Basically, we are all making it unnecessarily difficult for ourselves. We have all, more or less, been neglected as children or massively damaged, but I basically believe that as adults we can support each other in such a way that these elementary rudimentary deficits can at least be alleviated in their effects if not eliminated. This healing can happen in communities of all kinds, the closer and more intensive the better: in partnerships, but also in close friendships, possibly even in small particular groups.
The elementary, rudimentary deficits stem from early childhood or from later stages of life when traumatic experiences are involved. These deficits touch the aspect of positive narcissistic development through corresponding narcissistic attention from the so-called primary objects, i.e. usually still predominantly the mother. It is about these elementary deficits that I hope for the possibility of a late compensation as an adult in very close communities, which besides the linguistic closeness also includes physical closeness – e.g. hugs, but also quasi-physical closeness like “devouring the eyes”, kissing, holding hands etc. -. These communities may, but do not have to, be sexual.
In order to make this support possible, no matter in which kind of community, a blatant disruptive factor must first be eliminated. This blatant disruptive factor is the “Oedipal”. What I mean by this is the fact that in our families, which are far too small, a libidinal transmission, in other words an amorous devotion, a kind of love in partnership of one parent, usually “adjusts” to the child for at least one of the children for at least one of the parents. This libidinal transmission, which I observe affects everyone, causes considerable problems later in every love partnership, because everyone tries to relive the libidinal transmission experienced in the role of victim from the parents with a partner. (This leads to the hostilities within the partnerships and not to the gender roles, which can, however, be indirectly associated with the transmission by the parents if the gender roles in the primary families were still quite typically distributed). Without these problems being removed from the libidinal transmission from the family of origin, no close community can function to heal the narcissistic deficits, as the oedipal problems have a tremendous destructive power.
In addition to the Oedipal problem, there are other disruptive factors which, unlike Oedipal problems, result from particularly severe narcissistic deficits. This concerns in particular the narcissistic personality disorder. For these cases I do not see a realistic option for action for the time being. Patients with a pronounced narcissistic personality disorder are not at all in a position to consider their situation and behaviour worthy of change and thus elude any healing process. Also, my idea of a mutual healing of narcissistic deficits is by no means feasible in a community with a narcissist, as he would ruthlessly torpedo the process. A narcissist would not allow something to happen whose existence and necessity the narcissist denies for his own protection: human closeness.
(Note: For me, the ‘Oedipal’ is by no means the gender-specific skewness of Freud, but rather the general problem of libidinal abuse – physical or latent – between parents and children. To contrast the Oedipus complex with an Electra complex does not solve the conceptual dilemma from my point of view, I prefer to generalize Oedipus as a term.)