return. Meanwhile, they bask in the attention of their fawning fans. If this is true, then the common man is not, and never will be, happy. He will live his entire life longing to be worshipped like a king.

So, it seems that if Freud is correct, we must all strive to attain stardom in order to be happy. But, where does real love come into the equation? Celebrities do not really get anything concrete out of the attention that fans give them. Real love, if can even exist at all in Freud's world, would certainly be suffocated by the selfishness of the individual. If society erases its current concept of "true love," in which love is primarily unselfish will we be happier? It is possible that, if Freud is correct in his evaluation of love, the reason society, as a whole, is unhappy is because everyone is searching for something that does not exist (i.e. unselfish love).

There are so many questions that one can ask concerning Freud's view of love, that I am tempted to disagree with him. However, Freud is correct in at least one regard. He explains that love can raise one's feelings of self-value, although, he also argues that love can reduce it:

Loving in itself, so far as it involves longing and deprivation, lowers self-regard; whereas being loved, having one's love returned, and possessing the loved object, raises it once more. When libido is repressed, the erotic cathexis is felt as severe depletion of the ego, the satisfaction of love is impossible, and the re-enrichment of the ego can be effected only by a withdrawal of libido from its objects. The return of the object-libido to the ego and its transformation into narcissism represents, as it were, a happy love once more; and, on the other hand, it is also true that a real happy love corresponds to the primal condition in which object-libido and ego-libido cannot be distinguished. (99-100)

In my experience, being in love does raise one's feelings of self-esteem. If someone loves's you, then you feel that you are worth more. But it is more than just the love we receive from others. To me, the concept of mutual love is the most rewarding one of all. Even when the two lovers are not with each other, although there is some pain caused by longing, it is still altogether pleasant to know that someone is thinking about you when you are absent.

Freud's view is altogether too cynical. To think that all love is based on selfishness is not true. When we think of fairy-tale love, our thoughts are that the concept is entirely unselfish. The lovers in such tales are willing to risk everything. For instance, in many tales, a lover is willing to give up his/her love in order to save the other's life. Freud could argue that this, too, is a selfish act, because the lover would rather live without love than to suffer the pain of knowing that his/her lover is dead. However, it seems that it would be more painful to live without a love that still exists, than without a love that has no hope.

Another example of un-narcissistic love is the love of a child by an adopted parent. Freud argues that parental love is narcissistic because the parent worships the child, who is a piece of the parent, and therefore the parent is indirectly resorting to narcissism. However, in the case of adopted parents, the child is not actually a piece of the parent. The parent chose that child, in many cases, to give love to a child who otherwise may not have received any. Many people adopt children whose futures are less than bright in hopes of giving these children a better chance. Once again, I am sure that Freud would argue that, since these adopted parents are making someone's life better, they are being selfish because helping others makes them feel good. In a sense this is true, but the giving nature of such people often far outreaches the selfishness. They devote so much time and effort to make a good life for someone who is initially a complete stranger, and seem to be quite genuine in their love.

Also, Freud would argue that even saints are only sacrificing themselves because they want the attention. However, is the attention truly worth martyrdom? And what about those who devote their lives to charity - like Mother Theresa? Was her whole life devoted to helping the less fortunate, just so that others could praise her, or did she do it because she truly wanted to help those people? I tend to believe that she truly just wanted to make the world a better place for everyone, and did not mind expending her time and energy to make other people a little bit happier.

Although I usually agree with Freud in matter of society, such as religion and politics, I do feel that he is overly cynical in his view of love. He treats the subject too rationally, and I think that love is an irrational thing. It cannot be reduced to such simple terms, and certainly cannot be explained in twenty-five pages. Even though "On Narcissism" is most certainly an interesting piece, I think Freud needed to use more of his heart and less of his brain when discussing such a matter.