Back to Table of Contents
states underlined by ambivalence. If that is the case, it may be useful to compare amae to various known psychoanalytic concepts. Freud stated that there were two currents of love: the affectionate current and the sensual one. “The affectionate current is the older of the two. It springs from the earliest years of childhood; it is formed on the basis of the interests of the self-preservative instinct and is directed to the members of the family and those who look after the child...” (Freud, 1912, p. 180). This corresponds to the self-preservative, instinctual underpinnings of amae . The affectionate current stemming from it was later absorbed into the concept of narcissism (Freud, 1914). Here Freud wrote that although primary narcissism cannot be confirmed by direct observation, it can be gleaned from “the attitude of affectionate parents towards children […] that it is a revival and reproduction of their own narcissism, which they have long since abandoned” (Freud, 1914, pp. 90, 91). While Freud (1930) later abolished his conception of the self-preservative instinct and reached the conclusion that affection was a manifestation of Eros (sexual drive) whose original aim is repressed, Doi proposed that amae corresponded to the self-preservative instinct according to Freud’s early theory of instinct and defined amae as instinctually derived dependency need. In addition, Freud (1921) saw identification as the earliest expression of an emotional tie with another person, which is ambivalent from the very first. So defined, Freud’s identification may correspond to amae’s underlying identificatory and ambivalent properties. Elaborating on the concept further within the object relational matrix, Doi (1989, p.350) reiterated that amae is object-relational from the beginning. While it may not quite correspond to Freud’s concept of primary narcissism, it “fits very well with whatever state of mind may be called narcissistic” (ibid, p.350). In this sense, amae’s narcissistic properties underlie “convoluted” amae which expresses itself by being childish, willful and demanding. “In the same vein”, Doi (1989) writes (1989), “a new concept of self-object defined by Kohut as ‘those archaic objects cathected with narcissistic libido’ (1971, p. 3) will be much easier to comprehend in the light of amae psychology, since ‘the narcissistic libido’ is none other than convoluted amae ” (Doi, 1989, p. 351). In this vein, Japanese analysts see Kohut’s concept of ‘self-object needs’ (Kohut, 1971) as nearly equivalent to amae . Also, Balint’s observation that “in the final phase of the treatment patients begin to give expression to long-forgotten, infantile, instinctual wishes, and to demand their gratification from their environment” (Balint, 1936/1965, p.181) may be relevant, because “the primitive amae will manifest itself only after narcissistic defenses are worked through by analysis” (Doi, 1989; p. 350). Building on both Freud and Ferenczi, Balint’s (1936/1965) ideas about ‘passive object love’ and primary love are conceptually closest to “ amae .” He reflected that Indo-European languages do not clearly distinguish between the two kinds of object-love, active and passive. While the aim is always primarily passive (to be loved), if there is enough love and acceptance of the child coming from the environment to mitigate frustrations, the child may progress into the active ‘giving love’ in order to receive it (configuration of ‘active object love’). In clinical terms, there is a link between primitive amae and Balint’s term ‘benign regression’ and between convoluted amae and his term ‘malignant regression’.
6
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online