Le narcissisme, entre mythologie et psychopathologie

Abstract

Objectives

Narcissism is distinguished from other contemporary psychiatric terms in that it refers both to a body of clinical and empirical research and to one of the most popular myths in our culture. The objective of this article is, on the one hand, to explore the nature of the link between the myth of Narcissus and narcissism, and on the other hand, from an epistemological perspective, to examine the various current definitions of narcissism.

Methods

Through a literature review, we offer an epistemological perspective on the link between the myth of Narcissus and narcissism, as well as on the various definitions of narcissism in Freudian theories, clinical practice, nosography, the trait model of personality, and everyday language.

Results

The term narcissism was coined in the 19th century to illustrate a clinical condition using the myth of Narcissus. With his seminal essay “On Narcissism: An Introduction”, Freud separated narcissism from the myth of Narcissus. In doing so, he provided an object of interest for 20th-century clinicians, who developed clinical theories of narcissism, seeking to define the function and etiology of behavior identified as narcissistic. With the publication of the DSM-III and the rise of psychological research on personality traits, a new perspective on narcissism emerged, focusing on describing and differentiating behaviors rather than explaining them. The use of narcissism in everyday language draws freely from these different conceptions, employing heuristic shortcuts and analogies.

Discussion

We distinguish three different uses of narcissism: an analogical use, primarily aimed at illustrating a clinical situation or behavior with the myth; a theoretical/clinical use, seeking to explain the nature of narcissistic behavior; and a descriptive use, focused on defining and differentiating narcissism from related disorders or traits. These three uses coexist and are the source of much confusion. The methodological differences between theoretical and descriptive approaches directly influence the very definition of narcissism, as illustrated by the notion of narcissistic vulnerability.

Conclusion

This article clarifies the complex interactions between the myth and narcissism, which contribute both to the richness of the concept and the difficulty in defining it. Nearly two thousand years before the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder in the DSM-5, which places identity disturbances and relational difficulties at the core of personality disorders, Ovid had already intuited that self-ignorance and the inability to love others could lead to great suffering.