NARCISSISTIC DEFENSES AND ALIENATION IN THE LIFE OF HOWARD
HUGHES: A CASE STUDY
Alida Sandison
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Psychology
in the
Department of Psychology
School of Behavioural Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
Nelson Mandela University
April 2018
Promoter: Prof. L. Stroud i
Declaration
I, Alida Sandison (student number: 196083100) hereby declare that the thesis for Doctor in
Philosophy: Psychology to be awarded is my own work and that it has not previously been submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate qualification to another University or for another qualification.
…………………………………..
Alida Sandison
In accordance with Rule G5.6.3
5.6.3 A treatise/dissertation/thesis must be accompanied by a written declaration on the part of the candidate to the effect that it is his/her own work and that it has not previously been submitted for assessment to another University of for another qualification. However, material from publications by the candidate may be embodied in a treatise/dissertation/thesis.
ii
Dedication
This study is dedicated to my mother.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to:
My friends, family and colleagues. Thank you for your unwavering support. Particular thanks to
Andrea Hurst for walking across ley lines with Howard and me.
To my promoter, Louise Stroud. Thank you for your encouragement and wisdom on this journey.
iv
Biography.com Editors. (2017). Howard Hughes photograph. Licenced under A&E Television Networks on
Biography.com
v
Abstract
Narcissism is a personality configuration which has both normal and pathological personality expressions. It is associated with a very broad field of literature and theoretical formulations, put forward to understand it. To add to this knowledge base, the aim of the research was to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration. The aim was attained through the exploration of the life of Howard
Hughes, by examining the interplay between Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory (1974; 1975;
1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) and Hughes’s lived experiences. Hughes was chosen as the subject as he is renowned for being an eccentric billionaire who was revolutionary in his effect on the world, but concurrently disturbed within his personal pathologies. The study took the form of a case study. Data was collected using Yin’s (1994) guidelines for data collection, which include using multiple sources of evidence, creating a case study database, and keeping and maintaining a reliable chain of evidence. Data was furthermore collected and analysed using
Miles and Huberman’s (1994) strategy of data analysis which consists of three steps, namely data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. Research findings confirmed the presence of primitive defense mechanisms associated with the lower level pathologies described by Kernberg within Hughes’ patterns. Findings confirmed the defense mechanisms as alienating others. Learnings produced were presented in a model to be used in clinical practice to support others in interaction with narcissistic individuals. Steps outlined included, understand, decontaminate and reconstruct, reaffirm reality, and find something positive.
Key words: Howard Hughes, narcissism, narcissistic defenses, Kernberg’s Object Relations
Theory vi
Table of Contents
Declaration ...... i
Dedication ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iii
Abstract ...... v
Chapter 1: Introduction, Motivation and Research Format ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1
Motivation for the Study ...... 1
Problem Statement ...... 2
Knowledge and Knowing ...... 4
Researcher’s View of Narcissism ...... 5
Pivotal Constructs ...... 6
Chapter Outline ...... 7
Chapter 2: The Case Study Approach and Methodology...... 11
Introduction ...... 11
Case Study ...... 11
Narrative and Related Concepts ...... 12
Biographical Research ...... 13
Qualitative Research Paradigm and the Case Study Research Design ...... 19
Aim and Objectives of the Research ...... 22
Research Methodology ...... 22
Qualitative...... 22
Case study...... 23 vii
Validity and reliability...... 27
Construct validity...... 27
Internal validity...... 28
External validity...... 29
Reliability...... 30
Objectivity...... 30
Data reduction...... 35
Data display...... 36
Conclusion drawing and verification...... 36
Ethical Considerations ...... 37
Conclusion ...... 39
Chapter 3: Synopsis of the Life of Howard Hughes ...... 41
Introduction ...... 41
Childhood and Adolescence ...... 41
Young Adulthood ...... 45
Middle Adulthood ...... 55
Old Age ...... 67
Conclusion ...... 75
Chapter 4: Personality, Normality, and Narcissism ...... 76
Introduction ...... 76
Personality, Normality, and Abnormality ...... 76
Narcissism as a Personality Pattern ...... 79 viii
DSM Personality Diagnosis...... 82
DSM-IV-TR...... 82
DSM-5...... 85
Dimensional View of Narcissism ...... 87
Principles of evolutionary survival...... 88
Mode of existence ...... 88
Mode of adaptation ...... 89
Mode of replication ...... 90
Mode of abstraction...... 92
Passive-independent or narcissistic pattern...... 96
Prevalence ...... 98
Formulations of Narcissism ...... 99
Conclusion ...... 104
Chapter 5: Otto Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory ...... 105
Introduction ...... 105
Object Relations ...... 105
Developmental Stages ...... 106
Normal Autism, Stage 1...... 107
Normal Symbiosis, Stage 2 ...... 107
Differentiation of Self from Object Relations, Stage 3 ...... 109
Integration of Self Representations and Object Representations, Stage 4 ...... 110 ix
ID...... 111
Superego...... 112
Ego...... 114
Consolidation of Superego and Ego Integration, Stage 5 ...... 114
Processes Involved in Building Psychic Structures ...... 115
Processes of Internalisation...... 118
Optimal Health ...... 120
Pathology ...... 122
Narcissism ...... 133
Higher level pathology...... 137
Lower level pathology...... 139
Interpersonal Relationships ...... 144
Critique of Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory ...... 146
Conclusion ...... 150
Chapter 6: Bridging Summary ...... 151
Introduction ...... 151
Fundamental Underpinnings ...... 151
Conclusion ...... 154
Chapter 7: Findings and Discussion – Intrapersonal Narcissistic Dynamics in the Life of
Howard Hughes ...... 155
Introduction ...... 155
Formation of Early Object Relations in Hughes’s Early Childhood ...... 155 x
Findings and Discussion ...... 160
Generalised interests...... 162
Entitlement and grandiosity...... 162
Smothering, control and the lack of independence...... 164
Poor health and illness...... 166
Interactional style...... 167
Parents...... 168
Overinvolved and hard working...... 170
Being detailed and particular...... 172
Grandiose projects and dreams...... 174
Control...... 179
Manipulation and entitlement...... 180
Rebellious and vengeful tendencies...... 183
Lack of guilt...... 187
Atypical sexual behaviour...... 188
Reconstructing reality...... 190
Shifting importance in relationships...... 191
Distrust and paranoia...... 196
Black and white thinking...... 199
Health issues, obsessive compulsive behaviours, and agoraphobia...... 201 xi
Jekyll-and-Hyde...... 203
Aggressive and reckless behaviour...... 204
Narcissism within the Patterns ...... 206
Conclusion ...... 208
Chapter 8: Findings and Discussion - Interpersonal Narcissistic Dynamics of Howard
Hughes ...... 209
Introduction ...... 209
Delineating Defense Mechanisms...... 210
Findings and Discussion ...... 211
Overview of Interpersonal Effect ...... 231
Conclusion ...... 233
Chapter 9: Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations ...... 234
Introduction ...... 234
Conclusions ...... 234
Practical Applicability ...... 237
Guideline for Use in Clinical Practice ...... 239
Limitations ...... 242
Recommendations ...... 243
Final Conclusion ...... 244
References ...... 246
Appendix A: Extracts from Research Diary ...... 262
Appendix B: Extract of Triangulated Data Sources ...... 267
Appendix C: List of Data Sources ...... 272 xii
Appendix D: American Context during Hughes’s Lifetime ...... 274
Background ...... 274
Childhood ...... 275
Young Adulthood ...... 277
Middle Adulthood ...... 279
Old Age ...... 282
Appendix E: Lower Order Defense Mechanisms ...... 284
Splitting ...... 284
Projective Identification ...... 284
Omnipotence ...... 285
Primitive Idealisation ...... 285
Omnipotent Control ...... 286
Denial...... 286
Devaluation ...... 287
List of Figures
Figure 1: Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model…………………………………… 34
Figure 2: Theoretical Contributors to Narcissism …………………………………………….... 98
Figure 3: Kernberg’s Stages of Development ………………………………………………… 105
Figure 4: Fundamental underpinnings of Current Research ……...……………………...... …. 152
Figure 5: Self Comprising Units of Object Relation Patterns ………………………………… 158
Figure 6: Primary Defense Mechanism with Secondary Defense Mechanisms that Support xiii
Splitting ………………………...…………………………………………………... 209
List of Tables
Table 1: Millon’s Taxonomy ………………………………………………………………….. 92
Table 2: Object Relations Patterns in the Life of Hughes ……………………………………. 159 1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Motivation and Research Format
Introduction
This chapter introduces the study. It does so by providing a motivation for the study, and by outlining the problem statement that underlies it. Thereafter it examines the researcher’s position to both knowledge creation and to narcissism. It then provides a definition of important constructs that underpin the study. Finally it provides an outline of the format the study takes.
Motivation for the Study
I became interested in narcissism through my own life experiences in interaction with narcissitic individuals. This led me to grow curious about how narcissistic individuals construct realities that promote their own position, even when their construction does not seem to align with the experience of others. All individuals construct their reality subjectively. However, we find validation and affirmation through shared or similar construction experiences. As I explored the narcissistic dynamic, I came to understand that narcissistic individuals construct in a manner that may not provide affirmation to others, and rather may negatively impact on others. Yet the narcissistic individual most often maintains their position and views their position as right. As I spoke to others about this dynamic I realised how prevalent this experience is; that there are many individuals who are negatively affected by narcissistic individuals and the constructions they make to validate their position. I came to understand that these constructions are rooted within the defense mechanisms used by the personality type.
Individuals on the receiving end of these constructions vary in their abilities to make sense of the incongruent view of their experiences, when compared with the view created by the narcissistic individual, and often do not know how they should process and respond to the disparate realities. Apart from the consequent cognitive dissonance that individuals experience, 2 there is also the processing of accompanying emotional reactions to be dealt with; the differing construction of reality can be experienced by others as very hurtful. This study emerged as a means to increase insight into this interpersonal process. Perhaps greater understanding of the impact of the narcissistic dynamic can help individuals to process their experiences, and to interact with their narcissitic individuals more comfortably.
It is difficult to assess narcissism empirically, due to the challenging personality dynamics associated with the protection of the good self-representations, and defenses associated with denial, distorting or projecting bad self-representations. Thus, exploring a case is a useful method within which to examine patterns in a contained and transparent manner. I surveyed a variety of notable figures in search of a case within which to investigate narcissism. This investigation led me to the life of Howard Hughes as most distinctive and appealing. Hughes is of particular interest to me for his remarkable achievements within three different sectors
(movies, aviation and the gaming industry), in the process becoming America’s first billionaire
(Sheridan, 2011), amid intense personal idiosyncrasies (Hack, 2007) and pathologies founded within the narcissistic personality configuration. It is particularly notable that from his mid- fifties Hughes was agoraphobic (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010), and the social network of connectivity that could reasonably be expected from someone in the top of their field was notably distorted. Due to the interpersonal difficulties he experienced (Whetton, Wadsworth, &
Thain, 2012), Hughes represents an ideal figure within which to explore the impact of narcissism on others.
Problem Statement
The narcissistic personality configuration has been a focus of academic interest for a long time, and although there is a lot of research done in the area of narcissism, it is still a concept that is 3 not well understood. Defense mechanisms are generally used by all individuals to manage anxiety and self-esteem (Cramer, 2000), but narcissistic individuals in particular show high levels of defensive behaviour (Valkinin, 2003). They also have extreme difficulty with depending on others, and tend to swing between idealising and devaluing them; furthermore they are unable to empathise or make fundamental commitments to others (Kernberg, 2004). Thus it is very difficult for narcissistic individuals to form healthy sustained connections with others.
Relatively little is known about the interplay between narcissistic defenses and the alienation of others, and these dynamics have never been explored within a case study format. It is hoped that this research will contribute to the understanding of narcissism as a personality configuration, particularly within the relational context. It is further hoped that exploration of narcissism through the case study approach will yield new insights into the field. In particular, the aim of the research is to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration by exploring the interplay between
Kernberg’s Object Relations Framework (ORF) (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) and the life of Howard Hughes. The researcher posed questions to herself when formulating this research aim, namely, how do narcissistic defenses work within the narcissistic personality configuration and how do narcissistic defenses promote the alienation of others? To answer these questions, and thereby the research aim, there are two specific objectives that were formulated, namely, (1) to explore intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg, and (2) to explore interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg. It is through the exploration of the intrapersonal and interpersonal narcissism dynamics that insight is generated into how narcissistic defenses work, and how they alienate others, meeting the research aim. 4
Knowledge and Knowing
There are a variety of positions held relating to knowledge and its generation. However, research into persons mostly “propose[s] to discuss something real” (Schultz, 2005, p. 17), with theories that are positivistic and which discuss personality as the essence within the person (Haslam,
Bastian, & Bissett, 2004, p. 1662). Positivistic theories formulate personality in ways that classify and understand this essence in different ways. Thus, positivistic theories see personality as enduring and stable (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005, p. 1), and see a causal link between personality and the individual’s behaviour. This link helps to explain why individuals behave the way they do. Positivist theories see personality as “long standing pattern[s] of behavior expressed across time and in many different situations” (Millon et al., 2004, p. 3).
Opposed to positivist theories, other approaches to personality may be seen as interpretivist, and see personality within a symbolic interactionist framework (Stryker, 2007). This position challenges the basic assumptions of knowledge and reality (Packer, 2011). Rather than identifying stable personality traits, they see identity as a conception of self that emerges in social interaction, with different conceptions or identities emerging in different contexts; identity emerges from the interaction rather than from within the person. Identity is more fluid than personality, and the context that individuals find themselves in is vital to the identity that emerges.
Although broadly divided here into two broad categories - positivistic or interpretavist - a variety of theories have been put forward to understand personality. These theories “exist alongside” each other, each providing a different focus or insight for our understanding (Millon, et al., 2004, p. 15). Theories may be seen as rooted in one of these philosophical positions – namely of understanding personality as an essence within or as emergent. Both positions add to 5 complexity in our thinking about personality. The tension between these two positions creates yet another lens through which personality can be understood. Thus, the current researcher assumes that there are underpinnings to personality that may be identified, and that personality is also created with interpretation of context. Consequently the research follows a pragmatic position which views knowledge as both independent, and as created or experienced, summed up by Biesta and Burbules’ (2003, p. 10) assertion that “knowledge is at the very same time a construction and based on reality”.
It follows that within this study knowledge may be pinpointed, but also seen as blurred, with objectivity as questionable. This study sees knowledge as both engaged and created, with both tensions contributing to conclusions that are accountable. By choosing this view, a particular focus is initiated, and alternative understandings are excluded. The chosen view acknowledges the researcher’s voice in the creation of a particular understanding of a personality, but also sees the subject’s personality or essence as knowable and assessable in his reflected life experiences.
This position allows for the creation of an understanding of narcissism through the interpretation of personality patterns that exist within the lived life.
Researcher’s View of Narcissism
Narcissism is the personality configuration that is the focus of the current research. The pattern of behaviour that emerges from this configuration is both complex and fascinating. The approach of this study is the exploration of this pattern in a different way, through the case of a lived life. Narcissism as a personality configuration forms in early childhood. It is the establishment of a fragile self, which emerges in response to unmet needs. Throughout their lives, narcissistic individuals strive to enhance and protect the self, and engage in activities that will prove to themselves and others that they are okay, leading to the emergence of grandiosity. 6
Individuals use defense mechanisms to validate their self, but this alienates those around them, leading to disconnection and hostility from others. This pattern continues as narcissistic individuals are driven by continued efforts to resolve their unmet needs. The result is a continual pattern of behaviour associated with grandiosity and disconnection, longing and control.
Pivotal Constructs
The study uses the case study approach. Hancock and Algozzine (2006, p. 9) described case study as “intensive analyses and descriptions of a single unit or system bounded by space and time”. Thomas (2016, p. 4) expanded by saying that it is a “different kind of enquiry” which is focused on “understanding how and why something might have happened”. Case study involves the depth exploration of a phenomenon, using a “multifaceted” view (Thomas, 2016, p. 5). Case study work arises from “the desire to understand complex social phenomena” (Yin, 2003, p. 2).
The complex social phenomenon that the current study is rooted in is personality, and in particular, the narcissistic personality configuration or narcissism.
Personality is operationalised as “preferred ways of relating to others and coping with this world” (Millon & Gossman, 2006, p. 8). Personality may be viewed through both positivist and interpretivist lenses, and with this in mind, may refer to relating which is driven by an essence within the person, or relating patterns that emerge through the individual’s interaction with their environment. The current study views both these approaches to relating as accurate.
There are different types of relating or personality patterns that may be identified. The narcissistic personality configuration, referred to as narcissism, is one such pattern. Narcissism is a “highly complex syndrome, difficult to define and measure, and linked to a number of somewhat conflicting theoretical perspectives” (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, p. 177).
Consequently it is very difficult to outline, but for the purposes of the research is operationalised 7 from the view of Kernberg (1974, 1975, 1980, 1992). For Kernberg, narcissistic individuals are characterised by a grandiose self. This self “is a compensatory structure that is superimposed on a fragmented internal world to provide a semblance of integration and stability to cover feelings of inadequacy and emptiness” (Yeomans, Diamond, Stern & Kernberg, 2012, p. 5). The outcome of this self structure is self-absorption, ambitiousness and grandiosity but also the experience of boredom and emptiness; individuals constantly look for affirmation of their greatness, while concurrently feeling little empathy for others (Kernberg, 2004a). Narcissism is associated with
“a self that cannot stand on its own, as it is not grounded in an objective reality, thus it needs constant shoring up and reinforcement” (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001. p. 179). Within this study, exploration of this narcissistic pattern occurs through the examination of an individual case, the life of Howard Hughes.
Hughes is a famous figure who had a strong impact on the world with his achievements in the fields of movies, aviation, and the gaming industry (Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter,
2010). Hughes was excessively driven to be the best in all he endeavoured to do. Concurrently he suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (Chosak, 2012), and later became substance dependent (Whetton et al., 2012). Over time he became more and more psychologically impaired, withdrawing from people to the point of agoraphobia (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010). His life forms the platform within which narcissism is explored, in particular how narcissistic defenses serve to alienate others.
Chapter Outline
Chapter 1 provides a motivation for the study, as well as the problem formulation. Thereafter it examines the researcher’s position with regard to knowledge creation, leading to the pragmatic stance taken within this research. The researcher’s conception of narcissism is briefly outlined. 8
It then introduces important constructs which underpin the study, namely case study, personality, narcissism, and introduces the case, Howard Hughes. It concludes by providing the format of the research through an overview of the chapters.
Chapter 2 describes the methodology that guides this research, and is uniquely presented upfront to provide the reader with an overview of the research approach. To unpack case study, the chapter presents an outline of the case study approach, and various underpinnings associated with narrative concepts that contribute to understanding this approach. Thereafter it provides a general explanation of the qualitative research paradigm, and the case study research design. It then provides the aim of the study. It unpacks the methodology of the current study by looking at the research design and its methodological strengths and weaknesses, the unit of analysis and sampling procedure, the data collection and data analysis, and the ethical considerations.
Chapter 3 provides a synopsis of the life of Hughes. It does so by examining his life experiences in childhood and adolescence, young adulthood, middle adulthood, and old age.
Chapter 4 introduces the construct of personality and explores accompanying ideas of normality and abnormality. It then unpacks narcissism as a personality configuration, and conceptualises it through the categorical approach of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
(DSM) and the dimensional approach of Millon’s Ecological theory. It briefly explores the prevalence of narcissism, as well as its historical formulation.
Chapter 5 examines Kernberg’s Object Relations Framework. The theory is presented by looking at object relations, developmental stages, processes involved in building psychic structures, the process of internalisation, optimal health, pathology, narcissism, and interpersonal relationships. The chapter ends by outlining critiques to the theory.
Chapter 6 provides a summation of the underpinnings of the research study and the 9 methodology followed. The chapter provides the reader with a bridge from theory exploration to the findings and discussion chapters.
Chapter 7 is the first findings and discussion chapter that explores the intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics of Hughes. It first provides an overview of the methodology. Thereafter it explores the formation of patterns of object relations in Hughes’ early childhood. It then presents the findings and discussion in the form of patterns of object relations in later childhood and adolescence, and adulthood, which it explores. The aim of the research is to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration, by exploring the interplay between Kernberg’s Object Relations
Framework (ORF) (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) and the life of Howard Hughes.
This chapter builds towards this aim, by meeting the first objective, namely, to explore intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg.
Through the exploration of the intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics insight is generated into how narcissistic defenses work.
Chapter 8 is the second findings and discussion chapter that explores the interpersonal narcissistic dynamics of Hughes. It first presents an overview of the methodology used.
Thereafter it introduces the defense mechanisms associated with Kernberg’s lower level pathologies. It then examines each defense mechanism in turn, and examples of how it featured in the life of Hughes. It examines evidence of how these defense mechanisms impacted others, and deliberates about what it would be like to be on the receiving end of these defenses. This deliberation is an exploration of how these defenses alienate others. The aim of the research is to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration, by exploring the interplay between Kernberg’s Object 10
Relations Framework (ORF) (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) and the life of Howard
Hughes. This chapter builds towards the study’s aim, by meeting the second objective, namely, to explore interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of
Kernberg. Through the exploration of the interpersonal narcissism dynamics insight is generated into how narcissistic defenses alienate others.
Chapter 9 presents the conclusions of the study. On the basis of these conclusions learnings are extracted; from these learnings a framework for use in clinical practice is formulated, that may guide practioners to assist individuals that interact with narcissistic individuals. The chapter then provides an outline of limitations of the study, and presents recommendations for the future.
11
Chapter 2: The Case Study Approach and Methodology
Introduction
The methodology that guides this research is presented upfront. This structure to the study can be considered to be ‘out of the ordinary’. However, presenting the methodology upfront is inline with how psychodynamically orientated work is often structured. Moreso, the study was structured this way in order to provide the reader with the methodological foundation of the study upfront, so that the context used to examine narcissism in the study was clear from the start. It furthermore created a good flow within the construction of this particular study. The chapter outlines, in particular, an understanding of the case study approach to research. Rather than generating specific knowledge based on a large number of cases, case studies generate knowledge through depth engagement with a single or with few case(s). To understand this process of knowledge creation, the conceptual underpinnings of the case study approach are explored. The qualitative paradigm and case study as a research design are then looked at. The chapter then examines the aims and objectives of the study, as well as the methodology used, including the research design and its methodological strengths and weaknesses, the unit of analysis and sampling procedure, data collection and analysis, and ethical considerations.
Case Study
Case study involves the thorough examination of either single or multiple cases to create
“understanding and meaning” (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006, p. 11). Psychological case studies are generally focused on the individual, although organisations, programmes and events may also be investigated (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Case studies can draw on quantitative and qualitative information, but within the social sciences they generally draw strongly from qualitative information to create a depth of understanding. Thus case studies are “not 12 exclusively qualitative”, as they can draw on a variety of data, but qualitative data may be seen as “primary” (Gillham, 2010, p. 10).
Case studies are becoming more and more popular (Gerring, 2007). They explore the
“natural context”, through “deep and varied sources of information” (Hancock & Algozzine,
2006, p. 16), thus using many sources of evidence (Yin, 2003, p. 10). Gerring (2007, p. 7) asserted that “the product of a good case study is insight”. Case studies focus on situations that contain many variables and are known for their complexity. Case studies thus allow for the generation of insight through depth exploration. Case studies are particularly useful when the exploration of context is important.
Biographical research, life stories and life history research, historiography and psychohistory, narrative and life narrative research, and psychobiography are all rooted in the qualitative, through language, and in the storying of lives. Some of these research methods are precursors to psychological case studies, while others are related to case study work. They all share similar philosophical underpinnings and for this reason they are examined here to form a greater understanding of psychological case studies, within the narrative context.
Narrative and Related Concepts
The study of lives has evolved and reappeared in a variety of forms, over time (Runyan, 2005).
It is affiliated with narrative orientated concepts and methods, and often involves the “collecting and interpreting [of] stories” (Woodside, 2010, p. 41). Narrative concepts share philosophical underpinnings which are explored here to provide a conceptual understanding of case study work within the qualitative domain. Concepts explored are biographical research, life stories and life history research, historiography and psychohistory, as well as narrative and life narrative research, and psychobiography. 13
Biographical Research
Biographical research reconstructs an individual’s life (Fouchȇ, 2005); it “uses intellectual tools of history, literature, and the arts to trace the course of individuals’ progress through their lives”
(Howe, 1997, p. 235), understanding their lives in their contexts. In so doing it highlights the importance of the individual experience (Dhunpath, 2000). Dhunpath asserted that individual experiences are “inherently political and deeply embedded in relations of power” (p. 544).
Consequently, biographers relay various layers of being to depict the life story with depth and accuracy.
Biography is emergent, which means that it is the result of an inductive process, with conclusions drawn by the biographer based on his or her observations (Heimer, 2001). Thus,
Oakley (2010, p. 431) asserted that a biography is the product of “two biographies”, that of the biographer and of the subject. The subjectivity of the biographer is intrinsic to the conclusions drawn; through the biographer’s judgement of what information to include and what to exclude, and their interpretation of that information, a story is constructed (Oakley, 2010). The biographer’s voice becomes part of the story, and consequently biographies may be critiqued for their relativism of truth (Dhunpath, 2000), promoting the idea that there is no one truth, and that truth itself is subjective.
Comprehensive biographical studies, over time, have reflected more and more of the subject’s personality (Anderson, 1981). Biography thus has “shifted in style and emphasis”
(Elms, 1994, p. 3). Biography is prominently associated with life stories, and gives rise to life histories. 14
Life Stories and Life History Research
Life stories are stories that people tell about their life experiences. Rosenthal (2004) highlighted life stories as representations of the facts. These stories are expressions which people imbue with meanings; they may be seen as a form of knowledge construction (Etherington, 2009).
Stories arrange information about the individual’s life experiences, and the “values, beliefs and experiences that guide those interpretations” (Etherington, 2009, p. 225). Life stories are not just content driven, but the social and ideological roots are important to the understanding of individuals within various layers of influence (Dhunpath, 2000). Thus, life stories can be seen as cultural products linked to the narrative storylines available at the time (Sanelowski, 1991).
Roberts (2002) defined a life history as the interpretative work of researchers, based on a life story. Life history does not just portray particular stories, but the individual’s entire life
(Cresswell, 2007). Thus, life history research requires the “researcher to understand an individual’s current attitudes and behaviors and how they may have been influenced by initial decisions made at another time in another place” (Atlas.ti., n.d., p. 1), and interprets the various layers and influences within that life. The history of the person is seen as “interacting with contingent social, cultural, and historical contexts” (Runyan, 2005, p. 29), and in this way, life histories focus on how the life stories of individuals “are integrated into a broader social history”
(Hj, Baker & Abdullah, 2008, p. 4). Life histories are furthermore an authentic way in which to understand the individual experience (Dhunpath, 2000). However, life history has been criticised as unscientific, as it is not rooted within empirical method; it is said to be lacking quantification and experimental control (Runyan, 2005).
Historiography, Historical Science, and Psychohistory
Histories are “limited to phenomenon of the past” (Yin, 1981, p. 59) and focus on trends in 15 groups rather than on understanding individuals (Runyan, 2003). Historians concentrate on
“illuminating the social, political, and cultural context, either as an isolated moment in the life of a community or as a sequence of historical progression from a specific past to the present”
(Noland, 1977, p. 570). Historiography refers to “the writing of history” (Van, 2017, p. 1). It reflects on the social, political and cultural contexts used to represent a particular moment in time. Historiography assists us in understanding “how the past is represented” (Taylor, 2015, p.
1) through the analysis of the historians’ writing. It thus traces the “evolution of historians’ ideas”, looking at the way histories were written (Cleo’s Current, 2013, p. 1).
“Historical science is concerned with explaining complex sequences of historically contingent events and processes, which often cannot be predicted, exactly replicated, nor subsumed under general laws” (Runyan, 2003, p. 127). Thus, while historiography looks at how conclusions are drawn, historical science largely looks at complex interactions between variables, focusing on the goals and methods used to do so. Understanding these methods has implications for the “processes involved in advancing knowledge and understanding of individual lives” (Runyan, 2005, p. 36). Historical science can help to clarify objectives inherent to the study of lives, the goals and methods used to do so (Runyan, 2005, p. 19).
Psychohistory “gives the past more sense and perspective by looking through the powerful lens of psychological knowledge” (Duffel, 2013, p. 1). It uses theory to create an understanding and explanation of history (Kohut, 1986). It is thus “the science of historical motivations” (The
Association for Psychohistory, n.d., p. 1). The psychohistorian “must begin with the social and historical situation” and use theory to understand “the multiple and variable elements that make up that situation” (Noland, 1977, p. 571). Runyan (2003, p. 126) stated that “psychological processes are important to understanding the flow of historical events” and that this 16 understanding is processed at six different levels, which he cited as persons, groups, organisations, institutions, nations and international or intersocietal relationships. Runyan expanded by saying that these can be studied at 3 levels, namely single entities, groups or populations, forming “different types of psychohistory analysis” (p. 127).
Psychohistorians have asserted that “in order to know the psychological in history, it is at times necessary to supplement or even to supplant the traditional historical with a psychohistorical method” (Kohut, 1986, p. 337). However, some methodological errors can be made in the manner in which psychohistorical work has been conducted. This includes a tendency towards superficial studies, and studies that are conducted irresponsibly; furthermore, some studies are reductionistic, and “fail to account sufficiently for differences in time and place” (Kohut, 1986, p. 337). Psychohistory has developed “not within one unified stream, but
… within several partially independent traditions and lines of influence” including “fields such as psychoanalysis and psychiatry to history and political science, to religion and education”
(Runyan, 2003, p. 126). Another limitation is that psychohistorians are more likely to let their interpretations be affected by bias if not trained in psychological processes (APA, 1976).
However, the psychohistorian’s view is comprehensive, and can judge human behaviour on its impacts (APA, 1976).
Narrative and Life Narrative Research
Dhunpath, (2000) asserted that our lives are intrinsically narrative, and experiences are represented narratively. These narratives are stories, and may be of the past or present, but they emerge within a context (Dhunpath, 2000), and are subjective and relativistic (Spector-Mersel,
2010, p. 208). Our narratives shape our reality, and construct rather than mirror our experiences
(Spector-Mersel, 2010); in this way our lives are narrated into order and meaning (Sanelowski, 17
1991), as narration is repeated and re-experienced and re-reflected on in the telling (Clandinin, &
Connelly, 1989). Our narrative position presents an understanding of how we experience the world (Dhunpath, 2000).
Narrative studies have a specific contextual focus (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002); they have cultural and social patterns (Patton, 2002) which emerge within physical, social, cultural and interpersonal environments.
Life narrative research gathers information broadly about a life, and focuses on analysing information or narratives gathered (Overcash, 2003); it reorganises stories into a framework
(Cresswell, 2007). It focuses on the description and restorying of narrative structures (Clandinin,
& Connelly, 1989). People’s stories “can stand on their own as pure description of experience, worthy as narrative documentary of experience” or narratives can “be analyzed for connections between the psychological, sociological, cultural, political, and dramatic dimensions of human experience” (Patton, 2002, p. 116). With both forms of analysis, narrative tries to understand the context of the life (Cresswell, 2007), and explores the difference between the individual’s story and their experience, focusing on how the stories are told and how meaning is made from them
(Sanelowski, 1991).
Narrative research has a particular way of seeing reality (Spector-Mersel, 2010). Narratives are seen as a manifestation of the narrator (Spector-Mersel, 2010), and to some degree are open ended, in that they are an output of the narrator’s subjective experience. Narrative research is a challenging approach as it is necessary to “collect extensive information about participant[s]”
(Cresswell, 2007, p. 57) in order for patterns to emerge across various narrator’s stories. From the emergence of patterns, data is seen as reliable. However, engagement with someone else’s narrative causes it to merge with your reality (Overcash, 2003). Thus engagement with a 18 narrative causes the researcher, [biographer or historian] to become part of that narrative
(Spector-Mersel, 2010). Accuracy of data is thus a common critique. Narrators need to be aware of how they contribute to constructing research and acknowledge this contribution
(Polkinghorne, 2003). As objectivity of data is a critique often levelled at narrative work, inherent to narrative methodologies is the belief that truth itself is subjective (Oakley, 2010), and objectivity is questionable.
Various methods are used to enhance data acceptance. This includes the triangulation of data, as well as consideration of the plausibility of results; data acceptance is weighed by its ability to provide insight and understanding (Polkinghorne, 2003).
Psychobiography
Psychobiography is the study of a single life across the entire lifespan. Kőváry (2011, p. 752) asserted that “psychobiography may be seen a part of psychohistory”, while Fouchȇ and Van
Niekerk (2010) defined it as a form of life history research. Psychobiography brings together important elements within a life into a “unified structure which links inner experience and outer reality” (Noland, 1977, p. 570). To achieve this, psychobiography uses psychological theory to illuminate the life story. Psychobiography thus may be seen as a merging between biography and psychology (Fouchȇ & van Niekerk, 2010) to generate more insight into the individual.
Psychobiographies look at “how people are unique, or how they function and come to be irrespective of any reference group”, finding worth in this knowledge (Schultz, 2005, p. 4).
Psychological case studies can have particular overlaps with psychobiography. Both involve
“intensive analysis” (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006, p. 9). They differ in that psychobiography examines an individual case across the life course, while case study may examine more than one case, and can focus on elements of the case rather than on the whole lifespan. 19
Storying, based in language, is the narrative seat shared by these various methodologies.
Language forms the knowledge base from which indepth understanding about a case is generated. Within the research context, this falls within the qualitative paradigm, as opposed to more specific or superficial knowledge about a large number of cases (Gerring, 2007), which falls within the quantitative paradigm.
Qualitative Research Paradigm and the Case Study Research Design
Qualitative Research Paradigm
Qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are associated with different systems of answering a research question. Quantitative designs are associated with the numerical quantification of a research problem, while qualitative designs use words, as opposed to numbers to do so (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Verbal trends or patterns are used to describe the lived experience (Polkinghorne, 2005), with the research process being inherently exploratory, focused on discovery rather than verification (Bryman, 1984). Through this process of discovery the qualitative researcher is focused on understanding phenomena in its context (Golafshani, 2003).
Qualitative research is thus beneficial when little is known about an area (Hancock & Algozzine,
2006).
There are a variety of classification systems used to describe qualitative research designs, but one of the most succinct is posed by Cresswell (2007) and includes narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnography and case study research. These qualitative designs are all associated with the depth exploration and narration of research problems. Mays and Pope (2000, p. 51) asserted that the focus of qualitative research should be on portraying a particular reality rather than ascertaining “the truth”. Towards understanding qualitative designs generally, Cresswell (1997, p. 37) identified the following characteristics as common to all 20 qualitative research: Data is collected in its natural setting, the researcher is the key instrument as the gatherer of data; researchers generally use multiple sources of data, and data is analysed inductively, meaning that data is sorted into categories, which are increasingly abstract. The participants’ meanings are the focus of the research process. The design used is emergent in that the process may shift in format in response to what is found. A theoretical lens is used to view the study. The research may be seen as an inquiry that is grounded in interpretation, which is focused on generating a detailed holistic account of the problem being investigated.
Case Study Research Design
Case study, when used as a qualitative research design or strategy, is an intensive, in-depth method of enquiry (Yin, 1994). Yin (2008, p. 51) expanded that:
As a research strategy, the distinguishing characteristic of the case study is that it
attempts to examine: (a) a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context, especially
when (b) the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident
The focus on the natural setting makes case studies “particularly appropriate to study human phenomena” (Gillham, 2010, p. 3). Case studies are largely concerned with description, understanding, predicting and controlling, with understanding being the “principle objective”
(Woodside, 2010, p. 16). This understanding is created through the exploration of the individual’s context; various sources of data are triangulated to gather information for this purpose. Furthermore, theoretical predispositions are made before the investigation to guide the data collection and analysis (Yin, 2003). Theory is particularly important as it assists the researcher in exploring complexity, including what people say as opposed to what they do
(Gillham, 2010). In this way, the case study as research method is used to explore questions about contemporary events that the researcher does not have control over (Yin, 2003). This is 21 done by abstracting and collating to get the answer (Gillham, 2010). Narratives emerge or are built around the questions, and are ultimately “organized around substantive topics of the case study” (Yin, 1981, p. 60). Qualitative data is thus “assembled into traditional narratives” (Yin,
1981, p. 59).
Different theorists identify different types of case studies. Hancock and Algozzine (2006) identify intrinsic, instrumental and collective case studies. Intrinsic cases are used when researchers want “to know more about a particular individual, group, event, or organization”, and more information about that entity is elicited (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006, p. 32). An instrumental case is used to “better understand a theoretical question or problem” when investigating a particular area, while a collective case study “address[es] an issue in question while adding to the literature base that helps conceptualize a theory” (Hancock & Algozzine,
2006, p. 32). Findings from various instrumental cases usually combine to form the collective case (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006).
Yin (1981) asserted that case studies may also be defined as exploratory, descriptive or explanatory. Exploratory case studies are focused on exploring a phenomenon (Zainal, 2007).
Descriptive studies describe the phenomenon by asking what happened, and are thus in response to a descriptive question (Yin, 2004). Explanatory studies explain the phenomenon in the data by asking how or why something happened (Yin, 2004). Yin (2004, p. 3) further asserted that
“The case study method is best applied when research addresses descriptive or explanatory questions and aims to produce a first-hand understanding of people and events”.
Whichever case study is conducted, it is chosen to understand “complex social phenomena[on]” (Yin, 2003, p. 2), and the type chosen links to the identified research question.
Thus, once the topic of a case study is identified, this informs how information should be 22 approached. The topic chosen for the current case study is evident in the aim and objectives.
Aim and Objectives of the Research
The aim of the research is to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration by exploring the interplay between Kernberg’s Object Relations Framework (ORF) (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992;
2001) and the life of Howard Hughes. To reach this aim, there are two objectives that were formulated, namely
to explore intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory
of Kernberg
to explore interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory
of Kernberg
It is through the exploration of the intrapersonal and interpersonal narcissistic dynamics that insight is generated into how narcissistic defenses work, and how they alienate others, thus meeting the research aim.
Research Methodology
Research Design
The research employs a qualitative single-case research design. These concepts have been described earlier in this chapter, but they will now be explored in relation to the current research along with their methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Qualitative.
The researcher posed questions to herself when formulating the research aim, namely, how do narcissistic defenses work within the narcissistic personality configuration and how do narcissistic defenses promote the alienation of others? These questions required detailed, 23 indepth answers. To generate indepth answers, data used was verbal and included material such as biographies, interview transcripts, verbal reports, video recordings, documentaries, movies and photos. The study focused on creating a greater understanding of narcissism, through the exploration of the life of Hughes, who is now long deceased; minimal interview and observational data was available. The primary data source used for analysis was written documents. These materials were used to “collect, analyze and draw conclusions from [it]”
(Packer, 2011, p. 1).
There are a variety of strengths and limitations associated with qualitative research designs that should be considered. A strength of qualitative research is its focus on events that transpire in natural contexts, and the close observation of phenomena within these contexts (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Qualitative research can furthermore “illuminate issues and turn up possible explanations” (Gillham, 2010, p. 10). A common critique is that qualitative studies do not involve “direct manipulation, objective measurement and statistical testing of hypothesis”
(Packer, 2011, p. 1), as found in quantitative methods. Because of the subjective involvement in knowledge creation, the qualitative researcher is open to researcher bias, with this bias linked to questionable reproducing of the research findings (Mays & Pope, 1995). Studies are seen as lacking scientific rigor. The quality of the research produced is directly related to the skills of the qualitative researcher, and the rigor with which they approach the research process (Patton,
2002). Furthermore, as samples used are generally small, and in this instance is one case, generalisability of findings is not possible. These strengths and critiques are shared by the case study research design.
Case study.
The current research used the case study research design, as the analysis focused on a single 24 case. Initially the case study was conceptualised as a psychobiography. However, it became evident that the single-case study design was better suited to the study, as it allowed more flexibility in terms of what to focus on. Thus it allowed for the focus on elements within the life of Hughes directly associated with narcissism, rather than looking at Hughes’ entire lifespan of experiences with equal curiosity. The type of case study used here is both instrumental and exploratory. Instrumental cases are focused on the exploration of a case to gain insight into a specific issue (Grandy, 2010), while exploratory cases consist of the presentation of the facts of the case, consideration of alternatives to explain these facts, and the conclusions drawn that are most compatible in explaining them (Yin 1981). This case study focused on the exploration of a particular issue, narcissism, and required the “building” of explanations to do so (Yin 1981, p.
60).
Various inherent strengths to case study work are notable. Yin (1981) stated that the ability to use different kinds of evidence is an advantage, including both verbal and numerical data.
This data is used to explain the complexities of real life situations (Zainal, 2007); thus case study work is useful in making sense of very many variables, in contemporary situations. A case study can be used even when the context and variables change over time (Yin, 1999). For this reason the case study design is uniquely applicable for gaining insight and/or assessing large systems
(Yin, 1999). Case studies are used across a variety of disciplines, and are a good methodology to use as exploratory method (although not limited to only that) (Yin, 2003).
There is also a number of limitations to case study research. In the past they have been considered inadequate for drawing scientific inferences as they are seen as lacking in generalisability; this is because there are so many variables specific to a particular case, which are then not present within another environment (Gillham, 2000). However, the goal of case 25 study research is generally seen as analytic generalisation, where findings are generalised to theory rather than to populations (Yin, 2003). This is because generalisations within the realm of case study are analytical not statistical (Johansson, 2003). Yin (1999) clarified that generalisation can be made from cases, when replication is based on theory, and not on the principles of sampling. Ruddin (2008, p. 798) similarly argued that “it is not true to say a case study cannot provide trustworthy information about the broader class”. The broader class in mind here is narcissism, and replication then accordingly based on Kernberg’s Object Relations theory. Thus, within this study, findings are generated from the theoretical explanation of the case. Clear parameters within which to understand the findings are provided; this is done through a detailed application of Kernberg’s theory to Hughes’ life, in order to create an understanding of the theoretical circumstances under which some level of generalisation could possibly be explored. This application results in the extraction of learnings for clinical practice.
Accordingly, the lack of broad generalisability is not an issue in the current study. In addition, the current study is seen as an exploratory work, with an initial exploration in mind.
Case studies are often used as an exploratory method (although not limited only to this), to produce new insights that could generate unique propositions to be tested in larger groups, thus using the single case to propel enquiry (Schultz, 2005).
The application of contemporary psychology to another era is also considered potentially problematic. However, it is important to note the main conceptual theory used in this research, that of Kernberg (1974, 1975, 1980, 1992), emerged toward the end of Hughes’ life, thus is not entirely from another era. The researcher was furthermore cognisant of the impact of cross cultural differences (Anderson, 1981); the research is an individual from a different culture living in a different sociological space and time. In order to ensure that cross cultural differences did 26 not impact the research, the researcher investigated the era in which Hughes lived, and the sociocultural forces that shaped him. She guarded against the difference of culture and era by trying to take cognisance of the influence of Hughes’ context, and by acknowledging that context as much as possible.
Another critique to case study research is that there is an enormous amount of information to work though, and a researcher has to constantly make decisions about what information or data is relevant and what isn’t (Yin, 1981). Zainal (2007) asserted that large amounts of data are problematic when data is not organised and/or managed well, while Yin (1981) explained that data is often organised into categories that are either too narrow or too many. For this reason great care was taken to be systematic with data, as advised by Yin (1981, p. 61), to focus on
“meaningful events” to identify relevant information.
When done properly, case studies are difficult to do; most often, there is little or no screening of the researcher’s ability to conduct them (Zainal, 2007). Although the researcher had not conducted a case study up to this point, she had conducted many other research projects, of which a number were in the related field of psychobiography. She had thus developed the skills necessary to conduct this case study. Yin (1981) cautioned that case studies take a long time
(Yin, 1981). The researcher was aware of time pressure to complete the study, and tried to manage time as best as possible.
Finally, the biggest critique against case study work is that of research bias and a lack of rigor. Research bias may affect how the findings emerge, as a researcher may look only for evidence that supports their research hypothesis (Yin, 1999). Research bias also occurs when a researcher does not distinguish between evidence and interpretation (Yin, 1999), creating the appearance of bias. It is thus important for researchers to elucidate interpretation hypotheses 27 from evidence, and to unpack their conclusions clearly. Using rival explanations will aid the quality of findings and reduce bias. The researcher carefully considered the effect of defense mechanisms within the life of Hughes, with great consideration of alternative explanations, as well as the impact of personal bias in interpretation. She tracked her own bias by keeping a research diary. Extracts from this diary are included as Appendix A.
Case study has been described as lacking rigor in terms of validity and reliability (Gibbert,
Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008). This was bridged through a clear conceptual framework which helps to increase reliability and validity of the approach (Bryar, 2000). The conceptual framework used in the current study was Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory. Questions around rigor were further addressed through systematic procedure, in the form of a defined aim, and through precise noting of sources and careful and accountable interpretation of data.
Although difficulties around bias and rigor could be encountered in other research approaches, they may be seen in case studies as “more frequently encountered, and less frequently overcome” (Yin, 2003, p. 11). These critiques in particular challenge the quality of the research design, and may be overcome by the focus on validity and reliability
Validity and reliability. To enhance the quality of the research design, it is particularly important to examine construct validity, internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity.
Construct validity. Construct validity refers to the degree to which a theoretical construct is correctly measured (Delport, 2005). This is particularly important as the main construct in question, narcissism, is defined differently by different theorists. The aim of the research was to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration, according to the theory put forward by Otto Kernburg (1974; 1975; 28
1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001). Care was taken to describe Kernberg’s constructs clearly according to their specifications and to stay true to their theoretical conceptualisations throughout the study.
Internal validity. Internal validity refers to the degree to which findings, and the methods that are used to generate findings, can be trusted. Lincoln and Guba (1985) referred to internal validity as credibility; it is aimed at demonstrating that the researcher has represented constructions of reality accurately or credibly. Lincoln and Guba suggested that credibility is achieved through prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation.
Consequently, the researcher spent much time reading about Hughes and the context within which he lived before actively trying to understand him theoretically. Lincoln and Guba suggested that prolonged engagement helps the researcher to rise above their preconceptions, and opens them up to multiple influences. Furthermore, persistent observation was understood here as persistent observation of data, which allowed the researcher to rule out information that was irrelevant, and to enhance depth (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Thus, both these benefits were achieved through a thorough understanding of Hughes’ life through the complexity of overlapping and differing views of various biographers, before and during active analysis.
Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 305) suggested that triangulation further improves the
“probability that findings and interpretations will be credible”. Triangulation can mean different things, but is referred to here as the triangulation of data. Thus, data collected was corroborated in various sources, and the overlap and difference in data noted. This enhanced the credibility of findings.
Finally, Yin (1981) suggested that credibility is increased through a reliable chain of evidence. Thus, a detailed account of the procedures used to generate findings was reported 29
(Delport & Fouche, 2005). Internal validity was further increased with reflexive analysis, meaning that the impact of the researcher and the research process on the data, including “prior assumptions and experience” as well as “personal and intellectual biases” (Mays & Pope, 2000, p. 51) was acknowledged. The researcher maintained a diary that tracked these impacts by outlying what her assumptions and biases were, her thoughts around how they impacted the research and her understanding of the subject, as well as her change in position towards the subject over time. This was particularly important in the results and discussion chapter when interpretations of the impact of defense mechanisms on others were made. The process of keeping a research diary enhanced the credibility of data included in the study by ensuring that the researcher’s personal issues were bracketed away from data as much as possible. Extracts from the diary are included as Appendix A. The researcher also processed her views and reactions with her promoter and close academic colleagues, and this further assisted in the bracketing process.
External validity. External validity refers to the generalisability of findings to other populations. Lincoln and Guba (1985) referred to external validity as transferability. Because this case study is focused on the understanding of one case, an inherent weakness in the methodology is that findings are not transferable to other settings. Lincoln and Guba suggested that the researcher provide “thick” descriptions so that the characteristics of different contexts can be compared with the context from which data is collected, and their similarities, and thus the potential for transferability, judged (p. 316). This was particularly important in the current study. Although the study does not aim to generalise findings broadly, it does aim towards analytic generalisation, and the extraction of learning for concept refinement and clinical application. De Vos (2005) asserted that it helps to outline the theoretical parameters of the 30 research as this can also be used to assess how much findings are applicable to others contexts, and can assist the reader to see the links between research and theory (De Vos, 2005). The researcher strove to outline the theoretical parameters to enhance applicability and linkages to others contexts.
Reliability. Reliability refers to the replicability of findings. Lincoln and Guba (1985) referred to reliability as dependability. Within qualitative research this is problematic as the paradigm is generally interpretive, indicating that replication is not necessarily possible (De Vos,
2005), given that reality is not seen as objective. Reliability must thus include factors of both instability and change, in order to show dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In striving for replicability the researcher clearly recorded the process undertaken within the research. This included data triangulation to encourage comprehensiveness of data (Mays & Pope, 2000), and to allow for multiple perspectives and inconsistencies on the same event to become evident, and thus acknowledge an instability or diversity within the data pattern. The researcher included an extract of the database of triangulated data sources constructed on Hughes’ life, to enhance transparency for the reader to see where interpretations are based in data (Mays & Pope, 2000)
(see Appendix B).
Objectivity. Objectivity is linked to confirmability. Lincoln and Guba (1985) referred to confirmability as neutrality. They recommend that neutrality is attained through “intersubjective agreement” (p. 300), seen through patterns within the data creating agreement, or confirmability.
However, Gillham (2010, p. 7) asserted that “A research investigation is not neutral; and there will be effects (on individuals, or institutions) precisely because there is someone asking questions, clarifying procedures, [and] collecting data”. Although subjectivity is acknowledged, it is important to explore data in an accountable manner. The researcher strove towards the 31 creation of reliable processes, and confirmability of patterns as much as possible. This was done through the triangulation of data and the keeping of a reflexive research diary as suggested by
Guba (1981). These methods have been covered in this section already and were all used to enhance confirmability in the data.
Unit of Analysis and Sampling Procedure
The main focus of the research was to explore narcissism, and in particular to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality organisation. The design used was a single-case, thus selection of an individual for this purpose was exceptionally important as interpretations were made based purely on this one case. The sample used informs the quality of inferences made (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007).
The sampling method used for this individual selection may be described as a non- probability purposive method. Non-probability sampling is almost always used in qualitative research (Strydom & Delport, 2005), as the sample chosen is not representative of the broader population (Barbour, 2001), and is not random. Purposive sampling means that the researcher is in control of the selection process (Barbour, 2001), and units are selected based on the parameters of the population being explored (Strydom & Delport, 2005); purposive sampling addresses the concern of selection bias which is inherent to group samples, by enhancing the sample coverage and providing a framework for analysis (Barbour, 2001). Purposive sampling is thus also called judgment sampling because of the deliberate choice of an informant due to the qualities the informant possesses (Tongco, 2007). The researcher was interested in understanding narcissism, and wanted to make a deliberate choice of informant by exploring a variety of prominent personalities that exemplified the narcissistic personality configuration to identify the unit of analysis for the study. Personalities considered included Charlie Chapman, 32
Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando and Pablo Picasso. Hughes’ was chosen as he presented with narcissistic tendencies including difficult relationships with others; his difficulties with interpersonal relationships were particularly suitable to the exploration of narcissism in an interpersonal context. Kőváry (2011, p. 758) described the choice of subject as “not a rational decision most of the time”. Hughes’ furthermore appealed to the researcher through his unique idiosyncrasies and pathologies, epitomising the irrational element that Kőváry referred to.
Data Collection and Data Analysis
The unit of analysis within this case study is the experiences of Hughes, and data collected is information that reflects these experiences (Polkinghorne, 2005). The “validity and trustworthiness” of research depends on the selection of viable sources that “promote a deepening of the understanding of the experience inquired about” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 141).
The basic units of analysis are published materials on Hughes’ life. Unfortunately, there are minimal primary autobiographical data sources available. There are some memos written by
Hughes addressed to his aides, as well as some video footage of Hughes leaving for his around the world trip, and of him defending himself during the senate hearing. However, this data is minimal. Thus the life of Hughes was primarily explored through the analysis of available secondary sources, which include biographies written about his life, and biographies written by women he dated that mention him. The list of sources used in this study can be seen in
Appendix C.
Polkinghorne (2005) asserted that people only have partial access to their experiences, and that “reflection on an experience serves to change the experience” (p. 139). This creates questions around the trustworthiness of data to accurately describe experiences, when experiences themselves are not static. As data sources used here were mostly secondary, or 33 biographical, further distance was inherent in the process of depicting Hughes’ experiences. This is because secondary sources can be “distorted by the prejudices of the author” (Kőváry, 2011, p.
762). Quality in sources can be assessed by asking whether the data expresses the nuances of the person’s experience.
To assure quality, Kőváry, (2011, p. 762) further recommended that it is best to “read them
[data sources] in parallel and critically”. In this way data triangulation can be used to protect against the effect of author bias, and increase the trustworthiness of the data used. Data sources were not read in parallel, as they were lengthy and the narrative of each was structured differently, thus difficult to read in this way. However, during critical analysis data were triangulated and compared in the manner Kőváry implies. Yin’s (1994) guidelines for data collection more feasibly directed the data collection process. Yin’s (1994) guidelines include using multiple sources of evidence, creating a case study database, and keeping and maintaining a reliable chain of evidence. A variety of sources were used, the list of which is included in
Appendix C. A database was created, populated by data from the sources, and used to compare and contrast the data. An extract of the database created is included as Appendix B. The database helped to maintain the chain of evidence, as did the careful noting of the research process.
The data triangulation formed an important part of data collection and analysis process.
Data triangulation can be challenged by the presentation of different forms of data that make direct comparison difficult (Barbour, 2001). However, most data used here were biographical.
Thus the form of data were more consistent and amenable to comparison. Once data were captured into the database, triangulation was a useful way to verify a particular account or narrative description. Polkinghorne (2005) asserted that absence of verification does not provide 34 grounds for “refutation” (p. 116). Rather, it allows the researcher to “move beyond a single view of the experience” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 140), and adds to the complexity of the data. This complexity can bring “clarity to understanding an experience” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 140). In this way, corroboration and differences in data sets were used to harness the advantages of data corroboration and complexity. Thus the creation of complexity was the principle on which engagement with data rested.
The researcher’s positioning towards the data is seen as pragmatic. This is based on the researcher’s view that there is both a positivistic essence of personality within all individuals, as well as a construction process that occurs when personality is described – by both the individuals themselves, and by others who describe that individual – which creates some distance from the personality essence. As Hughes’s self descriptions cannot be accessed, the closest the researcher could come to that essence was through the sources used, which have already been interpreted by another author. Due to this distance, triangulation played a vital role in confirming the emerging pattern.
Data collection and analysis was seen as an interactive process, and is dealt with here together to illustrate this. The data analysis approach put forward by Miles and Huberman
(1994) was used, and consists of three steps, namely data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. These steps can be seen in figure 1 below.
35
data collection
data display
data reduction conclusions: drawing/verifying
Figure 1: Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model. This figure illustrates how the elements of data collection, data display, and data reduction interact to form of recursive process of data collection and analysis.
Reprinted from Qualitative Data Analysis (p. 12) by M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, 1994, Thousand Oakes,
California, USA: Sage Publishers. Copyright (1994) by Sage Publishers.
These steps are briefly explored below:
Data reduction.
Data reduction refers to “the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting and transforming that data” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10). The procedure occurs throughout the research process, affected by choices of theoretical framework, data questions, and data collection procedures chosen in the research, as well as the method of analysis that sorts the data.
This method removes unnecessary information, and assembles the data in a manner that allows conclusions to be drawn. What the researcher chooses to focus on are “analytic choices” (Miles
& Huberman, 1994, p. 11). In this regard, the researcher was guided by salient life events and the presence of corroborating and contradictory data across sources. Thus, salient events were events that emerged across data sources; these events, as well as corroborating and contradictory conceptualisations of these events were captured into the database. From there the researcher 36 was able to reduce data to a manageable format.
Data display.
This stage refers to the presentation of data in a manner that makes information accessible, in a manageable and appealing format. Displays may include text, matrices, graphs, charts and networks as they all bring together information in a compact accessible form (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 11). Deciding what data to display and how to do so are analytic activities.
Displayed data allows the analyst to “see what is happening and draw conclusions” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 11) from viewing the display. The researcher continuously worked with data to highlight corroborating and contradictory data, and displayed this in tabular and figure form, where appropriate, to make it easily accessible.
Conclusion drawing and verification.
During this stage, the researcher notices “regularities, patterns, explanations, possible configurations, causal flows, and propositions” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11). These conclusions are not definite at first, but over time patterns emerge. During this study, the patterns arose through the emergence of themes across Hughes’s life experiences, and understanding the themes through the lens of Kernberg’s Object Relations Framework (1974;
1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) as well as through other explanations of narcissism covered in Chapter 4. Sometimes patterns were present from the beginning of analysis and other patterns emerged during the course of working with the data. Thus patterns were then verified as they became clearer. Verification means that meanings are tested for “plausibility, their sturdiness, their “confirmability”” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11). This testing and verification occurred through the interaction of theory and data to confirm a plausible understanding of the pattern. 37
The three stages of Miles and Huberman (1994) are interlinked and recur in the process called data analysis. The researcher moved continuously between these stages. This movement leads to the analysis being seen as a “continuous, iterative enterprise” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11). The researcher was also highly cognizant of the impact of her own subjectivity on this interactive process.
As the data collection and analysis was rooted in the identification and construction of data to conceptualise Hughes, it was important for the researcher to acknowledge how her own experiences impacted what data she focused on, and impacted the construction process. Part of this acknowledgement was the careful examination of how her own experience of narcissism was similar and different from the narcissism that emerged in the case of Hughes. The researcher also tried to acknowledge her countertransference, particularly when left with particularly strong positive or negative emotions toward the data, or when she felt a change in position toward the data. She tried to acknowledge these reactions, and step back from them by means of the theoretical lens used to explore the data, and affirming how the data could be understood academically rather than emotively. To further support the acknowledgement process the researcher maintained a research diary (extracts of which can be seen in Appendix A), and processed her views and reactions with her promoter and close academic colleagues.
The entire process of data analysis was well documented. This was to enhance validity, and to enhance clarity, and to support the ability to reflect on and refine on the methods used (Miles
& Huberman, 1994).
Ethical Considerations
Increased social complexity has led to new ethical questions and issues (Lincoln & Guba, 1989).
Grappling with and understanding these issues are important to the conducting of quality 38 research (Hatch & Wisniewski, 1995). The ethics involved in research are often weightier when subjects are alive (APA, 1976), however, there are ethical considerations for research conducted with subjects that are not alive that should be considered. The ethical guidelines set out by the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) (Elms, 1994) provide suggestions that have some application here. Living subjects should give their informed consent. This is to avoid embarrassment and discomfort to persons, should the results place them in a negative light.
Furthermore, if deceased, informed consent should be gained from living relatives. The subject of this study, Hughes, died in 1976. He had few close relatives, and at this time, was distanced from them. The APA suggests that there is “no question of ethics” when “there is no problem of invading the privacy of surviving relatives” (APA, 1976, p. 14), while the APA (2010) suggests that informed consent can be dispensed when there is no risk of doing harm. Given that Hughes did not interact with his family for most part of his adult life, it was deemed that the privacy of relatives would not be impacted by the study. The APA (2010) furthermore promotes the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Given that the risk for harm is minimal, on a balance of probabilities, informed consent here was seen as unnecessary.
To protect Hughes’ privacy, only information in the public domain was accessed for this study. The Belmont report (1979) suggested that sensitive information shouldn’t be gathered unless it is particularly necessary for the research. Given the plethora of information available on the life of Hughes, more information and/or more sensitive information was not deemed necessary to meet the aims of the study, and no effort was made to find information not freely available.
The APA (1976) furthermore cautioned that the ethical weight is higher when the author is a psychiatrist or physician [which is interpreted here as a professional with psychological training] 39 due to their specialised knowledge. This professional can thus “discern things about his subject’s mind and behavior that are not discernible to the subject himself or to those observers lacking special training and knowledge” (APA, 1976, p. 9). Much of society sees authors with psychological training as “having special powers” and thus their work is taken seriously (APA,
1976, p. 9). As the author of this research is a psychologist, she was very conscious of the weight of interpretations and conclusions drawn about Hughes. These conclusions were drawn with due consideration of data, with much effort made to consider a comprehensive view of data, and a consciousness of various factors effecting Hughes’ behaviour.
The researcher used predominantly secondary sources that are available within the public domain to draw these conclusions, due to the lack of availability of primary sources. This lack may be seen as a limitation to the study. Sources within the public domain are predominantly biographical, and their objectivity questionable. However, all sources were acknowledged and referenced according to guidelines set out by the APA, and were treated with respect and dignity.
Furthermore, much effort was taken to triangulate data from all sources used, with overlapping and disparate content highlighted, in order to increase the credibility of data used. The research proposal was submitted and approved by the Human Ethics Committee of the Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University (NMMU) (now Nelson Mandela University) before commencement of the study.
Conclusion
This chapter has explored case study and its conceptual underpinnings. Next it explored the qualitative paradigm and case study as a research design. It examined the aim and objectives of the study and the methodology used, including the research design, unit of analysis and sampling procedure, data collection and data analysis, and ethical considerations noted within the study. 40
The following chapter will now provide a brief synopsis of the life of Howard Hughes, as this is the platform within which the exploration of narcissism will take place. This synopsis was compiled through an exploration of the narratives describing Hughes’ life.
41
Chapter 3: Synopsis of the Life of Howard Hughes
Introduction
This study uses a qualitative single case study as its research design. The life of Hughes is the identified case, within which narcissism is examined. This chapter provides a synopsis of
Hughes’s life, outlining the context within which narcissistic patterns will be explored. The broader macrocontext in which this life played out, namely the context of America, is attached as
Appendix D, to provide further background. Narratives on the life of Hughes were gathered from predominantly secondary data sources within the public domain. There is a plethora of information on the life of Hughes, given that he was a famous figure. A limitation is that there are limited primary sources available, and secondary sources are primarily biographical, and their objectivity questionable. However, data was triangulated where possible, with overlaps and disparities in data sources highlighted, in order to increase data credibility. This triangulation, in the form of an extract of the database created, is attached as Appendix B. The chapter will explore Hughes’s life by presenting narratives on his life experiences in childhood and adolescence, young adulthood, middle adulthood, and old age.
Childhood and Adolescence
Hughes was born in 1905 in Houston, Texas, to a father involved in the oil industry, and an heiress mother. Bo Hughes, Hughes’s father, had business interests spread across America, and he was seldom home (Hack, 2007). Allene Hughes was known to be highly strung; she was a hypochondriac (Higham, 2004; Schumacher, 2008), with an intense fear of germs (Higham,
2004), which led to an obsession with health. Consequently Allene Hughes was overly attentive towards Hughes’s well-being, and Hughes’s childhood was marked by his mother’s phobic disease prevention behaviours directed at both him and herself. In particular, she watched him 42 for changes in his physical health (Barlett & Steele, 2004), and did physical checks daily (Porter,
2010), installing in Hughes a fear of germs. Hughes was known to be late for school due to
Allene Hughes’s pre-school checking routine (Charles River Editors, 2014; Hack, 2007). This focus on health was an undercurrent present throughout Hughes’s childhood.
Allene Hughes focused much of her energy on Hughes, fussing over him, and Barlett and
Steele (2004, p. 38) indicated that she “smothered him with care”. She overprotected Hughes.
Porter (2010, p. 10) asserted that Allene Hughes’s friends were known to remark about the unnaturally close relationship she had with her son, and that the relationship could be understood as “emotionally incestuous” throughout Hughes’s childhood. As a child, Hughes seldom spent time outside of the watch of his mother (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Hack, 2007). Porter (2010) asserted that she would pick him up from school and not let him out of her sight until she dropped him off the next day.
Allene Hughes insisted on dressing Hughes differently to other children during his early life
(like “Little Lord Fauntleroy”) (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010, p. 10), to ensure that he stood out.
Hughes had a delicate constitution (Porter, 2010). He was described as “quiet and shy, a boy who did not make friends easily”, and who was often alone (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 35). He was furthermore often teased and ridiculed by his peers (Porter, 2010). Hughes also experienced hearing difficulties due to a genetically abnormality that caused gradual deterioration of his hearing throughout his life (Higham, 2004). The family frequently moved during his younger years, which led to many changes in schools for Hughes, and many adjustments both socially and scholastically. Hughes was sent to private schools throughout his schooling career (Barlett
& Steele, 2004). He was a generally indulged child (Charles River Editors, 2014), and was given anything that he desired. At the age of eight Hughes gave a piece of his mother’s jewelry to a 43 girl in his class that he liked, with very little consequence from his parents (Charles River
Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010). Furthermore, the large amount of monthly pocket money he received was unheard of at the time (Higham, 2004). Hughes was an average student, but was described as a “tinkerer”, spending time taking things apart and putting them back together; he had a particular interest in “electronics and mechanics” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 35).
Hughes’s parent’s marriage was generally strained (Charles River Editors, 2014). At the age of 13, for a period of 2 months, Hughes developed a paralysis, and was unable to walk (Barlett &
Steele, 2004). However, some authors asserted that he was malingering, with the intent to bring his parents together, and mend a rift between them (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Porter (2010) asserted that this was the first time that Hughes bribed someone, in this case the medical doctor, to substantiate his version of the truth. By his teenage years Hughes had developed the belief that anything or anyone was for sale at the right price (Porter, 2010), a belief that was confirmed by Dietrich (1976) as present throughout Hughes’s adult life.
Hughes had one good friend throughout his childhood, Dudley Sharp (Barlett & Steele,
2004; Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). They spent much time together, and became involved in mechanics related projects; they built and used a ham radio, designed and built a motorised bicycle (Barlett & Steele, 2004), and dismantled and reassembled a roadster (car) (Porter, 2010).
When Hughes grew older he moved to school in California. Hack (2007) indicated that this move was to improve the quality of his education. However, Porter (2010) asserted that this was a strategy used by Bo Hughes to create some distance between mother and son. During this period Hughes spent a lot of time with his uncle Rupert Hughes, a famous playwright. Through
Rupert, Hughes was exposed to Hollywood stars, and gained acceptance by some famous individuals which he found affirming (Porter, 2010). 44
When Hughes was aged 16 his mother died. Sources differ with regards to the cause of her death. Barlett and Steele (2004) indicated that it was due to hemorrhaging after the removal of growths from her uterus, while Hack (2007) asserted that it was due to hemorrhaging from a miscarriage. After her death, Hughes moved back to Texas in order to be near to his father.
However, although Bo Hughes orchestrated the move, he spent little time with Hughes, who resided with his aunt Anette, who played a temporary guardian role (Barlett & Steele, 2004;
Porter, 2010). At this point in his life Hughes started to socialise more, and came and went as he pleased (Porter, 2010). His father allowed him unlimited expenses, and although Hughes had not finished high school, Bo Hughes used his financial power to have Hughes accepted into tertiary education (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Porter, 2010).
Bo Hughes died approximately 2 years after his wife due to an embolism (Higham, 2004,
Porter, 2010). At the age of 18 Hughes inherited controlling shares in his father’s business, and began a “detailed and organized effort to take control of both his life and his money” (Hack,
2007, p. 1038). He dropped out of college, and petitioned the court to become an emancipated minor, something not yet done in Texas at the time (Porter, 2010). Hughes’s uncle Rupert had wanted to step into a guardianship role (Higham, 2004, Porter, 2010), as could be expected in most families, however Hughes resisted this. Hughes bought out the company shares inherited by his extended family, but the process of buying their shares is described differently by different authors. Dietrich (1976, p. 100) stated that Hughes “bedeviled his relatives”, expanded on by
Higham (2004, l. 446*) who said he held them “ransom for every last cent”. Porter (2010) indicated that Hughes bought their shares under duress, and that it caused a permanent rift between Hughes and his grandparents. The outcome of this process was that he become the sole
* electronic sources refer to a location rather than a page number. Throughout this study, “l.” refers to location.
45 owner of Bo Hughes’s company, Toolco, by the age of 19. Porter (2010) asserted that Hughes defended his position saying that he would never be controlled by another again.
Young Adulthood
Hollywood
Hughes started to romantically pursue Ella Rice, a friend from college, although she was in love with someone else at the time (Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010). One author indicated that Hughes paid the gentleman to step away (Porter, 2010), while others said that Hughes asked his aunt Anette, known to Rice’s mother, to convince her that he was the right person for her daughter (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Hack, 2007). Hughes won Rice’s hand, and in 1925 at the age of 20, Hughes married Rice. Dietrich (1976), Hughes’s chief executive of 32 years, speculated that the real reason for the marriage was for Hughes to show his family that he was responsible, while Whetton et al. (2011) believed that Hughes felt that the union would provide him with a level of legitimacy in the public eye (Whetton, Wadsworth, & Thain, 2012). Hack (2007, l.
1098) further explained that Hughes saw Ella as a “functional prop” that helped to provide the
“illusion of maturity as he began his journey into adulthood”. This time period was summarised by Steele and Barlett (2004, p. 59) as follows:
In the short space of the year and a half since his father’s death, young Howard Hughes had
asserted himself in ways no one in the family could have foretold. The obedient boy had
given way to an aggressive, rebellious young man. He had broken with his relatives,
grabbed control of a fortune, and taken a wife at an age when most of his peers were
completing their first year of college.
Shortly after their marriage, the couple moved to Hollywood. Toolco was very successful, and generated money which provided Hughes with a secure platform from which to explore 46 other projects that fascinated him [and continued to do so throughout his life]. Dietrich (1976) stated that Hughes never had a long-range career plan, and never showed an interest in Toolco.
Hughes “acted on instinct” regarding the projects that he became involved with (Dietrich, 1976, p. 161). At this point Hughes was attracted to the “glitz and glamour of Hollywood” (Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993), being fascinated with film. In 1927 he became a film producer where, with projects of varying success, he climbed his way to the top of the
Hollywood film industry. Hughes put a particular amount of effort into an early project, Hells
Angels (Hack, 2007). Hughes wanted Hells Angels to be “the greatest epic ever seen” (Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993), and worked on it obsessively; he even reshot a large portion of the film once filming had almost ended, because sound technology had become available (Hack, 2007). Hells Angels was one of the top two most expensive films made at the time, and was opened with a campaign the likes of which Hollywood had never seen (Hack,
2007; Higham, 2004).
Hughes was known to be particular, and would often film scenes over and over until they met his satisfaction (Dietrich, 1976; Hack, 2007; Higham, 2004), wasting a tremendous amount of time and money. He approached all projects with “customary intensity and attention to detail”
(Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 107); almost all authors comment on him having a mind for detail
(Charles River Editors, 2014; Hack, 2007; Whetton et al., 2012). However, Dietrich (1976, p.
46) stated that Hughes experienced difficulty “maintaining a schedule, and, most of all, making split-second decisions”. Dietrich saw Hughes as “unsuited” to being a movie director (1976, p.
46). Furthermore, Hughes had not trained in film production. Despite these lacks, Hughes developed a skill for film producing, and insisted on doing much of the specialised work himself
(Porter, 2010; Higham, 2004). He also introduced innovative ways of filming for the time 47
(Porter, 2010). Hughes worked tremendously hard, holding unusual working hours (Porter,
2010). He expected others to work as hard as he (Whetton et al., 2012). Dietrich (1976) summarised these dynamics by saying that Hughes wanted what he wanted; Hughes expected that his instructions would be acted on, and assumed results based on his request.
Hughes became incredibly focused on projects that he became involved with, and would not respond to communication outside of work for long periods of time (Porter, 2010). Hughes controlled every aspect of a project (Higham, 2004). This was seen during the filming of Hells
Angels when Hughes insisted on doing a flying stunt himself when an experienced pilot refused to, saying that the stunt could not be done. This led Hughes to attempt but fail the stunt, and crash the plane (Higham, 2004, Whetton et al., 2012), [although authors disagree on the extent of his injuries from the crash].
Over time Hughes developed a reputation for bringing his sexual fantasies to life on screen
(Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). His films often had strong sexual undertones. Hughes did not adhere to social norms, and would ignore the guidelines set by the censorship board (Higham,
2004; Porter, 2010). This led to his clashing with the board on numerous occasions, and fighting to be allowed to have his movies screened (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). This said, Steele (cited in Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993) argued that Hughes fought the censorship board to drum up interest in his movies, which his battles generally did.
Hughes’s old friend Dudley Sharp contacted him during the filming of Hells Angels. Hack
(2007) asserted that Sharp asked him to be the best man at his wedding, while Porter (2010) asserted that Sharp had recently married, and wanted to visit Hughes and introduce him to his wife, arranging this visit in lieu of a honeymoon which the couple couldn’t afford. Whichever the version of events, Hughes declined. Both authors asserted that this event signalled an end to 48 the friendship, and Porter (2010) claimed that Hughes informed Dietrich, his chief executive
[who managed much of his business interests, and controlled his finances], that he wanted nothing to do with Sharp in the future. Despite his hard work, Hughes did spend a lot of time socialising. He became romantically involved with various Hollywood actors and actresses.
Although he did not commit emotionally to them, his relationship with Rice deteriorated, in part because of extreme neglect, and in part due to infidelity; this led to Rice divorcing Hughes in
1929 (Whetton et al., 2012).
Higham (2004) and Porter (2010) asserted that Hughes was bisexual, and Charles River
Editors (2014) said that predominantly due to his wealth and good looks, few would refuse his pursuit of them. Hughes name was romantically associated with the likes of Billie Dove,
Katherine Hepburn, Ginger Rogers, Ava Gardner, and Cary Grant (Porter, 2010). Hughes was known to date numerous people at the same time, and did so throughout his adult life (Porter,
2010); Higham (2004, l. 2802) called him an “insatiable user”, while Dietrich (1976, p. 112) described him as obsessed with finding “the perfect woman”.
Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1127) said that, when pursuing a possible partner, Hughes
“made bold emphatic declarations of love” and this “led many of his girlfriends to think more of their relationships with the aviator than was warranted” especially given that he proposed marriage to many women. This would “understandably confuse anyone” (Charles River Editors,
2014, l. 1127). However, his relationships often “lacked longevity, exclusivity and physical intimacy, in part because his desire for a woman often diminished after their first intimate encounter” (Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 1127). Hughes would cut ties with romantic partners suddenly when he lost interest (Porter, 2010).
Hack (2007, l. 1908) asserted that Hughes’s pursuit of women “supplement[ed] his need for 49 validation”. Hughes went to the extreme of headhunting beautiful people (Howard Hughes: The
Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010). He developed a reputation for signing hopeful starlets onto fixed long term contracts with the expressed view of making them famous (Porter,
2010, p. 516). However, many of the girls Hughes signed on were beautiful, but not talented; they had their accommodation and expenses paid, but would wait by the phone for Hughes to call, sometimes for years, when he did not intend to employ them as actresses (Howard Hughes:
The Man and the Madness, 1993). Sheridan (2011, p. 76) indicated that “None of these girls was allowed to have a boyfriend. They had to be available twenty-four hours a day, and they had to follow a strict schedule of lessons and occasional dinners with Hughes”. Hughes had aids who would watch the starlets and report back to him (Sheridan, 2011). If hopeful starlets considered work through another production company, they quickly learned that this was not possible, as the contract they had signed was exclusive; thus, they became stuck, unable to work for others
(Porter, 2010). This way Hughes ensured that “no other producer could use them” (Higham,
2004, l. 1544). The impression is created in literature that Hughes was involved romantically with some of these girls.
After the stock market crash, the combination of a strained economy and wasteful spending habits led Hughes to the verge of bankruptcy (Porter, 2010). At about this time he stopped carrying cash on him; this led to others paying minor expenses for him socially, even though he was wealthier than they were (Hack, 2007; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993;
Porter, 2010). Porter (2010) suggested that the reason for his lack of cash was that Hughes was concerned that he might be kidnapped; Dietrich (1976) confirmed that Hughes did fear being kidnapped, but indicated that Hughes didn’t carry cash on him as he feared being robbed.
Dietrich (1976) further described Hughes as using money instrumentally; he never gave it away 50 unless there was a purpose for him, and charged all of his expenses to Toolco (Dietrich, 1976).
Hughes’s divorce settlement culminated in the payment of a lumpsum to Rice annually, for five years (Porter, 2010). One of the terms of the settlement was that he would not take on new film projects until the payment was complete. This, possibly along with frustration regarding his continual clashing with the censorship board, led Hughes to pursue his other great love, aviation.
Aviation
Concurrent with his Hollywood success, Hughes developed a fascination with aviation and qualified as a pilot. He started to push his energy into aviation, and from approximately 1933 became focused on flying. Dietrich (1976, p. 129) described Hughes as a “good” pilot, but also described him as “reckless”. Hughes set the goal for himself to fly at increasing speeds and to
“be the best in the air” (Hack, 2007, l. 1805). Initially he was not taken seriously in this, but this soon changed. Hughes always tried to improve the planes he flew (Dietrich, 1976), and to achieve his dream he became involved in the design of airplanes, and hand-picked experts with whom to surround himself. Together they designed the Hughes Racer – H1 (Higham, 2004).
Hughes’s airplane was the first to have retractable wheels (Dietrich, 1976; Whetton et al., 2012), and was significantly faster than others available at the time (Whetton et al., 2012). Similarly to his work on movies, Hughes worked “day-and-night … checking every detail” (Higham, 2004, l.
1057), and in the process “drove his crew to the limits of their endurance” (Whetton et al., 2012, l. 1200). Whilst working on the plane, the hanger was under constant security (Dietrich, 1976;
Higham, 2004).
In 1935 Hughes beat the record for speed in the air, flying at 352 miles an hour (Higham,
2004). As he wanted to go even faster, he rented a Northrop Gamma from fellow aviator Jackie
Cochran, who did not really want to rent the plane to him, but did so for a large amount of 51 money (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010). Hughes rebuilt the engine of the plane, without Jackie’s permission (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010), again under security guard (Hack, 2007). The outcome was an aircraft that was revolutionary for the time. In1936 Hughes set about breaking the transcontinental record, flying from Miami to New York (Hack, 2007). The antenna snapped off 3 minutes into the flight and Hughes completed this journey recklessly, navigating by moon and stars, determined to succeed (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Shortly thereafter he again broke the record flying from Miami to New York, and another flying from Chicago to Los Angeles.
This latter flight was also dangerous, as he flew through heavy turbulence, his airspeed indicator stopped working, and there was a problem with the oxygen (Higham, 2004). Despite these feats, subjectively, Hughes was never happy when he believed he could do better (Whetton et al.,
2012). However, objectively, the outcome of these feats was that Hughes was awarded the
Harmon International Trophy as Outstanding Aviator of 1937, the top award for aviation internationally (Charles River Editors, 2014; Higham, 2004).
Hughes started planning a venture to break the speed record for travelling around the world.
With his team he modified a Lockheed Lodestar for this purpose, which could take 12 people
(Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). The modifications were technologically very advanced (Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993) and included a device that converted salt water to freshwater, and a toilet (Higham, 2004), which was a first on a plane at the time. Hughes thought through every detail, and “even tested thirty different breads for nutritive value, to be used in the crew’s sandwiches” (Dietrich, 1976, p. 136). The around the world trip took place in 1938, and was conducted with large portions of the trip having no or inadequate maps to navigate (Porter,
2010; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). It was a very dangerous flight, which received a lot of media attention. Hughes cut the previous record by half, at 3 days 19 hours 8 52 minutes, and the event elevated him into the status of national hero (Higham, 2004; Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). Hughes was dating Katherine Hepburn at the time, and for a period of time they became America’s sweethearts (Porter, 2010).
Aviation-related Projects
Hughes’s love of aviation prompted him to become involved in projects such as the purchasing of airports, and commissions to build airplanes. He started acquiring shares in Transcontinental and Western Airways, later named TransWorld Airlines (TWA), and owned 78% of the airline by
1940 (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). He worked with the airline and made modifications that would improve the planes (Porter, 2010), and was “instrumental in growth of TWA” (Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). By this time the Second World War had started.
Hughes decided that he wanted to become a supplier of planes, and this became his next focus area (Porter, 2010).
Overall, Hughes became involved in two noteworthy projects towards the war effort. The first was the reconnaissance plane which his team designed, named the D-2, and later renamed the XF-11 (Hack, 2007). Hughes drove the project, at great expense, despite that fact that the army corps had not commissioned it. President Roosevelt’s son, Elliott, was elected to scout for a reconnaissance plane that the army could invest in (Hack, 2007). Elliott Roosevelt recommended that the contract be given to Hughes, after Hughes launched a wooing campaign to ensure his support (Hack, 2007; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter,
2010). The project was awarded to Hughes with some opposition, and he was given 48 million dollars to complete it (Hack, 2007).
The second project, which ran concurrently with the XF-II, was the Hercules Project. It was initiated by Henry J Kaisers, who approached Hughes with the idea of a flying boat (Higham, 53
2004; Porter, 2010). This was in response to the loss of a large numbers of troops and supplies being sunk off the American coast, and a large flying boat being seen as a better transport option.
With Kaisers’ backing, Hughes’s own aircraft manufacturing firm, Hughes Aircraft, was commissioned to design a flying boat, to be used to in the war effort, and was given 18 million dollars towards this cause (Barlett & Steele, 2004). However, the project developed very slowly, and consequently, after a time, a movement was launched to put the project on hold, given the end of the war. Hughes flew to Washington to lobby to be allowed to finish the Hercules, and permission was granted (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010). Despite this hiccup, the Hercules still took long to finish.
Eccentricities
Dietrich (1976, p. 32) described Hughes’s overall approach to his work life as “impulsive, contradictory, unorthodox, and disorganised”. Of his interaction style, Dietrich (1976, p. 24) indicated that Hughes had an “out-of-the-ordinary manner of dealing with people”, having a
“scant regard” for them. Hughes struggled to make small talk. Dietrich also stated that Hughes had a “sense of secrecy that seemed unreasonable”, and portrayed Hughes as having a strong sense of entitlement (Dietrich, 1976, p. 24). Others knew Hughes to be eccentric (Dietrich,
1976). Dietrich (1976) and Whetton et al. (2012) asserted that Hughes seldom drank, while
Higham (2004) and Porter (2010) said that he didn’t smoke or drink at all. This was at a time when smoking and drinking was socially accepted practice, so this lack was interpreted as slightly odd (Porter, 2010). Whetton et al. (2012) proposed that Hughes had a preference for steak and vegetables, while Porter (2010) and Higham (2004) stated this more strongly saying that Hughes was known to be very particular about what he would eat – steak, baked potato, and peas every night, and Hack (2007, l. 2555) asserted that this was his “standard evening meal”. 54
Porter (2010) and Higham (2004) specified that Hughes wanted small peas, and if the peas could not fit on his fork, he would send his food back. Possibly due to his diet, Hughes experienced difficulty with constipation (Hack, 2007), and was known to spend hours on the toilet (Higham,
2004; Porter, 2010). Higham (2004) further asserted that Hughes would have meetings while sitting on the toilet.
During the time that he was making movies, in the 1930s, Hughes changed his appearance and stopped wearing suits; he would dress in a white shirt, khaki pants, and tennis shoes wherever he went (Hack, 2007). This was described by Higham (2004, l. 1410) as
“unpretentious clothes” and Higham said it consisted of baggy pants and a white shirt. This became Hughes’s uniform, which he wore from then on, irrespective of the occasion. Dietrich
(1976, p. 59) stated that Hughes changed his style of dress when he realised that “he didn’t need to dress to impress anyone”. Dietrich (1976) further asserted that Hughes was very aware of germs. Porter (2010) corroborated this saying that Hughes would seldom shake the hands of others, also confirmed by Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1272) who said that “He simply never enjoyed shaking hands or touching people outside of intimate contact, and he always washed his hands constantly”. Although Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1272) described Hughes as
“eccentric”, they said that “he could function in everyday society without drawing too much attention to his odd habits”.
The XF-II and Hercules projects were enormous, and developed slowly, concurrent with
Hughes’s work in movies, and combined, they placed Hughes under a tremendous amount of pressure. He worked “tirelessly”, but his schedule started to have a visible effect, and Hughes began to look haggard (Hack, 2007, l. 2531); he was exhausted and worried (Barlett & Steele,
2004). The pressure he experienced also started to affect him mentally, and led to an increase in 55 his eccentricities. He started to repeat himself (Charles River Editors, 2014; Hack, 2007), giving instructions a few times over (Hack, 2007). He also became more and more indecisive, and would give orders, and rescind them later (Porter, 2010). Hack (2007, l. 2747) indicated that he
“often would spend hours simply staring at the D-2 [XF-11]”, talking to himself. Hughes started to develop a nervous tic and struggled to keep food down (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). He also started putting his hands in his pockets so that people couldn’t see him shaking (Higham, 2004).
Eventually, under immense pressure, Hughes was on the verge of a “nervous breakdown”
(Higham, 2004, l. 2024), and his doctor advised that he take a break (Charles River Editors,
2014; Hack, 2007). As a result Hughes disappeared. Some sources say this was for 8 months
(Higham, 2004), and others say for 11 months (Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010).
Hughes isolated himself in the Nevada desert (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993), recovering in hotels (Porter, 2010). During this time, Perelle took over as general manager of Hughes Aircraft, driving the projects forward (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Hack, 2007).
Hack (2007, l. 2924) asserted that while Hughes was away: “the Hercules had been finished, with only final assembly of the engines to the wings, and the wings to the fuselage yet to take place”.
Middle Adulthood
Injury and Defense
On his return, Hughes started working on the XF-11 project again, and this was finished in 1946.
Hughes vowed to test the plane himself (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010), and insisted on the test flight being conducted in his chosen area, which was populated, rather than at the army base, which was not (Higham, 2004). Mechanical difficulties relating to the propeller caused him to crash, with the plane going down in the middle of a Hollywood urban area (Higham, 2004; 56
Porter, 2010). Hughes could have ejected from the plane before the crash, but tried to figure out what was going wrong, and then it was too late (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993). Hughes was critically injured and was not expected to survive. Against all odds, amid much media attention, Hughes did survive, and doctors viewed this as “just short of miraculous”
(Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 143). Hughes experienced an extended recovery. Dietrich (1976) asserted that Hughes took no substances to aid him in this time; however, all other sources noted that Hughes relied on morphine to manage his pain. The morphine was gradually replaced with codeine by his doctors. Charles River Editors (2014) indicated that Hughes used codeine intermittently for the rest of his life, while Higham (2004) and Porter (2010) phrased this more strongly, saying that Hughes remained increasingly substance dependent for the rest of his life.
Barlett and Steele (2004, p. 145) explained that it was “the beginning of a drug addiction that would become Hughes’s best-kept secret in a life that overflowed with secrets”. Barlett and
Steele further suggested that Hughes had a low threshold for pain, and attributed “his exaggerated fear of sickness” as part of the motivation behind his use of substances (Barlett &
Steele, 2004, p. 145). Apart from drug dependence, it is not entirely clear how the injuries continued to affect him physically (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993).
After a period of recovery, the Hughes Aircraft team fixed the errors on the XF-11. Hughes again insisted on being the pilot of the test flight held in 1947 (Porter, 2010). This went ahead smoothly. Even though Hughes had proved the efficacy of the reconnaissance plane, the war was over, and the plane was no longer needed. As confidence in Hughes’s ability to produce was questioned, an enquiry was launched into Hughes’s management of funds on the Hercules project. Hughes refused to hand over his account books, thus a formal senate hearing was held in 1947 to investigate this matter (Charles River Editors, 2014). The hearing was led by Senator 57
Brewster, and received a lot of media attention. Barlett and Steele (2004) and Higham (2004) alleged that Brewster told Hughes privately that the hearing would go away if TWA and Pan
American Airways (Pan Am) were to merge (as TWA, under Hughes’s management, had been awarded the rights to the transatlantic air routes). However, Charles River Editors (2014) proposed that Brewster had ties to Pan Am, and the charge of bribery was a scheme concocted by
Hughes as subterfuge, to focus attention away from the real issues regarding the spending of government money.
Despite real evidence of money spent on influence buying (Barlett & Steele, 2004), Hughes
“took over the proceedings with a sureness that astonished everyone” (Dietrich, 1976, p. 204).
He showed that he had invested much of his own money into these projects. Hughes held a notably rebellious attitude (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993), and “deflected public attention” from his mismanagement of funds onto Brewster’s blackmail attempt,
“challenging the integrity of the committee”, and this helped to vindicate him (Barlett & Steele,
2004, p. 148). Hughes created the impression that Brewster was a liar (Dietrich, 1976), and thus one of the outcomes of the hearing was that Hughes destroyed Brewster’s public image (Charles
River Editors, 2014). Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) asserted that Brewster struggled to find decent employment thereafter.
Through the senate hearing, Hughes received a lot of criticism that the Hercules had never flown (Charles River Editors, 2014). Thus, shortly after the hearing, Hughes gathered the media at Long Beach in California, and conducted a taxi run with the Hercules (Barlett & Steele, 2004;
Charles River Editors, 2014). This was the first and only time that the Hercules flew (Higham,
2004). Although both the XF-II and Hercules projects were completed, they were incredibly costly. Furthermore, Hughes spent a tremendous amount of money upkeeping, in particular the 58
Hercules, at 1-2 million dollars per annum (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010), presumably due to the level of personal investment in the project. Although Hughes’s companies had been heavily involved in the war, particularly Toolco had supplied war material (in the form of landing gear struts, aircraft seats, aircraft wings, fuselages, artillery shells, cannon barrels) (Howard Hughes:
The Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010), this had been under the guidance of Dietrich.
Projects initiated by Hughes were largely unsuccessful in the long run.
Continued Dating and Eccentricities
Dietrich (1976, p. 139) stressed that Hughes was a “loner” and was “extremely shy”; despite this temperament, Hughes still continued to date numerous people, and often dated them concurrently. Amid his romantic involvements with both men and women (Porter, 2010),
Higham (2004) asserted that he was faithful to no-one. Many of his romantic engagements were focused on sex. Higham (2004, l. 1645) stated that “There is no evidence that Hughes cared for any of these supremely attractive sex partners as people” and described him as “casual in making love to them and leaving them”. Higham hinted that this was the attitude of many in Hollywood, but Hughes seemed to take this a step further. He did not see marriage as a barrier to his pursuit of a romantic interest (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010), and he had at least four notable relationships with teenage women - Ruth Moffett, Faith Domergues, Gloria van der Built (Porter, 2010), and
Brenda Diana Duff Frazier (Hack, 2007) - particularly Moffett and Domergues were underaged at the time. Had charges been laid against Hughes, even within that era, he would have been guilty of statutory rape. Some authors also described how Hughes lied to women he was seeing, for long periods of time, in order to hide his infidelity (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010).
There were some individuals that Hughes seemed emotionally more connected to, whom he dated for a longer time period. Charles River Editors (2014) created the impression that he 59 pursued these women with gusto, but gradually became disillusioned as they did not live up to the dream of what he wanted. An example of a woman whom Hughes pursued for an extended period of time is Terry Moore. They dated for a large portion of the 1950s. Higham (2004, l.
2521) indicated that “Terry Moore was in a constant state of jealous anger and tears, telling her mother of rumours that Hughes was seemingly bedding every woman he had under contract”.
Hughes even married Moore to put her mind at ease (Higham, 2004; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010). Hughes owned a yacht, and the ceremony was held onboard, led by the captain, in front of his crew; however, Hughes ordered the captain to take the ship out to sea by 5 miles before the ceremony commenced, so that the marriage was not legal
(Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Despite Hughes’s deception, Higham (2004, l. 2521) indicated that: “He had her [Moore] followed everywhere, bugged phones, called her in restaurants and at parties; he did this to all women who were not available to him day and night”. Charles River
Editors (2014) softened this behaviour slightly in indicating that Hughes started having certain people followed, with some being people he was dating, and some being ex-partners. Despite this invasion of dignity and privacy, Hughes himself was both private (Charles River Editors,
2014; Porter, 2010) to the point of extreme secrecy, and was unfaithful.
Hughes developed a reputation for phoning people in the early hours of the morning, to discuss business, calling from payphones. Whetton et al., (2012) asserted that he did this because the rates were cheaper at night, while Porter (2010) said that it was for fear of being spied on. Hughes himself was difficult to get hold of (Charles River Editors, 2014). In 1948 he set up a centre at 7000 Romaine Street which he called Command (Hack, 2007); all people in his acquaintance could only contact him through command, including extended family, friends and business contacts – and he would contact them when he saw fit (Howard Hughes: The Man and 60 the Madness, 1993). Hughes hired Bill Gay to run this Romaine street office. Hughes also made a decision that his business enterprise would from now on only hire Mormons. He believed that individuals of the Mormon faith have more integrity than others (Dietrich, 1976); Hughes asserted that Mormons didn’t drink (Charles River Editors, 2014) or smoke, and could keep a secret (Higham, 2004). Hughes thus believed that Mormons were more trustworthy, and provided fewer problems within the work environment. Dietrich (1976) stressed that Hughes trusted no one, which creates an understanding of why Hughes surrounded himself with employees he believed more trustworthy. Through Gay, the Mormon employees grew and these employees became commonly known by others as the “Mormon Mafia” (Charles River Editors,
2014, l. 1676). Over time, Hughes “quickly became averse to interacting with people, even employees” (Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 1676). Hughes surrounded himself with aides that were able to act on his commands in the running of various projects (Hack, 2007). Thus, his growing number of aides started doing the work of physically interacting with others to pursue his business needs. His work habits became more and more “unorthodox”, with Hughes working at night and sleeping during the day (Dietrich, 1976, p. 119). Overall, Dietrich (1976, p. 54) indicated that Hughes’s eccentricities became “more pronounced and, eventually, disabling”.
Entertainment and Aviation Industries Continued
Hughes bought a film studio Radio Pictures Incorporated (RKO) in 1948, and started refocusing some of his energy on the entertainment industry (Porter, 2010). Charles River Editors (2014, l.
1613) indicated that RKO staff “immediately panicked” as “his attention to detail and indecisiveness were legendary, and everyone knew that working for him was a trying experience”. This fear it seemed was founded, seen in Porter’s (2010) description that Hughes generally interfered and caused delays, and was a source of major frustration for directors and 61 producers hired by RKO. Higham (2004) confirmed that Hughes had a reputation of being controlling, while Dietrich (1976, p. 238) explained that “Howard insisted on overseeing every operation”. Hughes reduced budgets severely, and ended numerous projects, in various states of progress (Higham 2004).
Concurrently, Hughes was focused on identifying and eradicating communist supporters from the company; “he developed an impassioned hatred of Communists or even people with left-leaning ideologies” (Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 1705). This added to the unsettled atmosphere (Porter, 2010), and led to a big court case after Hughes excluded an employee from credit for working on a film, based on the premise that the employee “violated his morality code”
(Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 1705). Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1705) further stated that
“Howard began to draw his greatest satisfaction from inciting controversy. He didn’t care about which side he was perceived to be on; he just wanted to feel like he was in control of everything”. Charles River Editors further indicated that Hughes was known to become “more determined, resolute and vengeful” especially when he felt someone was appropriating his power
(l. 1705). Porter (2010, p. 174) explained that Hughes “wasn’t used to having his commands defied”. This attitude links with the impression created by Dietrich (1976) that Hughes expected his wants and needs to be acted on by others.
Hughes used RKO as a casting couch; Porter (2010, p. 665) expanded by quoting Dietrich as saying that Hughes turned RKO into a “whorehouse”. Hughes kept detailed notes on starlets, for this own purposes, including even their measurements and the preferences of their mothers
(Charles River Editors, 2014), and furthered the careers of actors and actresses that he was attracted to (Porter, 2010). Some believe that Hughes chose scripts, and selected actors as an extension of his sexual fantasies (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). One famous example is his 62 filming of The Outlaw. After much exploration Hughes selected Jack Beutel and Jane Russel as lead actors (Porter, 2010). He signed Beutel into a long-term contract, and reportedly maintained economic, and possibly sexual, hold over him for many years thereafter (Higham, 2004; Porter,
2010). Hughes was known to be fascinated by Russel’s breasts, and went so far as to design as seamless bra to showcase her breasts better on the screen (Charles River Editors, 2014; Higham,
2004; Porter, 2010).
It is interesting to note that Hughes never visited RKO studios (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993); Porter (2010) asserted that this was due to his fear of germs, while
Higham (2004) asserted that he never met executives face to face, as he was embarrassed about going deaf. Despite not being physically present at RKO, Hughes mismanaged RKO (Charles
River Editors, 2014). This mismanagement, combined with the emergence of the culture of watching television rather than going to movies, led to a decline of RKO. Over time it became evident that RKO was not doing well financially, and Hughes tried to sell it numerous times, eventually selling it at a loss in 1955 (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010).
Concurrent to this period, Hughes appointed two ex-lieutenants to run Hughes Aircraft, and they did so very successfully, moving the company closer to the field of electronics (Higham,
2007). Hughes Aircraft attained various government contracts, and became the government’s main supplier of electronic armament control (Higham, 2004). However, after a time, these leaders left Hughes Aircraft and management difficulties emerged. The Airforce secretary spoke to Hughes sternly about these difficulties, telling him to amend the problem or loose the contracts. Hughes reacted strongly to this discussion, as he did not like being told what to do
(Charles River Editors, 2014). Consequently, Hughes formed the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute (HHMI), and positioned Hughes Aircraft as one of its subsidiary bodies. The expressed 63 purpose of the HHMI was medical research. However, the real outcome for Hughes was that he could no longer be held accountable for the internal workings of Hughes Aircraft, as he was no longer seen as the owner (Hack, 2007). Furthermore, Hughes fought for the HHMI to be tax free. The institute was set up so that all profits of Hughes Aircraft was received by the HHMI, however, Hughes actually only provided them with less then 1% of his total profit for their running purposes (Higham, 2004). Ultimately, the HHMI was seen as a scheme of tax evasion
(Charles River Editors, 2014).
Hughes was still strongly involved with TWA. He made a decision to invest in 63 jetliners at a cost of 200 million dollars (Higham, 2004). Hughes did not have accessible finances for this purchase, and was forced to source funding (Whetton et al., 2012). After funding had been secured and the order placed, the chairman of TWA was unhappy with the way the funding was constructed, and laid a lawsuit against Hughes for mismanagement and the violation of antitrust laws (Higham, 2004). There was an extended legal process, and Hughes refused to appear in court. Over the last number of years, Hughes had become more and more private, and “took extreme precautions to ensure his privacy” (Dietrich, 1976, p. 218). Higham (2004) asserted that
Hughes did not appear in court as he did not want to be seen in public. Consequently, TWA was awarded the case. Hughes was forced to either pay them 135 million dollars or sell his stock
(Porter, 2010). Hughes chose to sell his stock, and he made a tremendous profit on its sale.
However, as a consequence of the sale, he lost of control of TWA (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010).
Marriage and Decline
Hughes had romantically pursued Jean Peters, among others, for many years. Surprisingly, he married Peters in 1957; Hughes was 52 years old (Frehner & Waldren, 2004). At this time he had started living in a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel, running his business empire from his 64 hotel room (Charles River Editors, 2014). He and Peters shared the bungalow for a few days, after which time Hughes insisted on his privacy, and Peters was given her own room (Higham,
2004; Porter, 2010). There is some speculation in the literature that some of Hughes’s top employees were considering having him declared mentally incompetent (Hack, 2007). If married, Hughes’s wife would need to be part of the process of arranging hospitalisation, and it is speculated that Hughes had Peters commit to never engaging in such an action (Barlett &
Steele, 2004). This is possibly the real reason for the marriage.
Another pivotal event during these years was the loss of Hughes’s chief executive of 32 years, Noah Dietrich. Dietrich demanded a share in business profits, and Hughes refused and fired him (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010; Whetton et al.,
2012); Hughes was determined to have full control (Dietrich, 1976; Whetton et al., 2012).
Whetton et al. (2012) further asserted that Hughes had Dietrich’s closest associates given retirement packages, and had the locks at the Romaine street offices changed. Dietrich had been pivotal to the running of Hughes’s business empire, and was a big reason for the success of the empire; his absence was a big loss.
During this general time period, there was a further increase in Hughes’s eccentricities.
Hughes didn’t want to socialise any more than he had to (Whetton et al., 2012). He hated
“crowds, cameras and onlookers” (Sheridan, 2011, p. 156). Hughes started to spend most of his time in his room, with the windows covered in black drapes (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010). He left the room occasionally, to fly or to watch a movie with Peters at a private screening room in
Sunset Boulevard (Barlett & Steele, 2004). However, at one point, he dropped Peters off at home, and went back to the studio, and did not leave for four months (Barlett & Steele, 2004).
During this time, Hughes lived off milk and Hershey bars, did some business over the phone, but 65 spent most of his time watching movies (Barlett & Steele, 2004). At some point he discarded his clothes, and went naked (Barlett & Steele, 2004). Everything he interacted with, he did whilst holding it with a tissue (Barlett & Steele, 2004). The Aviator (2005) portrayed Hughes as immensely anxious and obsessive. Hughes kept his urine in bottles, and he struggled to control what he said, perseverating when he spoke (The Aviator, 2005). Hughes seemed to have suffered another mental breakdown (Barlett & Steele, 2004).
After the four months, when back in his hotel room, many of Hughes’s idiosyncrasies still increased. Higham (2004) asserted that Hughes tried to control every detail of his life. Bartlett and Steele (2004, p. 260) explained that Hughes developed a “compulsive need to send memos”.
In part, the memos were collated to create a procedures manual which dictated how his staff were to interact with him (Hack, 2007). The manual included, for example, how to buy and hand him a copy of the newspaper (Hack, 2007), how to dish food onto his plate, and how to open a tin of peaches - so as to not contaminate him with their germs (Barlett & Steele, 2004). Hughes refused to touch documents that had been handled by others. He created a “germ-free zone” in the middle of the room, pushing furniture against the walls, and had a daily routine for cleaning the furniture he sat on, with tissues (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). He would only let the door open for brief moments when a trusted aide entered, in case more germs came in (Higham, 2004; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). Hughes was preoccupied with cleanliness (Frehner & Waldren, 2004). Barlett and Steele (2004, p. 233) asserted that “his fear of germs and contamination and the rituals he devised to deal with those fears – were dominating his life”.
Hughes stopped going out completely. Furthermore, Hughes instructed aides not to talk to him, unless he engaged them (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). He went 66 through a period of fearing the toilet, and urinating on the floor, and then another period when he spent all his time on the toilet (Porter, 2010). He then again started keeping his urine in jars
(Higham, 2004). Hughes was unkempt and did not wash his hair or cut his nails (Higham,
2004). He would not let others into the room to clean, for fear of them churning up germs, only letting Peters vacuum the room occasionally if the bag of the vacuum cleaner stayed outside
(Porter, 2010).
At some point Hughes started to extend his behaviours to Peters, controlling what she could eat, and where she could go and when (Higham, 2004). He wrote numerous memos for his aides as to how they should treat her. He even instructed aides to open doors for her with their feet, rather than their hands, for fear of germs (Barlett & Steele, 2004). She was watched at all times.
By 1960 Hughes’s mental state had deteriorated to the point where he would not let Peters in to his room, and only allowed her to stand in the doorway for 15 minutes in the morning, and again in the evening, to talk to him from there (Porter, 2010). By now he seldom left his bed (Barlett
& Steele, 2004).
Hughes continued to use substances. Higham (2004) asserted that he was taking codeine, valium and demerol, whilst Barlett and Steele (2004) mentioned only codeine. Hughes’s aides had several doctors on retainer, and drugs were delivered via messenger (Howard Hughes: The
Man and the Madness, 1993). The substance use led to his physical emaciation and malnutrition.
Hughes’s hearing deteriorated to the point where he shouted at those who interacted with him, alienating them (Higham, 2004).
Despite his mental state, Barlett and Steele (2004) described Hughes as actively engaged with his battle with TWA before the lawsuit had been finalised, and that this battle was conducted from his room. After the sale of the TWA shares, Hughes was advised by his lawyers 67 to leave California or the huge profit that he had made would be heavily taxed (Howard Hughes:
The Man and the Madness, 1993).
Old Age
Las Vegas
Hughes briefly moved to Boston, but realised that he would be paying more taxes there than he was before; thus, he decided to move to Las Vegas, Nevada, in part because it was a tax-free state (Higham, 2004). Hughes was to stay in Nevada for four years (Frehner & Waldren, 2004).
Hughes’s aides hired a train, and at night snuck him into the Desert Inn hotel through the service entrance (Frehner & Waldren, 2004; Sheridan, 2011). He was installed in a room, again covering the windows with drapes, and also sealing them to avoid germs entering the room
(Higham, 2004). He had a closed circuit television installed in order to anticipate visitors, and the suite was checked for bugs from the FBI every day (Higham, 2004). Hughes and his staff took up two floors of the Desert Inn. After a period of time, the hotel tried to evict Hughes in order to free up the space for patrons of the casino (Sheridan, 2011). At the time the hotel was run by a mobster, Morris Dalitz. Angered, Hughes would not allow himself to be pushed out and he bought the hotel (Higham, 2004). This was a complicated purchase and Hughes eventually paid almost double what it was worth, as Dalitz did not want to sell (Sheridan, 2011). Hughes also had to apply for a license to run the casino, and to do this, he had to supply a “detailed statement revealing all of the facts of his personal and commercial life” (Higham, 2004, l. 3727;
Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). Hughes refused, and approached the governor of Nevada for assistance. Governor Laxalt was anxious to remove the mob presence from Las Vegas, and the license was granted (Higham, 2004). Over time Hughes bought various hotels, namely the Desert Inn, the Sands, the Frontiers, and Castaways, and the Landmark hotels, 68 predominantly because of the tax advantages he gained through owning them (Sheridan, 2011).
Hughes became a magnate in the gaming industry (Whetton et al., 2012), breaking monopoly rules in the process. Ironically, through Hughes’s actions, the image of Nevada changed and became more positive with regards to Las Vegas (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993; Whetton et al., 2012); Hughes “brought respectability to a city overrun by organized crime” (Sheridan, 2011, p. 25).
Hughes invested further money in Nevada. Charles River Editors (2014 l. 1705) said “When losing control over himself and his life, he [Hughes] sought to compensate by controlling people, companies, the public and the government”. Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) expanded that he “seemed to desire to control the whole state of Nevada. He bought up undeveloped land, [an] airport, mining claims and a television station”. Sheridan (2011) explained that Hughes bought land with mining rights, with the view of pursuing this industry as well (Sheridan, 2011), although this never came to fruition. The airline that he bought was called Air West, but in the process of negotiation, Hughes forced the shares down so that public investors lost much of their financial worth (Hack, 2007). Higham (2004) asserted that this was done on purpose in order to reduce the purchase price.
Concurrently Hughes Aircraft was still very successful, and was now supplying the government with strategic intelligence devices, including satellites and was involved in the space programme (Higham, 2004). Although involved only by association, this link gave Hughes some leverage due to the “Hughes Aircraft’s usefulness to the CIA, Army, and Air Force”
(Higham, 2004, l. 4106). This link assisted Hughes with political maneuvering. He gained influence through “extensive campaign contributions and under-the-table support” (Higham,
2004, l. 4119), “cultivating politicians” and “dispensing a favor” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 450); 69
Hughes gave various political contributions (Higham 2004), some in secret (Barlett & Steele,
2004, p. 448). He also lent then Donald Nixon, brother to presidential candidate Richard Nixon,
$250 000. Hughes also appointed an employee, Meier, to befriend Donald Nixon, to ensure his
[Hughes’s] direct influence on Richard Nixon (Higham, 2004). This said, Hughes had no actual interest in politics. Higham (2004) maintained that Hughes’s political maneuvering was in order to further ensure preferential treatment, while Dietrich (1976, p. 242) stated that Hughes’s political involvement occurred if it had “some effect” for him.
A clear incident of Hughes using his political leverage was seen in his efforts to stop possible nuclear testing. This testing was to happen in Nevada, very close to his residence.
Hughes was very unsettled by this possible testing, and wrote various memos, giving orders for his staff to act on, to intervene in this matter (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993). Hughes even tried to negotiate directly with Nixon (Higham, 2004). Finally, he gave both Nixon and Humphreys 100 000$ in campaign contributions, in order to buy their favour so that he would have leverage on this matter (Higham, 2004; Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness, 1993). Hughes was petrified of the release of nuclear particles into the environment, and the influence on his health, and wanted to avoid this at all costs. Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) quoted Hughes aides as saying that the fuss that Hughes made about this issue became embarrassing, and in the end, he was unsuccessful in stopping the testing.
Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) described Hughes as someone who
“lived on his ability to get along because they [others] would make exceptions for him”. Within the business context, over many years, these exceptions were paired with Hughes using the currency of favours and cash in his business interactions. A prime example of this was Hughes not having to appear in court to attain a license for running casinos. Overall, Hughes’s influence 70 buying led to “shadowy alliances, intricate deals, quiet understandings” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 448). The Hughes empire had “spent billions of American tax dollars without public accountability, received billions of dollars in government contracts without competitive bidding, and received millions of dollars in subsidies” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 448). Hughes seemed to be very aware of his power, and Barlett and Steele (2004, p. 451) quoted Hughes as telling his new chief executive, Maheu, that he could buy or destroy anyone.
Eventually, however, the tide of leniency given in favours to the Hughes enterprise turned.
One of the pivotal changes occurred in 1969, through a new tax law that called for all charitable organisations to spend 4 percent of their income annually on research or be designated a private foundation (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Higham, 2004). Given that the HHMI was making far less than this available for research, the filtering of profits of Hughes Aircraft through the HHMI would no longer protect Hughes from huge losses in legitimate tax. Hughes was also in an indefensible position if investigated, as over a number of years, for every 1 million dollars given to the institute, 2.5 was given to Hughes (Barlett & Steele, 2004). At the same time, there was a series of investigations into some of Hughes’s business practices, and this caused him some distress (Whetton et al., 2012); Higham (2004) asserted that Hughes also worried that his bribes would be uncovered. Due to the accumulation of these factors, Hughes decided to move to the
Bahamas (Higham, 2004).
Bahamas and More Moves
Hughes departed Las Vegas in secret, and was smuggled out of the Desert Inn on a stretcher via the fire escape (Sheridan, 2011). Hughes set up his new base of operations in his hotel room in the Bahamas. While this was happening, there was a power struggle among Hughes’s top aides
(Higham, 2004), and the outcome was that Hughes lost faith in his chief executive, Maheu. 71
Whetton et al. (2012) asserted that it was due to accusations of theft, while Charles River
Editors (2014) explained that Maheu had authorised a bribe without Hughes’s knowledge.
Hughes signed over power of attorney to aides Gay and Davis, handing them the responsibility of the running of his Hughes Las Vegas holdings (Whetton et al., 2012). This occurrence is particularly interesting given that, 4 years before when they had moved to Las Vegas, Hughes had specifically ordered Maheu to reduce the involvement of Gay and his Hollywood colleagues from Romaine street in the running of the Hughes Las Vegas holdings (Howard Hughes: The
Man and the Madness, 1993). The signing over of power to Gay and Davis thus removed Maheu from his position as chief executive, without officially informing him of this fact. Given that
Hughes’s move to the Bahamas had occurred without Maheu’s knowledge, he initially thought
Hughes had been kidnapped, and tried to find him (Higham, 2004; Hack, 2007). Maheu thus also did not believe that he had been usurped from his position. After much media attention caused by Maheu’s attempts to locate Hughes, Hughes phoned the Governor of Nevada to inform him that he had not been kidnapped, and that his businesses would be run by Gay and
Davis (Sheridan, 2011). Maheu still did not believe that Hughes had left America and signed power to Gay and Davis willingly. Even though Maheu then insisted that Hughes fire him in person, Hughes instructed Gay to deliver the news (Hack, 2007). Maheu filed an injunction against Gay and Davis, but was unsuccessful (Whetton et al., 2012), and consequently his ties with the Hughes empire were severed (Hack, 2007).
It was also at this point that Peters filed for divorce (Whetton et al., 2012). She hadn’t seen
Hughes for at least 3 and a half years (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993), and he refused to communicate with her (Charles River Editors, 2014). Hughes was now physically in a very poor condition. He slept for large portions of the day (Hack, 2007). His hair and beard 72 were long and gray, and his nails were curled and had fungus, his teeth were rotting, and he had bed sores and rashes (Charles River Editors, 2014). Hack (2007, l. 6725) indicated that his kidneys malfunctioned as he did not take in enough fluids, and he had “open and festering wounds on his back”. Higham (2004, l. 4360) described Hughes as emaciated, with brittle bones, low muscle tone, and as having a weak immune system; Hughes is further described as wracked with fevers and experiencing high temperatures for long periods of time. Hughes was taking various substances (Hack, 2007) and his hands shook from drug use (Sheridan, 2011).
Despite his physical condition, Hughes was still particular about his interactions with others and the circumstances he found himself in. He wanted to interact only with his known aides, and had surveillance equipment installed so that no-one could enter his rooms unseen (Whetton et al.,
2012).
Whetton et al. (2012) asserted that Hughes handed over more and more of the responsibility for the running of his empire to top aides. Hack (2007) indicated that without Maheu there to show Hughes a level of engagement and care, Hughes was kept in a pacified haze of sleep, movies, and drugs. Contradicting this assertion, Higham (2004) said that despite his physical condition, Hughes was in control of his own will, and actively involved in various projects.
Higham (2004) indicated that Hughes’s will was seen in response to Clifford Irving’s publishing of a book on Hughes’s life, claiming Hughes’s input. Hughes was outraged, and called a press conference telephonically, to convince journalists of the book’s inauthenticity
(Sheridan, 2011). Hughes had not engaged with the press for 14 years (Higham, 2004).
However, Hack (2007, l. 6784) indicated that Hughes was enabled to engage with journalists through the help of codeine; he sat naked on his couch, and “calmly gave the performance of his life”, lying about his appearance and well-being (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 73
1993). In the press conference, Hughes was asked about Maheu, and he called him a “no-good son of a bitch who stole me blind” (Sheridan, 2011, p. 159; Higham, 2004). Dietrich (1976, p.
312) asserted that Hughes accused him [Dietrich] of having the same “approach” and “motives” as Maheu. Maheu filed a lawsuit for slander in response, which he eventually won, while
Dietrich (1976) defended himself in his autobiography.
Within this time period, the government of the Bahamas insisted that Hughes appear in person to renew his visitor’s permit, which Hughes refused to do (Higham, 2004). Hughes consequently decided to move to Vancouver, Canada. Hughes’s expressed purpose to move to
Vancouver was to investigate new flight routes for Air West, for which he gained approval
(Higham, 2004). A team of 6 aides stayed with Hughes, and looked after him (Frehner &
Waldren, 2004). Hughes was known to procrastinate, and Frehner and Waldren (2004) asserted that he often had his aides investigate various avenues for information, for him to consider
(Frehner & Waldren, 2004). Frehner and Waldren (2004) asserted that Hughes was still involved with expanding his business enterprises in Las Vegas. Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness (1993) contradicted this assertion, creating the impression that Hughes was by this stage in no condition to be involved in business decisions.
Shortly after arriving in Canada, Hughes was informed about the IRS investigators exploring his organisation for tax evasion and the manipulation of funds (Higham 2004). There were also various law suits that were ongoing. Thus, from his base in Vancouver, a decision was made to sell the Hughes Tool division of Hughes’s empire, in order to access money to manage these processes. Higham (2004) created the impression that Hughes made this decision, while Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) asserted that it was made by his top aides, who were now in charge. Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness motivated this assertion by saying 74 that Hughes holdings were now amalgamated under the name Sumo corporation, while Hughes always named his businesses after himself.
Again, on realising the tax implications if he were to remain in Canada for longer than 6 months (Frehner & Waldren, 2004), Hughes moved from Vancouver to Nicaragua. However, his stay in Nicaragua was brief. Hughes’s aides experienced some logistical and language difficulties there (Frehner & Waldren, 2004), and after a severe earthquake, a decision was made to move to London (Porter, 2010). In London Hughes explored the purchasing of private jets.
Higham (2004) claimed that the interest in aviation invigorated him, and tht he showed an improvement in his well-being for a while. However, Hughes fell and fractured his hip. Sheridan
(2011) stated that he refused medical treatment, while Charles River Editors (2014) revealed that he had surgery. Nonetheless, both Sheridan and Charles River Editors asserted that his drug use increased thereafter. Carey Grant, his longest standing male friend, tried to see Hughes while he was in London, but Hughes refused (Porter, 2010). Again, Hughes left London when tax implications loomed, and he went back to the Bahamas after some negotiation with their government regarding the conditions of his stay (Higham, 2004).
Shortly after settling back in the Bahamas, charges were laid against Hughes for criminal stock manipulation in his purchase of Air West (Hack, 2007; Higham, 2004). At the same time, there was also some conflict among his doctors and aides regarding Hughes’s drug use. Hughes
“demanded and received increasingly large doses of codeine” (Hack, 2007, l. 7116), medicating himself. Outside of being addicted, Higham (2004) indicated that this usage was because
Hughes was in indescribable pain without drugs.
In early 1976 Hughes was moved to Acapulco, although the reason for the move is unclear
(Hack, 2007). His physical condition had further significantly deteriorated, and it became 75 evident that he was dying. Hughes often seemed confused, and experienced delusional states and incoherence (Hack, 2007); on the 3rd of April a local doctor was called in, and he was appalled at
Hughes’s physical condition. He found Hughes with open sores, and a cancerous tumor (Porter,
2010; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993), and recommended he be taken to hospital in the United States. After this recommendation, Hughes’s personal physician arrived from the United States, and on the 5th of April accompanied him to Houston, Texas. Whetton et al. (2012) asserted that Hughes died from renal failure en route to hospital, while Sheridan
(2011) quoted a medical doctor saying that he died from neglect. Higham (2004) and Porter
(2010) speculated that the symptoms Hughes experienced were consistent with AIDS. At the time of his death, Hughes was emaciated and dehydrated, and weighed 42 kilograms (The Secret
History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire, 2009).
Conclusion
This chapter provided a synopsis of the life of Hughes. It examined his life story by exploring the narratives of his life experiences in childhood, young adulthood, middle adulthood and old age, leading up to his death. The chapter that follows will explore personality, and in particular will unpack the narcissistic personality configuration to gain insight into narcissism.
76
Chapter 4: Personality, Normality, and Narcissism
Introduction
This case study focuses on the exploration of both personality and narcissism. Personality itself is abstract, and difficult to define. Personality cannot be seen, but its consequences are seen through behaviour. This chapter introduces the construct of personality and explores associated ideas of normality and abnormality in order to provide the reader with an appreciation of contemporary issues important to understanding personality. Within the realm of personality, narcissism is a broad concept that may be thought of as a construct, trait, personality pattern or personality configuration. The chapter focuses on narcissism, and conceptualises it through the categorical view of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and the dimensional view of
Millon’s Ecological theory. Thereafter it briefly examines the prevalence of narcissism, as well as its historical formulation. The unpacking of personality in general, and narcissism in particular, provides the reader with the knowledge needed to pinpoint the associated concepts within the chosen case later on.
Personality, Normality, and Abnormality
Personality refers to “long standing pattern[s] of behavior expressed across time and in many different situations” (Millon et al., 2004, p. 3). This behaviour reflects a complex “patterning of characteristics”, with various characteristics emerging over time (Millon et al., 2004, p. 9) within different contexts. The emergence of traits is influenced by the interaction between the individual’s genetics and their environment. The individual’s genetics affect how they respond to their environment, while the individual’s environment affects whether particular genes emerge
(Paris, 2005). Patterns of characteristics emerge “across the entire matrix of the person” (Millon et al., 2004, p. 9). 77
Whether personality patterns arise due to genetic or environmental influences, or from within particular contexts, their formation is inherently complex, and emerge in behaviours that are presumed to represent who the individual is. Behavioural patterns may broadly be characterised as normal or as abnormal or pathological. The initial conceptualisations of normality are rooted in the medical model, which suggests that normality is the absence of illness
(Sabshin, 2005). The implication here is that health and illness, or normality and pathology, are distinct categories (Clark, 2005). However, normality and pathology are not necessarily discrete conditions, and there is much overlap between normal and pathological behaviour (Clark, 2005).
The line between what is considered normal and what is not, is indistinct. One of the ways of ascertaining the line at which abnormality or illness is identified within the realm of personality, is clinical experience (Sabshin, 2005). This experience is appraised by the empirical base which informs abnormality; however, over time this empirical base grows and changes (Sabshin, 2005).
Consequently the line defining abnormality is continually redefined.
Outside of the medical model, Wood, Gosling, and Potter (2007) defined normality as either the average measure, where abnormality is seen as behaviour that deviates too far from the mean, or as the highest positive level, where normality is a standard of behaviour that is seldom reached. Both these conceptualisations are valid, though perhaps more practically applicable,
Wood et al. further defined normality as relative to a particular culture, seeing normality as constructed within the sociocultural context. “Standards of normal or acceptable behaviour are understood to vary considerably across cultures, and consequently, abstract normality judgments are understood to be social evaluations” (Wood et al., 2007, p. 864). Rooted in context, Millon and Gossman (2005, p. 367) asserted that normality is the individual’s “flexibility in their transactions with their environment” and thus the appropriateness of their behaviour to context, 78 over time. Linked to this, Millon (2004) particularly was of the opinion that personality traits are established in adaptation to an environment, but as individuals age, they may be maladaptive in different environments. Thus, personality traits are either adaptive or maladaptive to functioning.
Whichever dimensions are used to define normality, the presence of maladaptive functioning or abnormality is difficult to define, and the boundary between normality and abnormality is frequently a value judgement. Abnormality in personality is associated with individuals who are known to have difficulty in interactions, and who consequently experience subjective distress or impairment in their functioning. The construct distress is weighted as significant when it is outside of culturally appropriate expectations, and when it is persistent (Phillips, 2009). Distress has overlaps with impairment (Phillips, 2009). Impairment may be understood as deficits within the domains of occupation, academics, social and/or role functioning, and may vary in “degree and severity” (Stein et al., 2011, p. 3). Distress or impairment, again, is a value judgement.
However, whatever the context, Millon (2011) suggested that disordered personality patterns are characterised by “adaptive inflexibility”, and the recurrent presentation of pathological themes in the lives of individuals.
Millon (et al., 2004, p. 10) cautioned that abnormal behaviour “constitute[s]” the individual, developing over the entirety of the individual’s being. Individuals with biological and psychological vulnerabilities are more likely to develop abnormal patterns, although their environment may also protect them from developing abnormality (Paris, 2005). The conceptualisation of normality or abnormality helps to facilitate an understanding of personality as potentially effective or ineffective in facilitating engagement with the world, and personality thus having both normal and pathological expression (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). 79
Narcissism as a Personality Pattern
There are a large number of personality patterns, and narcissism is one such pattern. Narcissism can be conceptualised on a continuum, with “normal” or “adaptive” narcissism on the one end and “pathological” or “malignant” narcissism on the other. Normal narcissism is linked to “self- preserving, self-regulating and self-asserting activities” and is further associated with the qualities of competitiveness, status, charisma, and leadership (Stone & Ronninstam, 1998, p. 7), while pathological narcissism is associated with a higher degree of “self-centered, self-indulgent,
[and] hedonistic ways of thinking and living” (Mason & Brackman, 2009, p. 2). The narcissistic pattern appears not as an all or nothing characteristic, but as a matter of degree.
Thus, within the measure of degree, narcissistic individuals see themselves as “able and admirable” (Millon, 2011, p. 414), and present as superior (Millon et al., 2004). They are likely to “justify their actions” to excuse a superior attitude (Millon et al., 2004, p. 414), and are likely to mistrust the judgments of others, “rather than question the correctness of their own beliefs”, believing that others are in the wrong (Millon, 2011, p. 414). In the process they “are characteristically insensitive to others’ concerns and [to] social constraints, and often take an adversarial view of others” (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, p. 198). This generally results in
“problems and distress for the narcissistic individuals and for those with whom they interact”
(Miller & Campbell, 2007, p. 1). Miller and Campbell (2007, p. 7) highlighted that there are specific traits within pathological narcissism that “are especially difficult to tolerate when faced regularly”.
In general, the pattern of narcissism is linked to a broad field of research, from clinical conceptualisations of pathological narcissism, to research on narcissistic personality traits, to psychiatric diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Cain, Pincus & Ansell, 2007, p. 649). 80
Narcissism as a personality configuration is thus highly complex, and the clinical expressions are broad (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2009), and difficult to “define and measure” (Morf & Rhodewalt,
2001, p. 177). The antecedents to narcissism are unclear, and clinical theories “disagree about the exact etiology”, but all see the “origins of the fragile but grandiose self as a response to unempathic and inconsistent early childhood interactions” (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, p. 179).
Narcissism as a construct may be thought of in a variety of ways, both as trait, a personality pattern, and as a character structure. For the purposes of this research, narcissism is seen as a personality structure. Further insight into this personality structure is generated by conceptualising it in different ways, from both a categorical and a dimensional view.
Categorical View of Narcissism
The categorical approach to personality examines personality patterns, and categorises them by meeting particular criteria when their presence is distinguished at certain levels of severity.
Arguably, one of the most popular categorical approaches to personality is found within the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM was initially established by the Army and Veterans Administration in order to help health practitioners to understand the mental health problems that veterans presented with after World War II (Millon,
Grossman, Millon, Meagher, & Ramnath, 2004). From there the DSM has grown, and there have been a number of updates over the years, informed by continued research. The DSM is considered the official classification system for mental health professionals by many (Million et al., 2004). The DSM outlines the criteria that health professionals use to distinguish between behaviours that are of clinical significance and those that are not; this aids in education, research and communication among health professionals (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). 81
The disorders represented in the DSM are “standard and official schemas” and represent “a reasonable reflection of the state of the art as judged by a well-respected and highly competent committee of practising clinicians and academic researchers” (Millon, 2011, p. 55). Disorders represented are validated by systematic research, although the DSM also includes some
“categories” not validated that are seen as “clinically useful” (Millon, 2011, p. 55). It is important to note that normal behaviour is not categorised; only abnormal or pathological behaviour meets the criteria, and culminates in the diagnosis of a “distinct clinical syndrome”
(APA, 2013, p. 645).
There have been five different DSM versions to date. The DSM-III was notable in the introduction of objective criteria used for diagnosis, in order to enhance the scientific nature of diagnosis (Sabshin, 2005, p. 232). From this point operational criteria for each disorder were generated, homogenous groups were identified, and a standard “gauge” created; this standard gauge is associated with increased “reliability and comparability” (Millon, 2011, p. 55). It should be noted that “psychological processes are multidetermined and multidimensional in expression” (Millon & Grossman, 2005, p. 333), and within diagnoses, “many different combinations of diagnostic criteria are possible, a fact that recognizes that no two people are exactly alike, even when both share the same personality diagnosis” (Millon et al., 2004). The principles of operational criteria and a standard gauge remain constant throughout future versions of the DSM. The DSM-IV was released in 1994, with the revision of text [and not diagnostic criteria] done again in 2000, published as the DSM-IV-TR. The latest version, the DSM-5, was released in 2013.
The latter two versions of the DSM – the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 – are used in clinical practice in current times. However, the shift from the DSM-IV-TR to the DSM-5 with regards to 82 the diagnosis of personality has been controversial. A new framework by which to understand personality diagnosis was put forward for inclusion into the DSM-5 by a DSM Workgroup. The
DSM-5 Task Force endorsed the proposal for this framework, however, the APA Board of
Trustees did not endorse it. Consequently, the DSM-IV-TR framework is included in the DSM-5 as Section II. The new framework is also included for investigation and research purposes, in the
DSM-5 as Section III. Consequently, professionals are currently divided as to which version of personality diagnosis to use when working with personality disorders.
The DSM-IV-TR framework is highly symptom focused expressed through numerous specific criteria used within individual personality disorders to identify them. The new framework in the DSM-5 motivates for a more flexible conceptualisation of personality. The new DSM-5 framework identifies specific symptoms, but the number is reduced; furthermore the symptoms have inherent fluidity in their ability to more effectively capture the dynamic of the personality.
The new DSM-5 framework represents the evolution towards a more dynamic way of conceptualising personality. However, this conceptualisation is in the early stages of use. Thus, there is still minimal research associated to support the framework, and current work within the framework is exploratory.
Both DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 represent a categorical view of personality through their focus on particular criteria. To understand the workings of personality diagnosis according to the
DSM system, both ways of conceptualising personality diagnosis are expanded on here.
DSM Personality Diagnosis.
DSM-IV-TR. The DSM-IV-TR defines personality traits as “enduring patterns of perceiving, relating, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of 83 social and personal contexts” (APA, 2000, p. 686). The personality traits come together to form a personality disorder when they are “inflexible and maladaptive and cause significant functional impairment or distress” (APA, 2000, p. 686). The DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000, p. 686) further explains that:
The essential feature of a Personality Disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and
behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture and is
manifested in at least two of the following areas: cognition, affectivity, interpersonal
functioning, or impulse control (Criterion A). This enduring pattern is inflexible and
pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations (Criterion B) and leads to
clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas
of functioning (Criterion C). The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be
traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood (Criterion D). The pattern is not better
accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder (Criterion E)
and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a
medication, exposure to a toxin) or a general medical condition (e.g. head trauma)
(Criterion F).
The DSM-IV-TR identifies 10 possible personality disorders, with specific diagnostic criteria listed in each. The Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is one of these disorders. To meet the criteria for NPD, individuals need to show a distinctive personality pattern that is identified with the following criteria (APA, 2013, p. 669):
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of
empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by
five (or more) of the following: 84
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and
talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or
ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or
should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable
treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her
own ends).
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of
others.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
Individuals who meet the criteria for a NPD present with pathological or malignant narcissism. This version of the DSM focused on “behavioral and observable manifestations of narcissism” as well as “reliability and discriminant validity” (Wright et al., 2013, p. 2). The effect was that the more nuanced abstract associations of narcissism were not included. This resulted in the narrowing of “the scope of the diagnostic criteria to features of narcissistic grandiosity (e.g., arrogance, entitlement) eliminating many of the clinically meaningful char- acteristics associated with functioning (e.g., shameful reactivity or humiliation in response to narcissistic injury, alternating states of idealization and devaluation)” (Wright et al., 2013, p. 2). 85
This means that narcissism as a construct may not be accurately represented within the DSM-IV-
TR, leading, to problems with diagnosis and research.
DSM-5. The DSM-5 was published in 2013. This new framework presents significant changes to the understanding of personality disorders. It defines personality disorders through
“core impairments in personality functioning and dimensional pathological personality traits”
(Wright et al., 2013, p. 3). To diagnose a personality disorder the individual must present with impairments in functioning of moderate severity or higher (Criterion A), and the presence of pathological traits must be identified (Criterion B) (Wright et al., 2013, p. 3). In particular,
Criterion A refers to impairments in self and interpersonal functioning, while Criterion B refers to “25 primary pathological personality traits” associated with “5 higher order dimensions”
(Wright et al., 2013, p. 3). Thus the new framework combines personality dysfunction with the trait model. A personality diagnosis is made within 6 personality disorders, namely, Antisocial,
Avoidant, Borderline, Narcissistic, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Schizotypal, or a diagnosis is made of Personality Disorder- Trait Specified (PD-TS) (Wright, 2013).
Criteria for the new NPD configuration are as follows:
A. Moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning, manifested by characteristic
difficulties in two or more of the following four areas:
1. Identity: Markedly impoverished, poorly developed, or unstable self-image, often
associated with excessive self-criticism; chronic feelings of emptiness; dissociative
states under stress.
2. Self-direction: Instability in goals, aspiration, values, or career plans. 86
3. Empathy: Compromised ability to recognise the feelings and needs of others
associated with interpersonal hypersensitivity (i.e., prone to feel slighted or insulted);
perceptions of others selectively biased toward negative attributions or vulnerabilities
4. Intimacy: Intense, unstable, and conflicted close relationships, marked by mistrust,
neediness, and anxious preoccupation with real or imagined abandonment; close
relationships often viewed in extremes of idealisation and devaluation and alternating
between overinvolvement and withdrawal
B. Both of the following pathological personality traits
1. Grandiosity (an aspect of Antagonism); feelings of entitlement, either overt or
covert; self-centeredness; firmly holding on to the belief that one is better than others;
condescension towards others
2. Attention seeking (an aspect of Antagonism); excessive attempts to attract and be the
focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking
Within the new narcissistic configuration, aside from these two pathological personality traits
(grandiosity and attention seeking), further specifiers from the list of 25 personality traits may be identified.
Although the new DSM framework tries to address issues associated with how narcissism as a construct is conceptualised, it is in the early stages of use. Thus there is still minimal research associated to support the framework, and current work within the framework is exploratory.
Whichever DSM framework is used, within the context of this study it is important to highlight that diagnosis of NPD designates a personality pattern present at pathological levels, in this case pathological narcissism. The interpersonal relationships of individuals who meet the criteria for NPD “are typically impaired [this is] because of problems derived from entitlement, 87 the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others” (APA, 2013, p.
671). Miller and Campbell (2007, p. 1) similarly asserted that NPD “primarily causes dysfunction and distress in interpersonal domains” and that the “strongest impairment associated with NPD is the distress or “pain and suffering” experienced not by the narcissist but by his or her significant others” (Miller & Campbell, 2007, p. 7).
Dimensional View of Narcissism
Another manner in which narcissism can be viewed is through the dimensional approach to personality. The dimensional view takes the flexible view of personality illustrated in the new
DSM-5 framework a step further; it also views narcissism dynamically, but particularly shifts away from criteria towards the understanding of narcissism as present on a continuum of strength. The dimensional view is seen here through Millon’s Evolutionary Perspective. This theory was chosen because it is well established and supported (Millon & Grossman, 2005;
Millon et al., 2004; Millon, 2003; 2011; Morf, & Rhodewalt, 2001). The theory was initially named the Biosocial-learning theory and was published in 1969, but was reformulated in 1990 to reflect a greater focus on evolutionary principles. Millon’s Evolutionary Perspective views personality as emerging from the interaction between “a biologically based pattern of sensitivities and behavioral dispositions” or genetic influences, with the ecological habitat in the form of direct environments, other individuals, and social experiences (Millon, 2011, p. 43). The interaction between these variables is circular, and thus continuous (Millon, 2011, p. 43), and the personality that emerges therefrom is a predominantly “distinctive style of adaptive functioning”
(Millon & Gossman, 2005, p. 338). The organism’s adaptive behaviour is shaped in the environment, with behaviours gradually becoming “narrowed, selective, and, finally, crystallised into preferred ways of relating to others and coping with this world” (Millon & Gossman, 2005, 88 p. 346). Thus, personality patterns that emerge “contribute to [it’s] individual survival and reproductive success (Millon & Gossman, 2005, p. 338).
Principles of evolutionary survival.
Personality develops against the backdrop of evolutionary principles. There are four principles of evolutionary survival, or modes, identified by Millon, and these are existence, adaptation, replication, and abstraction. Each mode contains polarities. Individuals use strategies associated with the different polarities to cope with that particular evolutionary drive. For example, the first mode is existence and it contains the polarity pleasure versus pain. Thus, the affirmation of existence may be achieved through strategies associated with either the experience of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. Strategies generally assist the individual to maximise positive reinforcements and avoid negative reinforcements (Millon, 2011). The kind of strategies individuals use within each of the modes to meet the evolutionary drive, along with the deficiencies, imbalances and conflicts that emerge in this process, reflect the individual’s personality pattern.
Most individuals will use a balance of strategies from both poles within each of the modes, rather than all or nothing associations with a particular polarity; this is seen as normality.
However, a balance between bipolar strategies does not refer to equality, and thus “balanced but unequal positions” can emerge (Millon, 2003, p. 11). Furthermore, individuals can develop
“multiple adaptive styles”, sometimes using strategies from one pole, and sometimes using strategies from another; they can also “shift from one position on a bipolar continuum to another as the circumstance of life change[s]” (Millon, 2003, p. 11). Importantly, strong imbalances in the strategies used reflect abnormality (Millon, 2003).
Mode of existence. The first polarity, related to the aim of existence, focuses on life 89 enhancement strategies. Its emphasis is on the organism’s continual “transformation” from a
“random or less organized state into those possessing distinct structures of greater organization”
(Millon, 2003, p. 7). Among all organisms, this is concerned with the differentiation of the organism from its context. The two strategies that may be used to achieve this are the enhancement of life, as well as the preservation of life (Millon, 2003, p. 10); one strategy is focused on achieving existence and the other on preserving existence (Millon, 2011).
Among sentient organisms, the maintenance and preservation of life corresponds with the psychic modality of pleasure and pain (Millon, 2003, p. 10). Thus individuals will use strategies that will either enhance pleasure and generate rewarding experiences (e.g. engaging in experiences that uplift and affirm) or avoid danger and pain (e.g. avoiding experiences that lead to discomfort and discouragement). Thus, within this mode, the guiding question is: what reinforcements does the individual seek? That is, the enhancement of pleasure or the avoidance of pain (Millon, 2011, p. 44).
Deficiencies, imbalances and conflicts occur within the individual’s use of strategies to meet the evolutionary aim of the pleasure-pain polarity. For example, the sadistic personality is conflicted about the meeting of this aim, while the schizoid personality shows deficits in the meeting of this aim (Millon & Gossman, 2005). Millon and Gossman (2005, p. 339) identified the individual’s orientation towards pain or pleasure as established within the first year of life.
Mode of adaptation. The second domain, related to adaptation, focuses on life preservation strategies. The previous mode focused on establishing life, while this one is focused on sustaining it (Millon & Grossman, 2005). Thus, this mode is associated with “homeostatic processes employed to sustain survival” within the environment (Millon, 2003, p. 7). Among all organisms it is associated with how phenomena adapt to their environments. There are two 90 strategies used to achieve this. The first is ecological accommodation, which refers to the
“inclination to passively ‘fit in’” (Millon, 2011, p. 51), and is associated with being largely reactive to events (Millon,2011, p. 44). The second is ecological modification, which refers to changing the environment, and the taking of initiative to shape events (Millon, 2011).
Among sentient organisms this mode points towards a way of being, and is associated with the psychic modality of active versus passive (Millon & Gossman, 2005). Thus, within this mode, the guiding question is: how does the individual perform to elicit reinforcement? Actively or passively? (Millon, 2011, p. 44). Individuals prone to active strategies tend to “busily modify the circumstances of their environment” (Millon, 2003, p. 17), showing qualities such as vigilance, persistence, and decisiveness (Millon, 2011, p. 45). Individuals prone to passivity show “few overt strategies to gain their ends” (Millon, 2003, p. 15). They may tend toward inertness, acquiescence, resignation, and “initiate little to shape events” (Millon, 2011, p. 46).
Deficiencies, imbalances and conflicts occur within the individual’s use of strategies to meet the evolutionary aim of the active-passive polarity. For example, both the avoidant and dependent personality show imbalances in the meeting of this aim (Millon, 2003). Millon and
Gossman (2005) identified the individual’s orientation towards an active or passive stance as established within the second year of life.
Mode of replication. The third domain, related to replication, focuses on reproductive styles, which ensure survivability of the species. All organisms use strategies associated with the polarities of self and other to achieve the replication drive. Organisms possessing a self- propagating strategy (Millon & Gossman, 2005) are associated with many partners, and many offspring, and limited input into upbringing, to increase opportunities for replication of their genes. Organisms possessing an other-nurturing strategy (Millon & Gossman, 2005) are 91 associated with limited partners and offspring, with much input into upbringing, to maximise the opportunity for replication of their genes (Millon, 2003, p. 19). Many organisms cannot show big adaptions to their environment, as their behavioural repertoire is limited; new potentials and traits emerge slowly over time (Millon, 2003, p. 17). Sentient organisms are capable of big adaptations to their environment, and new potentials and traits may emerge relatively more quickly.
The strategies of reinforcement that sentient organisms use are from both polarities, although individuals are likely to be drawn more strongly to one of the polarities (Millon, 2003). The psychic modality for sentient organisms is self and other (Millon, 2003, p. 8). The self or other focus “recognizes that among all objects and things in our environment, there are two that stand out above all others in their power to affect us: our own self and others” (Millon, 2011, p. 44).
Within this mode, the guiding question is thus: Who does the individual turn to as a source of reinforcement? Self or other? (Millon, 2011, p. 45). Psychologically, the self-orientated individual leans towards individual action, associated with qualities such as self-centeredness, while the other-orientated individual leans towards nurturing actions, associated with qualities such as caring (Millon & Gossman, 2005). “Humans can be both self-actualizing and other- encouraging, although most personals are likely to lean toward one or the other side” (Millon &
Gossman, 2005, p. 372)
Deficiencies, imbalances and conflicts occur within the individual’s use of strategies to meet the evolutionary aim of the self-other polarity. For example, the compulsive personality shows conflicts in the meeting of this aim (Millon, 2003), while the schizoid personality shows a deficiency in this aim (Millon, 2001). Millon and Gossman (2005) identified the individual’s orientation towards a self-other stance, as established in adolescence. 92
Mode of abstraction. The fourth mode, related to abstraction, refers to reproductive nurturance, and is concerned with the capacity to represent or symbolise the environment. This skill underlies the evolution of the organism (Millon & Gossman, 2005). This mode is only present in sentient organisms, as they possess a reflective capacity that allows for intentional abstraction (Millon, 2003). This reflective capacity allows individuals to symbolise their environments, and generate “adaptive competencies” and evolving technology (Millon &
Gossman, 2005, p. 346). Furthermore, the reflective capacity allows the individual to know the self (Millon, 2003).
The polarities of this mode focuses on “styles of cognizing” associated with “what people attend to” and “how they process information” (Millon, 2003, p. 24). There are four sets of polarities. The first two pairs are viewed as information sources. In the first set, one polarity is associated with looking outside of the self for “information, inspiration, and guidance”, while the other polarity looks within the self (Millon, 2003, p. 25). In the second set, one polarity is associated with either an affinity for “direct observation experiences of a tangible, material, and concrete nature” while the second is associated with experiences that are “intangible” and
“ambiguous” (Millon, 2003, p. 25).
The last two sets of polarities are viewed as transformation processes and are associated with cognitive processing. The third set “differentiates processes based essentially on ideation, logic, reason, and objectivity from those that depend on emotional empathy, personal values, sentiment, and subjective judgements” (Millon, 2003, p. 25). The fourth set is associated with the tendency towards making “new information conform to preconceived knowledge” within present schemas, versus the tendency towards “distancing from what is already known” and creating “innovative ideas” from an open stance towards information (Millon, 2003, p. 25). 93
The outcome of the development of these capacities is the development of identity, judgement, values, the integration of thinking and feeling, and the capacity to set goals (Millon
& Gossman, 2005). Capacities that emerge are affected by environmental stimuli and nutrition, the kind of stimulation received, and pivotal developmental periods in which the stimulation occurs, amongst other factors (Millon & Gossman, 2005). Deficiencies, imbalances and conflicts occur within this development lead to “overly diffuse and scattered” potentials or adaptiveness; “the sense of self and other, as well as the relationship of thought and emotion, is no longer expressed in personally elaborated and multifaceted forms” (Millon & Gossman,
2005, p. 361). Individuals may “vacillate”, “flounder or stagnate” without an “inner core”
(Millon & Gossman, 2005, p. 361). Millon and Gossman (2005, p. 339) identified the individual’s orientation towards these strategies as emerging between the ages of 4 and 18
(Millon & Gossman, 2005).
Millon’s Taxonomy
The evolutionary modes intertwine to create the personality functioning of the individual. This intertwining forms enduring patterns of personality functioning, which occurs across the entirety of the individual’s functioning (Millon & Gossman, 2005), and forms both adaptive and maladaptive personalities (Millon & Gossman, 2005). The intertwining of evolutionary modes form a taxonomy based on the first three polarities. Consequently “Eight basic coping patterns” emerge by combining the pleasure-pain (nature), self-other (source), and the active-passive
(instrumental behaviours) modes of functioning (Millon, 2011, p. 44). The taxonomy formed is seen as table 1.
94
Table 1: Millons Taxonomy. This table illustrates how the first three polarities form eight basic coping patterns.
Reprinted from Personality Disorders in Modern Life (p. 63) by T. Millon., S. Grossman., C. Millon., S.
Meagher., R. Ramnath, 2004, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copyright (2000) by John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The patterns or coping strategies are viewed as complex forms of instrumental behaviour
(ways of achieving positive reinforcements and avoiding negative reinforcements), in terms of the kind of reinforcement that is pursued (pain-pleasure), where it is pursued (self-other), and how individuals behave to get them (active-passive). For example, the Dependent personality shows a balance between pleasure and pain avoidance, pursuing the reinforcement of this in others, and doing so passively
Each of the eight patterns is associated with DSM-III personality pathologies (Millon, 2011), and may be seen below:
95
(1) Passive -dependent – Dependent personality
(2) Active –dependent - Histrionic personality
(3) Passive – independent Narcissistic personality
(4) Active –independent Antisocial personality
(5) Passive –ambivalent Compulsive personality
(6) Active –ambivalent Negativistic personality
(7) Passive –detached Schizoid personality
(8) Active- detached Avoidance personality
An additional three personality patterns were identified, and acknowledged for their increased severity, as Cycloid (borderline) personality, Paranoid personality, and Schizotypal personality.
It is important to note that the taxonomy identifies the predominant pattern of the personality, and although each individual will present with a predominant pattern, their personality style is not necessarily maladaptive.
It is difficult to distinguish normal functioning from pathology. However, Millon identified three levels of pathology which he named simple reactions, complex syndromes, and personality patterns (Millon & Gossman, 2005). Simple reactions occur when individuals who generally show adaptive functioning, react pathologically to difficult situations; the pathological reaction is congruent with the kind of reaction that most people would engage with (Millon & Gossman,
2005). Complex syndromes are disruptions in the usual adaptive functioning, a pathological response to circumstances to which the individual is vulnerable (Millon & Gossman, 2005).
Personality patterns reflect general maladaptive functioning to average or normal situations
(Millon & Gossman, 2005). “Traits that comprise personality patterns have an inner momentum 96 and autonomy; they are expressed with or without inducement or external participation” (Millon
& Gossman, 2005, p. 366).
Passive-independent or narcissistic pattern.
It is now timeous to explore how the narcissistic personality configuration emerges within
Millon’s Evolutionary taxonomy. The pleasure-pain polarity does not feature strongly in the understanding of the narcissistic personality configuration from this paradigm. The narcissistic individual deals with the pleasure-pain polarity by striving for a balance between life enhancing and life preserving strategies. The active-passive polarity features within the narcissistic pattern in the form of passive accommodation (Millon, 2011). Narcissistic individuals passively accommodate within the environment, through the assumptions that they make, and the consequent position they take, in relation to others. That is, narcissistic individuals “diminish the significance of others and turn passively to the high status they assign themselves” (Millon,
2011, p. 375). They passively assume that good things will come to them, and in so doing exploit others because of an underlying self-centeredness (Millon & Gossman, 2005). The narcissistic individual’s self-esteem is thus based on the “assumption of personal worth and superiority” (Millon, 2011, p. 375). The self-other polarity appears notably in the narcissistic pattern, through an imbalance in the replication strategy (Millon & Gossman, 2005); narcissistic individuals focus on self and on self-individuation, rather than focusing on others. They have learnt to rely on themselves for reinforcement, and thus they turn to the self rather than others to meet their needs (Millon, 2011, p. 375). It is evident that narcissists turn to self to maximise pleasure and avoid pain. They experience weakness and dependency as threatening (Millon,
2011). 97
Narcissistic individuals seek “status and superiority” through the enhancement of self as better than others (Millon, 2001, p. 375), and they “seek to have others acquiesce to their wishes”
(Silverstein, 2007, p. 29). The focus on self follows two lines of development (Millon, 2003, p.
22): the first is the formation of a grandiose self-image, seeing themselves as having qualities of value. The second line of development is associated with “egotistical self-involvement”, and the experiencing of pleasure through the focus on self (Millon, 2003, p. 22). They assume that others will see how special they are (Millon, 2003), and due to their passivity, expect to get good things without giving back (Millon, 2011).
Within this broader narcissistic pattern, Millon (Millon & Gossman, 2005, p. 379) identified four narcissistic subtypes, which are:
elitists, who fancy themselves as demigods, flaunt their status, and engage in self-
promotion. Other notable variants are the compensatory type with covert avoidant
features, underlying feelings of inferiority, and illusions of superiority. Noteworthy too
are the amorous and unprincipled subtypes.
Narcissism is often associated with self-centeredness. However, it is more than this. It is the overvaluing of personal worth; narcissistic individuals “direct their affections towards themselves rather than others, and expect that others will not only recognize, but cater to the high esteem in which narcissists hold themselves” (Millon, 2011, p. 375). This is a problem when their beliefs are not founded in reality (Millon, 2011). It is notable to highlight here that interpersonal difficulties are inherent to the identified pattern. Millon (2011, p. 376) described these interpersonal difficulties in the following way:
98
Narcissistic individuals are benignly arrogant. They exhibit a disdainful indifference to
the standards of shared social behavior and feel themselves above the conventions of the
cultural group, exempt from the responsibilities that govern and give order and
reciprocity to societal living.
Millon further divided the narcissistic personality into 3 degrees of severity. The mild or normal level is called the confident style, and is associated with being “self-centered but also successful in social and occupational settings” (Millon, 2011, p. 377). The moderate level is called the egotistic style, and is associated with “outlook and behavior that begins to antagonize others by virtue of his presumptions and disdain for others” (Millon, 2011, p. 377). The severe level is the narcissistic disorder, which is associated with “arrogance and self-indulgence that justifies the designation as set forth in the DSMIII and IV [5] criteria” (Millon, 2011, p. 377).
It is evident from the exploration of categorical and dimensional views of narcissism that the
DSM is more closely aligned with a positivistic theory, while Millon’s Ecological Perspective is situated somewhere between a positivist and interpretavist theory, being more pragmatic in nature. Examination of these two approaches served to provide further insight into the narcissistic personality pattern. The exploration showed views of narcissism as present either at a particular level of severity, or as a dynamic which ranges in severity. However, whichever view used to conceptualise narcissism, it is evident that an increase in severity is linked to abnormal functioning, and a negative impact to the individual’s interpersonal functioning.
Prevalence
The study of narcissism has received more and more attention in current times. Stinson et al.
(2008) reported a 6% lifetime prevalence rate of pathological narcissism in the general population, while Twenge and Foster (2010) reported intergenerational increases in narcissism 99 over time. However, narcissism has received very little empirical attention (Miller & Campbell,
2007). Furthermore, the way in which narcissism is operationalised may influence the prevalence rates which emerge when measured. Wright et al. (2013, p. 2) asserted that
“differences in the conceptualization of the construct across disciplines have led to differences in the assessment measures employed and, ultimately, have served to obscure an already complex theoretical picture”. Consequently, it is quite possible that the prevalence rates are higher than contemporary studies have asserted, and are affected by difficulties in measurement.
Nonetheless, there is evidence that narcissism is more prevalent in individualist cultures
(Foster, Campbell & Twenge, 2003), as opposed to collectivist cultures. Bedford and Hwang
(2003, p. 131) expanded on this by saying that western individuals focus more on “individual rights, rather than personal duties or social goals”. Millon et al. (2004) furthermore added that individuals from disadvantaged areas are focused on safety and survival needs, and that a focus on passive expectation seen in narcissism is a luxury.
Given the complexity of the narcissistic personality configuration, along with the high and possibly increasing prevalence rate, there is an increased importance to understanding narcissism further. Aiding this understanding, a brief reflection of historical formulations of narcissism is presented.
Formulations of Narcissism
The term narcissism was first used by Ellis in 1889 [1933] in the context of auto-eroticism. A more notable starting point for the understanding of narcissism is an article entitled “On
Narcissism”, authored by Freud in 1914. From this starting point there have been many contributions that have led up to modern understandings of the term, with the most notable theorists illustrated in figure 2. 100
Figure 2: Theoretical Contributors to Narcissism. This figure is a visual depiction of authors who have contributed to the theoretical understanding of narcissism since narcissism became a term in 1898. Reprinted from
Confident styles, egotistic types, narcissistic disorders: The CEN Spectrum in Personality Spectrum in Disorders of
Personality (p. 388) by T. Millon, 2011, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copyright (2011) by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The contributions of some of these theorists depicted in figure 2 are expanded on below. This expansion is done in order of their appearance in figure 2.
Freud’s conceptualisation of narcissism was that it is a normal stage of development through which all individual’s progress, stemming from the instinct for self-preservation (Freud, 1914).
He understood this as libidinal energy being overly invested in the self for gratification and later progressing toward investment in external objects. Pathological narcissism occurs when progression to external objects does not occur. Freud’s work engendered much debate.
From there, Waelder extended the definition of narcissism from a dynamic, to a personality configuration, associated with being “condescending, feeling superior to others, preoccupied with themselves and with admiration, and exhibiting a marked lack of empathy, often most apparent in their sexuality, which is based on purely physical pleasure than combined with emotional intimacy” (Levy, Ellison, & Reynoso, 2011, p. 1). Along similar lines, Reich proposed 101 a phallic-narcissistic character. He believed that narcissism developed because of fixations at the libidinal-phallic stage, and understood narcissism as “a compensation and wish-fulfilling reaction to conflicts” (Kohut, 2011, p. 379). The emerging character described by Reich is linked to “extroversion/surgency and low agreeableness” (Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel, 2006, p.
58). Reich expounded on the link between narcissism and aggression by describing such individuals as “characterized by self-confidence, arrogance, haughtiness, coldness, and aggressiveness”, and by linking this configuration to the expression of aggression and disdain when hurt (Levy et al., 2011, l. 0.9).
Horney’s contribution diverged slightly, in that she thought of narcissism as a trait, but she extended the concept by exploring different manifestations of the trait, (e.g. aggressive- expansive, perfectionist, and arrogant-vindictive types) (Levy et al., 2011, l. 1.0). Furthermore she differentiated between healthy self-esteem and narcissism, which she saw as “unrealistic self- inflation”, and not grounded in reality (Levy et al., 2011, l. 1.0).
Annie Reich (1960) proposed that narcissism is a mechanism of self-esteem regulation
“whereby self-inflation and aggression are used to protect one’s self concept” (cited in Levy et al., 2011, l. 0.9). She saw this as a consequence of early traumatic experiences, saying narcissistic individuals “retreat from others into a self-protective, grandiose fantasy world where the self is not weak and powerless but instead sage, strong, and superior to others” (Levy et al.,
2011, l. 1.0). She was the first to note serious “oscillations” in the self-esteem of narcissistic individuals, which she understood as stemming from their difficulty with ambiguity; this means that they would see their world as either perfect, or as a complete failure, and their self-esteem would vacillate accordingly (Levy et al., 2011, l. 1.0). 102
Kohut asserted that narcissism is part of a developmental sequence within normal development, with its own “processes and structures” (Kohut, 2011, p. 381). He indicated that narcissism emerges due to developmental failure, when the child does not have their grandiose self or idealised parental imago [image] mirrored sufficiently by significant others (Cain et al.,
2007). When confronted by short comings too early, the child superficially takes on “attributes of perceived competence and power that he or she admires in others” (Levy et al., 2011, l. 1.0) to gain admiration, but continues “to look for narcissistic recognition through adulthood”, in the form of “parental surrogates” (Kohut, 2011, p. 381). Thus the narcissistic individual continually looks for the ideal in others, and depreciates the self to establish it, but this search always falls short of perfection (Kohut, 2011). The result is the formation of an enfeebled self.
Kernberg’s ideas are also centered along difficulties in development, but do not include narcissism as a normal part of development. He put forward a conceptualisation of a narcissistic personality structure, providing stages of development, and clinical features which emerge when development occurs abnormally. When narcissism emerges, the individual becomes stuck in their development, struggling to integrate their positive and negative self-representations, which would allow their development to progress. Instead, positive representations are infiltrated by unrealistic, grandiose images, while negative representations are split off from the grandiose self.
The individual is left with an unrealistic self-representation, which the individual defends (Cain et al., 2007). Kernberg introduced a range of severity, and linked severity to the presence of aggression within the personality structure (Cain et al., 2007).
As has been elaborated on, Millon understood narcissism as one of the possible personality patterns emerging in the context of ecological adaption and reproduction strategies. However, he introduced four subtypes of narcissism, which consist of “blends with other pathological 103 personality types that highlight grandiose and vulnerable themes” (Cain et al., 2007, p. 642).
These types include elitist, compensatory, amorous, and unprincipled types. Narcissistic types were also suggested by Bursten, who identified four types, and called them craving, paranoid, manipulative and phallic (Kohut. 2011, p. 383). Bursten further emphasised that all narcissistic types have a sense of self that is cohesive. This concept of cohesiveness was expanded on by
Adler, while Cooper focused on the masochistic pathology which he understood as enmeshed with narcissism, seeing the grandiose strivings as protective against the underlying masochistic drive (Kohut, 2011).
Stone elaborated on the “divergent backgrounds and psychic states of the narcissist” (Kohut,
2011, p. 384), while Akhtar contributed by differentiating between overt and covert narcissistic characteristics, to aid conceptualisation of “self-presentations” and “intrapsychic doubts” (Kohut,
2011, p. 384). Finally, Romingston identified subtypes of narcissistic personality “based on similarities and differences in self-esteem dysregulation, affect dysregulation, and difficulties in interpersonal relationships (Cain et al., 2007). Subtypes include the arrogant narcissist, the psychopathic narcissist, and the shy narcissist.
It is evident from the theoretical body put forward by the various authors, that the understanding of narcissism is vast. They present both complementary and conflicting ideas on narcissism. Due to its complexity, there is a general lack of consensus about how to conceptualise narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008). Of the theorists that have been outlined in chronological order of their contribution, it is arguable that Kernburg and Kohut’s theories have received the most support in recent times. Kohut described these theories as “the most enthusiastically received revisions in psychoanalytic thought by far” (Kohut, 2011, p. 380), similarly described by Millon (2011, p. 380). Millon et al. (2004) expanded that psychoanalysis 104 currently “remains divided between rival formulations of narcissism” and that these two theorists
“provide two alternative and competing accounts of narcissism” (p. 344).
Good theories help us to see underlying relations and to conceptualise classifications to create a consistent, coherent whole (Millon & Gossman, 2006). These two theories are supported in literature for their ability to do this, namely, to conceptually unpack narcissism and explain the behaviour associated with it. Kernberg’s theory is associated more strongly with grandiose narcissism, while Kohut’s theory is associated more strongly with vulnerable narcissism (Kohut, 2011). Given that the current research explores narcissism within a lived life, in the person of Hughes, Kernberg’s theory was chosen for use in the study as it links more closely to the grandiose narcissism evident in the life of Hughes.
Conclusion
This chapter introduced the construct of personality and explored ideas of normality and abnormality within personality functioning. It introduced narcissism, and explored the diagnostic view of narcissism through the exploration of the DSM, as well as the dimensional view of narcissism through the exploration of Millon’s Evolutionary Perspective. Both views highlight difficulties of the narcissistic self in relation to others. The chapter briefly explored the prevalence of narcissism, and its historical formulation, leading to an understanding of the choice of Kernberg’s theory for use in this study. Kernberg’s theory thus forms the framework of conceptualisation used to explore narcissism within the case study. Kernberg’s theory will be explored in depth in the following chapter, in order to conceptually unpack his view of narcissism and explain the behaviour associated with it.
105
Chapter 5: Otto Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory
Introduction
Kernberg’s (1974, 1975, 1980, 1992) Object Relations Theory is the framework of conceptualisation used to explore narcissism within this case study of Howard Hughes.
Kernberg’s framework is used for understanding personality pathology. Kernberg’s framework combines positivist and interpretavist underpinnings, to view pathology on a developmental continuum (Christopher, Bickhard, & Lambeth, 2001). The framework conceptualises a range of psychological disorders, and sees narcissism as falling along this continuum. The framework forms a pragmatic and dynamic conceptualisation.
Kernberg’s (1974, 1975, 1980, 1992) Object Relations Theory explains the “configuration of mental functions and processes that organize the individual’s behavior and subjective experience” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 116). To conceptualise these processes here, and how narcissism emerges within them, the theory is presented in the following sections: object relations, developmental stages, processes involved in building psychic structures, process of internalisation, optimal health, pathology, narcissism, interpersonal relationships, and critique.
Object Relations
Initially an infant is made up of an assortment of undifferentiated reactions. Over time these reactions become organised into units called object relations. Object relations are constructed from the individual’s subjective experiences and behaviour. They refer to an image of self in interaction with another, with an affect state linked to the image (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
Object relations are thus “didactic” meaning they are made up of representations of interaction
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 117).
Affects attached to early object relations are extreme. When an affect is experienced over 106 and over, along with a certain kind of interaction, they are stored as affective memories or
“memory clusters” with an affective tone (Kernberg, 1998, l. 185). Patterns emerge within these memory clusters. The patterns that emerge initially are based on interactions between the infant and their primary object or caregiver, and are experienced as pleasurable and gratifying, or unpleasant and dissatisfying. It is important to note here that the subjective experience of the pattern is represented as the object relation, rather than the actual or objective experience
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Ultimately, the object relation that forms is a “repetitively activated, and enduring pattern of psychological functions that organizes the individual’s behaviors, perceptions, and subjective experience” (Caligor, Kernberg, & Clarkin, 2007, p. 5).
When stored, these representations are integrated with the individual’s genetic nature and form a stable psychological structure, or object relation. Over time object relations become more complex, and form the building blocks of the structure of the mind, which organise personality
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). The term object relation is used from here on, interchangeably, with representation.
Developmental Stages
To understand the process along which object relations form an integrated sense of self,
Kernberg identified five stages of development through which the individual progresses, namely, normal autism, normal symbiosis, differentiation of self from object relations, integration of self- representations and object representations, and consolidation of superego and ego integration.
The stages are depicted in figure 3.
107
Stage V id ego superego
Figure 3: Kernberg’s Stages of Development. This figure is a visual depiction of the stages individuals progress through in normal development. Adapted from Otto Kernberg’s object relations theory: A metaphysical critique by
J. C. Christopher, M. H. Bickhard, and G. S. Lambeth, G.S, 2001, in Theory Psychology,11(5), pp. 687-711.
Normal Autism, Stage 1
This stage occurs during the first month of life. During this time the infant is undifferentiated from their primary caregiver.
Normal Symbiosis, Stage 2
This stage occurs from the second to the six to eight month period, stemming from Stage 1. The child forms a “primary undifferentiated self-object representation” (Christopher et al., 2001, p.
693), when the child experiences a sense of oneness with the primary object or caregiver. Due to this sense of oneness, object relations that form are simply divided into good and bad representations. For example, a pleasurable representation forms when breast feeding, and an unpleasurable representation forms when struggling with a wind. Over time, these primary 108 undifferentiated self-object representations merge. More specifically, good representations of self/other fuse to become the good internal object; the threatening representations of self/bad representations of others fuse to form the bad internal object (Kernberg, 2001), thus forming
“two separate constellations of “affective memory”” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 553). These memory constellations, still separate, combine with instinctual behaviour and environmental responses to form the psychic structure (Kernberg, 1998). Over time, the representations build and become more complex; affects gradually start to differentiate into different types of pleasurable or unpleasurable representations.
When good representations are activated, the affect has the effect of triggering attention and learning. The beginnings of the ego “precipitates” or emerges around the positive representations, and as the representations grow in complexity, the ego boundaries solidify
(Christopher et al., 2001, p. 692) around these positive representations. Learning leads to the infant’s gradual differentiation of self-representations from object-representations (the early object usually being the mother) (Kernberg, 1998), supported by the infant’s cognitive development. When bad object relations patterns are activated, the child experiences anxiety, which interferes with differentiation. This is caused by difficulty in holding differing representations (good and bad representations), for example, of mom as both nurturing (good) and stern (bad). Bad representations threaten or overwhelm the experience of the good.
Consequently, the ego keeps representations with “opposite” charges separate. This separation is a defensive operation, to protect the self from anxiety, and is necessary because the child’s ego is too weak to integrate representations with opposite charges (Christopher et al., 2001). The defense further helps the child to protect their good representations. Kept separately, these representations tend towards being very idealistic or very punitive. 109
As self-object representations build and become more complex, the inherent affects also merge to form drives; the good self-object representations become the psychic structures invested with libido, and bad self-object representations become the psychic structures invested with aggression.
Differentiation of Self from Object Relations, Stage 3
This stage spans over the six to eight month to 18-36 month period. This stage has been reached when the child can consistently separate self-representations from object-representations
(Kernberg, 1998). The consequence of this ability is that representations further separate into good self and good object, and into bad self and bad object representations. This separation, supported by cognitive development, creates “stable ego boundaries” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 596) within which the individual builds up “different kinds of self-representations and corresponding object-representations under varying circumstances” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 612). However, the child is not yet able to integrate good and bad representations, and thus still keeps the good and bad representations separate.
The predominance of good representations allows the child to tolerate the presence of the bad representations. However, when bad representations are triggered, the child will experience anxiety. This is because the bad representations are contradictory to the good, and the child’s experience of good representations is threatened by the presence of the bad, without the ability to form a balance or integration between representations. Consequently, the child protects the good representations by cutting off the bad representations, and disowning them. This is called splitting. The function of splitting is thus to “protect the idealized sector of experience from contamination or destruction by the persecutory sector” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 127).
Although a normal part of development at this point, by splitting the bad representations the 110 individual splits their affect state as well as their object-images and self-images (Kernberg, 1998, l. 296). This split is understood as an outcome of the psyche’s initial lack of integrative capacity
(Kernberg, 1998).
Integration of Self Representations and Object Representations, Stage 4
This stage occurs at 36 months. The ego boundaries have solidified enough for integrations to start to take place. Integration takes place between the good and bad self-representations, forming total representations of self, also referred to as a definitive self-system (Kernberg, 2001).
Thus, the child can now experience themselves as, for example, both kind and mean; not identifying as only one of these, but as both. Similarly, the individual forms total object- representations by integrating good and bad object-representations. The child can then, for example, experience mom as both nurturing and stern; not as only one of these, but both.
Integrations thus lead to an integrated structure that represents the self and an integrated structure that represents the world.
Integration allows the representations to become less extreme, and include a more “nuanced conception of self and other” (Clarkin, 2007, p. 476), with the child now able to identify persecutory, realistic, and idealistic representations. In particular, an outcome of the identification of both realistic and idealistic representations is that children develop the capacity to experience guilt; thus, they are able to compare who they are, against who they are encouraged to be, and feel guilt about not reaching that ideal. Furthermore, the tension between realistic and idealistic self- representations generates the capacity for depression (Kernberg, 1998, l. 644); children can now feel sad about how things are versus how they would have liked them to be.
The integration of positive and negative representations furthermore has various effects on the experience of affect. The integration of opposite affects neutralises the affective charge, or 111 valence. Thus, valence associated with object relations, when triggered, are less extreme.
Simultaneously, this causes “a deepening and broadening of affective potentials”, as well as an increase in the capacity for the modulation of affect (Kernberg, 1998, l. 637). The neutralisation also releases energy which is used to activate a new layer of more sophisticated defense mechanisms that the ego can use to deal with conflict and anxiety. Repression is the new central defense (Summers, 2014).
In summation, due to integration of good and bad representations, the ego no longer needs to protect good representations from bad, as integrated representations do not need to split during anxiety provoking experiences. Once integrations have taken place, the splitting off of bad or threatening representations is less likely. Bad representations are “more likely to be experienced as potentially dangerous or destructive aspects of the self, rather than dangers coming toward the self” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 127). The individual still experiences anxiety when bad representations are triggered, however, this anxiety is now dealt with differently. The new defense mechanisms based in repression cause bad representations to be repressed into the
“dynamic unconscious” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 127). Although still owned, threatening representations are thus blocked from conscious experience. This blocking or repression is an important ego function, and is an indicator that the ego structure is expanding. The integration of representations leads to the formation of ego identity, and thus expands the structures of the ego
(Kernberg, 1998), through the formation of the ID, ego, and superego structures.
ID.
Early object relations represent frightening or disturbing self- or object-representations with high valence. When integrations occur, many of these intense representations are not well integrated, and “are rejected by the developing ego” (Christopher et al., 2001, p. 695). By this point the ego 112 has begun to form a sense of self, including an internalised value system, and is able to take charge of this rejecting. These intense representations are rejected because they are “extreme manifestations of erotic, dependent, and aggressive impulses” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p.
129), and they are experienced as threatening, as the child fears doing harm, or not protecting, either self or others (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). These representations are thus taken away from the conscious experience of self, and are repressed into the unconscious to form part of the dynamic unconscious or ID.
The ID forms part of the unconscious motivational system. It is connected to “extreme manifestations of sexual, aggressive, and dependent impulses, needs, and wishes” (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005, p. 126). It is important that these elements lose their connection to perception
(Kernberg, 1998), as this helps to solidify the ego, making it less volatile and reactive to the activation of extreme and unrealistic representations. Repression thus has the effect of consolidating the ID (Kernberg, 1998). Repression reveals the process of integration, and helps to facilitate further integration (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
Superego.
The superego goes through a variety of phases in development. The beginning of the superego emerges in Stage 3 of this developmental model (differentiation of self from object). Unrealistic bad representations are split off and projected outward onto the world. These representations are usually images of the mother, with threatening or punitive valence. The representations are then reintrojected, and are turned against the self, as a means to protect the idealised good mother representations.
The second layer of the superego forms within the current developmental stage, Stage 4
(integration of self-representations and object-representations). The ideal self- and ideal object- 113 representations come together to form the ego ideal; they integrate with the early superego, or punitively charged representations. Tension forms between the different representations, which leads to “a succession of internalizations of the other as punishing and prohibitive, followed by ideal representations of self and other” (Clarkin et al. 2007, p. 475). The good and bad representations become integrated; parts of the merged prohibitive and idealised objects are then repressed into the superego. This new integrated superego layer activates or forms the capacity for guilt. This is as the superego (made up of the ideal and prohibitory representations) can now place pressure on the ego; thus, when the actual representation falls short of the ideal representation, pressure is experienced in the form of guilt.
The third layer of the superego forms when the ego, pressured by the superego, takes the resulting guilt and projects it outward. The guilt is reintrojected back into the superego
(Kernberg, 1998). The reintrojected guilt causes growth within the superego. With growth, the superego becomes organised, and emerges with the capacity to internalise “more realistic, toned- down demands and prohibitions from parental figures” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 126).
Thus, the superego becomes more realistic and less punitive, and develops into “an organization of internalized ethical and moral values, with aggressive responses mitigated by the sophisticated affects of guilt and concern” (Kernberg, 2010, p. 7). The superego also becomes depersonified, and abstracted (Kernberg, 1998). This means that standards, values, and ideals which the individual accepts are not identified as coming from someone else, but are experienced as of the individual. Associated with this, the individual shows a “sense of personal responsibility, a capacity for realistic self-criticism, integrity as well as flexibility in dealing with the ethical aspects of decision making” (Kernberg, 2004b, p. 8). The superego now functions as the
“organizer of the ego, providing further pressures for a harmonious integration of any remaining 114 contradictory trends within the ego” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 1544).
Ego.
Under guidance of the ego, representations are organised, and ego identity is established
(Kernberg, 1998). Ego identity implies that the ego structures (namely the ID, Ego and
Superego) are consolidated; this consolidation leads to a sense of continuity of self, and of other.
This leads to consistency in interaction, and the recognition of particular interactions being characteristic of the individual (Kernberg, 1976).
Consolidation of Superego and Ego Integration, Stage 5
Although the individual has developed a conception of who they are, the identification process continues (Holmes, 2015). This means that individuals continue to acquire or build up identifications (entailing the internalisation of representations). Interaction with objects in the environment continually reshape the internal object relations that are present (Kernberg, 1998), and this in turn modifies the self-concept representations. This is a continuous reshaping process. The reshaping is aided by the individual’s general cognitive development. Continued integrations are of greater sophistication. The more integrated the individual’s self- representations are, the better their self-representations represent the reality of their interactions; the more integrated the individual’s object-relations are, the better their capacity for realistically appreciating others (Kernberg, 1998). A good level of integration of self- and object- representations, along with realistic self-knowledge,supports one another (Kernberg, 1998).
Over time, the individual has an increased “capacity to evaluate and predict events” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 490).
At this point the superego is integrated on all its levels and “fosters further integration and consolidation of ego identity” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 690), as value considerations are possible in 115 the process of making identifications. Structural changes in this stage include the processes of further depersonification and individualisation (Kernberg, 1998). Depersonification here refers to the integration of the individual’s viewpoints with that of others’, leading to generalised attitudes about life and experience (Kernberg, 1998). Individualisation refers to the replacement of early representations with representations that fit “into the overall concept of the self”
(Kernberg, 1998, l. 711). This allows for “an increasing selectivity in accepting and internalizing the qualities of other people”, and supports the ability to distinguish between subtleties of self and non-self (Kernberg, 1998, l. 711).
Individuals pass through the 5 stages in their structural development. However, concurrently, their character structure also emerges. The character structure is made up of enduring behaviour patterns, including “ways of perceiving and relating to the world, that are characteristic of the individual” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 120). Behaviours patterns are important as they may be thought of as personality traits (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005); character or personality traits are thus the “behavioural aspect of ego identity” (Kernberg, 1998). There is a reciprocal relationship between ego identity and character structure; an integrated identity leads to a more harmonious character structure, as integrations lead to a closer match between ego identity and behaviour (Kernberg, 1998).
Processes Involved in Building Psychic Structures
As the individual develops, the variety of object relations or representations increase, and are internalised and integrated to form “higher-order structures”. Thus the organisation of object relations is the “mechanism of growth of psychic apparatus” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 185). However, the structures formed under high affective charge are different to the structures that form under low affective charge (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). 116
Under low affective charge, reality based cognitive learning creates “gradually evolving definitions of self and others” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 122). These definitions are initially focused on “bodily functions”, the “position of self in space and time” and “permanent characteristics of others” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 122). Over time these definitions are integrated and become more complex; this leads to interactions with others being “cognitively registered and evaluated, [and] working models of self in relation to others are established”
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 122). Conceptions of self or identity are central to the evolving cognitive structure.
Structures formed in high affective charge lead to a particular kind of object relation. These object relations represent impulses, fears or wishes which are disallowed (Kernberg & Caligor,
2005). These structures are important because they contribute strongly to forming the two overarching motivational systems, which house libido and aggression (Kernberg & Caligor,
2005, p. 122). The valence attached to these disallowed object relations are used as the building blocks to construct these drives (Stein, 1999). Positive object relations groupings make up
“libido” and negative groupings make up “aggression” (Clarkin et al, 2007, p. 481). These affective building blocks integrate to become drives, or the “organizers” of motivation and behaviour (Clarkin, 2007, p. 476).
Early object relations form powerful drives when triggered (Clarkin et al, 2007). The intensity of the drive is directly affected by the “the state of activation of the entire intrapsychic system” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 1141); thus, affects signal activation of drives, and the intensity of the motivational system (Kernberg, 1998). The charge of energy in the drive or cathexis depends on the individual’s “total interpretation of the immediate affective arousal in terms of its meaning for self and object” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 1141). Kernberg sees the drive as “an elaborate 117 cognitive-effecting motivational force that is influenced by specific interpersonal learning experiences” (Greenberg & Safran, 1987, p. 31).
Integration has an important impact on the formation of the motivational system. Integration of positive and negative affects tones down the intensity of valence (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
The motivation system becomes integrated and hierarchically organised; it contains sexual, dependent, and aggressive strivings, which are “subjectively experienced as conscious and unconscious needs and wishes” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 133). These subjective needs and wishes of the motivational system are included into ego identity. These systems crystalise with development, depending on interaction with experiences and temperament, in the formation of object relations.
The motivation system may be seen prominently within the playing out of psychological conflicts. Needs and wishes, or instincts, are motivators; they are “wishes, needs or fears” thought of as “wished-for, needed, or feared images of relationships” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 4) that are internalised as part of the individual’s object relational pattern, and associated with the affect of the pattern (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Caligor et al. (2007, p. 4) cited the example of
“the wish to be taken care of” as represented as “a happy, dependent self being nurtured by a caring mother”. This wish for care then motivates the individual’s behaviour. Within this example, not having the wish to be cared for met may be so painful to the individual, that they block the wish from conscious awareness. Thus, the pattern or object relation that forms represents an area of conflict, and is blocked whenever that object relation is activated, and is kept out of awareness (repressed) to avoid distress (Caligor et al., 2007). Similarly, needs and wishes of the motivational system may be linked to conflicts around “sexual desire, anger, sadism, competition, power, autonomy and self-regard” as well as “wishes to loved, admired, or 118 taken care of” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 3).
Processes of Internalisation
Experiences individuals have will shape the patterns of object relations they develop. Object relations are internalised in an ordered developmental process, in three phases: introjection, identification, and ego identity (Christopher et al., 2001).
Introjection
Introjections may be thought of as the “essential organizer of what is going to be the ego”
(Kernberg, 1998, l. 295). Introjection is both the process of encoding of the infant’s memories of self in interaction with another, and also the establishment of structure with the accumulation of object relations. Introjections are self- and object-representations that have not separated yet, and their valence is “primitive, intense and diffuse” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 725). The ego thus develops both by using introjections, and through the mechanism of introjection, where object relations building blocks are internalised (Christopher et al., 2001). The beginning ego quickly grows into an organising function.
Identifications
Over time there is the gradual development of identifications, which are a higher form of introjections (Kernberg, 1998). Identifications have a clear separation between self- and object- representations. Furthermore, identifications contain a role aspect, as the “perceptive and cognitive abilities of the child have increased” to enable the recognition of role aspects
(Kernberg, 1998, l. 193). This means that the child can acknowledge a social function and can internalise roles. The valence associated with identifications is also less intense (Kernberg,
1998).
Through the internalisation of identifications, self- and object-representations build up. Over 119 time, positive and negative identifications integrate. This integration affects the form in which identifications are internalised (Kernberg, 1998, l. 746). At the stage of ego integration, identifications can be imbedded in a “primitive ego structure”, or can be discreet medications to the self-concept; this depends on whether the ID ego and superego have formed into definite structures (Kernberg, 1998, l. 749). During this later phase, self-representations are modified by object-representations, with the purpose of fitting self-representations into the overall self- concept (Kernberg, 1998). At the same time, ego functions and ego structures are modified.
Kernberg (1998, l. 763) indicated that normal identification implies:
(1) A partial modification of the total self-concept under the influence of a new self
representation; (2) some degree of integration of both self- and object- representations into
autonomous ego functioning in the form of neutralized character traits, and (3) some degree
of reorganization of the individual’s behavior patterns under the influence of the newly
introduced identificatory structure.
Ego Identity
Ego identity is established “as a result of the integration of self- and object-images” (Summers,
2014, p. 196). As ego boundaries solidify further, progressive integration continues to occur
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005), and identifications and introjections continue to be organised under the influence of the ego (Summers, 2014). Ego identity makes up “the core of the integrated ego” which is now “differentiated by repressive barriers from both superego and id” (Kernberg,
2004c, p. 10). Ego identity is seen through self-coherence, reflecting an integrated sense of self linked to “the capacity for [a] realization of one’s desires, capacities, and long-range commitments”; an integrated sense of other is linked to “appropriate evaluation of others, empathy, and an emotional investment in others that implies a capacity for mature dependency 120 while maintaining a consistent sense of autonomy” (Kernberg, 2004b, p. 8). Thus, at this stage, identity corresponds with “the subjective experience of a stable and realistic sense of self and others” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 117).
Optimal Health
When individuals develop in a normal or healthy manner, progressing well through all five stages of development, three characteristics emerge, namely, an integrated concept of self and other, variability in range of affective experience, and an internalised value system (Clarkin,
Lenzenweger, Yeomans, Levy & Kernberg, 2007). Satisfactory management of dependent, sexual, and aggressive motivations is a fourth component that was later added (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005).
An Integrated Concept of Self and Other
Healthy individuals possess an integrated sense of self and an integrated sense of other, and have thus achieved ego identity (Kernberg, 2004b). Ego identity is reflected in self-coherence, and is the basis for self-esteem (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Ego identity allows the individual to comprehend their “desires, capacities, and long-range commitments” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 121).
An integrative sense of other allows for “mature interdependence characterized by deep emotional commitments to others in the context of maintaining a sense of autonomy” (Clarkin et al. 477). In interaction, individuals are able to appropriately evaluate others, and show empathy, and social tact (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
Variability in Range of Affective Experience
Healthy individuals have variability in the range of their affective experiences, which means that they “experience of a full range of complex and well-modulated affects with full (nondefensive) 121 awareness” (Clarkin et al., p. 477). Affects are “increasingly complex and well modulated”
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 129), and even when relatively intense, “affective experiences do not lead to loss of impulse control” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 121). Consequently, individuals show consistency, creativity, and persistence in work (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p.
121), and the “capacity for sublimation in work and values” (Kernberg, 2004b, p. 8). They furthermore show trust, reciprocity, and commitment in interpersonal relationships (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005).
An Internalised Value System
The healthy individual has a mature, integrated system of internalised values (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005), seen through a mature superego (Kernberg, 2004b). Values are initially communicated to individuals through the rules and restrictions they receive from their caregivers. However, in healthy individuals, as integrations occur, values are internalised and become depersonified, which means that they are no longer tied to others. The value system is now a stable, individualised internal structure (Clarkin, 2007), which allows the individual to be guided by deep commitments to values, and to be less dependent on “external confirmation and behavioral control” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 481). Values furthermore manifest in “a sense of personal responsibility, a capacity for realistic self-criticism, integrity as well as flexibility in dealing with the ethical aspects of decision making, and a commitment to standards, values and ideals” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 122).
Satisfactory Management of Dependent, Sexual, and Aggressive Motivations
Healthy individuals are able to manage their “sexual, dependent, and aggressive motivations” which they experience as “needs, fears, wishes, or impulses” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p.
122). These motivations are all integrated into ego identity. Individuals show full expression of 122 their sexual needs, with the capacity for tenderness and commitment (Kernberg & Caligor,
2005). Furthermore, individuals show the ability to be interdependent, seen in their “enjoyment of both caretaking and dependent roles” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 122). Aggressive impulses are “channeled in healthy self-assertion”, with a decreased tendency towards overreactions or turning aggression against the self (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 122). In healthy development, individuals use mature defenses, including rationalisation, intellectualisation, humour, repression, and sublimation (Clarkin et al., 2007), and they show
“integration and management of [their] motivational structures” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p.
121).
Pathology
So far, development has been outlined as it should ideally occur. However, development does not necessarily happen as it ideally should. When the developmental stages are not navigated successfully, pathological characteristics emerge on a continuum of disturbance. This disturbance or pathology may be conceptualised on three levels of severity. At the most extreme, psychosis is evident; at the middle level are the borderline personality configurations; and at the mildest level are the neurotic personality configurations. Narcissism falls in the middle level, within what Kernberg (2004b) terms the borderline personality configurations.
The main feature of any pathology, across the three levels, is difficulty with integrations.
Thus, according to Kernberg (2004b), personality complications generally emerge in the third stage of development, when individuals struggle to integrate their good and bad representations.
This inability is caused by the experience of excessive aggression. Thus, the child holds too many representations associated with unpleasant valence, for example, patterns around discomfort at being held aggressively, being shouted at, being ignored, or not being fed enough. 123
It is a predominance of positive representations that allows individuals to tolerate the bad. Thus, when the child’s object relations are activated, the child with too many negative representations will experience a high level of negative valence which overwhelms the experience of good representations, or of their self as good.
High levels of negative valence can form in a variety of ways. It can occur because individuals have a genetic predisposition towards this (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005), because of the frustration of early instinctual needs (Kernberg, 1998), and/or because of psychic trauma and pain that disturbs early interactions (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). The child’s caregiver, usually their mother, helps the infant to regulate and organise their affects (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
If she is unable to “accurately mirror her child’s affective state”, or if there is just too much negative affect, the hypothesis is that there is an increase in formation of representations with bad valence (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
In the face of threat caused by too much aggression, and the resulting frustration of their early needs, children respond with anger, and as a consequence feel anxiety and fear that their anger will hurt their primary objects, their caregivers. In an attempt to preserve the threatened good object relations, “hostile aggression is projected out of the internal world and onto the external world” (Heiserman, & Cook, 1998, p. 75); the threatening or bad representations are thus split off and projected onto others (Kernberg, 2001). In essence, the child experiences others as bad, rather than experiencing the self as bad.
Splitting is used to protect the positive representations until the child has developed to a point where they can manage the negative representations. However, too many negative representations lead to a continuation of the splitting defense beyond what is developmentally appropriate, and integrations cannot occur. This leads to severe disturbance in development 124 because “the presence of overwhelming negative representations continues to reinforce splitting and defensive operations” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 130).
A lack of integration means that energy produced by integrations is not released, thus, repression as a defense mechanism is not activated (Christopher et al., 2001). It is only through repression that the ID, ego, and superego can develop (Christopher et al., 2001). As the individual remains confined to primitive splitting defenses, the development of these structures is impaired. The continuation of the splitting defense means that the individual is unable to experience both positive and negative feelings towards another at the same time (Johnson, 1991), and experiences other individuals as either good or as bad, and themselves as either good or bad.
When they experience themselves as good, this is unproblematic, but when they experience themselves as bad, this is very threatening. They need to protect their good core from their bad core. Again this protection occurs by splitting off the bad, threatening representations when they occur, and projecting them outwards onto others, and thus making others bad.
The continuous splitting process has the effect of weakening the ego, and leads to the ego being divided into “structures” each of which has a part of the ego, the object that
“characterizes” the relationship, and the attached valence (Suthuerland, 1963, cited in Kernberg,
1998, l. 131). Each ego structure is “nonmetabolised”, so not included in main ego structure, yet is “pathologically fixed” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 131). These ego structures are contradictory as they have not been integrated, and manifest in “the alternative expression of complementary sides of a conflict” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 28) when activated. Thus, contradictory ego states are alternatively activated, and the individual may experience “Extreme and repetitive oscillation between contradictory self concepts” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 29). Thus, for example, the child will experience mom as either kind or as stern, but will oscillate between these experiences. An 125 individual will also experience a “bland denial and lack of concern over the contradiction in his behaviour and internal experience” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 28). Splitting is the primary primitive defense mechanism. Other secondary defense mechanisms are used in support of the above the primary defense, and this include projective identification, “Omnipotence, omnipotent control, primitive idealization, devaluation and denial” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 480). Kernberg (2004a). calls the primary and secondary defense mechanisms the lower order defense mechanisms.
These defense mechanisms are explored below:
A secondary defense mechanism used that is associated with splitting is called projective identification. In projective identifications, “intolerable intrapsychic experiences” are projected onto an object (Kernberg, 1987, p. 796). Through the projective process, the individual “induces what is being projected in the other” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 480), and “tries to control the object in a continuing effort to defend against the intolerable experience” (Kernberg, 1987, p. 796). For example, the child splits off the representation of themselves in interaction, being mean, and projects the image of meanness onto mom, and experiences her as mean instead. The child then tries to control this meanness in mom by interacting with her in a submissive way, and doing what she instructs. In the area of the threatening image, in this case the image of self or mom as mean, the boundaries of self and of object are blurred, and there is a “projective identification and fusion” with the object (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33). Thus, although the bad representation is projected outwards, the blurred boundaries and empathy with the object result in the individual still identifying with the projected image (Kernberg, 1987). Thus, continuing with the example, there is a level at which the child will still identify with the image of meanness, both in self and in mom. The process of externalising bad self and object images leads to “the development of dangerous, retaliatory objects against which the patient has to defend himself” (Kernberg, 2004a, 126 p. 30). The ongoing identification “increases the fear of their own projected aggression”
(Kernberg, 2004a, p. 30). The child will thus feel threatened by “mom’s meanness”, and continually try to defend against it. Clarkin et al. (2007, p. 490) explained that individuals continue to try to control the image in the other, as they are defending their positive self introjects. Projective identification is thus used to protect the self from the bad objects
(Kernberg, 2004a) that the individual creates.
Omnipotence. This defense mechanism is an image distorting defense (Finzi-Dottan &
Karu, 2006) where the individual attributes positive qualities to the self, associated with the self as powerful, superior, intelligent or influential (Vaknin, 2007). For example, the child might experience the self as superior and capable of doing no wrong. The purpose of omnipotence is to protect the individual from their bad self-representations. Omnipotence may also be associated with the creation of a relationship with an idealised object; this is called primitive idealisation.
Primitive idealisation. Primitive idealisation is also referred to in literature as omnipotent identification. This defense creates idealised objects that are experienced as completely good.
To achieve this idealisation the individual places too much emphasis on the good, and underestimates the bad of an object (Northoff, Bermpohl, Schoeneich, & Boeke, 2007). By associating with the object, the individual shares in the greatness of the idealised object; this association forms protection from the individual’s bad representations, which have been projected outwards; idealised objects thus form “protection against a surrounding world”
(Kernberg, 2004a, p. 29). Idealisation “strengthens the bond” with an object (Nesse & Lloyd,
1992, p. 612). However, it is important to further note that this is not merely a bond, but that the idealised objects are seen as an extension of the individual, and thus the bond may be seen as a
“projective intrusion into others” which removes separation between self and object 127
(Hinshelwood, 2004, p. 72). The connection between self and object is not based on care; the individual interacts with the object as if it is a possession, with the underlying dynamic of struggling to separate self from other. For example, the child might interact with a friend by continuously dictating what the friend should do, and how they should feel. The friend has idealised qualities which by association protect the child from their bad representations, and the child interacts with the friend as if the friend is an extension of self, to dictate to. The child needs to experience their self and their objects as one, as separation in an environment of projected bad representations “might provoke anxiety or envy” (Hinshelwood, 2004, p. 72).
Omnipotent control. Omnipotent control refers to the individual’s attempts to control idealised objects in order to manipulate and exploit. Omnipotent control is based on the phantasy that the “source of everything that happens is oneself” and it is rooted in the “non recognition of the separate existence of others with a will of their own” (Consulta Baekeland, n.d., p. 1). Individuals view idealised objects as extensions of themselves, and consequently see these objects as under their control. For example, the child might ask for an ice-cream, while mom is interacting with her friends, in order for mom to pay attention to him. The child believes that he should receive his ice-cream because he wants it, and because mom as an extension of him, mom should ‘naturally’ comply. Kernberg (2004a) asserted that objects cease to be in the mind of the individual, if they are not able to control them. The outcome of this defense mechanism is that the relationship of cause and effect is distorted (Consulta Baekeland, n.d.).
Devaluation. Devaluation refers to the attribution of negative qualities to an object (Vaknin,
2007). This attribution weakens the bond with the object (Nesse & Lloyd, 1992). This occurs when an “external object can provide no further gratification or protection, [and] it is dropped and dismissed” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33). Individuals may try to destroy the object which 128 frustrated their needs, as they did not really care for the object in the first place (Kernberg,
2004a). An example of this is the child being angry at dad for not complying with his wishes and hitting dad. The child then sees dad as unworthy, and tries to destroy him through hitting him.
Denial. Denial may be thought of as “ignoring or misrepresenting thoughts or experiences that would be upsetting if accurately perceived” (Cramer, 2007, p. 2). This misrepresentation is an obvious failure in the recognition of “implications or consequences of thought, act or situation” (Northoff et al., 2007, p. 142). This defense mechanism supports splitting (Caligor et al., 2007), as the individual splits off aspects of the self, for example motivations that cause them conflict (due to their clashing with another aspect of the self), and then deny their importance
(Caligor et al., 2007). For example, the child experiences the need for closeness with mom, and the need for independence from her, and these two needs clash, causing conflict. The individual thus denies that there are “two emotionally independent areas of consciousness” (Kernberg,
2004a, p. 31). Thus the child identifies with one area of consciousness at any given time, while denying the importance of the other. Thus, these two needs are kept separate, and cannot be integrated. The individual “is aware of the fact that at this time his perceptions, thoughts, and feelings about himself or other people are completely opposite to those he has had at other times; but this memory has no emotional relevance” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 31), and is disregarded and cannot be integrated.
The above defenses are evident in the make-up of individuals who struggle to form integrations. They “complement or reinforce splitting and projective identification” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 480). Defense mechanisms are triggered by the experience of negative affect (e.g. anxiety or loss), which is associated with the activation of the conflictual object relations 129
(Caligor et al., 2007). Defense mechanisms are used to protect the individual from being aware of internalised object relations that represent “areas of conflict” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 31).
Consequently, individuals don’t consciously experience the object relational pattern, but are often only aware of the negative affect (Caligor et al., 2007).
The prevalence of these defenses points to the severity of pathology, with high use of defense mechanisms being associated with more severe pathology. Apart from the presence of these defenses, pathology may be conceptualised as emerging in one of three areas, namely, in internalised object relations, in the ego and superego, and in the development of drives
(Kernberg, 1998, l. 1434).
Pathology of Internalised Object Relations
One of the consequences of a lack of integration of good and bad representations is the formation of pathological object relationships. This has a variety of consequences. Integrations allow individuals to experience both the good and the bad of an object. As integrations don’t occur,
“Object relations have a “partial” rather than a “total” character” (Kernberg, 1969, p. 804).
Consequently, the inability to tolerate both good and bad leads to personality diffusion.
Experiencing both the good and the bad of an object produces the experience of concern and guilt towards that object; these qualities engender the capacity for true loss. Thus the lack of integration leads to the incapacity to experience concern and guilt; this leads to the inability to experience loss, or truly mourn an object, and feel depressed (Kernberg, 2004a). Instead, the individual’s depression will emerge in “impotent rage and feelings of defeat by external forces”, rather than “mourning over good, lost objects” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 34).
The lack of integration impacts the modulation and differentiation of affect (Kernberg,
2004a), as integration of representations causes the neutralisation of valence. When 130 neutralisation does not occur, the affects experienced by individuals are extreme. Consequently, when an individual’s object relations are activated, they experience intense emotion, “dominated by negative affect” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 481); this intensity leads to difficulty with the regulation of both their cognitions and their affect (Clarkin et al., 2007). Although intense, the affects experienced remain superficial and do not acquire a nuanced depth seen in individuals who do form integrations. Ultimately, the lack of integration leads to a shallowness of emotional experience. Another characteristic evident of pathological object relations is difficulties with superego integration, to be covered in more detail in the next section.
Pathology of the Ego and Superego
The lack of integration, paired with the splitting defense, has a variety of consequences for the growth of the ego and superego. During early development, the ego is built up of self- and object-representations. In pathological development, object relations used to build the ego are distorted, as they are primarily early introjects that are either all good or all bad. These early representations are primitive, and are not disowned by the ego, and suppressed into the ID, as they should be. Consequently, they remain present in consciousness, with the capacity to trigger irrational and intense patterns when activated. This brings a volatile quality to the ego, as both positive and negatively charged representations have intense valence; they are close to consciousness and “directly influence all aspects of psychic life” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 438). The extent of damage will depend on the amount of integrations that have taken place.
The superego also develops from primitive representations, in this case, bad representations.
These representations are punitive, and “mainly contain derivatives of primitive, aggressive, distorted parental images” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 253). They are initially split off (as they have intense, threatening negative valence), and are reintrojected to form the first layer of the 131 superego. However, because of their intensity they again cannot be tolerated, so are reprojected as bad external objects. The lack of integration means that these punitive representations are not toned down by idealised representations, and that the punitive representations are very aggressive. The individual also holds good representations that are overly idealistic. Thus the individual struggles to bring the ideal representations and punitive representations together realistically. Consequently, the punitive and idealistic representations “distort perception” and prevent integration (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 35).
Usually, idealised self and object images are integrated with the early superego (ego ideal); however, this does not occur and the idealised images now integrate with the real self, to form a grandiose self. This merger further interferes with the differentiation of the ego and superego.
The superego remains made up of punitive representations, which are extreme and unrealistic prohibitive parental demands. Due to their intensity, these representations are easily projected; thus, the individual will keep projecting the bad or punitive representations away. The demanding pressure that the normal superego (made up of the ideal and prohibitory objects) would usually exert on the ego is not present, and thus the capacity of the ego to experience guilt does not develop (Kernberg, 2004a). The lack of guilt further stunts the development of the superego. The outcome is that the superego structures that do develop are very punitive, and have an intense aggressive quality (Kernberg, 2004a).
The continued projection of the bad self- and other-representations creates a threatening environment, against which good representations “are used defensively” and unrealistic ideal self-images “are built up” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 36). These ideal self and object images
“reinforce omnipotence and megalomanic demands on self rather than representing a modulating ego ideal” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 36). Thus the extremely idealised images create “impossible 132 internalized demands” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 438) through the grandiose self.
The final effect of the lack of integration is on the integration of values. The individual holds values that are inflated with idealised values and ideals, and with persecutory prohibitions.
The demands for perfection and the punitive prohibitions interfere with further integration
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005), so that superego functions remain punitive and intense, are personified rather than abstracted, and are easily projected (Kernberg, 2004a). The consequence of these various pathologies is that the individual tries to generate behaviour that imitates the idealised object, in order to try to reestablish “the idealized relationship” (Kernberg, 1998, l.
756).
Pathology in the Development of Drives
Affects are first built up through experiences, and emerge as part of object relation representations; affects form the link between self- and object-images (Greenberg & Safran,
1987), and are furthermore integrated with the individual’s genetic makeup. Over time when units of object relations grow in complexity, and are integrated, the various affects are thus also integrated, and form the primary motivational system. Thus, the feelings attached to object relations are used as building blocks to construct drives (Stein, 1999). Drives are the organisers of positive or negative feelings “towards self and objects” (Stein, 1999, p. 120). Drives become evident when object relations are activated.
The motivational system becomes more modulated when integrations occur. However, when integrations do not occur, and repression is not activated as a defense, the positive and negatively charged early object relations are not repressed into the unconscious. This means that they do not become part of the motivation system. In pathology, the individual experiences a high level of negative valence, and “pathological aggression predominates” (Kernberg & 133
Caligor, 2005, p. 127). The experience of aggression makes it difficult for individuals to modulate their impulses. One of the primary effects of pathological aggression is the pathology of sexuality (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Negative valence infiltrates the experience of sexual intimacy, and can lead to “inhibition of the capacity for sensual responsiveness and erotic enjoyment” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 136), and can culminate in perverse sexual practices
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). In severe disturbance, sexuality is “co-opted” by aggression, and sexual behaviour becomes aggressive, limiting or distorting “sexual intimacy and love relations”
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 132).
Narcissism
Now that it is evident how pathological development is different from normal development, it is important to swing the focus of the chapter from pathology in general to narcissism in particular.
Self-esteem and its regulation is normal narcissism, by which is meant the healthy investment of libido, or positively charged affect into self-representations and the regulation thereof. Normal narcissism, as well as the various degrees of abnormal narcissism, will be explored.
Self-Esteem or Normal Narcissism
The self refers to various good and bad self-representations and their related affects, integrated into a “comprehensive whole” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 315). The investment of libido in the self is seen as a necessary and healthy process, as opposed to the investment of aggression in the self, which when it dominates, is seen as unhealthy (Kernberg, 2004a). Self-esteem may be understood by exploring the investment of libido; thus an increase in libidinal investment may be thought of as an increase in self-esteem. Libido is invested in the self and its intrapsychic structures, and is affected by external factors (Kernberg, 2004a). This investment is specified by
Kernberg (2004b, p. 317) as follows: 134
1. Ideal self and Ego goals – the ego identifies goals to strive towards. The ego itself has a
self-critical function, and uses these goals to measure itself against (Kernberg, 2004a).
Another way of thinking about this may be through tension between an ideal and real
self. Meeting ego goals increases the individual’s self-esteem.
2. Object representations – the individual forms a landscape of internalised object
representations. Good object relations help to confirm the self, as they supply libido to
self-representations (narcissistic supply). This occurs particularly in crises or loss, when
the individual draws on internal object representations in “compensation for
disappointments” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 319).
3. Superego factors – the superego is critical of the ego. When the individual does not meet
up to internalised standards, the superego makes demands, and punishes through self-
criticism (Kernberg, 2004a). This forms a negative feedback loop, that decreases self-
esteem through the decrease of libido. Alternatively, the ego ideal (ideal object- and ideal
self-representations) increases self-esteem or libido when the individual meets its
demands and standards (Kernberg, 2004a). If the ego ideal is absent/unintegrated, the
individual needs to replace this function with an external source of admiration.
4. Instinctual and organic factors – if the self is able to negotiate with its environment to
meet its needs, self-esteem increases (Kernberg, 2004a). This includes the presence of
good health, as positive health will positively influence libidinal investment in the self
(Kernberg, 2004a, p. 319).
5. External factors –self-esteem is regulated by reality factors associated with gratification
from external objects, attaining ego goals and aspirations through social efficacy, and
attaining intellectual or cultural aspirations (Kernberg, 2004a). Thus, there is an 135
“increase in libidinal investment of the self with love or gratification from external
objects” (Kernberg, 2004a, 319).
The above factors work together to regulate libidinal investment in the self. In normal development, an increase in libidinal investment in the self also leads the individual to naturally increase their investment in their objects. However, if there are difficulties in one of the five factors mentioned, the investment equilibrium can be disturbed. Normal narcissism is influenced by this equilibrium, but also by the level of development of the individual’s intrapsychic structures, and by their developmental level (Kernberg, 2004a). High levels of aggression can reduce libidinal investment. When this reduced investment occurs in combination with fixation or regression, normal narcissism, or self-esteem, is frustrated (Kernberg, 2004a).
Kernberg viewed narcissism as emerging in both a normalised and pathological manner, along a continuum of strength. He understood narcissism as developing as a compensatory strategy, when there are difficulties in development (Millon, Grossman, Millon, Meagher, &
Ramnah, 2004). Kernberg identified three strengths or degrees of narcissism, infantile narcissism, higher level pathological narcissism, and lower level pathological narcissism.
Infantile Narcissism
This is the “mildest form of narcissistic disturbance” and falls within the neurotic personality configurations (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 322). In general, individuals present with normal development, as they are able to form integrations between their good and bad representations, forming a “relatively well-integrated ego and self” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 322). Consequently, individuals are able to use repression based defenses to remove conflicts from conscious awareness and avoid distress (Caligor et al., 2007). Thus, internal object relations that are threatening – namely those that are highly charged, and poorly integrated manifestations of 136
“sexual, dependent, and aggressive impulses, wishes, and fears” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p.
137) - are removed from conscious experience. Repression removes these object relations from the dominant, conscious sense of self. Individuals will experience “minimal distortion of [their] internal and external reality” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 25), although repression does “introduce rigidity” into the personality (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 137).
Consequently, individuals falling within this category of personality pathology are able to show depth and caring in their relationships; they have an integrated system of values, can tolerate anxiety, show good impulse control, and are effective and creative at work (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005). They are also able to engage with the typical regulation of self-esteem to some degree. As per normal development, they are able to invest some libidinal energy in the object they are interacting with, and some in self, in the context of the “gratify[ing]relation” (Kernberg,
2004a, p. 323). However, the amount of investment is related to “the nature of the object relation” which guides the interaction; this object relation may be more or less mature, with maturity falling along a spectrum (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 323). This investment spectrum may thus range from dependency and demandingness, to reciprocity, enlightenment and mature investment
(Kernberg, 2004a). When the guiding object relation is immature, idealisation and dependency is evident in object investment (Kernberg, 2004), and “exhibitionistic, demanding, and power- orientated strivings” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 323) are evident in self-investment. Immature relationships thus include “regressive features” of self- and object investment (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 323).
The maturity of the object relation is influenced by the “degree to which there is regression or fixation to normal infantile characteristics” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 323). Regression or fixation triggers conflicts associated with aggression; this leads to reduced libidinal investment in the self 137
(Kernberg, 2004a). Maturity is also influenced by the level of development of the superego, especially the ego ideal (Kernberg, 2004a); even in healthy superego formation, individuals within the category of infantile narcissism have a harsh superego (Kernberg, 1998) which further elicits aggressive affects. The superego, and the associated values and ideals, remain immature.
Thus, the “nature of narcissistic and object ties varies according to the general level of psychological development” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 324).
Pathological Narcissism
Kernberg identified two different levels of pathological narcissism, all falling within the borderline personality configurations, but differing in their severity. The borderline personality configurations may be divided into higher and lower level pathology, with a range of different personality configurations found in each. Thus, the level of pathology is explained first, after which narcissism within that level is described.
Higher level pathology.
In higher level pathology generally, the individual is able to form some integrations to form a normal identity, and predominantly uses repression related defense mechanisms. However, their integrations are not as adequate as with normal or neurotic level development, and they present with a “poorly integrated, superficial” sense of self and others (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p.
135). The individual does invest libido into self- and object-representations, and there are object relations that represent and guide the interaction of self and object. However, the individual may not see their self quite as others do, being challenged in their “areas of conflict” (Caligor et al.,
2007, p. 23). Thus, there is evidence of splitting, projection and denial (Kernberg, 1998). The splitting is more “stable” and less “extreme” than in lower level pathology, removing conflicting object relations from the experience of the self in a more or less subtle manner (Caligor et al., 138
2007, p. 30). Although subtle, the splitting is fairly fixed in order to “keep certain aspects of internal and external experience [split] from conscious awareness” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 25).
Consequently, individuals may experience “one-dimensional versions of [an] experience”, in that alternative “views of the self that are in conflict are not experienced simultaneously” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 30). The use of defenses to protect a particular view of self causes rigidity in the personality (Caligor et al., 2007). Consequently, the individual might struggle to adjust their behaviour according to the demands of the situation, when their object relation patterns are triggered (Caligor et al., 2007). They might experience the lack of control of their behaviour as distressing. Overall, their object relations are generally stable, and they show intact reality testing.
The superego of this individual is less integrated, and thus more punitive. This leads to lower levels of guilt, and contradictions in values (Kernberg, 1998). The individual is likely to experience a predominance of negative affects (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005), as the individual’s character traits are more largely affected by “unacceptable sexual and/or aggressive needs”
(Kernberg, 1998, l. 1471). They have some capacity for involvement with others (Kernberg,
1998).
The narcissistic personality configuration within the higher level pathologies presents with
“pathological identificatory processes” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 322). Basically, for this configuration, the internalised object that develops is pathological. Important aspects of the self are projected onto this pathological internalised object (Kernberg, 2004a). When engaging with the external world, the individual projects parts of the self onto an external object, and loves the object “because it stands for the self” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 323). Thus, a lack of integration of the representations of the other interacts with an integrated, but “pathological, 139 sense of self” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 140).
Lower level pathology.
Lower level pathology is the more severe pathology, as individuals present with “clinically significant identity pathology” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 18). The core aspect of the pathology is
“the splitting of the idealized segment of experience from the paranoid” (Kernberg & Caligor,
2005, p. 135). This tendency is related to “identity diffusion and ego weakness” (Kernberg,
1998, l. 1584), which is associated with low anxiety tolerance, and the “ego react[ing] to anxiety with regression or additional symptom formation” (Gerson, 1994, p. 7). These weaknesses are also linked to poor impulse control and poor sublimatory abilities (Kernberg, 1998). Splitting maintains their idealised self and is reinforced by other primitive defense mechanisms.
The use of defense mechanisms has the effect of distorting interpersonal relationships
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005), with the lack of integration leading individuals to interact with others on the basis of part objects rather than whole objects (Kernberg, 1998). This distortion interferes with “the capacity to assess other people’s behavior and motivations in depth, particularly under the impact of intense affect activation” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 135).
Interacting on the basis of part objects negatively impacts their reality testing, which is intact for ordinary situations, but “the more subtle capacity to accurately perceive the inner states of others is impaired (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 18).
The lack of integration of self and other interferes with the internalisation of values, causing an “exaggerated quality of the idealization of positive values and ideals” (Kernberg & Caligor,
2005, p. 136); the individual experiences “excessive, idealized demands for perfection”
(Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 136). This leads to much splitting within the internalised value system. Consequently, their values are variable, and strongly influenced by those around them at 140 the time (Caligor et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is an extremely persecutory quality to the prohibitions they experience with “excessive, projection of internalized inhibitions” (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005, p. 136).
The narcissistic personality configuration within the lower level pathologies presents with high levels of aggression, either constitutionally determined or due to a frustration of their early needs. Narcissistic individuals often have parents who are “cold, aggressive and spiteful towards
[them]” (Gerson, 1994, p. 14), and consequently, in order to defend against the frustration of unmet needs, a grandiose self is established (made up of the fusion between the real self, ideal self, and ideal object). Although the self is unrealistic, it is relatively stable and cohesive
(Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.5). The formation of a grandiose self allows individuals to devalue and thus destroy object images and external objects, and to identify themselves with ideal self- images, in order to create the circumstances in which the normal need for external objects (and their internalised representations) is unnecessary. However, the grandiose self is a fragile one. It is a compensatory mechanism to protect individuals from the rage they experience (Gerson,
1994) at not having their needs met (Millon et al., 2004). Individuals grow up not being able to depend upon their “internalized good objects” and are thus in a “perpetual state of inner emptiness and abandonment” (Gerson, 1994, p. 14). Their anger may be thought of as
“revengeful resentment” (Gerson, 1994, p. 14).
Within the grandiose self, the fusion of normal self-representations with idealised self- representations results in the individual interacting in a grandiose manner, and struggling when making even minor errors that do not equate to this grandiose standard (Millon et al., 2004). The fusion of normal self-representations with idealised object-representations leads to their eliciting admiration interpersonally, and experiencing a sense of entitlement (Millon et al., 2004). 141
Narcissistic individuals will interact in a manner that requires both admiration and affirmation from others (Millon et al., 2004). Furthermore, as the ideal self- and ideal other-representations are merged, the narcissistic individual expects that others should also be as perfect as they see themselves (Millon et al., 2004). There is a “discrepancy between [the] exaggerated talents and ambitions and actual capacity and achievements” of narcissistic individuals (Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.5). Thus narcissistic individuals often do not live up to the view they have of themselves.
Thus, in circumstances that do not affirm the individual’s grandiose self [which logically could thus often occur], the rage underlying is likely to surface (Millon et al., 2004).
The goal of the grandiose self is to replace the “underlying lack of integrations of a normal self”. The rage that underlies the grandiose self causes the splitting to protect the idealised core
(Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.5). Unacceptable self-representations which are left over are projected onto others. The projection onto others leads to “devaluation and destruction not only of external objects but also of internalized object images” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 233). The object image representations that remain internalised are superficial and empty. Within this level of pathology there is no longer a relation between self and object, but “between a primitive, pathological, grandiose self and the temporary projection of that same grandiose self onto objects” (Kernberg,
2004a, p. 324), thus the relation is from self to self. The consequence is that individuals present with “a sense of self and an experience of significant others that is fragmented and unstable across time and across situations” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 21). Narcissistic individuals give the appearance of good “surface adaptation” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 140), but this appearance is not sustained over time. Their pathological internal object leads to “envy and devaluation of others, exploitative behaviour, lack of empathy and inability to depend on others” (Ronningstam,
2011, l. 19.5) which causes severe interpersonal difficulties. 142
The other consequence of bad or persecutory representations being projected is that the integration of the superego cannot occur. A “poorly integrated and primitive superego develops”
(Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.5), thus, their values are impaired, with individuals showing
“superficial or self-serving values” (Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.6). Bad representations tend to be overly aggressive and are often dissociated and projected (Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.6).
However, these unintegrated punitive object relations “can cause sadistic self-attacks”, and when they are projected they are “perceived as external attacks from others” (Ronningstam, 2011, l.
19.6).
The predominance of bad representations in intense pathology leads to the experience of the self being infiltrated by aggression. In severe pathology the individual experiences the expression of aggression as acceptable, and “pleasurable” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 140).
Thus grandiosity is combined with “ruthlessness, sadism, and hatred” (Kernberg & Caligor,
2005, p. 140). In severe narcissistic pathology, called malignant narcissism, the narcissistic personality is thus combined with antisocial behaviour, egosyntonic aggression, and paranoid tendencies (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Kernberg links malignant narcissism to “sadism and cruelty, self-righteous aggression, violence, or self-destructiveness” (Ronningstam, 2011, l.
19.6).
These processes culminate in Kernberg’s (2004a, p. 330) portrait of a narcissistic individual as follows:
[individuals] present [with] excessive self-absorption hand in hand with superficially smooth
and effective social adaption, but with serious distortions in their internal relations with
other people. They present various combinations of intense ambitiousness, grandiose
fantasies, feelings of inferiority, and overdependence on external admiration and acclaim; 143
they suffer from chronic feelings of boredom and emptiness, are constantly searching for
gratification of strivings for brilliance, wealth, power, and beauty, and have serious
deficiencies in their capacity to love and be concerned about others. Other predominant
characteristics include a lack of capacity for empathetic understanding of others, chronic
uncertainty and dissatisfaction with their life, conscious or unconscious exploitativeness and
ruthlessness towards others and, particularly, the presence of chronic, intense envy and
defenses against such envy.
Differential Diagnoses
Individuals presenting with an unintegrated self generally fall within the borderline personality structure, and the narcissistic personality has commonalities with them. Their biggest commonality is their tendency towards splitting and primitive identification. The narcissistic personality differs from the borderline personality in that there is an integrated self. They consequently show better social functioning on a superficial level, while borderline personalities are more likely to show more chaotic behaviour, with greater swinging between nonmetabolised ego states.
The antisocial personality structure is more severe than malignant narcissism. Antisocial personalities have “severe underlying paranoid trends together with a total incapacity for nonexploitative investment in significant others” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 141). They experience no guilt, no concern for others or self, and can’t identify with ethical values of self or others (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 140). Within malignant narcissism there is some capacity for commitment to others and for the experience of “authentic feelings of guilt” (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005, p. 141). Thus, to differentiate between these personalities it is important to explore exploitative behaviour and antisocial behaviour. 144
Interpersonal Relationships
Narcissism is particularly associated with problematic interpersonal relationships, and to understand problematic interpersonal relationships the presence of nonmetabolised object relations, due to splitting, is important. Splitting leads to a particular “transference disposition”;
“what is good and what is bad can shift” according to that which is triggered (Clarkin et al.,
2007, p. 479). Consequently, individuals experience switches in emotional attitude (Kernberg,
2004a). They will “fluctuate” between nonmetabolised object relations units (Christopher et al.,
2001, p. 695). In normal development this occurs slowly, while it occurs more quickly in more severe pathology. The consequence of this is that individuals are inconsistent interpersonally and this can be confusing and frustrating for those interacting with them, particularly as the transferences are often unrealistic.
Narcissistic individuals have deep-seated feelings of omnipotence, based on the pathological grandiose self. Their grandiosity may be irritating to others, particularly when it becomes clear that it is unrealistic. Because the sense of self of narcissistic individuals is merged with idealistic object representations, individuals have “deep feelings of having the right to exploit and to be gratified” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 38). They are likely to manipulate others and take them for granted. To maintain their grandiose self, their negative representations are projected onto others, and consequently narcissistic individuals perceive the world as filled with persecutory objects (Kernberg, 1998). They are likely to experience high levels of persecution and paranoia, and fear “painful and dangerous relationships with people in the environment” (Kernberg &
Caligor, 2005, p. 123). The threatening parts of the individual’s world are likely to be experienced as dangers coming towards the self (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Consequently, they tend to devaluate objects, and this sets the context for conflictual relationships, immersed in 145 aggressive valence. Narcissistic individuals are likely to manipulate others in order to control their environment against the bad representations. However, they are also likely to experience themselves as exploited in relationships (Kernberg, 2004a).
Their lack of integration furthermore interferes with the ability to realistically assess others’ behaviour (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Narcissistic individuals struggle to read social cues
(Caligor et al., 2007), and they often know that their judgement of others is not good (Kernberg,
1998). These difficulties create barriers to investing in others (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005).
Overall narcissistic individuals show a “decreased capacity for subtle and tactful evaluation of interpersonal processes” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 135). Their experience of others is
“poorly differentiated, lacking in subtlety and depth, and [to be] more or less polarized (“black and white”) and/or superficial” (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 21). They will experience others as distant, and will struggle to feel emotionally close (Kernberg, 2004a). Others are likely to experience them as distant and superficial.
When interactions are superficial, the narcissistic individual’s social adaptation is good.
However, their emotional life is shallow, and they have a high need for admiration (Kernberg,
2004a). They are likely to manipulate others into providing the admiration, but are also good at
“concealing their maladaptive behavior” (Concolini, 1999, p. 74). Narcissistic individuals
“obtain very little enjoyment from life other than from the tributes they receive from others or from their own grandiose fantasies” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 16).
Narcissistic individual’s relationships with others are largely affected by “a lack of empathy in understanding others” (Clarkin et al.,, 2007, p. 480); this is particularly evident “in the setting of more intimate relations” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 135). They show a high degree of self-reference in interaction and are self-absorbed (Kernberg, 2004a). Narcissistic individuals 146 are “blocked in their expression of affiliative needs and affects and engage in aggressive affects and behavior in the defensive struggle around comfort with libidinal expression” (Clarkin et al.,
2007, p. 481). Their attitude towards others is either deprecatory or fearful (Kernberg, 2004a).
Thus narcissistic individuals are unlikely to allow themselves to become vulnerable with others, and if they do, they are likely to interact with some aggression, depreciation, or fear towards the other.
Narcissistic individuals divide the world of objects into the successful and the worthless, with no middle road. The use of primitive defenses “cause[s] flagrant distortion of interpersonal reality” and causes “disruptions” for the person (Caligor et al., 2007, p. 30).
Their relationship with others may be summed up as follows (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 16):
They envy others, tend to idealize some people from whom they expect narcissistic supplies,
and to depreciate and treat with contempt those from whom they do not expect anything
(often their former idols). In general, their relationships with other people are clearly
exploitative and sometimes parasitic. It is as if they feel they have the right to control and
possess others to exploit them without guilt feelings – and behind a surface which very often
is charming and engaging, one senses coldness and ruthlessness.
Critique of Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory
In general, Kernberg’s theory is credited for a vast influence on psychoanalytic thinking.
Christopher et al. (2001, p. 689) asserted that there are minimal conceptual analyses of
Kernberg’s work, and “typical” critiques focus on comparing his theories to other schools of psychodynamic thinking, which are not necessarily useful to understanding the limitations of the theory. Consequently, this critique first examines some comparison between schools of thinking, and then attempts to look more closely at the concepts behind Kernberg’s theory. 147
Kernberg’s theory is a merger of Freudian drive theory and Object Relations theory (Klein &
Tribech, 1981), and forms an integrative theory. Kernberg consistently recognises this integration, and acknowledges the influence of other psychoanalytic thinkers in his work
(Christopher et al., 2001). However, Klein and Tribech (1981) asserted that this integration is contradictory and confusing. Klein and Tribech asserted that Kernberg transforms Freud’s drive theory into something different; that he claims to form a link between drives and object relations, but that this link was already demarcated by Freud. Thus, Klein and Tribech find it puzzling that
Kernberg asserts to prove a link that has already been proven. However, Klein and Tribech further explained that Object Relations theory was a reaction against Freudian drive theory, [thus a movement against the link between drives and object relations] and that Object relations theory replaced the drive with “a human object as its motivational concept” (Klein & Tribech, 1981, p.
30). Freudian drive theory does not see the need for attachment to another person, just someone to facilitate the drive, while Object Relations theory does place importance on the object and the care they provide (Klein & Tribech, 1981). Thus, there is inconsistency in the historical roots of
Object relations theory to be able to merge with Freudian drive theory, specifically, in reference to the definition of “object” in each theory, as they refer to different things and merging them creates conceptual confusion.
Unpacking this difficult merger further, Klein and Tribech (1981) asserted that Kernberg superficially prescribed to Freudian drive theory, but did not comply with the meaning of relevant concepts underpinning the theory. That is, Kernberg assumed the language but did not retain the relevant meanings. This is seen in Kernberg discarding the idea of an innate drive and subscribing to the building up of drives purely through object relations [with no innate drive influence]. They further indicated that Kernberg uses the terms “neutralization” and “cathexis” 148 outside of the context of their “well-defined meaning” (Klein & Tribech, 1981, p. 35). Kernberg also assumed that Freudian drive splitting and Object Relations splitting are the same, when in fact they are “set within a different theoretical context” (Klein & Tribech, 1981, p. 30), implying conceptual differences. Finally, Klein and Tribech indicated that Kernberg understood the ID as developing from the ego, once integrations occur and repression is possible; that the ID is not connected to an innate energy pool (Klein & Tribech, 1981). This understanding is inconsistent with the Freudian drive formulation of the ID. Thus, it is evident that important concepts associated with Freudian drive theory are not upheld. In effect, Kernberg glosses over “the differences between these two competing theories without taking any recognition of their differences” (Klein & Tribech, 1981, p. 41).
There are further inherent conceptual difficulties in Kernberg’s theory which cause confusion. Christopher et al. (2001, p. 697) stipulated that Kernberg’s conception of object relations building blocks is “inconsistent with cognitive developmental research”. Object relations are memory traces that include elements of episodic and event memory. However, infants are not yet capable of producing such memory traces. Thus, Christopher et al. described the theory of memory traces as having “empirical and logical limitations” (p. 697). This is further seen in Christopher et al. questioning how individual incidents of affective memory generalise to form an abstracted self, and how individual affective events become motivational forces, saying that the process of internalisation is unexplained. Klein and Tribech (1981, p. 31) agreed that the translation of affects into primary motivational systems is unclear; affects are consequences of the individual’s experience interacting with the environment, but Kernberg furthermore described the individual as having “innate potential” to experience affective states, but not innate drives as such; this is confusing and vague (Klein & Tribech, 1981, p. 31). 149
Kernberg also spent very little time explaining the role of the mother. He did not say what is important about the relationship, or what is required of the mother as an object in interaction with the infant (Klein & Tribech, 1981). He furthermore indicated that the object relations formed between mom and infant are internalised, but did not give a motivation that would drive this internalisation process. Thus, Kernberg did not explain “what is it about the external world that is so important to the infant’s nature that it becomes transformed into the psyche and perpetuated” (Klein & Tribech, 1981, p. 41).
Christopher et al. (2001, p. 699) identified the “causal mechanisms” that the theory refers to, to be inconsistent. Kernberg indicated that integration leads to the neutralisation of valence which leads to increased energy for repression. However, this “understanding is at odds with both the chemical and static electricity uses of valence” as with electricity, opposite charges cancel each other out; with chemicals, atoms that join become bigger, and lose energy
(Christopher et al., 2001, p. 699). Thus, energy is not created. These scientific principles are inconsistent with the processes proposed by Kernberg, indicating that integrating valence cannot produce more energy to fuel repression (Christopher, Bickhard, & Lambeth, 1992).
Furthermore, Kernberg said that splitting needs less energy than repression, and that the weak ego does not have energy to repress; Kernberg also said that undoing splitting releases energy so that the person can repress. It is unclear how fusion would release energy, and if it does so, how splitting would require less energy than repression (Christopher et al., 2001). Thus splitting and repression dynamics are internally inconsistent. From these causal mechanisms Christopher et al. (1992, p. 484) took that Kernberg named phenomenon rather than truly explaining them.
Christopher et al. (1992) identified other concepts that are named but not explained. The ID and ego are structures, but yet also have “function or process”. This is not explained. The ego 150 forms around the good self-representations and not the bad, and the bad is expelled. This explanation is superficial, as it is unclear what is doing the expelling (Christopher et al., 2001).
Finally Christopher et al. (1992) asserted that Kernberg drew on circular reasoning, at times, to substantiate elements of his theory. The experience of fluctuating emotions is used to explain the presence of nonmetabolised ego structures; Kernberg inferred from these structures that the client must have split emotions, but did not explain why the emotions would be fragmented
(Christopher et al., 2001). The resulting question is why the split ego states necessarily would cause split emotional states? Christopher et al. saw circular reasoning in Kernberg’s logic. They further asserted that Kernberg drew from clinical practice to substantiate his theory; this is problematic, again, because it causes circular reasoning - as a therapist he would interpret in accordance with his framework (Christopher et al., 2001).
Kernberg received “a great deal of criticism for developing point of view which challenged mainstream psychoanalytic thinking” (Consolini, 1999, p. 82). However, despite all these criticisms, the theory has had a tremendous impact on psychoanalytic thinking. It is well supported and sparks healthy debate on the operationalisation of psychoanalytic terminology for application to the understanding of intrapsychic development.
Conclusion
To conceptualise narcissistic processes this chapter presented Kernberg’s theory in the following sections: object relations, developmental stages, processes involved in building psychic structures, process of internalisation, optimal health, pathology, narcissism, interpersonal relationships, and critique. A bridging summary is presented next, in order to lead the reader from the methodology and theory chapters into the findings and discussion of the study.
151
Chapter 6: Bridging Summary
Introduction
This chapter provides a conceptual summation to this point. It highlights the fundamental underpinnings of the study that are needed to bridge the reader from the methodology and theory chapters to the findings and discussion chapters.
Fundamental Underpinnings
This research study focuses on personality, and personality patterns. Personality is defined as
“long standing pattern[s] of behavior expressed across time and in many different situations”
(Millon et al., 2004, p. 3). Personality patterns emerge from the interaction between the individual’s genetics and their life experiences within their environments, as part of the process of adaptive functioning. This research specifically explored the narcissistic personality pattern, arising from the narcissistic personality configuration. It looked at how the narcissistic pattern emerged in a case; the case here is the life experiences of Howard Hughes. The study aimed to gain insight into how narcissistic defenses which are embedded in the narcissistic pattern work, and how they alienate others. The research used a contemporary understanding to conceptualise narcissism, through the work of Kernberg (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001). This theory formed the lens through which narcissism was viewed.
Kernberg’s Object Relations theory links the severity of narcissism directly to how well or poorly development occurs. Specifically development hinges on the integration of positive and negative self-and object representations to form healthy personality structures. A lack of integration is caused by high levels of negative representations, linked to negative valence (Cain et al., 2007), and leads to the continued use of primary defense mechanisms, based on splitting.
Splitting protects the individual’s experience of their self as good, and keeps their bad 152 representations separate, but concurrently leads to stunted development as personality structures do not form as they should. The defensive operation, namely the continued splitting of representations, was particularly important within the current study. When examining Hughes’ behaviour patterns, the lack of integration is seen through the defensive operation of splitting; this lack is traced through object relation themes that emerged in Hughes’ patterns, and through the tracing of the accompanying splitting related defense mechanisms, called secondary defense mechanisms, embedded in the patterns. These patterns illustrated his narcissistic personality configuration.
Hughes is an ideal case within which to examine narcissistic patterns and defense mechanisms. He strove to be the best in all areas of his working life, reflecting a high level of grandiosity. Concurrently, he was eccentric and showed personal pathologies and problematic interpersonal relationships. The patterns that illustrated these behaviours were identified through the exploration of published materials written about Hughes. Published materials were predominantly secondary sources in the form of biographies. (The list of sources used is attached as Appendix C); through data triangulation a reliable view of Hughes’ life patterns was created.
Thus, this research highlighted and explored behaviour patterns that illustrate Hughes’ grandiose self and defense mechanisms. This application led to the understanding of how the defense mechanisms work, and how they alienate others. This study was aimed at generating a greater understanding of narcissism within the microcosm of Hughes’ lived life.
The exploration of narcissism in case study format is a unique way in which approach this subject matter. As expressed, the study used a qualitative single-case research design. The sampling method used for the selection of Hughes was non-probability purposive sampling, with the unit of analysis being the life experiences of Hughes. As much has been written about 153
Hughes’ life, Yin’s (1994) guidelines for data collection guided the engagement with data. Yin recommended that data collection occurs by using multiple sources of evidence, creating a case study database, and keeping and maintaining a reliable chain of evidence; all these steps were followed. Data triangulation furthermore directed the focus on data. Miles and Huberman’s
(1994) approach to data collection and analysis was followed in order to reduce data to workable findings. Miles and Huberman highlighted three steps to do so, namely, data collection, data display, and data analysis.
Findings of the study were focused on providing insight into a particular area of narcissism, highlighted through the research aim. The research aim was to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration by exploring the interplay between Kernberg’s Object Relations Framework (ORF) (1974; 1975;
1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) and the life of Howard Hughes. To meet this research aim, two objectives were formulated, namely, (1) to explore intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg, and (2) to explore interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg. It is through the exploration of the intrapersonal and interpersonal narcissistic dynamics that insight was generated into how narcissistic defenses work, and how they alienate others, meeting the research aim.
Consequently, the findings and discussion of this research are divided into two chapters in order to fall in line with the delineated objectives. Namely, the first findings and discussion chapter explores the intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes, and the second findings and discussion chapter explores the interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes.
The fundamental underpinnings to the research are illustrated and summarised in figure 4.
154
PERSONALITY
NARCISSISM KERNBERG
NARCISSISTIC DEFENSES AND THE CONSEQUENT ALIENTATION OF OTHERS WITHIN THE NARCASSISTIC
PERSONALITY CONFIGURATION
CASE STUDY HOWARD METHOD HUGHES
Figure 4: Fundamental Underpinnings of Current Research. This figure is a visual depiction of the
fundamental underpinnings of the current research, which contribute to the exploration of the research
aim.
Conclusion
This chapter provides a summation of the theoretical underpinnings of the research study and the
methodology that was followed. This served to provide the reader with a bridge from theory
exploration to findings and discussion. Chapter 7 will now use Kernberg’s (1974; 1975; 1976;
1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) Object Relations Framework to explore the intrapersonal narcissistic
dynamics in the life of Hughes.
155
Chapter 7: Findings and Discussion – Intrapersonal Narcissistic Dynamics in the Life of
Howard Hughes
Introduction
This chapter represents the first of two findings and discussion chapters; this chapter specifically meets objective one, to explore intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg. The exploration of the intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics generates insight into how narcissistic defenses work, and how they alienate others, meeting the research aim. To do so the chapter will first explore the formation of early object relations during
Hughes’ early childhood. Thereafter, it will present the findings and discussion, in the form of identified object relations, and the discussion of these patterns in the life of Hughes, in Middle
Childhood and Adolescence, as well as in Adulthood. Towards meeting the aim, defense mechanisms used by Hughes will be highlighted where evident, within the discussed patterns.
These defense mechanisms are attached as Appendix E, as a reference point for definition, if needed.
Formation of Early Object Relations in Hughes’s Early Childhood
To explore the intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in Hughes’s life, it is important to look at the variables that shaped his object relations in early childhood. Kernberg saw the formation of the internal object relation as resulting from the “interplay of affects and interactions with caretakers” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 133). However, to begin with, the experience of affect is rooted in genetic predisposition, through the genetic inclination towards particular affects and intensities of experience; it is impossible to know what Hughes’s genetic predisposition was, or his threshold for activations of affect. He was described by Porter (2010) as having an anxious temperament, but whether this was genetically predetermined or induced by his mother, Allene 156
Hughes, is somewhat unclear. However, Allene Hughes had an anxious temperament, thus a genetic link is quite probable. This genetic predisposition towards negative valence would have created the inclination towards the formation of representations with anxious valence. It would have combined with early life experiences to form Hughes’s object relational patterns.
There is some significant information regarding Hughes’s early life that would have played an important role in how these patterns formed. Bo Hughes, his father, spent minimal time at home, thus the context within which Hughes’s early object relations unfolded was predominantly within interaction with Allene Hughes, his mother. She was known to phone the doctor over the slightest concern, and was constantly worried about Hughes’s health, in particular during his infancy, that he would contract tapeworm (Charles River Editors, 2014). Given Allene Hughes’s propensity to anxiety, and that she was a new mother, she was likely often insecure, and she would have had high levels of insecure interactions with Hughes. Early object relations that form are initially focused on forming patterns related to “bodily functions” (Kernberg, &
Caligor, 2005, p. 122). Allene Hughes was highly focused on Hughes’s physical well-being, and she was known to inspect him from top to bottom, morning and night (Porter, 2010); she had engrained patterns of checking behaviour regarding cleanliness and the threat of germs. It is likely that patterns formed within Hughes’s representations of bodily functions had anxious threatening valence attached to them. Hughes’s bad internal object would have developed around himself as unacceptable when ill, with patterns associated with the checking of his physical well-being. It is likely that Hughes would have experienced this as threatening, and that his early impressions of the world would have been of it as intimidating. These ritual behaviours were maintained throughout his early life; when Hughes started to attend school, he was known to be habitually late because of Allene Hughes’s pre-school cleanliness and checking ritual 157
(Charles River Editors, 2014; Hack, 2007). The early establishment of representations around
“position of self in space and time” are likely to have been more neutral (Kernberg, & Caligor,
2005, p. 122). Representations regarding the “permanent characteristics of others” (Kernberg, &
Caligor, 2005, p. 122) would have included images of his mother as ever present, ever focused on himself, and possibly as volatile and threatening, given that she could deem him as bad at any point, if he were evaluated as ill.
Individuals experience interactions with others as pleasurable and gratifying, or unpleasant and dissatisfying. Over time, representations are “differentiated” and “definitions of self and others” gradually evolve (Kernberg, & Caligor, 2005, p. 122). As Hughes developed cognitively, it is evident that the self he developed wanted to blend in rather than stand out; he was a shy child, who experienced difficulty making friends (Bartlett & Steele, 2004). Allene Hughes insisted on dressing him differently to other children (like “Little Lord Fauntleroy” (Hack, 2007;
Porter, 2010, p. 10), to ensure that he stood out from others. Consequently, Hughes was teased by his peers. Being seen as different would have been difficult for him. Allene Hughes’s handling of this situation – namely her continued insistence on his unusual attire - conveys the message that she did not take Hughes’s discomfort seriously, and that it was more important to her that he be viewed by others as special and different. Allene Hughes was a constant presence, and did not let Hughes out of her sight during his early life (Porter, 2010). Hughes even shared her bedroom throughout middle childhood, in an era when it would reasonably be expected that he would have his own (Porter, 2010). Those who knew them described them as unnaturally close, with Porter (2010, p. 10) describing their relationship as “emotionally incestuous”. These factors all point to an enmeshed relationship, and Allene Hughes’s treatment of Hughes is indicative of her view of him as a showpiece, from which can be inferred an inauthentic 158 connection.
Hughes learnt to feign illness from a young age, in order to “elicit sympathy” (Barlett &
Steele, 2004, p. 45), a comment which creates the impression that he learnt to gain attention or affection by being ill. One wonders whether he was given attention and affection just for being him. It seems likely that Allene Hughes would have struggled to accurately mirror Hughes’s affective state, given the enmeshment that she experienced with him. Kernberg and Caligor
(2005, p. 130) indicated that if a mother is not able to “accurately mirror her child’s affective state”, there is an increase in formation of object representations with bad valence. It is likely that Allene Hughes saw Hughes as an extension of herself, rather than an independent being, and although focused on him, would have responded to her own extended needs projected onto him, rather than the needs of an independent object.
As Allene Hughes was a constant presence in Hughes’s early life, she controlled every aspect of his life. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 209) asserted that this was normalised behaviour, given that Hughes become her focal point as her marriage was dissatisfying, but this can reasonably be seen as inaccurate. Barlett and Steele (2004) viewed her as obsessed with
Hughes’s well-being, and Porter (2010) proposed that she did not let him out of her sight (apart from going to school) before he was 8 years old. These comments point towards atypical behaviour, especially for the time. Most authors create the impression that Allene Hughes’s focus and control was stronger than most children would experience. It is highly likely that
Hughes experienced his mother as prohibitive and controlling from a young age, and it is unlikely that he had a degree of autonomy until late in childhood. Her behaviour can reasonably be seen as smothering, and it is likely that her smothering would have caused extreme frustration in Hughes. It is furthermore likely that Hughes built up representations of love and closeness to 159 be smothering, and that these patterns had negative valence attached to them.
Allene Hughes worried about Hughes’s “supersensitiveness [and] nervousness” (Barlett &
Steele, 2004, p. 32). It is evident that these qualities were not in line with the show piece she wanted to present to the world; her focus on these qualities as problematic would have further conveyed to a young Hughes that he was not okay as he was. At the age of 4 Hughes was diagnosed with otosclerosis, a hearing condition associated with the deterioration of hearing across the lifespan (Higham, 2004). This condition would have further contributed to the development of a sense of inferiority in Hughes.
It is suggested from the above descriptions that Hughes experienced high levels of frustration and aggression in the first few years of his life, contributing to object relations with negative valence. The severity of his negative internal object can only be deduced by behavioural descriptions of him as a young boy. This includes him being described as having a
“delicate constitution”, being “anxious and shy” (Porter, 2010), “supersensitive and nervous”,
(Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 32), and “quiet and shy” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 35). These descriptions create the impression that many of the early representations that Hughes built of himself had negative valence attached to them.
Few of the descriptions of young Hughes use positive terminology. It is likely that the positive internal object that Hughes formed would have included patterns of himself as special, a message that was constantly conveyed to him. Allene Hughes saw Hughes as an idealised object; Hughes was the focus of her attention, and she took every opportunity to show others how special he was (Porter, 2010). Hughes was overly indulged. He would have built further positive object relational patterns around being entitled. At the age of four the amount of pocket money he received a week was unheard of (Porter, 2010). Unfortunately, there is little further 160 information about Hughes as a young child, so further deductions about his good internal object cannot be made. The degree of integration of his good and bad internal objects cannot be deduced at this point.
Findings and Discussion
As individuals develop they continue to build up “different kinds of self-representations and corresponding object-representations under varying circumstances” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 612).
These patterns grow in complexity. As ego boundaries solidify, and integrations are organised, ego identity starts to form. Ego identity, or self, is thus made up of the object relations patterns that have formed and that can be triggered in interaction at any point. The self is represented in figure 5.
self/ / /
/ Figure 5: Self Comprising Units of Object Relation Patterns/ . This figure illustrates how the self is made of units of object relation patterns. Any of these representations may/ be activated at any point. / The patterns that can be gleaned within the ego identity that Hughes formed form the findings of / this chapter. The representations that are most prominent in Hughes life are presented in table 2.
161
Object Relations in Middle Childhood and Object Relations in Adulthood
Adolescence
Generalised interests Overinvolved and hardworking
Entitlement and Grandiosity Being detailed and particular
Smothering, control, and the lack of independence Grandiose projects and dreams
Poor health and illness Control
Interaction style Manipulation and entitlement
Parents Rebelliousness and vengeful tendencies
Lack of guilt
Atypical sexual behaviour
Reconstructing reality
Shifting importance in relationships
Distrust and paranoia
Black and white thinking
Health, obsessive compulsive behaviours, and
agoraphobia
Jekyll-and-Hyde
Aggressive and reckless behaviour
Table 2: Object Relations Patterns in the Life of Hughes. This table illustrates the patterns of object relations evident in the life of Hughes.
These patterns of object relations will now be explored and discussed, along with the defense mechanisms embedded in them, where evident. Higher order or sophisticated defense mechanisms include repression, intellectualisation, rationalisation, undoing, isolation, displacement, and reaction formation, while lower order or primary and secondary defense mechanisms include splitting, projective identification, “Omnipotence, omnipotent control, primitive idealization, devaluation and denial” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 480). It is important to remember that Kernberg (1998, l. 364) asserted that the pattern of defense mechanisms evident 162 within behaviour points towards the individual’s underlying personality structure. There is little evidence of repression-related or sophisticated defense mechanisms, and much evidence for splitting-related or primary and secondary defense mechanisms in the narratives on Hughes’s life.
Object Relations in Middle Childhood and Adolescence
Generalised interests.
It is well documented that Hughes showed a strong interest in mechanics, and was good at building things (Porter, 2010; Thomas, n.d.) throughout his childhood and adolescent years.
Together with his friend Dudley Sharp, he built a motorised bicycle, and later a ham radio, which they used to communicate with ships at sea (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Throughout his schooling, Hughes was an average student, but was good at mathematics (Thomas, n.d.), and was described as gifted at physics (Higham, 2004). One of his teachers commented that he struggled to focus on one thing at a time (Higham, 2004). Hughes may have built up representations of his strengths and weaknesses in these areas. Hobbies that Hughes engaged with in his teenage years include horse riding and golf, as well as to a lesser degree, hiking (Higham, 2004).
Entitlement and grandiosity.
Patterns around being indulged and entitled became engrained as Hughes’s object relations grew in complexity. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 206) stated that Allene Hughes “spared no expense in giving him the sense of privilege and refinement that her parents instilled in her” and
“She always encouraged Sonny* to consider himself socially superior, and he had a sense of entitlement a spoiled child can develop when he is routinely indulged”. By the age of 12 Hughes received 20 dollars a week pocket money, which was the equivalent of a good salary at the time
(Porter, 2010).
* Hughes’s parents nicknamed him Sonny 163
Indulged and entitled patterns are evident in some of the reported incidents of his childhood.
At the age of approximately 8 Hughes gave some of Allene Hughes’s diamond jewelry to a girl that he liked at school. When Allene Hughes found out about it, she told him to rather give the smaller diamonds in the future (Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010). At the age of 13,
Hughes ordered a roadster (car) from the local dealership costing 7000 dollars, without his parent’s permission (Porter, 2010). Although the dealership phoned his father for approval, Bo
Hughes was amused by the incident and complied with the purchase. When the car arrived,
Hughes spent weeks taking it apart and putting it back together again, after which he took his parents for a drive, without having a license to drive the car (Porter, 2010).
Hughes did not graduate from high school. After Allene Hughes’s death, Bo Hughes enrolled Hughes in the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) by buying a place for him
(Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). He later, in a similar fashion, gained entry for Hughes into Rice
University (Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010). Bo Hughes took away Hughes’s allowance, and gave him unlimited credit, and a limousine for use 24 hours a day (Porter, 2010).
During this time Hughes came and went as he wished, besides officially living with his aunt
Anette Gano (Barlett & Steele, 2004). He spent much of his time socialising and playing golf, and attended class sporadically (Porter, 2010).
The pattern of entitlement was strongly evident when Bo Hughes died. Hughes petitioned the court to become an emancipated minor (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010). His uncle Rupert had wanted to step in to run his affairs (Higham, 2004, Porter, 2010), as might reasonably be expected in a family after the death of a parental figure. Some authors indicated that Rupert
Hughes’s motives were financially motivated (Charles River Editors 2014; Hack, 2007), while others indicate that Rupert Hughes was merely wanting to step into a guardianship role (Higham, 164
2004). Whatever his motivations, Hughes blocked this strongly, and fought for his independence, and the right to make his own decisions. The pursuit of emancipated status was almost unheard of at the time (Porter, 2010), and speaks to a belief of entitlement to autonomy, at a time when this was not the norm for an individual his age. Pursuit of emancipated status represents the first evidence of Hughes’s use of omnipotence as a defense mechanism, associated with the belief of himself as a superior object.
Smothering, control and the lack of independence.
Allene Hughes’s smothering behaviour continued to influence the formation of Hughes’s object relations in childhood and adolescence. In an era when other children were playing together, out in the neighbourhood, Hughes rode his bicycle up and down in the street where his mother could see him (Charles River Editors, 2014). Higham (2004) asserted that when Hughes was away at camp, Allene Hughes often wrote to the camp director to check on him; Porter (2010) asserted that when he was at boarding school, Allene Hughes wrote to Hughes daily. Charles River
Editors (2014, l. 225) explained that “Though Allene dominated Sonny’s life, forcing a too- strong attachment years after most children would have grown out of such intense maternal intimacy, there was nothing intentionally deviant about her mothering”. Although the enmeshment evident in this statement is supported by other sources, Porter (2010) argued that there was deviance to Allene Hughes’s mothering. Porter asserted that Hughes’s friendship with
Sharp became a sexual relationship slightly before their teenage years, and indicated that when
Allene Hughes found out about this, she became more controlling and tried to keep Hughes away from Sharp. Porter (2010) reported that Hughes still shared a bedroom with Allene Hughes at this time. Porter further described that she started to masturbate Hughes at night, telling him that they would deal with his needs together until he was married, but that his involvement with 165
Sharp had to end. Allene Hughes had a special bowl within which to catch Hughes sperm, for the purpose of cleanliness (Porter, 2010). This unusual behaviour could fit with the enmeshed pattern evident thus far, and Allene Hughes’s view of Hughes as an extension of herself.
Despite his mother’s smothering and controlling behaviour, Hughes found excuses to sneak away, to spend time with Sharp (Porter, 2010). By the time Hughes was 14 years old, Bo Hughes made the decision to send him to boarding school. Hack (2007) indicated that this was to improve the quality of his education, however Porter (2010) asserted that this was a strategy used by Bo Hughes to create some distance between mother and son. Bo Hughes saw her overinvolvement in his son’s life as unhealthy (Porter, 2010), although there is no evidence to indicate that he was aware of a sexual relationship.
Porter (2010) portrayed Hughes as welcoming the distance that boarding school created.
However, Porter further reported that on returning home for the holiday, Hughes found Allene
Hughes and Sharp to have entered into a sexual relationship, leading to Sharp breaking off any intimate interaction with Hughes (although this was a temporary break in their relationship).
This behaviour could again support Allene Hughes’s view of Hughes as an extension of herself, engulfing even the first intimate relationship that he had had as her own. It is likely that through
Allene Hughes’s behaviour, Hughes built object relations that associated love with smothering, control, and the lack of independence.
It is likely that Bo Hughes reinforced patterns associated with being controlled. Hughes had attended five different schools by the time he was 16 years old. Much of his school placement seems to have been through decisions made by Bo Hughes (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Higham,
2004; Porter, 2010). The impression created by literature is that Hughes was moved at will, despite any comfort or discomfort he felt within a school setting (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). 166
Thus, it is likely that Hughes felt very little autonomy or independence even within his teenage years. There is also little evidence of closeness between Hughes and his father. The literature refers to the occasional sailing expedition, but creates the impression of Bo Hughes as authoritarian, and of little bond between father and son (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010).
Hughes had a distinct need for autonomy, most likely strongly influenced by being controlled by his parents, and we first see this need strongly when he petitioned the court for emancipation when he was 19 years old. Concurrent to this legal process, Hughes furthermore bought the shares of his father’s business from family members that had inherited, to add to the
75% of shares that he had inherited. Some sources indicate that his family members “held him for ransom” (Higham, 2004, l. 440), while others say that family members did not want to sell their shares, and Hughes manipulated them into it (Porter, 2010). However, the outcome, along with emancipated status, is that Hughes won the right of adult status, along with the ability to run his own affairs, including his father’s business (named Toolco), independently. Porter (2010, p.
96) quoted Hughes as saying, after his parent’s deaths:
My father never asked me what I wanted. He decided what I was to do and then forced me
to do it whether I wanted to or not. No one will make me do anything I don’t want ever
again. Both of my parents tried to control me. They can’t control me from the grave.
It is thus evident that Hughes’s pursuit of complete autonomy was reactionary, at least in part, to the control he felt from his parents. Again, Hughes’s belief in his entitlement to look after his own affairs, and be in control and accountable to no-one for his actions, at a time when an individual his age was not seen as entitled to these freedoms, represents omnipotence in action.
Poor health and illness.
Another object relational pattern in childhood and adolescence surrounded health and illness. 167
Hughes was seen has having poor health. He was sent away to camp for the first time when he was 10 years old in order to improve his health (Hack, 2007). However, Allene Hughes fetched him when there was a polio scare nearby, and they stayed in a different state until she felt that the polio scare was over (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Porter, 2010). The following year when Hughes wanted to go back to camp, his mother refused, until he feigned illness, and convinced the doctor that the fresh air at camp would be good for him (Porter, 2010). At the age of 13 Hughes feigned paralysis for a period of approximately 2 months in order to force his parents to rally together in support of him, at a time when their marriage was in difficulty (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010).
We see the theme of health and illness in Porter’s (2010, p. 97) description of an 18 year old
Hughes as “haunted by a fear of germs and overly concerned for his health”. Given that Hughes felt very little autonomy within his own being during his younger years, it is evident that he used the sick role to manipulate to get what he wanted; his parents through their attention and positive response reinforced his use of the sick role.
Interactional style.
Hughes was described as having a soft manner, but that he didn’t seem to fit in (Porter, 2010).
He struggled to establish relationships throughout his childhood years, and was known to have one good friend, Dudley Sharp, who was the son of his dad’s business partner. This friendship lasted into early adulthood, and Porter (2010) asserted it was a sexual relationship from their preteens to early twenties. The boys spent much of their time together, and Hughes would have built up his initial representations of friendship in relation to Sharp. Given the difficulties with boundaries that Hughes experienced with his mother, it could be understandable that he had trouble with boundaries in friendship.
In his teenage years Hughes was described as shy (Porter, 2010), withdrawn (Barlett & 168
Steele, 2004), solitary, commanding and haughty (Higham, 2004). He attended 5 different schools by the time he was 16 (Porter, 2010). For an introverted individual, the movement between schools was most likely unsettling; this movement would have challenged his formation of close bonds with others. In his late teenage years Hughes was exposed to movies stars through his uncle Rupert Hughes, who was a screenplay writer (Porter, 2010). Hughes started visiting movies sets, and attending Hollywood parties and started to be more social, coming and going as he pleased; Hughes gained a level of affirmation from his positive interaction with, and acceptance by, famous people (Porter, 2010). This is perhaps the first glimpse of the defense mechanism primitive identification, where Hughes’s good internal object was confirmed through his association with movies stars, or what could be viewed as good or omnipotent objects.
Parents.
Sources conflict in their description of Hughes’s relationship with his parents. American
National Biography online (n.d., p. 1) described Hughes as “greatly attached to his devoted mother”, and Higham (2004, l. 389) described Hughes as “devastated” on hearing about Allene
Hughes’s death. This may be accurate, but it is evident that Allene Hughes was continually overinvolved in Hughes’s life, and that he felt controlled by her. Porter (2010) indicated that
Hughes felt relief when she died. Given the amount of enmeshment and control evident between
Hughes and his mother, this later description makes sense.
American National Biography online (n.d., p. 1) described Hughes as standing “in awe of his personable father”, a description that would fit. Bo Hughes was seldom home, being focused on work and on extramarital affairs (Porter, 2010). It would make sense that Hughes idealised his father, and felt inadequate due to the lack of attention he received; Hughes did not seem to have his presence affirmed for just being. Bo Hughes’s behaviour after his wife’s death tells us more 169 about his relationship with Hughes. After Allene Hughes’s death, Bo Hughes took Hughes out of school in order for him to live closer to him [Bo Hughes], and asked his sister, Anette, to put her wedding off by a year, and come and stay with them to look after Hughes, which she did
(Higham, 2004). Although Bo Hughes expressed that he wanted Hughes close, Porter (2010) said Bo Hughes travelled extensively and was never home, while Charles River Editors (2014) said they met off and on “but only had a casual relationship” (l. 380). The image presented in the literature is of Bo Hughes moving Hughes out of school to suit him [Bo Hughes], but being emotionally and physically absent after the death of Allene Hughes. These circumstances seem to highlight a superficial relationship, and a complete lack of focus on Hughes’s emotional wellbeing after the loss of his mother. Rather, Hughes seemed to be moved around like an object. Higham (2004, l. 423) indicated that Hughes was “saddened” by Bo Hughes death, but
Porter (2010) said that this was not the case. Again, due to the lack of true relating with his father, this later interpretation makes more sense. Porter (2010) asserted that Hughes felt controlled by his parents and after their death, vowed never to be controlled by another again.
Given that Hughes evidenced a high level of control in his adult life (to be explored later), this statement seems likely to be accurate. After the death of his parents, Hughes was described as commanding, and as taking charge of his own destiny (Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 380).
Embedded in this vow to be controlled by no-one is Hughes’s use of devaluation, where he devalued his parents as objects, destroying them through the controlling label, and excluding them as they no longer served a purpose for him.
Object Relations in Adulthood
Various patterns of object relations can be observed in the course of Hughes’s adulthood. As the patterns are described, the lack of integration of Hughes’s good and bad internal objects starts to 170 emerge. Again, the patterns will be identified and interpreted, along with the presence of defense mechanisms, where they are evident.
Overinvolved and hard working.
Hughes showed an interest in technical things from a young age (Barlett & Steele, 2004); in adulthood this emerged in an interest in film. In 1927, Hughes started to direct the movie Hells
Angels. This was an enormous production, and Hughes worked day and night, maintaining a gruelling schedule (Higham, 2004). He held very unusual working hours, working for 20 to 30 hours at a stretch, and he expected his crew to do the same (Porter, 2010). He neglected other areas of his life, including his marriage (Porter, 2010).
Hughes’s propensity for being overinvolved and hardworking was evident in other projects that he encountered. Within the field of aviation, Hughes hired Glen Odekirk as his mechanic and together with Richard Palmer they constructed the Hughes Racer. Here, also, Hughes over worked in the construction of the plane, again working incredibly long hours, and being singular in focus (Whetton, Wadsworth & Thain, 2012). The way he is portrayed in the literature is that he worked with a team, but that he was in charge, and made all final decisions (Hack, 2007;
Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). It is important to note that although mechanically inclined and innovative, the rest of the crew was more qualified than Hughes.
In both these instances, Hells Angels and the Hughes Racer, the defense mechanisms primitive identification and omnipotent control are evident. Hughes was incredibly hard working in part because, through primitive identification, he identified with the projects as all good, grandiose objects, and experienced them as a part of himself; he experienced himself as worthy through identification with the projects. Through omnipotent control, Hughes saw all the associated good as stemming from him, and the project resting on him personally for completion. 171
Thus, he needed to work hard in order to accomplish his goals.
Despite this underlying view, Hughes did not limit himself to only one project at a time. We see this clearly shortly after his around the world trip. Hughes started buying shares in an airports company called Transcontinental and Western Air Inc (TWA), and soon became the main shareholder owning 78% of the company (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Within the same time period he returned to making movies, after a long break. He reopened Caddo Productions and focused on the making of The Outlaw (Porter, 2010). Amid both these ventures, Hughes became involved in two very big military projects, which involved millions of dollars. The first was the design and production of a flying ship called the Hercules, which was [and still is] the largest plane ever to be made, and the second the design and production of a reconnaissance plane, the
XF-11 (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Hughes divided his time, filming
The Outlaw at night time, and “building planes” during the day (Porter, 2010, p. 520). He worked incredibly hard to maintain involvement in all these areas. His over-involvement both in intensity (long hours) and breadth (different fields), was a continuous trend in Hughes’s life.
Hughes experienced an intensely pressured drive. He was determined to prove his worth, and be the best (Hack, 2007). Hughes dealt with this pressure through excessive over- involvement and hard work. Although he had great successes, Hughes seemed to sabotage himself by spreading himself too thin. The consequence was that his projects generally took too long, seen for example in him taking years to complete the filming of Hells Angels, and similarly taking years to complete both the XF-11, and the Hercules – which were only completed after the war had ended, when they were no longer needed. It seems that Hughes was driven by an unrelenting superego. He had grandiose beliefs of what he could achieve, most likely driven by overly idealistic object images, and at the same time set very high expectations that he (and 172 others) had to live up to. A nuanced level of good enough, which would temper the unrealistic drive, was absent. This is confirmed by Whetton et al. (2012) in their description that Hughes was never happy when he believed he could do better. Hughes did not experience a middle ground, and to Hughes, slowing down meant defeat and failure. The effect of this we see in the strain that his work started to have on him over time (Hack, 2007), leading him “to the verge of a nervous breakdown” when he disappeared for 8-11 months (Higham, 2004, l. 2024; Porter,
2010). Instead of slowing down before getting to such a low point, Hughes ‘crashed’ and then backed off everything and everyone in his life, literally disappearing from his life.
This all or nothing dynamic reflects a split within Hughes’s good and bad internal objects.
His drive would not let him ease up. Through primitive idealisation Hughes identified with projects as all good objects, and as an extension of himself, and along with omnipotent control, they rested solely on him for success. These underlying dynamics led to pressure and anxiety, and his grappling with whether the project would be accomplished. Due to his enmeshment with the object, Hughes must have simultaneously grappled with whether he was a success or not, while his split superego threatened him with punishment from punitive object representations if he wasn’t. This would have increased his anxiety further. Although anxiety and strain is reflected in the literature on his life (Hack, 2007; Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010), this internal process reflecting the fear of failure is not.
Being detailed and particular.
Up until 1927 Hughes was predominantly involved in financing films (Barlett & Steele, 2004), and still relatively new to the entertainment industry. At this point Hughes took on the film Hells
Angels, and hired Marshall Neilan to direct it (Barlett & Steele, 2004). However, Barlett and
Steele (2004, p. 62) stated that Hughes had “strong opinions about how the movie should be 173 shot” while Hack (2007, l. 1317) said that he “micro-manage[d] each and every aspect”. Porter
(2010) explained that he meddled so much that Neilan quit, and that a second appointed director quit for the same reason. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1103) explained that Hughes was
“Frustrated by the inability of a film director to create the scenes he envisoned”. Hughes decided that he would direct Hells Angels himself (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Porter, 2010).
Along with having a particular vision of what he wanted, Hughes had an incredible mind for detail. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1244) indicated that he would fixate on details, and Hack
(2007, l. 1303) expanded on this saying that his “eye to detail [which] frustrated as it impressed”.
This was seen, for example, during the filming of Hells Angels, when Hughes suspended filming according to the cloud formation on a given day, despite having to pay all his employees for the day’s work. Ultimately Hughes shot 2.3 million feet of film for Hells Angels, and reduced it to
15000 feet for the final 2-hour product (Hack, 2007). Thus, being both detail orientated and particular led to unnecessary spending and frequent delays (Charles River Editors, 2014).
Dietrich (1976, p. 46) confirmed this saying that Hughes experienced difficulty “maintaining a schedule”. Hughes was furthermore poor at delegating responsibility (Charles River Editors,
2014).
Many of these same qualities were evident when Hughes prepared for his flight around the world. The modifications on the plane were technologically very advanced (Howard Hughes:
The Man and the Madness, 1993), as Hughes thought through every possible detail of what they might need. The modifications included rifles mounted on the plane, in case they needed to fight off bears, a device that converted sea water to fresh water (Porter, 2010), and the first toilet on board a plane (Higham, 2004). Similarly, after test flying the XF-11, Hughes handed his engineers a 28 page memo outlying the difficulties he experienced with the plane (Porter, 2010). 174
Hughes’s tendency to fixate on details was further supported by perfectionistic tendencies
(Porter, 2010; Whetton et al., 2012).
Being detailed and particular may be thought of as enabling and frustrating Hughes’s ability to create the ideal project or object. They supported his ability to create ideal objects on the level at which he did; however, Hughes was also known to be indecisive (Dietrich, 1976; Porter, 2010) and to procrastinate (Frehner & Waldren, 2004). These could possibly be defenses used to ruminate over getting the object right. Deliberation on detail led to delays (Dietrich, 1976), and although part of the creative process, would have placed more pressure on Hughes. During the design of the XF-11, Hughes was consistently unhappy with the plane. Porter (2010, p. 548) quoted one of the engineers, Ray Kirkpatrick, as saying “I think Howard just never liked the D-2.
We simply couldn’t build the plane that he envisioned”. Thus the idealised object that Hughes sought was elusive. The idealisation and deliberation here reflects both primitive idealisation and omnipotent control, with Hughes experiencing the objects as all good, grandiose, and as an extension of himself. Furthermore, whilst controlling and manipulating each and every aspect of the idealised object or project, he held the underlying view that the success of projects stemmed from his efforts alone. Hughes would have needed to juggle the detail, perfectionism and pressure against the need to get the object idealistically right; at the same time he would have felt the punitive threat of failing coming from unrelenting punitive objects within his superego, driven by unintegrated idealistic object representations.
Grandiose projects and dreams.
Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1158) stated that “If Howard had one great love, it was that grand vision of his life that he was always tinkering with and perpetually loomed on the horizon”. This grand vision was seen strongly in 1925, when at the age of 20, Hughes wrote down three goals 175 that he wanted to achieve in his life, which seem to have guided his actions for a large part of his young and middle adulthood. He wrote “Things I want to be,”(Dietrich, 1976; Hack, 2007, l.
1064):
1. The best golfer in the world
2. The best flyer pilot
3. The most famous producer of moving pictures
It is evident that being good at something was not enough. Hughes wanted to be the best.
Hughes first focused on movies. The final budget to make Hells Angels was topped by only 1 other movie in that era (Higham, 2004); thus the scale of this production, particularly for a very inexperienced director/producer, was enormous. The movie was released with the biggest première that the world had seen to date (Higham, 2004). Hughes’s involvement underlined painstaking control of every detail (Porter, 2010). On completion, he had indeed produced a grandiose object for the time. Here we see the defense mechanism primitive idealisation, in
Hughes’s view of Hells Angels as a good idealised object, and identification with the film confirming his good internal object; Hughes was unable to distinguish between self and object; he experienced Hells Angels as an extension of himself. We also see omnipotent control. He would not compromise in the details, and controlled all aspects of the project - its success confirmed himself as a special, worthy object also.
We see these dynamics playing out again when Hughes took to the air. He became a pilot at a time when there were few people who were able to fly, and it was seen as special and exotic to do so. Together with Odekirk, Hughes built aircraft that were revolutionary (Higham, 2004, l.
1050), and used them to set new records in aviation. Over time Hughes set a new continental air speed record, broke the transcontinental record, flew from Miami to New York in record time 176
(Hack, 2007; Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010), and cut the record for travelling around the world in half (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). The outcome of these flights was Hughes being awarded the
Harmon International Trophy for best aviator of the year by President Roosevelt (Higham, 2004;
Porter, 2010), a trophy awarded to only 3 other individuals at that time (Higham, 2004). The media attention from his trip around the world furthermore made Hughes an international hero
(Higham, 2004; Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). Here again we see grandiosity in the idealised object that Hughes pursued, namely aviation. Primitive idealisation is evident in Hughes’s good internal object being confirmed through association with aviation.
[Later, Hughes taught important women in his life to fly, including Billie Dove and Katherine
Hepburn (Porter, 2010), making them more special by their association to aviation]. Hughes was unable to distinguish between self and this object; he wanted to be the best in the air (Hack,
2007, p. 1805), and put all his efforts into doing so [again refer here to the 20 to 30 hour working stretches, and the consumed focused effort on aviation (Whetton et al., 2012)]. Hughes experienced aviation as an extension of himself, as his domain; his successes confirmed his good internal object. Thus, by being the best aviator, his specialness was confirmed. Omnipotent control is evident through the level of control he showed on every aspect of aviation projects, and the view that the projects were under his control alone.
Hughes’s grandiose strivings were further evident when he decided to become a major player in the war (Porter, 2010) through the XF-11 and the Hercules projects (Higham, 2004).
These projects were of themselves objectively grandiose. Hughes’s grandiosity is particularly seen in his approach. Porter (2010) explained that before being awarded the contract to manufacture XF-II’s, Hughes set up assembly lines and staff, constructed hangars, and a runway, and hired “500 engineers, scientists, draftsmen, and airplane designers” (p. 540). With this in 177 place, Hughes set his team towards the design and building of the prototype plane, which would become the XF-11, and cost 6 million dollars to develop, an inordinate amount of money at the time (Porter, 2010). However, Hughes did all of this without government permission, as he was convinced that he would easily win government contracts (Porter, 2010). He also “refused to let any government office dictate the terms of manufacture” (Higham, 2004, l. 1654), designing the plane as he saw fit. The grandiose thinking that underlies these actions is glaring.
Again, by being associated with such special projects, Hughes confirmed his greatness through primitive idealization and omnipotent control. We see these two defense mechanisms further in the course of a senate probe that took place. Hughes adamantly defended the viability of the Hercules project, and said that if the Hercules didn’t fly, he would leave America (Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). Hughes’s defense of the Hercules can be seen as not only the defense of the project, but the defense of his grandiose self, with the plane seen as an extension of his being. Shortly after the hearings, Hughes invited the press to witness the
Hercules’ maiden voyage. Although it never flew again, Hughes proved that it was functional, and therefore successful. Hughes spent 1-2 million dollars annually to keep the plane in good condition, in a hangar (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). He refused to dismantle it, and even when it became water damaged, he had it fixed, despite not using it (Porter, 2010). The destruction of the Hercules would nullify its being, in his mind, and in essence would destroy a part of himself; keeping the Hercules intact made Hughes feel as if he was intact.
Finally, grandiosity is reflected in Hughes’s romantic life. Charles River Editors (2014, l.
1127) asserted that when Hughes was interested in someone:
he made bold emphatic declarations of love and was equally generous with jewelry and
vacations, which led many of his girlfriends to think more of their relationships with the 178
aviator than was warranted. Of course, he also proposed to more than a few of the women
he dated, which would understandably confuse anyone.
Hughes was usually dating more than one person at a time, up until his early fifties (Higham,
2004; Porter, 2010). He only dated attractive people; he would headhunt them from a movie or a magazine, deciding that he wanted to have them (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993; Porter, 2010). Hughes lied to individuals he dated so that they wouldn’t find out about each other (Porter, 2010). He would disappear for days at a time, often without letting them know where he was (Porter, 2010). When Hughes tired of someone, he would often just stop taking their calls (Porter, 2010). Hughes did exactly as he pleased, without considering his impact on others. We see primitive idealisation with Hughes identifying with these attractive people as good and appealing objects; he thus confirmed himself as highly valuable and worthy by association. We see omnipotent control in his control of the dating relationship, having it unfold on his terms.
Overall, the grandiosity in projects and in dating represents Hughes’s sense of omnipotence, and is associated with a strong split between Hughes’s good and bad internal objects, with the projects and dating being actions that Hughes continually engaged with to confirm his greatness.
Hughes’s grandiosity stemmed from the merger of his ideal self- and object-representations with his real self-representations; his positive internal object then reflected grandiosity within his sense of self. Hughes needed these projects to be the best of their kind, the people to be the most beautiful, to generate evidence that would confirm this grandiose self as accurate. Anything less than the best fell outside of his perfectionistic standards, and was seen by him as unworthy, and would reflect that he was not good enough. Furthermore, because he was merged with projects/dates through his idealistic object images being a part of his self, he did not treat the 179 projects or individuals as independent beings within themselves, but as a part of his grandiose self. This merger is confirmed through a quote from the diary of Faith Domergues (Hack, 2007, l. 2687):
There is a strange quirk in Howard, stranger than any of his other peculiarities. Once he has
become involved with a project or a person, he can not let them get away from his control.
Once owning something, he has to own it always, and this is so strong in him, I believe it is
unconscious. It is so much a part of his presence that it is like his brown-black eyes, his
high-pitched voice, it is him. And it is the most self-destroying element of his character.
This quote seems to confirm Hughes’s merger with his objects, and his inability to step back from them. It also introduces the next object relations pattern, namely, that of control.
Control.
A strong pattern evident in Hughes’s life was around control. Steele (1999 cited in Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1999) stated: “the one word if you were going to describe the man… he wanted to control everything”. This control is seen clearly in Hughes’s work in movies. Porter (2010, p. 179) said that Hughes “would not listen to objections from anyone” (p.
179). Hughes was very particular about what he wanted and tried to command the production to attain that (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Hughes took this approach, despite not being trained in film production, and insisted on doing even specialised work himself (Whetton et al., 2012).
This control was evident in Hughes’s work in aviation as well. Although he was technically minded, he was not trained as an engineer; Hughes was in charge of his team, and even though the team would brainstorm together, he would veto suggestions that he did not like (Porter,
2010), driving the team towards his particular vision. With both films and aviation, control may be seen as one of the mechanisms Hughes used to attain the idealised object he envisioned. 180
Psychologically, this control is closely aligned with the defense mechanism, omnipotent control, as control for Hughes was rooted in the belief that he was the source from which all good things stemmed or should stem, and allowed him to be in charge.
Issues around control are also evident with Hughes’s interaction with potential movie stars.
Hughes often had them sign long-term acting contracts and promised to make them famous
(Porter, 2010). Whilst in his employ, Hughes paid for their accommodation, acting classes, and meals. Although these girls were beautiful, many were not talented, and for many, Hughes did not intend to use them in a film production (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993).
As they signed long-term contracts, Hughes felt that he had the right to dictate to them how they should live their lives (Sheridan, 2011). Furthermore, should they try to attain acting work through another production company, they realised that their contract was exclusive, and they could only attain acting work through his company (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). They were stuck, and dependent on him for movement in their careers, and there was nothing they could do but wait out their contract. This may reasonably be seen as controlling. The greater factor in this example is that, as idealised objects, the potential stars, once on contract, were experienced by
Hughes as his, and formed part of Hughes’s grandiose self. They were not acknowledged as separate [just as a movie or a plane project was his]. Consequently, Hughes struggled to see the starlets as having their own will, or having opinions that differed, he only saw his own opinions.
Hughes felt entitled to be controlling; in a sense, he was controlling himself, as they were part of him. Again, this behaviour was imbedded within primitive idealisation and omnipotent control.
Manipulation and entitlement.
Manipulative and entitled behaviour was strongly evident in Hughes’s behavioural patterns.
Hughes held the belief that anything or anyone was for sale at the right price (Porter, 2010), a 181 belief that was confirmed as strongly evident in Hughes’s belief system by Dietrich (1976)
(Hughes’s chief executive of 32 years). In early adulthood, Hughes decided that he wanted to marry Ella Rice. He ignored the fact that she was in love with someone else, and wanted something different (Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010). He pursued her until he attained her. Manipulation is also seen through Hughes blatantly engaging in the buying of influence to gain the contract of manufacturing XF-II’s. He wooed individuals responsible for the awarding of contracts, through arranging elaborate parties attended by both beautiful and famous people, in order to socialise and romance these individuals, and ensure their positive experience and attitude towards him (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Manipulation is confirmed in statements made by Dietrich (1976, p. 147). Dietrich indicated that whenever
Hughes needed to do something unpleasant like fire or disappoint someone, he would ask
Dietrich to do this for him. When the “victim” complained, Hughes would “symphathize with them and say, “That Noah is a tough guy to deal with”” (Dietrich, 1976, p. 147). Manipulation was also seen when Hughes formed the HHMI. The expressed goal of the institute was medical research. However, the real goal was to remove his personal responsibility from Hughes
Aircraft, so that government could not hold him accountable for the internal happenings, as well as for the purpose of tax evasion (Barlett & Steele, 2004).
Later in his life, when Hughes moved to Las Vegas, his tendency towards manipulation was further evident. Charles River Editors (2014 l. 1705) said “When losing control over himself and his life, he [Hughes] sought to compensate by controlling people, companies, the public and the government”. Nixon, then running for president, loaned 250 000 dollars from Hughes, for his brother (Higham, 2004); this not being enough leverage, Hughes had an employee, Meier, form a friendship with Donald Nixon; he furthermore paid a total of 425 000 dollars in campaign 182 contributions to candidates he thought would support his wishes (Higham, 2004), Richard Nixon included.
Hughes engaged with others as part objects, manipulating and placing those objects where it would best suit him to access the part of them that he wanted. This is confirmed by Higham
(2004) who maintained that Hughes’s political maneuvering was in order to ensure preferential treatment, and by Dietrich (1976, p. 242) who said that political involvement occurred if it had
“some effect” for Hughes. Having access to these good idealised parts confirmed Hughes’s grandiosity, and he thus manipulated to ensure access. Thus, through attaining the XF-II project, or being able to directly influence a political decision, Hughes had his grandiose self confirmed.
This behaviour reflects the defense omnipotent control.
Hughes felt a tremendous sense of entitlement to behave as he pleased. A particular incident that portrays Hughes’s entitlement occurred when he was filming The Outlaw. Hughes became obsessed with Jane Russell’s breasts, and even designed a special bra to showcase them better
(Charles River Editors, 2014; Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Hughes did not question his right to be so invasive. At this point, he interacted with Russel as a part object, in a sense, interacting with her breasts as the idealised object, and not with her. The literature portrays Russel as disinterested in wearing the bra, with both Higham (2004) and Porter (2010) saying she wore her own anyway, and Hughes never knew. This speaks of Hughes’s focus on Russel’s breasts as emerging from his own will rather than from interaction and permission gained from Russel.
Hughes thus expected her to fall in line with his wishes, an expectation which Dietrich (1976) described as typical of Hughes.
At a time when film imagery was still fairly modest compared with today’s standards,
Hughes’s enhanced focus on Russel’s breasts culminated in the release of The Outlaw being 183 vetoed by the censorship board. Hughes fought the board, and went to court to attain the right to show as much cleavage on the screen as the movie did, and he won (Higham, 2004; Porter,
2010). Although Charles River Editors (2014) declared that Hughes’s challenge to the censorship board held the ulterior motive of advertising, by generating interest in the film, this may be seen as an added benefit. Hughes did not question his right to screen what he wanted, irrespective of the established standards of the time. He also felt the right to fight the established standards, whatever the motivations behind this challenge. This speaks towards a high level of entitlement.
Entitlement for Hughes can be thought of as rooted in his belief in himself as special, an omnipotent object. Because of the merger of his self with idealised objects, he experienced
“deep feelings of having the right to exploit and to be gratified” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 38). This was further rooted in a poorly developed superego, and a stunted system of values. Nowhere in literature is there evidence of Hughes being guided by commitments to values. Rather he was guided by the creation or identification with idealised objects, and was dependent on this
“external confirmation” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 481) rather than validation from his personal value system. He felt entitled to the identification with idealised objects, irrespective of the damage he caused either to others or to the objects in the process.
Rebellious and vengeful tendencies.
Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1086) described Hughes as “unable to bend to the authority of anyone or anything”. He liked to write his own rules. The writing of his own rules was seen in a variety of ways. By the early 1930s Hughes had sold his expensive cars, and starting driving a
“jalopy” which was battered and filthy (Porter, 2010, p. 309). Porter (2010) asserted that this behaviour was motivated by both forgetfulness (if Hughes forgot where he parked his car, the 184 loss was insubstantial) and by the fear of kidnapping (made less likely if he drove a less valued object). However, Hughes’s second chief executive, Maheu, (Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness, 1993) said that he asked Hughes why he didn’t get a nicer car, and Hughes’s response had been “Who have I got to impress”. This comment speaks of Hughes as seeing himself as superior, and represents the defense mechanism omnipotence; it can also be seen as rebelling against societal expectations for successful living.
Similarly, Hughes changed the way he dressed. He initially wore suits, but by 1932 he gave away his expensive clothing and bought khaki trousers and white shirts, and tennis shoes (Hack,
2007; Porter, 2010). It is unclear from the literature why Hughes made this decision, although his first chief executive, Dietrich (1976), stated that Hughes’s style of dress changed when he realised that “he didn’t’ need to dress to impress anyone” (p. 59). This statement is very similar to that told to Maheu. It is evident that khaki trousers and white shirts became Hughes’s uniform. It is also strongly rebellious, in that Hughes wore his uniform irrespective of whom he was with, or the context of their engagement, again rebelling against societal expectations.
Rebellious behaviour is evident in a variety of Hughes’s life events, including his fighting with censorship boards, his dating behaviour, questionable business practices and political influence buying (Hack, 2007; Higham 2004, Porter, 2010), all of which were against the norm of the time. The antisocial element evident in Hughes’s behaviour may be understood through the presence of a faulty superego. Given that Hughes’s idealised self and object images merged with his real self, Hughes’s superego was most likely limited to the first layer of development, consisting of punitive object images. These images would still be personalised, thus would be experienced as a threat of punishment coming from outside of himself, from someone in particular (Kernberg, 2004a). This would have made Hughes feel manipulated or attacked from 185 the outside, rather than feeling an internalised pressure from within, guiding his behaviour
(through the ego ideal) (Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.6). Thus, Hughes would have felt controlled by particular people, or by society, and his reaction was rebellious behaviour, to do what he wanted to. Hughes is described as “having a strong willed character” and a “tremendous streak of independence” (Steele, 1999, cited in Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1999).
The impression is created that he pursued something because that is the way he wanted it.
Hughes is further described as someone who did not take orders from anyone (Hack, 2007) and who did not respond well to having his will challenged. There are a variety of incidents that portray Hughes as vindictive, and pursuing revenge. Brewster challenged Hughes through the senate hearing, and as a consequence, Hughes said some very negative things about Brewster in the press. Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) showed footage of Hughes saying of Brewster “Washington was too hot for him, he couldn’t make it” and that others on the senate committee dropped the case as they “saw no reason why they should fight Brewster’s losing battle for him if he was too cowardly to remain and face the music”. This may be seen as an example of devaluation and destruction of a bad external object. Hughes furthermore helped to select and fund a new candidate to run against Brewster for his position on senate, and ultimately
Brewster was replaced. Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness (1993) expanded saying that Brewster was publically humiliated, and struggled to find a decent job thereafter. This may be seen as purposeful revenge on the part of Hughes.
Another incident of revenge is seen when the secretary of the airforce, Talbott, challenged
Hughes. Talbott accused Hughes of managing Hughes Aircraft poorly (Charles River Editors,
2014) and threatened to end government contracts with Hughes Aircraft if the difficulties in leadership of the organisation weren’t addressed. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1719) 186 explained that Hughes “resented being told what to do with his own company so much that rather than devise ways to curtail the management exodus, he began scheming ways to stick it to
Talbott and the government by extension” and he “quietly concentrated on settling the score”.
The HHMI was the outcome, formed in part so that Hughes could not be held accountable for happenings within the company, and the government could not end its contracts with Hughes
Aircraft, as they would receive very bad press. This bad press was due to the profits of Hughes
Aircraft going directly to funding “cutting edge medical research” (Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 1719).
One way of understanding Hughes’s vindictive behaviour could be through the presence of projective identification. Hughes’s early representations were intense and not well integrated into the ego (Christopher et al., 2001, p. 695). These early representations would have been disturbing, and would have been cut off and projected onto others. Thus, when Hughes felt that he had been injured or unjustly treated by someone, this may have triggered these more intense representations. When projected, these representations made external objects very bad, and hooked Hughes’s need to defend himself strongly, and control the bad in them. He took this a step further through denial of the good in the other, and devaluation and destroying the bad in the other. Through projective identification, denial and devaluation Hughes constructed
Brewster and Talbott into highly persecutory objects, such as seen in his construction to the public of Brewster as untrustworthy and cowardly. The underlying need for these three defense mechanisms could be that with both Brewster and Talbott, Hughes felt as if they were trying to control him. This may have triggered object relations associated with being controlled, which he experienced with his parents. These object relations were associated with cognitions and affects representing feeling smothered and the loss of independence. This was abhorrent to Hughes, and 187 he would have experienced these associated incidents as being manipulated from the outside.
Although the defensive behaviour of rebellion and vindictiveness, linked to projective identification, denial and devaluation, were in response to feeling manipulated, rebellious and vindictive behaviour was further facilitated by a lack of guilt.
Lack of guilt.
We see Hughes’s lack of guilt particularly strongly in his dating behaviour. Porter (2010) claimed that Hughes slept with over 2000 starlets, and Higham (2004, l. 1083) said he was
“ruthless in his womanizing”. Hughes was never faithful to his partners, and was usually seeing more than one person simultaneously (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Another societal norm that
Hughes ignored was age. He pursued many young teenaged women, and had relationships with
Ruth Moffett and Faith Domergues when they were underaged (Hack, 2007; Porter, 2010); had charges been laid against him, even at that time, Hughes would have been guilty of statutory rape.
Hughes often proposed marriage to the women he was dating (Charles River Editors, 2014;
Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993) but did not follow through on these proposals. It is possible that Hughes was genuine in his proposals, but became disillusioned with the women as ideal objects over time, and thus didn’t follow through with the proposal; however, it is also possible that a proposal was a manipulative tactic to ‘catch’ the individual in question.
Hughes used this tactic when dating Moore, by marrying her on board a yacht to placate her into sleeping with him. He ensured that the yacht was at a distance from shore that would be outside of the jurisdiction of the city, so that the marriage would not be valid (Higham, 2004; Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010).
Hughes also engaged in homosexual relationships (Higham, 2007; Porter, 2010). His most 188 renowned relationship with a man was with actor Carey Grant. This was at a time when homosexual relationships were strongly frowned upon.
Whoever Hughes was involved with, his relationships usually did not last very long, and
“Ultimately, most of the intimates felt betrayed, usually after they were dumped and Hughes moved on to other conquests” (Porter, 2010, p. 793). Often this moving on occurred suddenly, and the partner was taken by surprise (Porter, 2010). Charles River Editors (2014) expanded that
Hughes was never able to find a partner that met up to his standards, and that “he simply treated them as if they were interchangeable parts in the larger machinery of life” (l. 1158). There is no evidence in any of the literature on his life that shows Hughes as experiencing guilt or remorse about any of the above behaviour. His behaviour is understood as being rooted within a faulty superego. Hughes’s idealised self and object images were merged with his real self, and they were not used to form an ego ideal; thus his ego had little internal pressure placed on it for ethical behaviour. The lack of pressure from the ego ideal means that Hughes would have experienced little guilt, and consequently felt little internal repercussion from his behaviour.
This lack of discomfort combined with the sense of omnipotence from the grandiose self, and merger with his ideal objects, led to the entitlement to behave as he wished.
Atypical sexual behaviour.
Hughes was described as a clumsy lover (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010); Higham (2004, l. 504) further described him as a “thoughtless, dispassionate lover, seeking only control”, and stated that Hughes’s lovers were “hostages”. Despite his many romantic liaisons, many of his lovers reported that Hughes struggled with impotence (Porter, 2010; Hack, 2007). Higham (2004) further stated that Hughes was someone who was never highly sexed, while Hack (2007, l. 1605) said he “chose to camouflage his lack of sexual prowess through multiple conquests with 189 women…. Only the most glamorous, sexually luring females would do”. Higham (2004) reported that Hughes preferred intermammary intercourse or fallatio to vaginal intercourse.
Kernberg and Caligor (2005) indicated that healthy individuals show full expression of their sexual needs, with the capacity for tenderness and commitment, qualities that seemed to be absent in the makeup of Hughes. He often engaged in sexual acts, but was focused on the physical act rather than any emotional connection he might experience in the process. Higham
(2004, l. 1872) captured the essence of this by saying:
that for Hughes sex was no more than relief (or proof of potency), that he wasn’t inventive,
tender, or considerate, that he was using human orifices for his satisfaction, and that men and
women were merely entrances for his pleasure.
Hughes related to these individuals as part objects; possessing them allowed him to identify with the idealised good object through primitive idealisation, affirming his grandiose self. Sexual pleasure is usually driven by libido from the motivational system. However, from the descriptions it is evident that there was very little pleasure involved in Hughes’s sexual behaviour. Rather it was about pursuit and conquest. It is hypothesised that Hughes pursued his wholeness through sex. Through sex he tried to gain a level of connection, the affirmation that he as an object was whole and okay.
The grandiose object is a part object, not substantiated through real achievements, nor tempered by real weakness. On some level, Hughes’s psyche would have felt unsubstantiated and empty. However, Hughes also had a bad internal object. There are a variety of patterns that emerged due to his bad internal object. These patterns are associated with splits and strategies
Hughes used to defend against the bad representations. 190
Reconstructing reality.
There are a number of instances where Hughes reconstructed reality towards a version that suited him better. In 1936 Hughes was in a car accident, and he killed a pedestrian. He had been on a date with Nancy Bayly, and she was in the car at the time of the accident (Porter, 2010). Hughes was charged with manslaughter, and one witness asserted that he was drunk while another said he was speeding (Porter, 2010). An inquest was held, but the events were unclear, and the witnesses changed their stories (Hack, 2007). Hughes tried to protect Bayly by excluding her from this process, but she was tracked down by police, and substantiated Hughes’s version of the accident. The case was dropped, but Hughes never spoke to Bayly again (Porter, 2010). Here
Hughes rewrote the version of events, presumably buying over witnesses. It is likely that he ignored Bayly as he was embarrassed about the accident and associated it with bad self- representations, which would have been threatening to his sense of being okay. By ignoring the incident, Hughes denied a portion of experience.
A similar process of reconstruction was seen at Hughes’s senate hearing. Hughes was accused of the mismanagement of funds. However, he showed no remorse for the mismanagement, justifying expenditure with the fact that he had also spent his own money.
Hughes used a severely rebellious attitude (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993) to convey a devaluation of the hearing process. Furthermore, through his focus on blackmail, he was able to question the authenticity of the process, and attain public backing (Barlett & Steele,
2004). Charles River Editors (2014) asserted that the charge of bribery was a scheme concocted by Hughes to refocus attention away from fund management. Hughes reconstructed himself in a positive light. Ultimately, Hughes made a point of flying the Hercules to prove that he had met the outcome of the project, and thereby justified himself further. However, this does not take 191 away from the fact that there had been mismanagement of funds, and Hughes was never held accountable (Barlett & Steele, 2004). This process can reasonably be seen as his denial of a portion of experience, as if it did not have any value, because another portion of his experience, namely his effort and own money, held greater value for him. In both these incidents we see the defense mechanism denial functioning to protect Hughes’s good internal object.
Shifting importance in relationships.
Hughes showed shifting importance in his relationships, at one point showing great value of an individual, and then at another, great devaluation. One of the glaring examples is Hughes’s refusal of contact with friends and family from his childhood. This occurred from approximately middle adulthood. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1761) said that Hughes cut them off “when their only crimes were attempting to contact an increasingly unhinged man they used to know”.
The reasons for this behaviour are unclear in the literature, although it seems that on a psychological level Hughes had started to project negative self-representations onto them, and thus devalued them. Inherent to this process is also the defense projective identification, with
Hughes controlling his bad representations in them, as well as denial, with Hughes denying their presence as valuable and adding to his life in any way.
This process of shifting importance was evident within Hughes’s first intimate relationship with Ella Rice. Hughes spent much time wooing Rice, and convincing her to marry him.
However, the literature on his life portrays a distinct shift immediately after the marriage, with
Hughes showing a significant loss of interest in Rice (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Hughes became absorbed in making movies, and severely neglected his relationship (Porter, 2010).
Furthermore, Rice was not allowed to ask about his movements, and he didn’t respond to telegrams she sent (Porter, 2010). Whilst pursuing Rice, Hughes projected idealistic self- 192 representations onto her, engaging with himself in her. However, the dynamic changed after the marriage, seen in Hughes shifting his position to Rice. Hughes told Sharp “I’m smothering”, explaining “after that god damn honeymoon, I’ve decided my marriage is going to be in name only” (Porter, 2010, p. 115). Charles River Editors (2014, l. 460) said that in “every request for time together or shared recreation was merely a nuisance to him”. It is likely that Hughes experienced reasonably normal needs for intimacy as overwhelming and a nuisance, with intimacy triggering representations that had negative valence attached. Thus, most likely due to this triggering, Hughes started to devalue Rice as an object, projecting negative representations onto her and destroying his positive experience of her; by using projective identification to control his bad representations in her, Hughes was thus still engaging with himself in her. He furthermore denied any good association he had of her. Of importance here is that he reconstructed Rice into a negative object, and she was never able to shift from this devalued position.
Hughes’s shifting of importance can also be seen in his dating relationships; Hughes struggled to sustain intimate relationships. “Howard’s romances often lacked longevity, exclusivity and physical intimacy, in part because his desire for a woman often diminished after their first intimate encounter” (Charles River Editors, 2014, l. 1127). Hughes initially wooed individuals to gain their acceptance, through buying gifts and dinners, establishing working contracts, and promising marriage to gain their interest (Charles River Editors, 2014). Porter
(2010, p. 464) called him a “skilled seducer”. However, soon into the relationship becoming intimate, Hughes would back off, and refuse to take their phone calls, finding another to woo
(Porter, 2010). One possible explanation is that he got bored very quickly, although this does not seem like enough of an argument. Another explanation could be that the relationships he 193 pursued never measured up to the ideal he had in mind (Charles River Editors, 2014). Given that
Hughes held overly idealistic object images, this is likely. It is also confirmed through Dietrich’s
(1976, p. 112) description of Hughes being focused on finding “the perfect woman”. Thus, when the individual did not fit with Hughes’s grandiose object images, he engaged in devaluation, either becoming indifferent and/or actively not seeing them as appealing anymore, and creating distance between himself and them. Hughes’s need for closeness was conflicted, as his representations for closeness were strongly linked to control, smothering, and the loss of independence he experienced with his mother. It is hypothesised here that Hughes had a strong split in this area. He experienced the need for closeness and intimacy, but as soon as he met this need, intimacy triggered the associated control and smothering affects and cognitions.
Consequently, the alternative object relation split was activated, which led to him backing away.
This split may be seen as part of the reason he denied the importance of an intimate and left dating relationships. Thus Hughes behaved from either seeking closeness or avoiding it, depending on which object relation was active at the time. This is rooted in the defense mechanism denial as Hughes denied the object relation pattern not active at any given point.
This object relation split around intimacy is also likely to be a contributing factor to the failure of Hughes’s marriage to Rice. Porter’s (2010) description of Hughes telling Sharp that the relationship with Rice made him feel smothered, actively states that the experience of closeness led Hughes to feeling smothered, confirming the split. Relationships that Hughes had that were more extended in length were often with individuals with a high level of independence who needed less from him, such as with Carey Grant and Kathryn Hepburn (Porter, 2010).
Hughes also showed a distinct shift in his relationship with Dudley Sharp. They had been friends for approximately 25 years, although Porter (2010) asserted that they had been 194 romantically involved for a portion of that time too. Although they had little contact for a few years, Sharp asked something of Hughes [the literature is disparate here. It was either to be the best man at his wedding (Hack, 2007) or a visit in lieu of a honeymoon to introduce Hughes to his wife (Porter, 2010)]. Hughes declined, and from then on had no contact with Sharp. Porter
(2010) indicated that Hughes wanted nothing to do with Sharp. It is possible that something within the interaction with his friend triggered affects and cognitions associated with being controlled, leading to a denial of Sharp’s importance to him, and the devaluation of Sharp as an object. It is also possible that Hughes switched Sharp into the negative object position for another reason, particularly given the incestuous history.
Hughes’s longest relationships were within the realm of business, with two chief executives, where Hughes showed strong changes in position. With the first, Noah Dietrich, Hughes had a relationship of 32 years. Dietrich was responsible for a vast majority of the successes achieved by Hughes’s business enterprises. After the 32 years, Dietrich insisted on attaining shares in
Hughes business. Hughes told Dietrich “you’re holding a gun to my head, Noah” (Porter, 2010, p. 692), and reacted by dismissing him from his position (Dietrich, 1976; Howard Hughes: The
Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010; Whetton et al., 2012). There was no negotiation.
Hughes denied Dietrich’s importance to him, projected negative representations onto him, thus devaluing and discrediting him as an object. Dietrich thus became a bad object in Hughes’s eyes. The day after firing Dietrich, Hughes had the locks changed at the Romaine street offices, and never spoke to Dietrich again; he also had the people associated with Dietrich given packages (Whetton et al., 2012). These behaviours stem from projective identification; Hughes engaged in activity that controlled the bad representations so that they could not hurt him. By changing locks, and removing employees he kept Dietrich at a distance. It is possible that 195
Hughes responded to Dietrich’s demands for shares by feeling manipulated and controlled, and that the same object relations associated with being controlled, smothered, and the loss of independence were triggered, driving the denial, devaluation and projective identification.
A similar dynamic occurred with Maheu, Hughes’s next chief executive officer after 14 years of service. It is unclear why Hughes switched from a positive view to a negative view of
Maheu, but it had to do with either accusations of theft (Whetton et al., 2012) or an unauthorised bribe (Charles River Editors, 2014). However, thereafter Hughes signed over power of attorney to aids Gay and Davis (Whetton et al., 2012). Hughes denied any importance attached to his relationship with Maheu or any good that Maheu represented, and devalued Maheu by projecting negative representations onto him, discrediting him; he also controlled the negative representations through projective identification through the distance he created. The defenses in action is evidenced in a telephonic press conference, where Hughes called Maheu a “no-good son of a bitch who stole me blind” (Sheridan, 2011, p. 159; Higham, 2004). Embedded in this incident, denial, devaluation, and projective identification, actively reconstructed Maheu into something that he was not. This reconstruction was challenged by Maheu taking Hughes to court for slander, as he had never stolen from Hughes. Maheu won the case.
It is clear in these shifts, whether in romantic relationships or in business, that Hughes changed his position in relation to others, moving them from idealised objects to persecutory objects through the defense mechanisms devaluation and denial. It is further likely that for many of the shifts in romantic relationships, closeness was linked to smothering, being controlled, and the loss of independence, leading to the switch from good to bad object. Within friendship and business relationships, at least for some of the shifts, the position change was linked to being controlled, possibly also linked to being smothered and the loss of independence. Hughes 196 projected his negative self-representations onto these individuals. Projective identification is evident here in Hughes’s control of the projected representations in others. The distance he created from these individuals once they had become bad was the mechanism he used to control the impact that their bad had on him. Thus, Hughes protected himself against these persecutory representations.
Distrust and paranoia.
One of the patterns evident in Hughes’s life involves the presence of distrust and paranoia.
Some of his tendencies toward distrust were found to have basis, and some did not. During his continental airspeed record, Hughes had to make an emergency landing in a field. It was found that someone had blocked the pipeline leading from the spare gas tank to the plane’s engine with steel wool (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Hughes saw this as an attempt on his life, but never found out who was responsible. Furthermore, Hughes’s designs were stolen in approximately
1940, and he believed Japanese spies to be responsible; he believed that the designs were used in the creation of a plane called the Zero (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010, p. 540). Whether this belief was accurate or not is unclear. The result was that Hughes started to fear that someone would steal future ideas; consequently various future constructions of planes were done in secret, under security guard (Hack, 2007; Higham, 2004).
Hughes furthermore insisted on driving around the city, during the early hours of the morning, to use various payphones. Porter (2010) asserted that this was to ensure privacy, as
Hughes believed that the FBI was tapping his phone. Hughes was involved in government contracts, and at some point the FBI had started tapping his phones (Porter, 2010), thus he was correct about this. These events seem to support Hughes’s distrust as valid.
However, during his young adulthood, the literature does hint at paranoia. Porter (2010) 197 and Higham (2010) mentioned that Hughes carried no cash as he worried he would be kidnapped, while Dietrich (1976) said it was because Hughes worried that he would be robbed.
Dietrich (1976) furthermore stated that Hughes trusted no one, and that he had a “sense of secrecy that seemed unreasonable” (p. 24). In the early 1930s, before Hughes attained his military contracts, he was frustrated due to stagnation in Hughes Aircraft, and he understood this stagnation as resulting from his efforts in aviation being “thwarted” by the U.S. Army Air Force
Base at Wright Field (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 105). Consequently Hughes constructed a conspiracy that he was purposely being excluded by the personnel, and started to refer to them as the “Hate Hughes club” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 105). There is no evidence that this was rooted in reality. This is an example of denial and devaluation, where Hughes denied any other positive representations that he had of them, and devalued them as an object. This devaluing occurs through Hughes’s projection of negative representations onto Wright Field; evidence points toward these projections being associated with the fear of exclusion and insignificance.
Projective identification is also linked to the projection of negative representations, but in particular is linked to Hughes’ trying to control these representations in Wright Field; he tried to manage the belief of exclusion and insignificance by engaging with them and trying to convince them of his worth (Porter, 2010). Generally speaking, at this point in his life the experience of paranoia was subtle.
Over time, Hughes’s tendencies towards distrust and paranoia grew. Hughes started hiring private investigators to spy on the past and present partners (Charles River Editors, 2014). It isn’t clear in the literature whether this was motivated by insecurity (Charles River Editors,
2014) or by paranoia, driving him to see whether they were faithful and dedicated to him, or involved with another (Porter, 2010). However, by his late fourties, due to his involvement in 198 government projects, the FBI had investigated Hughes in terms of his emotional stability, and
Hack (2007, l. 4023) quoted FBI reports as saying that Hughes was an “unscrupulous individual who at times acted like a ‘screwball paranoic’”, and further described him as having an “unstable nature”. From this evidence, it is more likely that Hughes’s spying behaviour was rooted in paranoia.
Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1272) stated that Hughes washed his hands “constantly”, indicating a paranoid fear of germs. By the time he lived in the Beverly Hills hotel, Hack (2007, l. 5680), described him as experiencing “paranoia about unknown forces crouched and ready to spring”. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1644) asserted that Hughes told his medical doctor,
Mason, about the “rampant paranoia that he couldn’t shake” and admitted that he was “paranoid about several entities, not the least of which was the government”. Charles River Editors (2014) further asserted that the paranoia was mostly from his own mind (as opposed to rooted in reality). This paranoia is seen generally through Hughes fear of germs, and that they would invade him and make him sick (Barlett & Steele, 2004; Porter, 2010). The paranoia is seen specifically in a memo Hughes wrote to Maheu when living in the Desert Inn in Las Vegas. He asked Maheu to move the location of an easter egg hunt to be staged for children at the hotel.
Hack (2007, l. 5680) quoted Hughes as worried that there was a “powerful group who are dedicated to discrediting me” and that “this militant group plans to stage a really viscious [sic] all-out juvenile riot at our Easter party”. The consequence was that the easter egg hunt was moved to another location.
There is ample evidence that Hughes himself was not trustworthy. This is seen through years of tax evasion, unfaithful dating behaviour, political influence buying, and unfair business practices (Charles River Editors, 2014; Hack, 2007; Higham 2004; Porter, 2010). It is 199 reasonable to assume that Hughes did not accept this “untrustworthy” representation as generalised to himself. It is likely that this was part of the negative self-representations that he split off and projected onto the outside world, against which he needed to defend himself. If others could be untrustworthy as he, this would create a need to protect himself from a dangerous world.
It is further likely that the increase in paranoia over time can be attributed to a variety of factors. By middle adulthood, Hughes’s ego would have weakened significantly due to the continued use of the splitting defense (Kernberg, 1998). Furthermore, Hughes had had a traumatic near death experience testing the XF-II, which resulted in drug addiction; euphoria from drug use would most likely have had an impact on the subjective experience of control. It is likely that on a biological level, the amount of traumatic head injuries (TBI) he sustained by this point – 7 collectively (Higham, 2004) - also influenced his behaviour. Hughes was also under a lot of pressure from overworking, and from stressful life events (such as the senate hearings). It is thus further likely that Hughes’s defenses were less effective in defending against the bad representations that he projected onto the world, and as he experienced these bad objects as coming towards him and couldn’t control this as effectively as before, the result was an increase in paranoia. Hughes attempted to protect himself against the dangerous distrustful elements coming towards him, but ultimately needed to withdraw from the world to the point of agoraphobia, in order to do so. This withdrawal gave him a heightened sense of control that allowed him to protect his good internal object. It also led to an increase in obsessive compulsive behaviours.
Black and white thinking.
Hughes was generally very opinionated, and had definite ideas that he ascribed to, rooted in 200 black and white thinking. Many authors comment that Hughes did not like black people
(Higham, 2007; Porter, 2004). Thus, positive representations of them were denied, and negative self-representations were projected onto black individuals and they were devalued. Part of this was culturally endorsed, as racial issues were still very prevalent in America at the time.
However, this process is seen again in the 1940s when Hughes made a decision to only hire employees of Mormon descent. He believed that because they didn’t drink and smoke, they could keep a secret and were more trustworthy (Charles River Editors, 2014). In effect, Hughes merged his good object representations of Mormons with his grandiose self. Thus, negative self- representations were projected onto individuals not of Mormon descent, and they were devalued; any good of individuals not of Mormon descent were denied.
Also in the late 1940s, when he took over the running of RKO, Hughes commenced on a witchhunt to root out all individuals who were Communists or Communist sympathisers
(Higham, 2007; Porter, 2010). At the time, after the war, there was an atmosphere of distrust in
America, so this was not entirely unendorsed behaviour systemically. However, again we see
Hughes’s denial of any good associated with Communists, facilitating a negative view, which occurred through devaluation.
Hughes’s attitudes regarding non-Mormons and Communists also reflect projective identification, and the projection and control of negative representations in the object. This control is reflected through Hughes creating distance from these objects to protect himself from them (e.g. firing communists, and keeping non-Mormons away by only hiring Mormons). These defenses, namely projective identification, denial and devaluation, work together to reconstruct – thus, Hughes reconstructed non-Mormons and Communists into punitive dangerous objects.
Hughes’s defensive behaviour was enhanced by the use of omnipotent identification. Hughes 201 connected with Mormons, an idealised object, and by being connected to them he buffered his good internal object. Again, in this behaviour the split within his good and bad internal object is evident.
Health issues, obsessive compulsive behaviours, and agoraphobia.
From his early twenties, Hughes became known in Hollywood circles as someone who did not shake the hands of others, during a time when this was polite conduct and a strongly supported norm (Charles River Editors, 2014). Porter (2010) asserted that Hughes would wash his plate, glass, and utensils before eating, and Higham (2004) maintained that Hughes entertained guests at his home on cheap crockery, so that he could throw it away after use. Furthermore, he kept the windows closed so that germs wouldn’t come in (Porter, 2010), and wouldn’t use toothpaste as he believed that the chemicals in it was dangerous; he used black seeds instead (Higham, 2007).
Hughes was also known to ask his partners to bath before sex (Porter, 2010). All these behaviours were directed at keeping germs away. Germs had bad associations for Hughes, and presented a threat to his grandiose self. As Hughes’s bad self-representations were split off and projected outwards, he projected them onto germs, and thus experienced germs as “dangers coming toward the self” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 127). Thus, his external environment was threatening, and could contaminate him if he wasn’t careful. Hughes exhibited obsessive and compulsive behaviours, such as washing hands (Charles River Editors, 2014) to control the germs, and keep the bad outside of him.
Hack (2007) indicated that Hughes contracted syphilis in 1941, an event which Porter (2010) reported had also happened previously, in 1933. This illness was very disturbing to Hughes; despite the elaborate precautions he took, he still became ill, and the illness was inside him, part of him, and could not be blocked out. Hughes received medical treatment, and also burnt all his 202 clothing and bedding in order to purge himself of germs, and reinstate himself as the good object
(Charles River Editors, 2014; Porter, 2010). By seeing himself as the good, and by engaging in behaviours that would keep the bad outside of him, the intrapsychic split was played out. The grandiose self was maintained by projecting the bad away from the self and onto the outside, onto germs. Hughes could not comprehend that bad also emanated from him.
The obsessive compulsive tendencies outlined above are also evident in behaviours unrelated to germs. From his early twenties, Hughes had steak, baked potato, and peas every night for dinner (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010). Pryor (2013, l. 64) specified that Hughes
“became obsessed with the size of peas” and that he “used a special fork to sort them by size”.
He was known to send his food back if he was dissatisfied with the size of the peas. The Aviator
(2005) portrayed him as sending back chocolate chip cookies if there weren’t the right number of chocolate chips in them. In this process we see primitive idealisation, with Hughes seeing the good and ideal in specific foods, and associating with only that. It is interesting to note that
Hughes’s obsessive compulsive tendencies were strongly extended to food, which is the one thing that Hughes would need to physically take into himself, the good object; he spent much time checking that the food he took in was good. This was a mechanism to protect the good self, and keep the bad at bay.
In the film industry, Hughes’s obsessive compulsive nature emerged in him filming scenes over and over, until he was happy, seen, for example, in the Outlaw; Hughes shot 450 000 feet of film, and after editing, the final length was 10 000 feet (Hack, 2007). This was also seen previously in the filming of Hells Angels. Hughes furthermore showed obsessive compulsive behaviours with regards to sex and the attainment of beautiful people. Higham (2004) and Porter
(2010) claimed that Hughes had been sexually involved with hundreds of people. Hughes was 203 obsessed with gaining the desire of someone beautiful, and thus ‘having’ them, and he was always looking for the next one. His sexual behaviour affirmed his grandiose self, and proved himself worthy by association. The interaction was a repetitive pattern which Hughes compulsively repeated.
During the first half of his life Hughes was able to maintain the rituals that he developed to protect and confirm his grandiose self. However, after the crash and drug addiction, the strategies that Hughes used to protect himself from his bad internal object started to fail. This was most likely also affected by factors mentioned before, namely, ego weakening, drug use, traumatic brain injury (TBI), overworking, and stressful life events. Hughes’s fear of germs became more intense as his defense mechanisms were less and less affective in defending himself against the projected bad self-representations. This led to behaviour change in the form of an increase in obsessive compulsive behaviours, and the emergence of agoraphobia. Thus
Hughes’s rituals and demands became more severe, seen in the heightened need to sanitise his space, the control of how others interacted with him, and the refusal to leave his room. These behaviours started to debilitate him.
Jekyll-and-Hyde.
Higham, (2004, l. 1761) described Hughes as having a “Jekyll-and-Hyde nature” saying that he was “alternately gentle and considerate, terrifying and controlling”. This is rooted in denial, referring to alternating states or object relations being active at any point; this is associated with
“nonmetabolised” ego structures that are not integrated into the main ego but are “pathologically fixed” (Kernberg, 1998, l. 131). Thus, when an ego structure is activated, a different often opposite aspect of the ego is denied, and emerges in opposing descriptions of Hughes. Charles
River Editors (2014, l. 1129) said that Hughes “could be altruistic and devoted on the rare 204 occasions that he felt honest tenderness for a woman” and that he had a “readiness to be meaningfully generous and kind-hearted”. However, most of the literature on his life portrays him as self-absorbed, “egotistical, rather selfish, and secretive” (Whetton et al., 2012, l. 1143).
Contradictions are seen in stories conveyed by Porter (2010) and Higham (2004) who mentioned a number of incidents of occasional kindnesses and generosity, but also mentioned (far more) incidents of selfish and miserly behaviour. Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1148) stated that
Hughes was “driven” and “forbidding”, as well as “intense” and “intelligent”. Overall, Hughes is generally portrayed as knit picking and controlling; however, there are indications that a kinder side of Hughes was triggered, on occasion.
Aggressive and reckless behaviour.
The literature on Hughes’s life does not place a large focus on aggressive behaviour, and Porter
(2010) indicated that Hughes was not known as violent. There is once specific incident of physical violence mentioned in many sources (Charles River Editors, 2014; Hack, 2007; Porter,
2010), which involved Hughes and Ava Gardner in a “fiery argument” that culminated when
Hughes “punched her in the face so hard her jaw was dislocated” (Charles River Editors, 2014, l.
1397). However, this is the only corroborated incident.
Porter (2010) claimed that Hughes had a sadistic streak in bed, particularly with men (and not women), and claimed that he had occasional involvement in sexual bondage experiences with rent boys. Porter (2010, p. 349) quoted John Darrow as saying “Many of the guys I arranged for
Howard to seduce told me that they didn’t ever want to see him again”. Higham (2004) mentioned one or two violent arguments Hughes became involved with (in interaction with
Carey Grant and with Joe Schneck). However, aggression for Hughes seemed more subtle.
Higham (2004, p. l. 492) reported that Hughes “had to dominate in everything”. The FBI report 205 collated on Hughes’s emotional stability described him as “ruthless” (Hack, 2007, l. 4023).
However, typically, aggression for Hughes seemed to be channeled into the production of sex and violence in film, more so than any other producer of the time (Higham, 2004; Porter, 2010).
Higham (2004, l. 2482) specified that “Violence turned him on as much as sex”. This could perhaps be understood with Hughes showing some level of functionality of his superego, most likely with regards to rules around externalised violence and aggression as punishable, with the threat of punitive action from outside of himself if this behaviour were to emerge.
Arguably, the successful channelling of aggression could also be viewed as some level of sublimation. This is highly important to consider as it represents one of the few areas in the life experiences highlighted in this chapter, that may speak to some level of integration between good and bad representations, and the possibility of repression. However, given Hughes’s lack of value driven behaviour, lack of guilt, and high level of antisocial behaviour that appears pervasively throughout his life, the threat of punitive action from outside of himself seems to be a more likely explanation for Hughes’s restraint, than actual repression, highlighting a severely stunted superego.
Aggression can also be thought of as emerging as reckless behaviour, which was seen in various ways in Hughes’s life. While filming Hells Angels, Hughes insisted on doing a flying stunt himself when an experienced pilot refused to, saying that the stunt could not be done;
Hughes attempted the stunt but failed, and crashed the plane (Higham, 2004, Whetton et al.,
2012). Hughes also insisted on being the pilot for the test flight of the XF-11, and that the flight be conducted in a populated area, rather than at the army base, which was not (Higham, 2004).
The outcome was that Hughes crashed the plane within an urban suburb. Dietrich (1976, p. 129) specifically described Hughes as a “good” pilot, but as “reckless”, which seems a good summary 206 of his aviator endeavours.
Again, Hughes’s propensity for filming sex and violence showed recklessness through a disregard for rules and regulations in the filming industry at the time. Hughes chose to film what he wanted, taking the risk that his films would not make it past the censorship board. His recklessness was also seen in late adulthood, through his bribery of politicians, and even his implication in the Watergate scandal.
Hughes had no ego ideal against which to temper his drives. He was driven by idealised self and object images, infused with hedonistic pleasure and the need to have things done his way.
His superego was strong enough to temper direct aggression, but not strong enough to reduce his recklessness to consider its impact on self or others.
Narcissism within the Patterns
Hughes showed patterns related to being overinvolved and hardworking, detailed and particular, engaging in grandiose projects, and control, which were all associated with his attempts to buffer and confirm his grandiose self. Manipulation and entitlement were consequences of his grandiose self, as he manipulated to place part objects where they would be accessible when needed, to confirm his grandiosity. Due to his feelings of omnipotence, he felt that he was entitled to do this. Antisocial and vengeful behaviour, a lack of guilt, and atypical sexual behaviour stemmed from a faulty superego, given that Hughes’s superego never developed past the first layer; thus, there was no internal pressure placed on his ego to keep his behaviour in check. Rather, Hughes was controlled by punitive images from the outside, coming at him.
Hughes engaged in reconstructing reality, black and white thinking, shifting importance in relationships, distrust and paranoia. As his functioning deteriorated, he experienced and increase in health issues, and in obsessive compulsive behaviours, leading to the development of 207 agoraphobia all in order to protect his good self against bad representations. These behaviours thus may be viewed as an extension of the intrapsychic split. Some Jekyll-and-Hyde interactions reflect alternatively activated object relations, while aggression was well channeled into predominantly acceptable objects and recklessness, due to the threat of punishment if generalised.
In summation, the patterns outlined indicate a clear split in Hughes’s good and bad internal object, with strategies to buffer and enhance the grandiose self, as well as strategies to protect and defend against the bad representations. There is clear evidence of primary and secondary defense mechanisms used associated with the lower level pathologies put forward by Kernberg.
These defense mechanisms, rooted in splitting, include omnipotence, primitive idealisation, omnipotent control, denial, devaluation, and projective identification. These defense mechanisms, along with the presence of a grandiose self, fit with the description of narcissism in
Kernberg’s (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992; 2001) lower level pathologies.
Kernberg and Caligor (2005, p. 140) described malignant narcissism as associated with antisocial behaviour and paranoid tendencies. Antisocial behaviour is strongly present in
Hughes’s patterns, although paranoia become more evident only after there was clear mental deterioration in mid-life. The tendency towards aggression also noted by Kernberg and Caligor
(2005) does not feature strongly, and seemed to be relatively controlled. Ronningstam (2011, l.
19.5) asserted that the pathological internal object leads to “envy and devaluation of others, exploitative behaviour, lack of empathy and inability to depend on others” descriptions that are strongly evocative of Hughes’s patterns. Finally, Hughes showed impairment in values
(Ronningstam, 2011, l. 19.6), as well as difficulties with dependent and sexual motivations, and a lack of depth and variability in his range of affective experience, which fit with the pathological 208 picture identified by Kernberg (2004b) in his description of the lower level of pathologies within a narcissistic personality configuration.
Conclusion
This chapter provided a brief overview of the research methodology. It then examined the influences to the formation of object relations patterns in the life of Hughes during his early childhood. It presented findings and discussed them by looking at patterns associated with intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes. This was done by exploring the life experiences of Hughes in Middle Childhood and Adolescence, as well as in Adulthood. Findings highlighted Hughes’s grandiose self, along with the defense mechanisms he used, all of which were embedded within the identified patterns.
209
Chapter 8: Findings and Discussion - Interpersonal Narcissistic Dynamics of Howard
Hughes
Introduction
This chapter represents the second of two findings and discussion chapters; it specifically meets objective two, to explore interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg. The exploration of the interpersonal narcissistic dynamics generates insight into how narcissistic defenses work, and how they alienate others, meeting the research aim. To do so the chapter will introduce the lower order or primary and secondary defense mechanisms.
It will then explore each defense mechanism individually, and how it featured in the life of
Hughes. It will examine evidence regarding how these defense mechanisms impacted others, and deliberate around what it would be like to be on the receiving end of these defenses, leading to knowledge of how the defenses alienate others.
It is important to note here that this second findings chapter is considerably shorter than the first findings chapter. The reason for this is first and foremost centred on the data from which the findings have been taken. Data used are the narratives exploring Hughes’s life experiences, which are predominantly linear, focused on outlining what his life experiences were rather than his interpersonal processes within them. For this reason, the pool of data that focused on exploring his interpersonal processes is limited. Secondly, the shorter length also reflects the narcissistic dynamic, with narcissism associated more with focus on self than focus on other.
Thus, the inclusion of an overwhelming amount of the data within sources that focused on
Hughes himself, compared with that focused on his relationships, reflects Hughes’s narcissistic personality configuration, and the dynamic that emerged from his life story.
210
Delineating Defense Mechanisms
When describing Hughes, Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1103) stated:
To him, the world was a machine, and his whole life was a feat of engineering. Every
movie, every airplane, every historic record, and every romantic partner was merely a cog in
his machine, and when he fell short of his desired outcome, he merely tinkered with the
pieces until his world hummed with fine-tuned precision.
Some of the fine-tuning Hughes engaged in occurred consciously through deliberate life choices, and some occurred more unconsciously through unintentional choices, but both held embedded defense mechanisms. The primary defense mechanism in the narcissistic personality configuration is splitting. Splitting separates representations into all good or all bad, and keeps representations with contrasting qualities apart (Kernberg, 2004a). The splitting of the object relation pattern is to “protect the idealized sector of experience from contamination or destruction by the persecutory sector” (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005, p. 127); essentially the effect is that the individual experiences “two different attitudes towards reality” which are situated next to each other, but do not influence each other (Zepf, 2012, p. 46). As the representations are activated alternatively, the individual is aware of both but experiences the affect of the representation currently activated; the individual is able to acknowledge that they felt differently on a different occasion, but this knowledge has no emotional relevance to them (Kernberg,
2004a). The split is a “defensive function against the emergence of a primitive, predominantly negative transference” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 95).
There are six secondary defense mechanisms that support splitting. Kernberg (2004b, p. 95) asserted that the secondary defense mechanisms “protect this dissociation” or split; Zepf (2012) explained that the secondary defense mechanisms protect the individual from ambivalent 211 feelings. Thus, the psyche activates a representation, which also has an inactive opposite representation; secondary defense mechanisms are used to protect this split by keeping representations separate. In the process of protecting splits, secondary defense mechanisms are known to “create chronic disturbances in interpersonal relationship” (Kernberg, 2005, p. 43).
For this reason, the impact of defense mechanisms on others is explored here. The defense mechanisms are graphically portrayed as figure 6.
splitting
omnipotence self denial primitive idealisation devaluation
omnipotent control projective identification
Figure 6: Primary Defense Mechanism with Secondary Defense Mechanisms that Support Splitting. This figure illustrates how split representations are separate but part of the main self; splits are supported by the secondary defense mechanisms, which either enhance and support the good self, or protect it from bad representations.
The defense mechanisms are grouped here in terms of function whilst protecting the split.
Omnipotence, primitive idealisation, and omnipotent control work together to enhance the good or grandiose self. Denial, devaluation and projective identification keep the dangerous negative representations externalised. It is important to note that Hughes used all of the secondary defense mechanisms to varying degrees.
Findings and Discussion
The findings of this chapter are structured according to the individual secondary defense mechanisms. It is important to note that splitting is inherent to the secondary defense 212 mechanisms, and for this reason, splitting is not pursued as a seperate defense mechanism, within the findings. The findings of this chapter are presented in table 3.
Secondary Defense Mechanisms
Omnipotence
Primitive idealisation
Omnipotent control
Denial
Devaluation
Projective identification
Table 3: Primary and secondary defense mechanisms evident in the Life of Hughes. This table illustrates the defense mechanisms evident in the life of Hughes.
The secondary defense mechanisms are explored individually by examining the presence of the defense mechanism in the life of Hughes. Furthermore, the impact of the defense mechanisms is expanded on through deliberation of what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the defense, and how it is likely that it alienates others.
Omnipotence
Omnipotence is an image distorting defense (Finzi-Dottan & Karu, 2006), which entails the individual attributing positive qualities to the self, associated with the self as powerful, superior, intelligent or influential (Vaknin, 2007). The individual identifies with “an overidealized self- and object- representation, with the primitive form of ego-ideal” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 101).
Thus the individual attributes qualities to the self that are objectively more idealistic and superior than the qualities they actually hold; idealised self and object images are experienced as the self, rather than used to form an ego-ideal (Kernberg, 1969).
Hughes interacted with his world of objects, both human and nonhuman, as if his omnipotent perception of himself was accurate. The first sign of omnipotence was Hughes’s 213 pursuit of emancipated status, in his late teenage years. He pursued the right to run his own affairs at a time when it was unheard of for individuals to do so, believing that he was special and entitled to this right. We see omnipotence reflected in much of Hughes’s behaviour, including his pursuit of only the most beautiful people, his choice of grandiose projects, and the overestimation of his abilities. An example of his omnipotence is further unpacked here through his choice of military projects.
Hughes wanted to be special above others, he wanted to be the best (Hack, 2007). One of the ways in which he strove for this was through his involvement and control of military projects. These projects were enormous, and despite Hughes’s lack of experience to engage with military projects, Hughes was adamant that he would conduct these projects and that they would be successful. In terms of the actual running of the military projects, Hughes was particular and he would not compromise on what he wanted, even when others were more qualified than he to be making decisions. These behaviours all point towards an overvaluing of the self and his own opinion, and must have conveyed the view that what others did and said was less important.
Porter (2010, p. 179) stated that Hughes “would not listen to objections from anyone”. Dietrich
(1976) indicated that Hughes had a strong sense of what he wanted, and expected that others would act on his demands, while Ava Gardner’s description of Hughes as a “demanding sonofabitch” (p. 26) seems to confirm these sentiments.
Perhaps one of the strongest pieces of evidence which supports the impact of Hughes’s omnipotence on others is presented by Porter (2010, p. 15) who quoted Dietrich as calling
Hughes “Howard the Arrogance” behind his back, and describing him as a “despot”.
Associations to the word arrogance are pride, superiority and overconfidence, all qualities allied with omnipotence. 214
When faced by the omnipotence of the narcissistic individual, others may initially accept a very confident self-belief at first introduction. However, over time, incongruence emerges as the narcissistic individual’s claims of superiority do not hold up in the face of objective evidence; it becomes apparent that narcissistic individuals are not who they claim to be. Others may experience a high level of disenchantment when their belief in the narcissistic individual is disappointed. They are likely to become disillusioned with the narcissistic individual; they are likely to draw the conclusion that the narcissistic individual’s self information is inaccurate, and that the narcissistic individual is self-important. It is easy to imagine that others must, at minimum, feel frustrated with and unimportant to the narcissistic individual, in the face of omnipotence, and that this would lead to a disconnection and alienation from the narcissistic individual. Others are likely to distrust the narcissistic individual in the future. An example of this dynamic in the life of Hughes is seen in the emergence of the senate hearing. Hughes had not delivered on the production of the Hercules, and was held accountable most directly for his management of funding, but indirectly for his lack of production, and the loss of faith in his ability to produce. Although the Hercules flew once, and on paper Hughes vindicated himself, the lack of long term success of the project proves that Hughes’s omnipotence was unfounded.
Regarding his work on movies, Hughes is said to have had “strong opinions about how the movie should be shot” and he “micro-manage[d] each and every aspect” (Hack, 2007, l. 1317).
Thus the frustrating effect on others is highlighted within their experience of interacting with
Hughes’s omnipotence, rather than the experience of being disappointed by Hughes’s omnipotence. There is little in the literature to describe the experience of this disillusionment, when Hughes emerged as less than he projected to be. However, this lack is a reflection of the literature, which is focused on the narrative of Hughes’s life, rather than the individual’s 215 experience of being on the receiving end of his behaviour. There must have been many disappointed people in Hughes’s wake, given that many were affected by him. For example, his lack of delivery on the Hercules and XF-II projects, and his proposals of marriage or signing of working contracts to many, and then disappearance shortly thereafter. It is likely that these individuals experienced a sense of incongruence and immense frustration, disillusionment, and a consequent detachment and alienation from Hughes.
Primitive Idealisation
Primitive idealisation is a “form of splitting that involves seeing others as all good” (Caligor,
Kernberg, & Clarkin, 2007, p. 29). The individual projects a “primitive, “all good” self- and object-representation” onto the object, forming an idealised object (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 96).
This idealised projection protects the individual from their bad representations projected onto the external world; through association with idealised objects, the narcissistic individual shares in the greatness of the idealised object (Kernberg, 2004a), and this sharing forms protection. Zepf
(2012) explained that it is important to look at what is being idealised, and specified that it is the object’s ego functions. Zepf (2012, p. 49) continued that “the object is needed as a substitute for the individual’s damaged, or at least not sufficiently developed ego-functions”; the difference between the ego functions of the self and that of object, gives rise to the idealisation of the functions of the object. Thus, the negative valence attached to poor ego-function is “warded off” through the association with adequate functioning of the object (Zepf, 2012, p. 49). Zepf’s explanation creates the expectation that idealised objects are organic (or living), however, it seems evident that they can also be inorganic (or nonliving) given that ego function is searched for outside of the self, even if the quality found is reflected in the inorganic.
In Hughes’s life, primitive idealisation was present in his association with beautiful people, 216 but also in his association with idealised projects in the form of making movies, aviation feats, and big military projects. An important question to ask here is what was missing in Hughes’s ego-functioning? What was he looking for within these objects, so that they were idealised?
Whether organic or inorganic, all these objects were superior and special, and these are the qualities that Hughes needed to find outside of himself. Specifically within his dating relationships, Hughes chose only the most beautiful people. By associating with them, he was able to connect with being special and superior. By being accepted by them, Hughes attained these qualities from outside, validating his grandiose self as indeed special and superior.
Evans and Gardner (2013, p. 14) quoted Ava Gardner as saying that Hughes:
had people meeting every plane, train, and bus that arrived in Los Angeles with a pretty girl
on board. He had to be the first to grab the new girl in town. It was a matter of pride for him.
Here Hughes experienced pride in his ability to be the first to identify and catch the treasured object, and connect with the special and superior qualities in the object, before anyone else was able to; his capturing of special people selfishly captured and held these qualities for himself.
Their valuing of him provided him with the external validation that he needed. This association with the valued object furthermore protected his grandiose self from his bad representations, whose presence challenged the notion that he wasn’t as good as he wanted to be.
It is important to point out that idealised objects are experienced as an extension of the narcissistic individual; the mechanism driving the idealised object relation is a “projective intrusion into others” (Hinshelwood, 2004, p. 72). The narcissistic individual tries to remove any separation between self and object, as separation leads to the awareness of dependence, and this leads to feelings of anxiety (Rosenfeld, 1964). The individual interacts with the object as if it is a possession, a part of the self. Due to this merger with the superior object, and the experience of 217 being part it, the narcissistic individual is protected against the experience of aggression and envy (Rosenfeld, 1964) toward the object.
The narcissistic individual thus aligns themselves with the object. This may initially be experienced by the other as flattering. In the life of Hughes, this flattery is confirmed by Estelle
Sharp in her description of Hughes as “formidable”, saying that (Porter, 2010, p. 110):
To be tall, dark and handsome, and to shower a young girl with flowers, expensive presents,
even jewelry, and offer to make her the Queen of Hollywood sharing his throne as the King
of Hollywood, was pretty heady stuff in those days.
Given Hughes’s wealth and status, his attention was often an ego boost for others. Kernberg
(2004a, p. 323) said that the narcissistic individual projects parts of the self onto an external object, and loves the object “because it stands for the self”. Thus, although others experienced
Hughes’s attention as flattering, Hughes was really interacting with himself in others.
It is said that Hughes was a poor conversationalist (Dietrich, 1976; Evans & Gardner, 2013, p. 25), and he was also known to have extreme difficulties with hearing (Porter, 2010). Ava
Gardner said that there was “a remoteness about him” (Evans & Gardner, 2013, p. 25), while
Charles River Editors (2014, l. 460) indicated that “sustained emotional intimacy … was something Howard was incapable of providing”. These descriptions may be seen as reflective of the lack of true relating others experienced with Hughes; again, he rather related to himself in others, with others being objects, chess pieces.
In ‘normal’ circumstances, we could expect that in interaction with a narcissistic individual, others might initially feel complimented, and might experience interaction with the narcissistic individual as flattering. But, because primitive idealisation is focused on an all good view of the object, and involves the projection of self onto other, over time, this flattery is likely to decline. 218
Others may realise that they are not as good as they are made out to be, or that that which is being projected onto them, is not who they are. The other may thus come to believe that they are not known for who they really are, and that the connection isn’t authentic. If we presume that the other would like an authentic connection, then the awareness of this inauthenticity may be paired with feelings of anger and hurt, due to feeling misunderstood, particularly when their experience is mirrored back to them differently, in an idealised manner, by the narcissistic individual. Others will come to realise that they are being loved for who the narcissistic individual has constructed them to be, and at an extreme, it may feel to the other that they are experiencing a different reality. This dynamic is rooted in the narcissistic individual interacting with their idealised self-representations in others, rather than with the other as a separate object.
For others, this dynamic is likely to cause high levels of dissonance and frustration, leading to disconnection and alienation from the narcissistic individual.
There is evidence in the literature that others felt pressured by Hughes’s idealised projections in the realm of his involvement with inorganic objects, seen for example in Hack’s
(2007) description of Hughes’s involvement in aviation. Hack stated that Hughes had an “eye to detail [which] frustrated as it impressed” (l. 1303), implying that others were frustrated by
Hughes’ pursuit of detail or perfection. However, there is no evidence in the literature that the pressure to be an idealised object was felt by important individuals in Hughes’s life. Again, narratives are told from the perspective of Hughes, rather than those on the receiving end of his behaviour. However, it is evident in the literature that many felt betrayed by Hughes, seen in
Porter’s (2010, p. 793) comment that “Ultimately, most of the intimates felt betrayed, usually after they were dumped and Hughes moved on to other conquests” (Porter, 2010, p. 793). This sudden break in relationship reflects either the inauthentic connection between Hughes and his 219 intimates, and/or Hughes’s ability to deny his disillusionment with the valued object, in interaction, up until the point at which he walked away. The break in relationship may also reflect Hughes’s shift into an absence of attraction or feeling towards the intimate other, through the triggering of object relations associated with smothering and control when he experienced intimacy; this triggering was tied to the denial and devaluation of previous good representations.
It is possible that intimates had their own personality dynamic and/or needs that interfered with authenticity, that they were happy to experience the glow of Hughes’ attention for a time, or that they just didn’t pick up that they weren’t measuring up, but many intimates were shocked when
Hughes cut ties with them. Thus the literature highlights Hughes’ intimates as feeling the effect of Hughes’ denial and devaluation more than the pressure of his omnipotence.
Omnipotent Control
Omnipotent control refers to the individual’s attempts to control idealised objects in order to
“manipulate and exploit the environment” and protect themselves against persecutory representations (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33). Omnipotent control is based on the phantasy that the
“source of everything that happens is oneself” and it is rooted in the “non recognition of the separate existence of others with a will of their own” (Consulta Baekeland, n.d., p. 1).
Individuals view idealised objects as extensions of themselves, and consequently see these objects as under their control. There is a “strong unconscious conviction that they have the right to expect gratification and homage from others, to be treated as privileged, special persons”
(Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33).
Control featured strongly throughout Hughes’s life. We see him taking control of his life in his late teenage years, saying that he would never be controlled by another again (Porter, 2010).
Both Dietrich (1976) and Whetton et al. (2012) explained that Hughes was determined to have 220 full control, while Charles River Editors (2014, l. 1705) described him in later life as “want[ing] to feel like he was in control of everything”. Given that control was so important to Hughes, it makes sense that this control would extend to the objects with which he was merged, and that he would want to control them.
Omnipotent control is evident in various aspects of Hughes’s life, including making movies, aviation feats, military projects, within his dating relationships, his defense against nuclear testing in Nevada, and the contracts he had with potential stars. This later example is a good illustration of this defense mechanism. Hughes managed men and women on exclusive long term contracts. He promised to attain work for these individuals, and that he would make them famous. Hughes initially lavished these individuals with gifts, and ultimately with the contract.
They were likely to feel somewhat special and overwhelmed by his actions initially, given that he was the wealthiest, and arguably one of the most powerful, men in America, and found them talented.
However, over time, most were held hostage by the contract, until it expired. They were unable to seek work through another agency due to the exclusivity of the contract. For most,
Hughes had no intention of finding work for them, but felt a sense of ownership of them, like they were his, which reflects the underlying merger between self and object. Consequently
Hughes felt it his right to dictate to them, and they had to follow the rules that Hughes set out for them, such as a strict schedule of acting classes, and they were not allowed to date (Howard
Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993). Narcissistic individuals merge with their objects and remove difference, as difference challenges the experience of merger, and causes anxiety. The rules the others followed, and the control Hughes exerted through the rules, was to remove the difference and solidify them as part of him. 221
Many of these beautiful people waited by the phone for Hughes to call, which he seldom did. Hughes rarely found work for them, or spent time with them. They came to experience
Hughes as exacting and rigid, and not focused on their needs or best interests. It is likely that, at minimum, they experienced this lack of focus as frustrating and disappointing. It is further likely that they would have experienced an increasing level of dissatisfaction at being dictated too.
Over time they were likely to realise that the connection between themselves and Hughes wasn’t authentic, and that Hughes had no intention of finding work for them. Some may have been happy with the status quo, given the spoiling they received, and the prestige they experienced at being identified by Hughes. Others, who were presumably more focused on their career opportunity, would have experienced a sense of betrayal, and consequent anger and resentment; it is likely that they felt duped. This would have led to dissonance, and disconnection and alienation from Hughes.
An extremely visible form of omnipotent control is seen in Hughes's interaction with his wife, Peters. At some point he extended his obsessive compulsive behaviours to her, controlling what she could eat, and where she could go and when (Higham, 2004). Hughes subsumed her into his sense of self to the degree that his obsessive compulsive behaviours were engaged with on her behalf too. Within this relationship, Hughes’s omnipotent control was effective, and there is little evidence in the literature of Peters’ resisting this treatment. Seemingly she accepted his behaviour, possibly in order to keep alive some form of relationship with him; if she did not comply with his terms, she would not see him at all. However, it is easy to consider that Peters must have felt controlled and restricted by Hughes, and quite possibly felt resentment and anger towards him.
We also see omnipotent control clearly in Hughes’s handling of nuclear testing in Nevada. 222
Hughes used his position, bribery and favours with various politicians, most notably with Nixon, to ensure an ear for his concerns regarding nuclear testing scheduled to take place in the Nevada desert. Hughes made such a fuss about this issue, writing memos and giving his employees instructions to meet with various people in positions of power to talk about the issue, that it became embarrassing for his employees (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993).
Hughes did his utmost to manipulate the situation and stop the testing, and believed that he was entitled to do so, that his wealth and position made his wants important. Yet, in this situation, despite the influence he held, he was unsuccessful. Hughes believed that the politicians he had bribed were his, and experienced them as part of him; he felt entitled to push their buttons when he wanted something from them, and being unsuccessful in the stopping of this testing would have challenged his ability to keep them incorporated into his good self. It is likely that he devalued them and split them off. In this situation, omnipotent control as a defense was unsuccessful.
Overall, others on the receiving end of omnipotent control are very likely to feel manipulated and controlled. There is little evidence in the literature regarding what others felt in response to Hughes’s omnipotent control. Again, the closest to evidence is Hack’s (2007) description of Hughes’s work in aviation, saying that he had an “eye to detail [which] frustrated as it impressed” (l. 1303). Whetton et al. (2012, l. 1200) furthermore stated that Hughes’s long working hours and detailed focus “drove his crew to the limits of their endurance”. From these comments we can deduce that Hughes’s omnipotent control within the realm of aviation, focused on producing the idealised object, was frustrating to work with, and that his view and wants were most important.
It may be deduced that others on the receiving end of omnipotent control will not be seen as 223 individuals with their own needs and opinions; their needs and opinions will be unacknowledged.
Others may be successfully controlled, as per the starlets on contract, or may be able to focus and take control of their own needs, as with Nixon, but this is likely to be situation dependent. If controlled by the narcissistic individual, others are likely to feel invisible, frustrated, and possibly boxed in, and are likely to experience resentment and anger. This is likely to cause relational strain and alienation.
Denial
Denial refers to “Dealing with emotional stressors by failing to recognize obvious implications or consequences of thought, act or situation” (Northoff et al., 2007, p. 142). It is a defense mechanism that supports splitting by “maintaining a disregard for aspects of the internal or external world that are either contradictory or potentially threatening” (Caligor, Kernberg, &
Clarkin, 2007, p. 29). Denial reinforces the split, by denying the relevance of the split object relation not currently active (Kernberg, 1969). Although individuals are able to remember previous attitudes that they held, they no longer hold any emotional relevance to them.
We see denial in a variety of Hughes’s behaviours, particularly through the shifting importance in relationships, as well as through his handling of fund mismanagement on the senate committee, and the handling of the motor vehicle accident he was involved in. In particular, Hughes’s longest relationship was within the context of business, with Noah Dietrich, and lasted 32 years. Dietrich was responsible for much of Hughes’s business success. Dietrich worked intimately with Hughes. Porter (2010, p. 109) called him Hughes’s “confidante” and
Hack (2007, l. 2852) said “only Dietrich felt confident enough to challenge Hughes”. Dietrich had taken no “single week” off in 31 years, and when he did so, “He was repeatedly informed that Hughes could not afford his absence from the organization” (Hack, 2007, l. 4547). Hack 224
(2007, l. 4708) asserted that Hughes had over the years promised Dietrich “capital gains”, and after all the success he created for Hughes, Dietrich felt entitled to these gains. However, after
Dietrich demanded a share in profits, Hughes refused him shares, and fired him (Dietrich, 1976;
Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993; Porter, 2010; Whetton et al., 2012). There was no negotiation about this. Hughes had no further contact with Dietrich whatsoever. This is indicative of a strong deactivation of the object relation related to the experience of Dietrich as good and the activation of negative object relations related to the experience of Dietrich as bad or insignificant. By experiencing Dietrich as bad, that is all that had emotional relevance to
Hughes. Previous associations of Dietrich as good were denied. Dietrich was locked out of his office after so many years of service, and his close associates were retrenched (Whetton et al.,
2012). Dietrich must have felt anything from hurt and anger to rage in response to his sudden irrelevance to Hughes.
Another example of denial is seen in Hughes’s handling of the senate probe. Hughes was accused of the mismanagement of funds. However, he showed no remorse for mismanagement, justifying expenditure with the fact that he had also spent his own money. Hughes used a severely rebellious attitude (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness, 1993) to convey a devaluation of the hearing process, and questioned the authenticity of the process, and ultimately attained public backing (Barlett & Steele, 2004). Hughes successfully reconstructed himself in a positive light, but this does not take away from the fact that there had been mismanagement of funds, and Hughes was never held accountable (Barlett & Steele, 2004). This process can reasonably be seen as his denial of a portion of experience, as if it did not have any value, because another portion of his experience, namely his effort and own money, held greater value for him. 225
It is likely that others on the receiving end of denial are likely to experience high levels of confusion, when the narcissistic individual’s attitude toward either themselves or a shared object shifts dramatically, and the narcissistic individual can no longer experience the relevance of the previous attitude. When directly treated like this i.e. becomg irrelevant to the narcissistic individual, others are likely to experience anything from confusion and hurt, to anger and rage, depending on the implications of the shift for them personally. As seen with Dietrich, the shift that denial causes is likely to cause from disruption to distruction of the relationship. Some may try to repair the relationship, and dependent on the narcissistic individual’s ability to reconnect with the previous good object relation, they could be successful. However, the interaction is still likely, at best, to be hurtful, and at worst to cause disconnection and alienation from the narcissistic individual through distruction of the relationship.
Devaluation
Devaluation occurs when “an external object can provide no further gratification or protection,
[and] it is dropped and dismissed” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33). Devaluation usually occurs in response to the breakdown of omnipotence. Individuals are able to dismiss objects because
“there was no real capacity for love of this object in the first place” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33).
Once the object no longer serves them, it becomes irrelevant to them. However, Kernberg
(2004b, p. 33) also specified that devaluation takes place when an individual’s needs are frustrated, and can lead to “revengeful destruction of the object which frustrated the patient’s needs”. Thus, devaluation may cause active damage of an object. Overall, devaluation may thus range from either the absence of significance attached to the object to the active projection of negative object relations onto an object, in order to devalue and destroy it.
We see devaluation in a number instances in Hughes’s life, including his devaluing of 226
Wright Field, Communists, and black people, his treatment of Brewster and the senate hearing process, and his devaluing of various relationships, including with his family, Sharp, Rice,
Dietrich and Maheu.
We see Hughes’s devaluing and destruction of the other through his treatment of Brewster during and after the senate hearing process. Hughes publically humiliated Brewster saying “he was too cowardly to remain and face the music” (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993), and continued to select and fund someone to run against Brewster for his position on senate, replacing him. This devaluation of Brewster led to Brewster struggling to find employment of reasonable standard thereafter (Howard Hughes: The Man and the Madness,
1993). This behaviour can be seen as the vengeful destruction of a devalued object, and one can imagine it must have left Brewster with feelings of hurt, anger, and injustice.
Devaluation is seen in Hughes’s treatment of his second chief executive, Maheu. After
Maheu had been employed by Hughes for 14 years, Hughes suddenly signed over power of attorney to Gay and Davis, in effect firing Maheu. Given that he had no expectation of Hughes being unhappy with his work, and that Hughes concurrently moved to the Bahamas without
Maheu’s knowledge, Maheu initially thought Hughes had been kidnapped, and tried to find him
(Hack, 2007; Higham, 2004). Hughes paid little attention to the loyalty that Maheu had for him, or how his actions might impact Maheu. Maheu felt so strongly that something was wrong that he generated national publicity, rallying support to find Hughes. It is likely that on realisation that Hughes had actually fired him, Maheu was very hurt, even injured. Hughes further insulted
Maheu in a press conference, destroying the devalued object, and we see Maheu’s rage at this injustice acted out through his taking Hughes to court, for slander, at great financial cost to himself. 227
Hughes dated a multitude of men and women, and then stopped seeing them without warning, whether the interaction had been experienced by the other as casual or serious. He did not give explanations, and moved on as if what had happened did not matter. Little is said in the literature about Hughes’s reasoning, but it is clear that there was a switch in the valuing of these individuals. Presumably as soon as his bad representations were triggered, good representations associated with these individuals were denied, and the individual was devalued either through becoming insignificant or through the projection of Hughes’s negative representations. Hughes could no longer see them as all good objects. We can imagine that this devaluation could have been devastating for those women invested in the relationship with Hughes, first being treated in an idealised manner, within an intimate relationship, and then being excluded and ignored.
It is likely that others on the receiving end of devaluation will experience strong feelings of hurt and possibly injury in response. After being treated as special and significant, the switch to being viewed as irrelevant or bad is likely to be extremely painful for those who felt love for
Hughes. Others are also likely to experience strong feelings of anger or rage in response to this treatment, and may feel as if they have been used. This is likely to do great damage to both the other, and the bond between the narcissistic individual and their other. It is especially more damaging if the narcissistic individual engages in “revengeful destruction” (Kernberg, 2004a, p.
33). We see revengeful destruction in Hughes’s treatment of both Brewster and Maheu, treatment that would have further generated negative feelings in them. Others are likely to feel a strong sense of injustice in the face of such treatment, and may respond with hurt, anger, and possibly rage. These feelings will cause disconnection and alienation from the narcissistic individual. 228
Projective Identification
Projective identification refers to the “splitting off [of] aspects of one’s internal experience and projecting them into another person, so that the projected aspects of the self are experienced as part of the other person” (Caligor, Kernberg, & Clarkin, 2007, p. 29). This is a common defense mechanism used by narcissistic individuals, as the experience of bad representations threatens the experience of good, and thus needs to be kept at bay. When negative representations are activated they are kept outside of self through projection onto the other, and the experiencing of the other as bad rather than the self as bad. The narcissistic individual tries to control the representation within the object (Kernberg, 1987, p. 796). However, “Some of the bad impulses are still retained in the self” (Northoff et al., 2007, p. 142). Thus the boundaries of self and of object are blurred, and there is a “projective identification and fusion” with the object (Kernberg,
2004a, p. 33). The consequence is that the narcissistic individual still identifies with the projected image (Kernberg, 1987). By externalising bad self and object images,“dangerous, retaliatory objects” develop, and the individual will feel the need to “defend himself” (Kernberg,
2004a, p. 30). The ongoing identification “increases the fear of their own projected aggression”
(Kernberg, 2004a, p. 30).
Projective identification is seen in Hughes’s view of the Hate Hughes club, his treatment of potential communists, his treatment of Brewster and Talbott, and of his intimate relationships.
Within the example of the Hate Hughes club, it is evident that many of the military brass at
Wright Field had never met Hughes, and would have had few strong feelings towards him.
However, Hughes was frustrated because Hughes Aircraft was stagnating, and his efforts to attain a military contract were unsuccessful. Consequently he constructed a conspiracy that he was purposely being excluded by Wright Field personnel, and started to refer to them as the 229
“Hate Hughes club” (Barlett & Steele, 2004, p. 105). Here Hughes took bad representations regarding exclusion and insignificance, and projected them onto the Wright Field personnel. The personnel would have had no specific intent to exclude, however, Hughes tried to control the exclusion and insignificance by engaging with Wright Field, and convincing them of his worth.
Hughes’s obsessive compulsive behaviours can also be seen as projective identification in action. Hughes projected distrust and fear onto germs, and developed rituals such has handwashing, avoidance of contact, and the sanitisation of his space in order to control these projections. By engaging in these rituals he was able to keep the bad representations separate from the good, and outside of himself.
Another clear example of projective identification is seen in Hughes interaction with Rice.
Porter (2010, p. 115) asserted that when asked about his honeymoon, Hughes told Sharp “I’m smothering”; Charles River Editors (2014, l. 460) said that “every request for time together or shared recreation was merely a nuisance to him”. It is likely that Hughes experienced reasonably normal needs for intimacy as overwhelming and a nuisance, with intimacy triggering representations which had negative valence attached. Hughes experienced conflict around his own needs for intimacy because of the negative connotations that intimacy had for him regarding being smothered and controlled stemming from his relationship with his mother. Consequently when triggered, these bad representations were split off and projected onto Rice, and Hughes controlled these representations by creating both physical and emotional distance between himself and Rice.
Projective identification, denial and devaluation often work together, and this combination is highly likely to cause pain towards others, due to their ability to reconstruct the other. In the mentioned examples we see the reconstruction of Wright Field as bad and excluding; denial 230 excludes any positive representations of Wright Field, the projection of negative representations both devalues Wright Field to be viewed negatively, and is linked to projective identification through the destruction and control of these representations in Wright Field. Effectively these defenses reconstruct Wright Field into a punitive entity. With regards to Rice, Hughes denied her many positive attributes, and projected negative representations onto her to devalue her as an object; through projective identification he controlled these representations in Rice. This process effectively reconstructed Rice as clingy and needy, or smothering and controlling.
When reality is reconstructed by the narcissistic individual it is likely to be experienced by the other as jarring through the inaccurate reflection of their behaviour, or who they are. The other is left disempowered by an alternative construction of their interaction. Rice was left with little means to challenge Hughes’s construction of her, as his passive turning to self led him to believe his reconstructions of her as smothering and controlling.
The way in which reconstruction negatively impacts others is likely hinged on whether the other introjects the projections levelled at them, or not. For example, if Rice took on the
Hughes’s projections, she would experience herself as smothering and controlling. This had the potential to powerfully impact how she constructed herself in the future; within her next relationship she may have been cautious of being smothering and controlling, protecting the other from her needs. However, if Rice did not introject Hughes’s projections, she would have been more likely to identify the labels of smothering and controlling as not applying to her. She would then be more likely to feel a strong sense of dissonance and hurt, probably around the belief that Hughes did not know her very well, and around his construction of their shared experience in a negative light. She would also be likely to feel anger and a sense of injustice for being made into something that she was not. 231
In general, it may be difficult for others to detect where their own individual responses blur with the projections of the narcissistic individual, as projective identification, denial and devaluation can range in subtlety. Maheu clearly experienced the reconstruction process as inaccurate, because it was so glaring; he knew he had never stolen from Hughes, thus knew that the accusations levelled at him were inaccurate. However, if projections are more subtle, others may not be aware of this reconstruction dynamic; the other could then more easily be reconstructed into something that they are not by introjecting the projections leveled at them.
This may change the nature of their reality as bad representations are used to reconstruct, and may slowly erode the other’s positive constructions of self. This process furthermore has the potential to, at best, cause tension between the narcissistic individual and their other, and at worst, cause hurt, anger or rage, a sense of injustice, and alienation.
Overview of Interpersonal Effect
From the description of Hughes’s defense mechanisms, it is clear that the primary and secondary defense mechanisms were evident in his behavioural patterns. His omnipotence was often supported through the fact that he was good looking and exceptionally wealthy and powerful, and thus to a degree, omnipotence was expected of him. His primitive idealisation and omnipotent control within business caused frustrations and delays, and led to him taking a long time to form an idealised object (e.g. a movie or plane), which was humoured because of the amount of power Hughes held. It is likely that Hughes’s process, particularly associated with omnipotent control, undermined the efforts of others, and that they realised that their input was on Hughes’s terms, and their reactions were not important. In interaction with beautiful people, primitive idealisation and omnipotent control led to a high turnover of relationships, and most likely the realisation by others, over time, that Hughes didn’t really know them, and/or that they 232 couldn’t really ‘have’ him, as he moved on from them. One wonders how much feedback
Hughes was given regarding his idealisations; on the rare occasion that he was in the relationship long enough, how many others told him that his view of them wasn’t accurate? This should be understood in light of Hack’s (2007) comment that Dietrich was the only person who felt confident enough to challenge Hughes.
Furthermore, many of the individuals Hughes interacted with were known stars or aspiring stars, who may have had their own aspirations to omnipotence, and thus, may have been less likely to challenge his views, accepting the affirmation he gave, even if slightly inaccurate and thus incongruous. Particularly if these individuals had their own dynamics around grandiosity and a consequent merger with him, this would have created a large blindspot based on an inauthentic interaction for a period of time, until Hughes denied and devalued them, or they
Hughes. For Hughes, there were always more beautiful people to pursue to perpetuate his patterns. Thus the effect of omnipotence, primitive idealisation and omnipotent control on others would have largely been dependent on the dynamics of the other. At best it didn’t matter as they enjoyed the glow of his attention while it lasted. However, it may have caused the other to feel misunderstood, and led to dissonanace through inaccurate reflections of themselves through
Hughes’s eyes, and at worst led to feelings of hurt and anger when they were abandoned.
Particularly interactions in romantic relationships were not maintained over time, and those in business and friendship disintegrated by the time Hughes was in his late fifties.
This disintegration of relationships occurred in part due to Hughes’s use of denial, devaluation and projective identification, which caused disruptions to his relationships. These defense mechanisms are likely to have had a stronger emotional impact on the other, than the afore-mentioned omnipotence, primitive idealisation and omnipotent control. This most likely 233 occurred when others shifted from holding Hughes’s positive representations, to holding
Hughes’s bad representations. Furthermore, bad representations were embedded with the use of denial, devaluation and projective identification. On occasion Hughes would use these three defense mechanisms together to reconstruct others. This would lead to an increase in the others’ experience of dissonance, with the others’ cognitions ranging from themselves as bad to themselves as being misunderstood, misused, and feelings of hurt, anger, and possibly rage at injustice.
Hughes invested a large amount of energy into primitive idealisation activities, and more and more energy as he aged into omnipotent control. He was regularly engaged in behaviours that would confirm his grandiose self, and offset negativity caused by patterns around denial, devaluation and projective identification. When Hughes mentally declined to the point of agoraphobia, his world became so small and so focused on rituals and protection of his good self, that interaction with others held little value to him in terms of the survival of his grandiose self.
Over time, Hughes had alienated anyone who had ever truly cared about him, until those he interacted with were employees and were paid to be there, and ‘receive’ his projections.
Conclusion
This chapter examined the primary and secondary defense mechanisms used by Hughes. It explored these defenses, and looked at how they impact others in the life of Hughes. It also explored how the defense mechanisms may cause alienation.
234
Chapter 9: Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations
Introduction
The aim of the research was to explore and describe narcissistic defenses and the consequent alienation of others within the narcissistic personality configuration by exploring the interplay between Kernberg’s Object Relations Framework (ORF) (1974; 1975; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1992;
2001) and the life of Howard Hughes. The current chapter provides a summary of the object relations evident in the life of Hughes, and the defense mechanisms employed by him. It summarises the impact of defense mechanisms and how they alienate others. The chapter then identifies learnings from this data, in the form of guidelines for use in clinical practice; these guidelines speak to the process of how others can be supported in interaction with narcissistic individuals. The chapter then explores the limitations of the current study, and thereafter identifies recommendations for future research.
Conclusions
The researcher posed the following questions to herself when formulating the research aim: how do narcissistic defenses work within the narcissistic personality configuration? and how do narcissistic defenses promote the alienation of others? To answer these questions, and thereby the research aim, there are two objectives that were formulated, namely, (1) to explore intrapersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of Kernberg, and (2) to explore interpersonal narcissistic dynamics in the life of Hughes through the theory of
Kernberg. It is through the exploration of the intrapersonal and interpersonal narcissism dynamics that insight was generated.
Narcissistic defenses and how they work were explored through watching them in interaction in the object relations identified in the life of Hughes. His patterns were related to 235 being overinvolved and hardworking, detailed and particular, and engaging in grandiose projects, and being controlling, as a means to buffer and confirm his grandiose self. Manipulation and entitlement were present, as a consequence of his grandiose self, as he manipulated to place part objects where they would be accessible when he needed them, to confirm his grandiosity; due to his feelings of omnipotence, he felt that he was entitled to do this. Antisocial and vengeful behaviour, a lack of guilt, and atypical sexual behaviour were present as Hughes had a faulty superego. His superego never developed past the first layer, thus there was no internal pressure placed on his ego to keep his behaviour in check. Rather, Hughes was controlled by his quest for attaining the idealised object, and by punitive images from the outside coming at him. Hughes engaged in reconstructing reality, black and white thinking, shifting importance in relationships; distrust and paranoia. Over time his functioning deteriorated, and he experienced an increase in health issues, and in obsessive compulsive behaviours, leading to the development of agoraphobia, all in order to protect his good self against bad representations. These themes may be viewed emerging due to the intrapsychic split between Hughes’s good and bad representations. Some Jekyll-and-Hyde interactions occurred because of alternatively activated object relations. Aggression was generally channelled into acceptable objects due to the threat of punishment from outside of himself, although it spilled over into a general recklessness evident in various aspects of his life.
Within the patterns outlined, defense mechanisms were evident. There was a clear split in
Hughes’s good and bad internal object, with defense mechanisms used clearly associated with the lower level pathologies put forward by Kernberg. These defenses included the primary defense mechanism of splitting which was supported by the secondary defense mechanisms, including omnipotence, primitive idealisation, omnipotent control, denial, devaluation, and 236 projective identification.
Narcissistic individuals have “a self that cannot stand on its own, as it is not grounded in an objective reality, [thus] it needs constant shoring up and reinforcement” (Morf & Rhodewalt,
2001, p. 179). The defense mechanisms were used by Hughes for this purpose, to buffer and enhance the grandiose self, as well as protect and defend against the bad representations.
Hughes used all of these defense mechanisms, but greatly relied on primitive idealisation and omnipotent control during the first half of his life, pursuing idealised objects outside of himself to gain affirmation. As he deteriorated mentally, Hughes used omnipotent control more and more, controlling and manipulating from his hotel room, and interacting with others as part objects when he needed them. However, there was also a shift to greater use of projective identification. Hughes controlled of his bad representations in the others he manipulated. His hotel room created a safe sanitised space from which he engaged in these manipulations, which protected him from his bad representations.
Throughout his life, the pivotal factors in Hughes’s relationships were his feelings of omnipotence as well as his shifting attitudes towards his intimate others. Hughes created an environment in which it was clear that his wants and needs in this pursuit were the most important. The wants and needs of others were secondary. His omnipotence was experienced by others, as they were expected to comply with his wishes. Hughes used primitive idealisation and omnipotent control to maintain the merger with the other for a time, to keep the other idealised.
The idealised gaze in Hughes life never lasted, yet there is no evidence of the idealisation and merger impacting and restricting his intimate others. Hughes shifted from his relationships before the idealised restriction was evident. All of Hughes’s relationships disintegrated over time. The experience of intimacy seemed to trigger object relations associated with smothering 237 and control. This was rooted in Hughes’s projection of bad self representations onto others, and denying the good object representations. This dynamic created inauthentic connections, and resulting in the shifting attitudes towards others when he could no longer idealise them and include them in his grandiose self. At best this movement away left others confused when he stopped seeing them, and at worst led to feelings of anger, hurt and injustice due to perceived abandonment and indifference.
The disintegration of Hughes’s relationships, and his attitudinal shifts, was rooted in the effect of omnipotence, as well as the use of denial, devaluation and projective identification.
Said differently, these defense mechanisms were the primary cause of alienation or disruption to his relationships. The alienation was particularly enhanced when projective identification, denial and devaluation were used together to reconstruct the other. In Hughes’s life we predominantly see examples of individuals who fought his reconstruction, though Rice, Dietrich and Maheu, although reactions to reconstruction are dependent on the others’ own personality dynamics, needs from the relationship, and the subtlety of the reconstruction. These three individuals differed in their reactions to his reconstruction, with Rice walking away from Hughes and divorcing him when she had had enough, Dietrich responding defensively through the writing of an autobiography, and Maheu responding with outrage and injustice by taking Hughes to court for slander.
Practical Applicability
One of the underpinnings of the current study is analytic generalisation. Here findings are generalised to theory rather than to populations (Yin, 2003). Yin (1999) specified that generalisation can be made from cases, when replication is based on theory and not on the principles of sampling. Thus, based on deductions from the theory application, it is possible to 238 generate possibilities for further application. What this means is that individuals presenting with the use of lower level defense mechanisms, as per Kernberg’s theory, could possibly have similar effects on others. Certainly, this is a hypothesis worth exploring in practice. On the same principle, individuals on the receiving end of defense mechanisms may have similarities in their reactions. It is these others that are of interest here. In the daily life of ordinary people, individuals are not always able to withdraw from narcissistic individuals when they are at the receiving end of defense mechanisms. Narcissistic individuals use omnipotence, omnipotent idealisation and omnipotent control to merge with their idealised objects and gain support for their grandiose sense of self. Thus focus in interaction is always on the narcissistic individual.
Others may present in clinical practice with problems related to relationships where they feel secondary, as their narcissistic partner is not able to see them or focus on their needs. Due to the merger between narcissistic individual and their intimate, others may also feel frustrated and controlled, or may feel pressure from the narcissistic individual’s idealisation to be something which they are not. Others may reflect frustration from this idealised gaze, with the knowledge that the relational connection is inauthentic. However, given that the defense mechanisms here are focused on maintaining the other as good, others are more likely to present in clinical practice when they have been shifted into the position of being bad. They may also present when they have shifted between good and bad and back a number of times and are confused or hurt by this shifting process.
Narcissistic individuals use projective identification, denial and devaluation to keep negative representations separate from their good grandiose self; they may engage in reconstruction of the other to further protect this grandiose self. Difference is inevitable in relationships, and others will inevitably be shifted from idealised to devalued at some point, even if only temporarily, so 239 that the narcissistic individual can experience the other as bad, and not the self. Because of being shifted, others will experience anything from shock and irritation, to hurt, anger, and rage at injustice. As the narcissistic individual looks to self for affirmation, they are likely to develop a rationale to explain the other as bad, and are likely to construct their own version of reality through the use of the projective identification, denial and devaluation. This reconstruction process has the potential to disempower the other by reconstructing their reality. There is generally an element of a shared reality in the construction, but the reconstruction of the narcissistic individual will be slanted to support the good and idealised version of self that the narcissistic individual is supporting. Consequently, their reconstruction can become irrational, to the point that others experience it as delusional.
In terms of the reactions of others, much is dependent on whether the other has introjected the projections levelled at them by a narcissistic individual or not. If they have introjected projections, and accepted the reconstruction as ‘truth’, they may experience themselves as a bad object, and try to change. If others have not introjected bad representations, they will experience any range of negative emotionality in response to attempts of the narcissistic individual to reconstruct their shared reality into something which it is not.
Guideline for Use in Clinical Practice
Many individuals identify patterns that they repeat in their lives. It is the researchers view that these patterns are directly related to the transference of unresolved conflicts from childhood, which through repetition compulsion emerges in their object relation patterns, for hoped resolution. Healthy individuals may, over time, gain insight into their patterns. Through personal work, sometimes involving psychotherapy, they may be able to make decisions about the reenactment of their patterns, and their embedded conflicts, rather than unconsciously 240 repeating them. However, the researcher views pathology differently. In pathology, particularly narcissistic pathology, patterns are repeated, but narcissistic individuals experience a greater challenge to gain insight into how they reenact their conflicts. This is due to their unconscious investment in maintaining their grandiose self, and keeping their threatening representations at bay. This creates a blindspot in their insight, which narcissistic individuals struggle to breach.
Due to the projection of negative representations onto the outside world, narcissistic individuals often put the blame for the difficulties they experience on their others.
Their others may present in therapy, on the receiving end of the primary and secondary defense mechanisms that the narcissistic individuals use, and it is up to the individual therapist to assist the others to navigate these defenses successfully, and examine how this behaviour interacts with the others’ personal patterns, embedded conflicts, and possibly their own pathologies. Given that the current research is focused on the effect of narcissistic defenses on others, it takes the position of assisting others who are in this position. Therapeutic movement is dependent on an endless range of variables, but the following steps may be useful in assisting other with the disentanglement from the narcissistic individual’s defenses:
Understand
Individuals on the receiving end of narcissistic behaviour need to first understand how narcissistic individuals use defense mechanisms. It is important to understand how omnipotence places the focus constantly on the narcissistic individual, how primitive idealisation places pressure on the other to be something that they are not, and how omnipotent control tries to manipulate and control the other into being the ideal. It is further important to understand the use of denial to exclude portions of experience, the projection of negative representations and the use of devaluation to destroy or discredit objects, and along with projective identification, 241 reconstruct the object into something bad. Insight into these dynamics assist the other in tracking their lived interactional patterns with the narcissistic individual, and how they are manipulated to the benefit of the narcissistic individual.
Decontaminate and Reconstruct
Others need to decontaminate their experiences from the merger with the narcissistic individual, as well as from the projections levelled at them. They need to construct their experiences according to their own experience of reality. Understanding how narcissistic individuals use defense mechanisms places others in a better position to disentangle from the merger, and/or to examine projections, and decide whether they should be introjected or not. An important technique to be used is reality testing. Reality testing constructions against the other’s experience becomes a base from where projections, whether idealised or persecutory, can be expelled, and experiences can be reconstructed into a reality that is more accurate for the individual. If projections are expelled, the individual is able to resist reconstruction and can construct their experience from their own authenticity.
It is important here to be careful of rationalisation. Others may rationalise their reality to fit the interpretation made by the narcissistic individual, when trying to understand how the narcissistic reconstruction can be true. Others need to be supported to trust their intuition and their sense of what is right for them, rather than leaning on rationalisation, as this defense disempowers them, leading them back into a false construction.
Reaffirm Reality
As individuals decontaminate and reconstruct, they reaffirm their own reality. This affirmation will strengthen their voice and enhance their confidence. This is important as it provides the platform from which the individual is able to break the symbiosis that the narcissist creates. 242
From this position others are able to place boundaries regarding what they will and won’t accept in interaction with the narcissistic individual, and through these boundaries address the focus of attention within the relationship as best they can. They are furthermore equipped to keep decontaminating and reconstructing their experiences, and reaffirming their own constructions of reality in future interactions.
Find Something Positive
It is useful for others to find a meaning within their experience of interaction with the narcissistic individual. This could be the echo of a childhood pattern repeated, or the growth of confidence and finding of self as a consequence of sorting through particularly the negative projections.
This meaning that is created will help to buffer the individual against lingering negative emotions that emerged from the relationship, such as resentment, hurt and anger, and will allow them to rewrite the experience towards a more positive path for the future.
Limitations
There are a variety of limitations that need to be noted within the current research. The methodology used in the current study is case study. There are clear difficulties in the generalisation of findings to broader populations, and generalisation is limited to analytic generalisation. Thus, findings and the proposed model that emerged remain a theoretical hypothesis for exploration when the population presents with particular theoretical constructs, rather than findings valid for the experience of all others on the receiving end of narcissism. The single case study approach is focused on a single case, and thus the understanding of narcissism limited to that one case, namely the life of Hughes. Narcissism within the study might look slightly different had another case been used, and it is possible that findings that emerged might have looked slightly different. The research is grounded within a pragmatic approach, that holds 243 both positivistic and constructionist approaches to knowledge as accurate. In this findings of the case are in response to the essence of Hughes that emerged within narratives on his life, as well as the construction process of the researcher, which is subjective. This could be seen as a critique.
Sources of data used within the research were mostly secondary, being biographical in nature. There were some video clips of Hughes, as well as memos that he had written, but these were the only primary sources. Consequently, these sources are slightly distanced from Hughes, and the narratives studied would have been entwined with the authors that constructed them.
This distance was bridged through triangulation of sources, and the noting of overlaps and differences in data, but may still be seen as a limitation. Overlaps and differences were also evident when tracking the patterns in the findings. Here, defense mechanisms were repeatedly explained within the narrative outlining Hughes’s life experiences. This may have been laborious to read.
The biggest limitation to the research is the lack of interpersonal data available on the life of
Hughes. A positive is that data that was present contained information of both his positive and negative patterns, however, the data was predominantly focused on the chronological expression of his life experiences, rather than the impact of Hughes on others, and their impact on him. It would add considerable insight into Hughes’s object relations if this information was available.
Consequently, this placed limitation on the depth to which the impact of defense mechanisms on others could be explored.
Recommendations
Future research would do well to explore narcissism in depth in another case. This would assist with the painting of a depth picture of the narcissistic personality configuration, and allow for the 244 identification of similarities and differences within that picture. It would be particularly beneficial to identify a case where there is much information available that is more interpersonally focused, thus describing the impact of the case on others, and their impact on the case.
It would also be valuable to explore the effect of narcissism on others through other methodological approaches. This could possibly be done through an interview process, or even through focus groups. This would allow for greater insight through a more immediate exploration of the effects of narcissism on others. This might have the added benefit of increasing the generalisability of findings, depending on the methodology used.
Final Conclusion
Steer you way through the ruins
Of the altar and the mall
Steer your way through the fables
Of creation and the fall
Steer you way past the palaces
That rise above the rot
Year by year
Month by month
Day by day
Thought by thought
Cohen, 2016, track 8
This quote by Leonard Cohen (2016) seems to represent splitting and resonates the negotiation needed to navigate the splitting process. It is hoped that the insights uncovered in this study, 245 leading to the guidelines for clinical practice, will help others in the process of this negotiation.
246
References
Alderich, C. (n.d.). 19 facts and photos that show how brutal life was in the early 1900s.
Boredomtherapy.com. www.boredomtherapy.com/facts-about-1900s-america/
Americasbesthistory.com. (2018). Americasbesthistory.com Retrieved from
www.americasbesthistory.com/abhtimeline1900.html
American National Biography online (n.d.). Howard Hughes. Online available at
www.anb.org/articles/10/10-01809.html
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, D.C., USA.
American Psychiatric Association, Report of the Task Force of Psychohistory. (1976). The
psychiatrist as psychohistorian. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. Online available: www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Anderson, J.W. (1981). The methodology of psychological biography. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, xi(3), 455-475.
Atlas.ti. (n.d.). Life history research. Online available at http://atlasti.com/life-history-research/
Barbour, R.S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the
wail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal,322(7294), 1115-1117.
Barlett, D.L., and Steele, J.B. (2004). Howard Hughes: His life and madness. Norton and
company: New York, New York, USA.
247
Bedford, O., and Hwang, K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural
framework from the perspective of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 33(2), 127-144.
Betez, D.J. (2016). Kentucky and the great war. University Press of Kentucky: Lexington,
Kentucky, USA.
Brill, M.T. (2010). America in the 1900s. Lerner publishing group: Minneapolis, Minnesota,
USA.
Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly. New York, USA: Penguin.
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of
method or epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75-92.
Cain, N.M., Pincus, A.L., and Ansell, E.B. (2007). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotype
description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality
psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638-656.
Caligor, E., Kernberg, O., and Clarkin, J.F. (2007). Handbook of dynamic psychotherapy for
higher level personality pathology. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychiatric
Publishing, inc.
Campbell, W.K., Brunell, A.B., & Finkel, E.J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-
regulation, and romantic relationships: An agency model approach. Vohs, K.D., & Finkel,
E.J. (eds.). Self and Relationships. Guilford Press: New York, USA.
Carter, C. (2014). Katharine Hepburn. New Word City: United States.
Charles River Editors. (2014). American legends:The life of Howard Hughes. Charles River
Editors: Kindle.
248
Christopher, J.C., Bickhard, M.H., & Lambeth, G.S. (1992). Splitting Kernberg: A critique of
Otto Kernberg’s notion of splitting. Psychotherapy, 29(3), 481-485.
Christopher, J.C., Bickhard, M.H., & Lambeth, G.S. (2001). Otto Kernberg’s object relations
theory: A metaphysical critique. Theory Psychology, 11(5), 687-711. doi:
10.1177/09593543011150006
Chosak, A. (2012). The Aviator: A real-life portrayal of OCD in the media. OCD and Related
Disorders. Online available from https://mghocd.org/the-aviator-ocd-in-the-media/
Clark, L.A. (2005). Temperament as a unifying basis for personality and psychopathology.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(4), 505-521.
Clarkin, J.F., Lenzenweger, M.F., Yeomans, F., Levy, K.N., & Kernberg, O. (2007). The object
relations model of borderline pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(5), 474-499.
doi: 10.1521/pedi.2007.21.5.474
Clandinin, D.J., and Connelly, F.M. (1989). Narrative and story in practice and research.
Online available at www. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED309681
Cleo’s Current. (2013). What is historiography? Online available:
http://clioscurrent.com/blog/2013/10/3/what-is-historiography
Cohen, L. (2016). Steer your way. On You want it darker [CD]. Los Angelos, California, USA:
Columbia Records.
Consulta Baekeland. (n.d.). Defense mechanisms. Online available
http://www.consultabaekeland.com/p/en/psychologist-madrid-faqs/defense-mechanisms.php
Cramer, P. (2007). Longitudinal study of defense mechanisms: Late childhood to late
adolescence. Journal of Personality, 75(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00430.x
249
Cramer, A.O.J., Van der Sluis, S., Noordhof, A., Wichers, M., Geschwind, N., Aggen, S.H.,
Kendler, K.S., and Borsboom, D. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks
in search of equilibrium: You can’t like parties if you don’t like people. European
Journal of Personality, 26, 414-431.
Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. Thousand Oakes, California,
USA: Sage Publications
Davis, A.P. (2013). The Margaret Mitchell Encyclopaedia. McFarland & Company:
Jefferson, North Carolina, USA.
De Vos, A.S. (2005). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. De Vos, A.S., Strydom,
H., Fouchȇ, C.B., and Delport, C.S.L. (eds.). Research at Grassroots level. Pretoria,
South Africa: Van Schaik.
Dietrich, N. (1976). Howard: The amazing Mr Hughes. Fawcett: Greenwich, Conneticut, USA.
Dhunpath, R. (2000). Life history methodology: “narradigm regained”. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 13(5), 543-551.
Duffel, N. (2013). Wounded leaders: British elitism and the entitlement illusion. Online
available: http://woundedleaders.co.uk/what-is-psychohistory/
Ellis, H. (1933). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologit, 19, 260-299.
Elms, A.C. (1994). Uncovering lives: The uneasy alliance of biography and psychology. New
York, USA: Oxford University.
Etherington, K. (2009). Life story research: A relevant methodology for counsellors and
psychotherapists. British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, 9(4), 225-
233. doi: 10.1080/14733140902975282.
250
Evans, P., & Gardner, A. (2013). The Secret Conversations. Simon & Schuster: New York
Fashion House (Producer). (2009). The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire
[DVD]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4rbj1AZGg
Ferrara, P. (2013). The great depression was ended by the end of World War II, not the start
of it. Forbes. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar/2013/11/30/
Finzi-Dottan, R., & Karu, T. (2006). From emotional abuse in childhood to psychopathology in
adulthood. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(8), 616-621.
Foster, J.D., Campbell, W.K., Twenge, J.M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism:
Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 469-486. doi 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6.
Fouchȇ, C.B. (2005). Qualitative research designs. De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouchȇ, C.
B., and Delport, C.S.L. (eds.). Research at Grassroots level. Pretoria, South Africa: Van
Schaik Publishers.
Fouchȇ, P., and Van Niekerk, N. (2010). Academic psychobiography in South Africa: Past,
present and future. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 495-507.
Fradkin, P.L. (2005). The great earthquake and firestorms of 1906: How San Fransisco
nearly destroyed itself. California press: Berkley, California, USA.
Fredman, J. (n.d.). Telephones in the 1950s. Techwalla. Retrieved from
www.techwalla.com/articles/telephones-in-the-1950s.
Frehner, V.L., & Waldren, C.W. (2004). The mysterious Howard Hughes revealed. Trafford
publishing: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York, USA:
Cambridge University Press. 251
Gerson, M.J. (1994). Psychoanalytic theories of personality. Online available:
http://docplayer.net/5813060-Psychoanalytic-theories-of-personality.html
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). Research notes and commentaries: What
passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1465-1474. doi:
10.1002/smj.722
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss4/6
Gordan, R.J. (2016). The rise and fall of American growth. Princeton University Press:
Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Grandy, G. (2010). Instrumental case study. Mills, A.J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n175
Greenberg, L.S., and Safran, J.D. (1987). Emotion in Psychotherapy. London: Guildford Press.
Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75-92.
Hack, R. (2007). Hughes: The private diaries, memos and letters. Phoenix books: Beverly
Hills, California, USA.
Hancock, D.R., and Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. Teachers College
Press: London, United Kingdom.
Hatch, J.A., & Wisniewski, R. (1995). Life history and narrative. London: Falmer.
Heimer, C.A. (2001). Cases and biographies: An essay on routinization and the nature of
comparison. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 47-76.
252
Heiserman, A., & Cook, H. (1998). Narcissism, affect, and gender: An empirical examination
of Kernberg’s and Kohut’s theories of narcissism. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 15(1),
74- 92.
Hendrick, C. (2005). Evolution as a foundation for psychological theories. Strack, S. (ed.).
Handbook of personology and psychopathology. Hobokon, New Jersey, USA: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Higham, C. (2004). Howard Hughes: The secret life. St Martins Press: New York, New York,
USA.
Hinshelwood, R.D. (2004). Suffering insanity: Psychoanalytic essays on psychosis. New York,
USA: Brunner-Routledge.
History. (n.d.). History: the 1950s. retrieved from www.history.com/topics/1950s
Historylearningsite.com. (2018). The causes of the Vietnam War. Retrieved from
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam-war/the-causes-of-the-vietnam-war/
Hj, N.R., Baker, A., & Abdullah, M.Y.H. (2008). The life history approach: Fieldwork
experience. University of Kebangsang Malaysia Journal Article Repository, 3(1), 1-9.
Online available at http://journalarticle.ukm.my/1555/1/rahamah08.pdf
Holmes, P. (2015). Object relations theory and psychodrama. London: Routledge.
Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. Keynote address presented at the
International Conference of Methodologies in Housing Research in Stockholm.
Johnson, H.C. (1991). Theories of Kernberg and Kohut: Issues of scientific validation. Social
Service Review, 65(3), 403-433.
Kernberg, O.F. (1969). A psychoanalytic classification of character pathology. Presented at
56th Annual Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Miami Beach, 3 May 253
1969.
Kernberg, O.F. (1987). Projection and projective identification: Developmental and clinical
aspects. Journal of America Psychoanalytic Association, 35, 795-819. doi:
10.1177/000306518703500401
Kernberg, O.F. (1998). Object-relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. London: Jason
Aronson.
Kernberg, O.F. (2001). The suicidal risk in severe personality disorders: Differential
diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Personality Disorders, (15), 3, 195-208.
Kernberg, O.F. (2004a). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Boulder, USA:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Kernberg, O.F. (2004b). Aggressivity, narcissism, and self-destructiveness in the
psychotherapeutic relationship. London: Yale University Press.
Kernberg, O.F. (2005). A Psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders (ed.). Strack, S.
Handbook of personology and psychopathology. John Wiley: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Kernberg, O.F., and Caligor, E. (2005). A Psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders
(eds.). Lenzenweger, M.F., and Carkin, J.F. Major theories of personality disorder.
Guilford Press: New York, USA.
Klein, M. & Tribech, D. (1981). Kernberg’s object relations theory: A critical evaluation.
International Journal of Psychoanalysi, 62(27), 27-43.
Kohut, T.A. (1986). Psychohistory as history. The American Historical Review, 91(2),
336-354.
Kőváry, Z. (2011). Psychobiography as a method. The revival of studying lives: New
perspectives in personality and creativity research. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 254
739-777.
Levy, K.N., Ellison, W.D., & Reynoso, J.S. (2011). Campbell, W.K. & Miller, J.D. (eds.). The
Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches,
Empirical Findings, and Treatments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Sage: London, United Kingdom.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. (1989). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. Review of
Higher Education, 12(3), 221-240.
Mann, M., King, G., Evans, C., Climan, S., & Deyle, M. (Producers). Scorsese, M. (Director).
(2005). The Aviator (motion picture). California, USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.
Mason, C., & Brackman, K. (2009). Educating today’s overindulged youth: Combat
narcissism by building foundations, not pedestals. Plymouth, United Kingdom: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Mays, N., and Pope, C. (1995). Qualitative research: Observational methods in health care
settings. British Medical Journal, 15(311(6998)), 182-184.
Mays, N., and Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical
Journal, 320, 50-52.
McAdams, D.P. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the stories self: A contemporary
framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7(4), 295-321.
McAdams, D.P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2),
100-122.
McAdams, D.P., and Olsen, B.D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change
over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517-542.
255
Miles, M.N., and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oakes, California, USA: Sage.
Miller, J.D., and Campbell, W.K. (2007). Narcissistic personality disorder: Relations with
distress and functional impairment. Comparative Psychiatry, 48(2), 170-177.
Miller, J.D., and Campbell, W.K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality
conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality 76(3), 449-476.
Millard, N. (Producers). Millard, N. (Director). (1999). Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness. (motion picture). USA: I.R.M.I Films.
Millon, T. (2003). Evolution: A generative source for conceptualizing the attributes of
personality. Millon, T., Lerner, M.J., & Weiner, I.B. (ed.). Handbook of Psychology.
Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Millon, T. (2011). Disorders of personality. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Millon, T., and Grossman, S. (2005). Personology: A theory based on evolutionary concepts.
Lenzenweger, M.F., and Clarkin, J.F. (eds.). Major Theory of Personality Disorder. New
York, USA: The Guildford Press.
Millon, T., and Grossman, S. (2006). Goals of a theory of personality. Hersen, M., Thomas,
J.C. (eds.). Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology. John Wiley &
Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Millon, T., Grossman, S., Millon, C., Meagher, S., & Ramnath, R. (2004). Personality disorders
in modern life Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mizelle, R.M. (2014). Backwater blues: The Mississippi Flood of 1927 in the African-
American imagination. University of Minnesota press: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 256
Morf, C.C., and Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unravelling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.
Nesse, R.N., & Lloyd, A.T. (1992). The evolution of psychodynamic mechanisms. Barkow, J.,
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (eds.). The Adapted Mind. Oxford University Press: New York,
USA.
Newman, G (Producer). Newman, G. (Director). (1993). Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness. (documentary). Oak Forest, Illinois, USA: Maljack Teleproductions.
Noland, R.W. (1977). Psychobiography of everyday life. The Nation, 7, 570-572.
Northoff, G., Bermpohl, F., Schoeneich, F., & Boeker, H. (2007). How does our brain constitute
defense mechanisms? First-person neuroscience and psychoanalysis. Psychotherapy and
Psychosomatics, 76, 141-153.
Oakley, A. (2010). The social-science of biographical life-writing: some methodological and
ethical issues. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(5), 425-
439.
Overcash, A. (2003). Narrative research: A review of methodology and relevance to clinical
practice. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 48, 179-184.
Packer, M. (2011). The Sciences of Qualitative Research. New York, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Paris, J. (2005). Nature and nurture in personality disorders. Strack, S. (ed.). Handbook of
personology and psychopathology. Hobokon, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Parrish, S.S. (2017). The flood year 1927. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey,
USA. 257
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oakes,
California, USA: Sage Publications.
Phillips, M.R. (2009). Is distress a symptom of mental disorders, a marker of impairment,
both or neither? World Psychiaty, 8(2), 91-92.
Pincus, A.L., & Lukowitsky, M.R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic
personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 8.1-8.26.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (2003). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. A.J. Hatch and R.
Wisniewski. (eds.). Life History and Narrative. London: Falmer Oress.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research
Journal of Counselling Psychology,52(2), 137-145. doi: 0.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137
Ponterotta, J.G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-
136.
Porter, D. (2010). Howard Hughes hell’s angel. Blood Moon Productions: New York, New
York, USA.
Pryor, A. (2013). The Strange Life of Howard Hughes. Stagecoach publishers: Smashwords.
Retrowaste. The 1920s: The roaring twenties. www.retrowaste.com/1920s/
Rosenfeld, H. (1964). On the psychopathology of narcissism, a clinical approach. The
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 45(2-3), 332-337.
Rosenthal, G. (2004). Biographical research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium, & D
Silverman (eds.). Qualitative Research Practice, 48-64. London: Sage.
Runyan, W.M. (2003). From the study of lives and psychohistory to historicizing psychology:
A conceptual journey. In J.A. Winer & J.W. Anderson (eds.). Annual of Psychoanalysis, 258
31, 119-132.
Runyan, W.M. (2005). Evolving conceptions of psychobiography and the study of lives:
Encounters with psychoanalysis, personality psychology and historical science. In W.T.
Schultz (ed.). Handbook of Psychobiography. New York, USA: Oxford University.
Ronningstam, E. (2011). Psychoanalytic theories on Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality.
Campbell, W.K., Miller, J.D. (eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic
personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments John
Wiley & Sons: Hobokon, New Jersey, USA.
Sabshin, M. (2005). Concepts of normality and the classification of psychopathology. Strack,
S. (ed.). Handbook of personology and psychopathology. Hobokon, New Jersey, USA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sanelowski, M. (1991). Telling Stories: Narrative approaches in qualitative research. Journal
of Nursing Scholarship, 23(3), 161- 166.
Schultz, W.T. (2005). Introducing psychobiography. Schultz, W.T. (ed). Handbook of
Psychobiography. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Schumacher, G. (2008). Howard Hughes: Power, paranoia, and palace intrigue. Stephens
press: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Sheridan, J.H. (2011). Howard Hughes: The Las Vegas Years: The women, the Mormons, the
mafia. AuthorHouse: Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Spector-Mersel, G. (2010). Narrative research. Narrative Inquiry, 20(1), 204-224.
Spinney, L. (2017). Pale Rider. Jonathan Cape: London.
Stein, R. (1999). Psychoanalytic Theories of Affect. London: Karnac books.
259
Stein, D.J., Phillips, K.A., Bolton, D., Fulford, K.W.M., Sadler, J.Z., and Kendler, K.S.
(2011). What is a Mental/Psychiatric disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V. Psychological
Medicine, 40(11), 1-9. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709992261
Stone, M.H, and Ronninstam, E.F. (1998). Normal narcissism: An etiological and ethological
perspective. Ronningstam, E.F. (ed.). Disorders of narcissism: Diagnostic, clinical and
empirical implications. Arlington, Virginia, USA: American Psychiatric Association.
Strydom, H., and Delport, C.S.L. (2005). Sampling and pilot study in qualitative research. De
Vos, A. S., Strydom, H., Fouchȇ, C.B., and Delport, C. S. L. (eds.). Research at
Grassroots level. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.
Summers, F. (2014). Object Relations Theories and Psychopathology. New York, New York, USA:
Psychology Press.
Taylor, T. (2015). What is historiography and why is it important. Online available at www. pegsnet.pegs.vic.edu.au/studentdownloads/History/Students/VCE%20Australian/What%20is
%20Historiography.com
The Association for Psychohistory. (n.d.). Psychohistory. Online available at
www.psychohistory.com
The Belmont Report. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the
Protection of Human Subjects. Online available: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-
policy/belmont-report/
Thomas, G. (2016). How To Do Your Case Study. Sage: London, United Kingdom.
Thomas, T. (n.d.). Howard Hughes. American National Biography online. Online available
at http://www.anb.org/articles/10/10-01809.html
260
Twenge, J.M., and Foster, J.D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits
among American college students, 1982-2009. Social Psychology and Personality
Science, 1(1), 99-106. doi: 10.1177/1948550609355719
U.S.History.org (2018). U.S. History: The great depression. Retrieved from
http://www.ushistory.org/us/48.asp
Vaknin, S. (2007). The Developmental Psychology of Psychopathology. Macedonia: Narcissus
publication.
Van, R.T. (2017). Histriography. Online available at
https://www.britannica.com/topic/histriography.
Whetton, J.J., Wadsworth, J.L., and Thain, W.S. (2012). We know Howard Hughes. Book Wise
Publishing: USA.
Wood, D., Gosling, S.D., and Potter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to
personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5),
861-879.
Woodside, A.G. (2010). Case study research: Theories, methods, practice. Bingley, West
Yorkshire, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Wright, A.G.C., Pincus, A.L., Thomas, K.M., Hopwood, C.J., Markon, K.E., and Krueger,
R.F (2013). Conceptions of narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality traits.
Assessment, 1-14. Online available at
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073191113486692 doi:
10.1177/1073191113486692
Yeomans, F., Diamond, D., Stern, B., & Kernberg, O. (2012). Narcissistic pathology as
understood in transference-focused psychotherapy. Online available at 261
http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Narcfor
NEABPD.2012.pdf.
Yin, R.K. (1981). The case study crises: Some answers. Administration Science Quarterly,
25(1), 58-65.
Yin, R.K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health
Services Research, 34(5), 1209-1224.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oakes, California,
USA: Sage publications.
Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9, 1-6. Online
available: http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf
Zept, S. (2012). Do we need the concept of “splitting” to understand borderline structures? The
Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 35(1), 45-57. doi: 10.1080/01062301.2012.10592379
262
Appendix A: Extracts from Research Diary
I have become interested in understanding narcissism through experiences with important people in my life that have had narcissistic tendencies to different degrees, and who have impacted me, sometimes positively, and sometimes negatively. I have come to notice my reaction to narcissistic dynamics. I assume that narcissistic individuals must have more insight into the effect that they have on others than they claim, but they don’t notice the negative effect on others, and take pleasure in being placed in a position of power which they interpret as care and love. I want to understand the interpersonal dynamic better. I’m hoping that tracing my thoughts about this in diary format will help.
05.2013
This is the third week that I am seriously writing on my proposal. I have noticed a change in my attitude toward HH already. Before I thought he was arrogant and I was appalled by his audacity.
Somewhere, I began to pity him. I found him almost pathetic. I wonder if things would have been different for him had he lived in currently times; with much focus on ethical awareness, I wonder if there would have been a greater impetus for others to step in and assist someone who was clearly mentally ill. The lack of responsibility towards him is something that strikes me, and
I guess parallels society even today, where the vast majority of particularly western society seems focused on their own domain of influence, and less focused on involvement with others.
Or perhaps that is merely my own projection.
It is interesting how my attitude to HH has changed so much already. This is something I will need to keep an eye on.
08.2015
Howard Hughes has been in my life for two years already. For a while I wasn’t working on my 263 research, absorbed in other work related matters. Then I continued to read on his life. I have vacillated from being irritated with him, too pitying him. Then for a while I didn’t think about
HH. I was focused more on understanding the methodology and narcissism’s theoretical frameworks than his life, per say.
I recently found a biography by Darwin Porter based on HH’s life. This biography has far more personal detail in it that the others I have read. Porter’s book is written quite dramatically. Some information is uncorroborated through others sources. Despite these two elements, it seems well researched. It portrays HH as a womanizer, self centred and entitled. He was very sexually driven, and slept with whomever he wanted to. I have switched position on HH again, and find myself really angry with him. I don’t understand why he thought that was okay. But that’s exactly it, he felt that he was entitled to be the way he was. There was no thought process. And people pandered to him as one of the richest men in the world. I think my anger is also a projection against the narcissists I have known. Being at the receiving end of such insensitivity is infuriating. It is important for me to be aware of how this anger influences how I see HH. My anger at him makes me experience him as someone who really wasn’t a nice person, and this could affect how I interpret his patterns, when I get there. I am trying to guard against the influence of this.
09.2015
It’s taken a lot longer to work my way through his life data than I had anticipated.
I am still working with HH’s childhood, and gaining far more of a sense of an ambiguous environment, entitled, yet under threat of germs, and forced enmeshment with mom throughout.
HH’s rebellious child most likely saved him by creating a space for a sense of self that was not under his mother’s control. 264
01.2016
I am on sabbatical, and am busy writing the narcissism chapter at the moment. At the moment I am battling to really gain a broad contemporary feel to motivate for Kernberg. Narcissism is such a loaded area, the complexity astounds.
A few questions I’ve been asking:
Does someone who grows up as entitled, e.g. child of a famous person, appear the same as someone who grows to become narcissistic, but from a normal family?
02.2016
So, I’ve been feeling very stuck writing my chapter on narcissism. Under Louise’s advice, I spoke to Roelf van Nierkerk, and the certainties I experienced about what I should put down on paper were challenged. The discussion made a lot of sense, but has left me feeling slightly off balance. I have felt sluggish writing since, unsure which way to go. I am still experiencing a lot of ambiguity regarding HH. I see him as an asshole.
I think of the women he dated and dumped. Did they look at him and think, shame, he’s broken.
He can’t do any better? This is how I sometimes think about narcissistic individuals I have known. The answers or ending of the relationship isn’t logical, so it’s really difficult to end it in your head. That’s where the feelings of things being unjust prolong mourning and promote anger. Was this how they felt? It’s important for me to own that as my experience, so as to remove it from influencing my interpretations.
It’s interesting that one of the people HH couldn’t get over was Ava Gardner. By all accounts she wouldn’t sleep with him, he couldn’t possess her. She stayed in the dominant position and instead of dismissing her, it egged him on. Why didn’t he dismiss her? He did others. He could have found a fault in her, and devalued her. Instead, he pursued her for many years. It’s strange. 265
Perhaps she gave him some ego fuel?
06.2016
My sabbatical is almost at an end. I have written the theory of the Kernberg chapter, and am at the moment doing the application section. Initially I did it according to life phases. I have now gone back and am rearranging according to object relation patterns that emerged. My challenge is how to structure and condense it. I have two weeks left, and I would really like to finish this chapter before I go back to work.
I met with Louise yesterday and we decided to change the methodology from psychobiography to a case study. Then I can be more directive in what I go and look for in HH life. Furthermore, there are just so many things that he did that I can’t actually cover it all, as I would need to in a psychobiography.
06.2016
I’ve just read Essays in Love. What is the difference between splitting and seeing someone as all good, and falling in love with someone and seeing them as all good? The valuation process seems the same. However, for HH it was just short lived. He didn’t maintain his omnipotent view of others for very long. Would that be the difference? A true split is going to be challenged in their view. An in love split is going to focus on the view of themselves through the eyes of the other. I don’t think HH did this. He didn’t care how others viewed him, as his defense mechanisms soon made them bad, and then their view didn’t count.
Why did HH not feel guilty? He went through cycles of this over and over again. The guilt just did not seem to feature in him. Did he project his guilt onto them too? They must feel bad, as they are bad?
266
12.2016
I have not had a lot of time to work on my treatise over the last semester. However, I started approximately mid-december and am pushing hard to wrap it up.
One of the things that has started to worry me as I write is how my personal experiences of narcissistic individuals are influencing my outcomes here. However, I realise that my personal experiences have included a lot of being destroyed as a bad object. However, the biographical works focus on the facts of Hughes’s life and do not spend much time on his destruction of his bad objects. Thus his rationale for destroying his objects is not outlined. This makes it easier for me to bracket my own experiences away from his.
One way to get into his effect on others is to look at the biographies of people who dated HH to see if they were on the receiving end of any of that. However, the only biographies I can find are of Kathryn Hepburn and Ava Gardner.
01.2017
I spent the whole holiday working on the research, and one of the things I did was rewrite the life chapter in order to see what symptoms started when. I walk away with a much stronger idea of
Hughes’s deterioration. Before I thought of him as generally messed up all the way through his life. However, in early adulthood he could get by without appearing too odd. It was only by about 55 years of age that things got to the point of really bad pathology. And so much happened to contribute to that deterioration. That was quite interesting to note. To some degree it hooked my sympathy for him again.
267
Appendix B: Extract of Triangulated Data Sources
Porter, 2010 Bartlett and Steele
Whetton, Wadsworth and Thain 2012 Higgam
Schumacher, 2008 Hack, 2007
Newman, 1993. Charles River Editors
Sheridan (2011)
1935
Took Ginger Rogers to the premiere of Scarface
HH hired Hawks to direct this last film. He got Hawk to direct. Gable was suggested for
movie, and HH said no
It had incestuous undertones which was very controversial for its time, and HH believed
he could get away with it. he made fighting scenes more real, and added more suggestive
sex scenes.
Movie released at a time when Al Capone was arrested, and receiving media attention.
Thus, because of parallels with him, good publicity
Was hoping Scarface would restore his reputation in Hollywood
Gangster lacky sent to HH to see if movie about him – Al Capone
HH a nuisance on set.
Many warnings from sensors from beginning
Initially they made changes and changed the ending, put in a preachy scene, and changed
the title
Film was still not acceptable 268
HH released the film despite not having clearance from the censorship board – and did so
on original version, not one which had cuts which they had originally considered. P. 275
Opened in New Orleans under the original title
Seen as a warrior against the censorship board – which was seen as unreasonable
Movie did brilliantly
Film was against bootlegging illegal liquor, although HH was doing a lot of this in his
yacht, running liquor down the coast. Moved in a freight car marked unexposed film.
Got caught once, and paid them off.
Thereafter moved around to avoid press, drove to Huston to see friends and family
Gathered more supporters behind scarface
Eventually the board endorsed scarface, but had to remove the incestuous scenes, and main character had to hang in the end
Excellent reviews
Steele says he fought censorship board generally to drum up interest in his movies
Break up with Dove was soon after this
Thereafter announced he devoted his time to aviation.
Loved flying would disappear for days
resigned from motion picture producers and from distributors of America, and disbanded
his team
closed his offices, dismissed his staff, except for Diettrich
Also met Johnny Mack Brown – spent time, took him flying
He said that HH sometimes dressed up in women’s clothing at home p. 268, and it was
done seriously, not in “spirit of fun” 269
Started worrying that he would be kidnapped.
Stopped carrying cash on him. Confirmed says he didn’t think about money confirmed no cash
For a while had bodyguards, and added extra security at home.
Rather than cutting on expenses, he sent Dietrich to Toolco to find out why it was doing so poorly
Started dating around
Saw June Vlasek for a while
Slept with Marlene Dietrich and Tallulah Bankhead
Slept with Lillian Bond – said he was lonely, even hinted at looking for a wife. Before
having sex, insisted they bath together.
1957
HH married Jean Peters inTonopah, Nevada on 12 January. – middle of the desert. He was interested in the silver mines there. He saw her as a beauty queen. She is described as outgoing, and “he was at a point in his life that he didn’t want to socialize any more than he absolutely had to” (we who knew HH, 37%),
Married under assumed names
Described as “forbidding landscape” and “unromantic” p. 693 married there to escape the media.
Married in a civil ceremony. He was 51, but claimed to be 46. She was 30 but claimed to be 29.
Flew back to Las Vegas 3 hours later. From there flew to Los Angeles.
HH still did business while in Tonopah, ordering staff to acquire land deeds. confirmed Over time he spent 12 million dollars buying up land.
Bench said that staff would go with HH on his plane trips, and that the pattern was that they lasted longer than initially planned 270
Back in Los Angeles, he slept with Jean 5 nights before saying he needed privacy. Got a separate bungalow for her at the hotel.
Surge of difficulty with hypochondriases and paranoia. Experienced a depression, and Peters made him feel better. He also started experiencing nightmares.
Would sit for long periods in his bungalow, naked
Guards not allowed to use fly swotters or chemical spray
For a time he would pee on the tiles as he was afraid to use the loo
For another time he became fascinated with the loo
Later he became fascinated with his urine, saving it
Milk his major source of food. Drank the milk, use the bottle to pee in
HH “decended deeper and deeper into drugs” p. 770 Jean learnt that he was injecting himself, and taking orally
HH ordered his guards to remove her from his room whenever she mentioned drugs
She was kept under guard in here room, confirmed couldn’t go anywhere without a tail.
He sometimes went for weeks without seeing her, although he spoke to her daily about
“the minute details of her life” p. 771
Refused to let her go shopping, went shopping once a week claiming that the guards
could go for her
Couldn’t stop her from smoking, but limited her alcohol use
When he sent her flowers, insisted that each petal be washed first – feared flowers carry
germs
Jean hated the hotel, pleed for a house. Bought her a house but refused to move it to it.
when he wouldn’t, she wouldn’t 271
Her family visited occasionally, by appointment only
Hughes moved into political influence buying in order to ensure preferential treatment
Nixon
Nixon asked for a 250 000$ loan for his brother
In the end it was a waste of money, with Kennedy as president
272
Appendix C: List of Data Sources
Barlett, D.L., and Steele, J.B. (2004). Howard Hughes: His life and madness. Norton and
company: New York, New York, USA.
Carter, C. (2014). Katharine Hepburn. New Word City: United States.
Charles River Editors. (2014). American legends: The life of Howard Hughes. Charles River
Editors: Kindle.
Chosak, A. (2012). The Aviator: A real-life portrayal of OCD in the media. OCD and Related
Disorders. Online available from https://mghocd.org/the-aviator-ocd-in-the-media/
Dietrich, N. (1976). Howard: The amazing Mr Hughes. Fawcett: Greenwich, Conneticut, USA.
Evans, P., & Gardner, A. (2013). The Secret Conversations. Simon & Schuster: New York
Fashion House (Producer). (2009). The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire
[DVD]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4rbj1AZGg
Hack, R. (2007). Hughes: The private diaries, memos and letters. Phoenix books: Beverly
Hills, California, USA.
Higham, C. (2004) Howard Hughes: The secret life. St Martins Press: New York, New York,
USA.
Mann, M., King, G., Evans, C., Climan, S., & Deyle, M. (Producers). Scorsese, M. (Director).
(2005). The Aviator (motion picture). California, USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.
Millard, N. (Producers). Millard, N. (Director). (1999). Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness. (motion picture). USA: I.R.M.I Films.
Newman, G (Producer). Newman, G. (Director). (1993). Howard Hughes: The Man and the
Madness. (documentary). Oak Forest, Illinois, USA: Maljack Teleproductions.
273
Porter, D. (2010). Howard Hughes hell’s angel. Blood Moon Productions: New York, New
York, USA.
Pryor, A. (2013). The Strange Life of Howard Hughes. Stagecoach publishers: Smashwords.
Schumacher, G. (2008). Howard Hughes: Power, paranoia, and palace intrigue. Stephens
press: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Sheridan, J.H. (2011). Howard Hughes: The Las Vegas Years: The women, the Mormons, the
mafia. AuthorHouse: Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Thomas, T. (n.d.). Howard Hughes. American National Biography online. Online available
at http://www.anb.org/articles/10/10-01809.html
Whetton, J.J., Wadsworth, J.L., and Thain, W.S. (2012). We know Howard Hughes. Book
Wise Publishing: USA.
274
Appendix D: American Context during Hughes’s Lifetime
Below is a brief summary of the American context during Hughes’s lifetime. It provides a background of American society before Hughes’s birth, and thereafter briefly explores some of the major influences within his Childhood, Young Adulthood, Middle Adulthood and Old Age.
Background
1870-1970 was a decade of tremendous economic growth in America, promoted by a great many inventions in a variety of areas that “utterly transformed life” (Gordan, 2016, p. 4). These inventions focused on the industries of “food, clothing, shelter, transportation, [and] health”
(Gordan, 2016, p. 2), to name a few. However, in the early 1900s, Americans still had a fairly low life expectancy, with individuals living to approximately 33-48 years of age; most parents did not see their children grow up, as 50% of individuals lost a parent by the time they were 21 years of age (Alderich, n.d.). Many children worked in manual labour. In general, working conditions were not safe, and individuals of all ages worked long hours, exposed to harsh weather conditions through all seasons (Gordan, 2016). A working day was approximately 10 hours, and the head of the household worked until he was “disabled or dead” (Gordan, 2016, p.
6). There was less emphasis on education, with only 6.4% of individuals graduating from high school (Alderich, n.d.).
Formation of labour unions placed pressure on business, leading to shifting labour patterns that saw a slight reduction in the working hours, and the movement of children from the labour force to the education sector (Gordan, 2016). Overall, America started to become more urban, supported by enhanced technology that improved production and output in a variety of industries
(Gordan, 2016). For example, there were changes in the way that clothing and food was produced. These changes had a revolutionary impact on the lives of individuals. 275
However, in 1900, running water in most homes, was still a luxury (Alderich, n.d.). There were some cars on the roads, but this was not yet common; cars were associated with the very wealthy (Brill, 2010). The first major discovery of oil occurred in 1901 in Texas, while in 1902 the first movie theatre opened in California (Americasbesthistory.com, 2018). Howard Hughes was born in 1905.
Childhood
1905-1925
In the early 1900s laws were passed to support water projects, and forest reserves, leading to the formation of national parks, forests, and reserves (Brill, 2010). Up until this point, oil, gas and mineral resources were freely mined, without concern regarding the long-term impact on land and natural resources (Brill, 2010, p. 25). 1906 also saw laws passed that created the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), ensuring the cleanliness and sanitation standards of food and drugs sold “for human consumption” (Brill, 2010, p. 30). The establishment of the FDA was rooted in an increased awareness of the impact of food and drug consumption on individuals. This awareness was partly underpinned by the movement towards greater production, which led to a large scale impact of food and drugs on the populace (Gordan, 2016).
In 1906 there was a major earthquake in San Francisco. This was the “most devastating natural disaster” to date (Brill, 2010, p. 28). 3000 people died and there was $300-400 million worth of damage; refugee camps were established to help those effected
(Americasbesthistory.com, 2018). Fradkin (2005, p. xi) indicated that the impact of this disaster was immense; Fradkin claimed that apart from the physical devastation, citizens were fraught with fear. It took some time for the city to recover.
By 1908 Ford has established a production line, and cars became more readily available 276
(Brill, 2010). This led to road expansion, and the increased effectiveness of postal services, and thus of communication (Brill, 2010). The expansion of roads and highways also led to the emergence of a free mail service. By 1915 the first telephone call made between Bell and
Watson (Americasbesthistory.com, 2018) which led to a further expansion of communication technology.
In 1917 the United States sent their first troops to engage in World War 1. The war continued for 4 years, but the impact on citizens from both urban and rural areas of America was immense. Everyone was expected to contribute and “do their part” (Bettez, 2016, p. 1). The war created even more pressure for increases in industry and agriculture (Bettez, 2016). Entry into the war was followed in 1918, by the Spanish flu epidemic. This epidemic killed “20 million worldwide and five hundred and fourty-eight thousand” Americans (Americasbesthistory.com,
2018, p. 2). Spinney (2017, p. 1) described the epidemic as mostly occurring over a period of 13 weeks. The flu epidemic itself lead to changes in politics, race and family relations, and movement in thinking around medicine, religion and the arts (Spinney, 2017). Spinney (2017, p.
1) described the flu as “resculpt[ing] populations”. The combination of World War 1 and the epidemic had a dramatic impact on Americans. The joint impact on the political, economic, and social milieu of the time was profound.
World War I ended in 1918, and by 1920 shifting economic and social patterns led to women attaining the right to vote. 1920 also saw a slight decline in the average working hours (Gordan,
2016), and an increasing availability of electricity. The “internal combustion engines” along with electricity led to a further “upsurge” in productivity and output (Gordan, 2016, p. 17). 1920 also saw introduction of the Prohibition. The prohibition ended the production, sale and transportation of alcohol; rooted in religious doctrine (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, 277
March 21, 2018), this law aimed to rid society of “alcoholism and family violence” (Retrowaste, n.d., p 1). This law was in place until 1933, and had strong economic and social consequences in the interim. It led to a huge blackmarket trade in alcohol, and further establishment of the mob
(D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). 1923 saw the first motion picture shown with sound in New York City (Americasbesthistory.com, 2018). Amid the upsurge of productivity, some communities started to “feel the pinch” in the economy (Davis, 2013, p. 103).
1924-1927 saw a drought which had a great impact on industry and agriculture in parts of
America, causing these industries to struggle (Davis, 2013).
Young Adulthood
1925-1945
In 1925 the first radio transmission occurred, and people were soon listening to the news on the radio; shortly thereafter television was invented. In 1927 the Great Mississippi Flood effected
700 000 individuals (Americasbesthistory.com, 2018). Mizelle (2017, p. 1) described the impact of this disaster as “reshaping the social and cultural landscape as well as the physical environment”. This event was the first natural disaster to occur that was tracked by media coverage (Parrish, 2017), and thus the effects played out in a political arena, leading to politicians becoming involved in its management, and the development of new policy on flood control (Mizelle, 2017)
Towards the end of the 1920s much of lower and middle class America felt the economic strain. Much of the wealth of the time was in the hands of the few, and this limited economic growth, with wide disparity in socio-economic status (U.S.History.org, 2018); there was also a rising tide of debt (U.S.History.org, 2018). In 1929 the stock market crashed. Companies had expanded to their limits, and a decline in expansion had been inevitable (U.S.History.org, 2018). 278
It is estimated that the losses accumulated to $50 billion (Americasbesthistory.com, 2018), and this crash marked the end of years of prosperity after World War I, and the beginning of the Great
Depression. The depression led to mass migration, and increase in crime, and an increase in social problems such as prostitution, alcoholism, and suicide (Ushistory.org, 2018). This was a time of deep difficulty and struggle for the populace. A lack of ready money led to a system of bartering amongst people, in order to survive (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21,
2018). In response to these difficulties government initiated major projects to get people back to work. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) employed people to build infrastructure for electricity, as well as build the Hoover dam (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018).
While American’s experienced an economic crises, fascism was spreading through Europe, and ultimately led to war being declared in 1939 (Ushistory.org, 2018). America initially tried to remain neutral, and separate from World War 2. Over time tension between Japan and America grew, which ultimately escalated in 1941 in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. American was taken by surprise. This event led to America entering into World War II
(Americasbesthistory.com, 2018).
During the war years the American economy was under a lot of pressure (Gordan, 2016), with American industries – that were already experiencing the depression - fuelling the American involvement in the war (Ushistory.org, 2018). This drive to fuel the war led to a “sharp decline in the standard of living” (Ferrara, 2013, p. 1). Pressure on industry to produce also led to greater involvement of women in industry (Ushistory.org, 2018). Women’s involvement is associated with much social change, including women empowerment and the movement for equal rights, and economical change, leading to the two income family (D.E. Coleman, personal 279 communicaton, March 21, 2018).
In 1941 the Manhattan Project was established, which was focused on the design and building of the atomic bomb. 1945 saw the first atomic bomb – the Trinity Test - dropped on
Alamogordo, New Mexico (Americasbesthistory.com, 2018). Soon after, atomic bombs were used in the war, and were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese cities. The decision to use nuclear power was – and remains – controversial, but ultimately led to the end of World War
2. By the end of the war reductions in “spending, taxes and regulation”- also ended the great depression (Ferrara, 2013, p. 1). In terms of the American economy, overall, workers had became more efficient, and productivity increased from 1945 (Gordan, 2016).
It is interesting to note that by the 1940s almost all households were “wired” for electricity, and 80 percent of homes had flushing toilets (Gordan, 2016, p. 5).
Middle Adulthood
1945-1970
World War 2 ended, and led to a booming economy, and a growing culture of consumerism
(Ushistory.org, 2018). Concurrently, the late 1940s saw the beginning of the baby boom
(Gordan, 2016). The 1950s also saw the widespread use of the telephone (Fredman, n.d.).
Watching movies was popular, but a culture of watching television emerged (Retrowaste, n.d.).
Consequently, households transitioned to having televisions at home. This led to a shift in culture, with less people attending theatre, and the focus of the entertainment industry being on production for television (Gordan, 2016, p. 7).
After the war, “popular culture was entrenched in anti-German and anti-Japanese sentiment”
(Retrowaste, n.d., p. 3). America particularly distrusted the Soviet Union due to their communist philosophy and their takeover of countries in Eastern Europe (U.S.History.org, 2018). The US 280 was “unwilling to sit idle while another form of totalitarianism spread westward from Moscow”
(U.S.History.org, 2018, p. 52). This tension saw the emergence of the Cold War between
America and the Soviet Union, which lasted for 45 years. America had emerged as the leader of the capitalist world; it was dedicated to democracy, and consequently, there was a growing paranoia about the spread of communism (Retrowaste, n.d.).
This paranoia emerged in McCarthyism of the 1950s, which was the investigation of citizen’s ideologies in order to identify anyone associated with communism – essentially this was sanctioned witch hunts conducted throughout America, within an atmosphere of “fear of world domination by communists” (Ushistory.org, 2018, p. 53a). Senator McCarthy became known for investigating communism among prominent figures (Ushistory.org, 2018), and another prominent figure encouraging investigations was J. Edgar Hoover (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). Eventually McCartney lost support when his methods of interrogation were televised, and seen as brutal (U.S.History.org, 2018). An industry that was particularly interrogated for communist leanings was the entertainment industry. Individual’s were called in front of committees. If they repented and named others suspected of communism, they could go back to their usual lives. If not, they were blacklisted and not allowed to work
(U.S.History.org, 2018).
During the 1950s the “struggle against racism and segregation entered the mainstream of
American life” (History.com, n.d., p. 1). Thus the 1950s also saw the emergence of the civil rights movement, and the fighting for equal rights for all races. Over time the movement gained momentum. A landmark ruling occurred in 1954 with racial segregation in schools being abolished. This led to forced integrations e.g. black schools were closed overnight, and black and white schooled together (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). In 1955 281
Rosa Parks famously refused to give up her seat on a bus for a white man, which led to black
American’s boycotting the use of buses for 13-months (History.com, n.d.), until the laws around discrimination of passengers changed. A variety of strong leaders emerged within the civil rights movement, arguably the most well-known of which are Martin Luther King junior and Malcolm
X. This was a time of great social unrest (Retrowaste, n.d.), seen in the assassination of both of these leaders. However, there was great progression in civil rights, and the Civil Rights Act of
1964 removed discrimination. Along side this movement was the women’s rights movement
(D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). These various movements and communist concerns highlight “divisions in American society” (History, n.d., p. 1).
In 1950 America became involved in the Korean war (1950-1953), and in 1959 the Vietnam war (1959-1975); America saw its involvement in both these wars as an attempt to stop the spread of communism into south-east Asia. For example, within the Vietnam war America supported South Vietnam, while the Soviet Union supported North Vietnam (Historylearningsite,
2018). Fighting in the region was to stop the Soviet Union from assuming control of South
Vietnam. Fighting continued until 1975, and led to much loss of American lives. America’s involvement in this war was a cause of much controversy. There was a general lack of public support of the war (U.S.History, 2018).
At this time Fidel Castro invaded Cuba. America tried to wrestle power from Castro, through the invasion of Havana, at the Bay of Pigs (History, n.d.). However, this invasion was unsuccessful. Castro was a communist and was aligned with the Soviet Union. 1962 saw the
Cuban missile crises, where the Soviet Union moved into Cuba and installed nuclear missiles –
90 miles off American soil (History, n.d.). This led to a 13-day standoff which almost led to these two countries engaging in nuclear attacks. This standoff was resolved when American 282 president John F Kennedy agreed with an offer made by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev; the
Soviet Union would remove their missiles if America would not invade Cuba (History, n.d.).
Kennedy was assassinated not long after. The communist run Cuba, with potential nuclear threat, and the assassination did not assist the climate of the times, further encouraging the atmosphere of paranoia and protection against communism within America (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018).
Involvement in the various scuffles and wars had a tremendous impact on American people.
Anyone could be drafted into the Vietnam war, and as young people did not know what tomorrow would bring, an atmosphere of living for today emerged (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). A movement against involvement with the war began. More and more young people did not accept the paranoia of communism, or the need to take part in a war. The atmosphere of embracing life and freedom emerged in the Hippie culture from the mid-
1960s (Retrowaste, n.d.). The movement was reactionary, particularly associated with opposition to the Vietnam War, opposition to nuclear weapons, the advocacy of world peace, and hostility to the authority of government and big business (retrowaste, n.d., p. 6). The movement supported civil rights for all, and this included women’s rights, and their sexual freedoms (D.E.
Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). Although the movement is generally associated with free love and experimentation with drugs (Retrowaste, n.d.), it represented far more than this. The movement saw a progression in social values, increasing political awareness and political and economic liberty of women (Retrowaste, n.d., p. 6).
Old Age
1970-1976
1973 saw the signing of a ceasefire in the Vietnam war. Overall, approximately 50 000 people 283 died (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018). America’s withdrawal occurred due to the American people’s lack of support of the war (D.E. Coleman, personal communicaton,
March 21, 2018). Many war veterans went back home, but struggled to adjust; they received mixed support, in part due to divisions within the populace regarding the war. This led to high levels of bitterness and division of Americans thereafter (U.S.History, 2018). Hippie movement faded mid 1970s, due to the ending of the war.
Overall, the 1970s saw further growth of American expansionism and technology. It also saw greater migration of people to urban areas, after farming became big business (D.E.
Coleman, personal communicaton, March 21, 2018).
284
Appendix E: Lower Order Defense Mechanisms
Splitting
In an attempt to preserve the threatened good object relations, “hostile aggression is projected out of the internal world and onto the external world” (Heiserman, & Cook, 1998, p. 75); the threatening or bad representations are thus split off and projected onto others (Kernberg, 2001).
In essence, the child experiences others as bad, rather than experiencing the self as bad.
Splitting leads to the individual being unable to experience both positive and negative feelings towards another at the same time (Johnson, 1991), and experiences other individuals as either good or as bad, and themselves as either good or bad. The continuous splitting process has the effect of weakening the ego, and leads to the ego being divided into “structures” (Suthuerland,
1963, cited in Kernberg, 1998, l. 131). Each ego structure is “pathologically fixed” (Kernberg,
1998, l. 131). The individual then experiences “Extreme and repetitive oscillation between contradictory self concepts” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 29).
Projective Identification
In projective identifications, “intolerable intrapsychic experiences” are projected onto an object
(Kernberg, 1987, p. 796). Through the projective process, the individual “induces what is being projected in the other” (Clarkin et al., 2007, p. 480), and “tries to control the object in a continuing effort to defend against the intolerable experience” (Kernberg, 1987, p. 796). In the area of the threatening image, the boundaries of self and of object are blurred, and there is a
“projective identification and fusion” with the object (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33). Thus, although the bad representation is projected outwards, the blurred boundaries and empathy with the object result in the individual still identifying with the projected image (Kernberg, 1987). The process of externalising bad self and object images leads to “the development of dangerous, retaliatory objects against which the patient has to defend himself” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 30). The ongoing 285 identification “increases the fear of their own projected aggression” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 30).
Projective identification is thus used to protect the self from the bad objects (Kernberg, 2004a) that the individual creates.
Omnipotence
This defense mechanism is an image distorting defense (Finzi-Dottan & Karu, 2006) where the individual attributes positive qualities to the self, associated with the self as powerful, superior, intelligent or influential (Vaknin, 2007). The purpose of omnipotence is to protect the individual from their bad self-representations. Omnipotence may also be associated with the creation of a relationship with an idealised object this is called primitive idealisation.
Primitive Idealisation
Primitive idealisation is also referred to in literature as omnipotent identification. This defense creates idealised objects that are experienced as completely good. To achieve this idealisation the individual places too much emphasis on the good, and underestimates the bad of an object
(Northoff, Bermpohl, Schoeneich, & Boeke, 2007). By associating with the object, the individual shares in the greatness of the idealised object; this association forms protection from the individual’s bad representations, which have been projected outwards; idealised objects thus form “protection against a surrounding world” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 29). Idealisation
“strengthens the bond” with an object (Nesse & Lloyd, 1992, p. 612). However, it is important to further take note that this is not merely a bond, but that the idealised objects are seen as an extension of the individual, and thus the bond may be seen as a “projective intrusion into others” which removes separation between self and object (Hinshelwood, 2004, p. 72). The connection between self and object is not based on care; the individual interacts with the object as if it is a possession, with the underlying dynamic of struggling to separate self from other. The individual 286 needs to experience their self and their objects as one, as separation in an environment of projected bad representations “might provoke anxiety or envy” (Hinshelwood, 2004, p. 72).
Omnipotent Control
Omnipotent control refers to the individual’s attempts to control idealised objects in order to manipulate and exploit. Omnipotent control is based on the phantasy that the “source of everything that happens is oneself” and it is rooted in the “non recognition of the separate existence of others with a will of their own” (Consulta Baekeland, n.d., p. 1). Individuals view idealised objects as extensions of themselves, and consequently see these objects as under their control. Kernberg (2004a, p. 287) asserted that objects cease to be in the mind of the individual, if they are not able to control them. The outcome of this defense mechanism is that the relationship of cause and effect is distorted (Consulta Baekeland, n.d., p. 1).
Denial
Denial may be thought of as “ignoring or misrepresenting thoughts or experiences that would be upsetting if accurately perceived” (Cramer, 2007, p. 2). This misrepresentation is an obvious failure in the recognition of “implications or consequences of thought, act or situation” (Northoff et al., 2007, p. 142). This defense mechanism supports splitting (Caligor et al., 2007), as the individual splits off aspects of the self, for example motivations that cause them conflict (due to their clashing with another aspect of the self), and then deny their importance (Caligor et al.,
2007). The individual thus denies that there are “two emotionally independent areas of consciousness” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 31). Thus the child identifies with one area of consciousness at any given time, while denying the importance of the other. Thus, these two needs are kept separate, and cannot be integrated. The individual “is aware of the fact that at this time his perceptions, thoughts, and feelings about himself or other people are completely 287 opposite to those he has had at other times; but this memory has no emotional relevance”
(Kernberg, 2004a, p. 31), and is disregarded and cannot be integrated.
Devaluation
Devaluation refers to the attribution of negative qualities to an object (Vaknin, 2007). This attribution weakens the bond with the object (Nesse & Lloyd, 1992). This occurs when an
“external object can provide no further gratification or protection, [and] it is dropped and dismissed” (Kernberg, 2004a, p. 33). Individuals may try to destroy the object which frustrated their needs, as they did not really care for the object in the first place (Kernberg, 2004a).