The Lady's a Vamp

 

Waterhouse, "Lamia"; an image of the narcissist type

Over the last few weeks, I have been in email correspondence with the mother of a man diagnosed as schizophrenic. She declared that she had cured him. The cure consisted of playing music through headphones into just one ear. She claimed to have helped hundreds in the same way.

Oddly, however, she also spoke of her son as still schizophrenic, of having cured him repeatedly, and of his sometimes cursing her or her husband. It sounds as though the “cure” was temporary and symptomatic. “Cure” may have been an exaggeration.

I’m not sure she has actually demonstrated anything beyond the traditional wisdom that music has charms that calm the savage breast. An observation at least as old as Orpheus and the Bible.

But I think I may have seen here something of the family dynamic that leads to schizophrenia.

Seemingly unaware of the ancient observation about music, the lady was certain she had made a scientific breakthrough on the order of Harvey discovering the circulation of blood—she literally used this comparison. She had demonstrated that schizophrenia, and mental illness generally, was actually a hearing problem. It was caused by a physiological defect in the right ear. As a result of this, the brain becomes unbalanced, out of sync. The right brain becomes dominant over the left. By playing music in only one ear, she had rebalanced the two hemispheres.

This sounded odd; beginning with what looked like a naively literal interpretation of mental illness as being “mentally unbalanced.” I pointed out to her that other than handedness, there was no demonstrated scientific basis for the left-brain, right-brain distinction. She promptly responded that she was not concluding this from anyone else’s work, this is something she had personally discovered.

As we engaged in further discussion, I realized that she conceived no distinction between “mind” and “brain.” When I suggested that the one thing was a physical entity you could hold in your hand, and the other was not, she seemed to simply ignore the point, and went right back to identifying them, without explanation. It was as though she were mentally blocking any contrary suggestion. 

We had a parallel discussion of the distinction between “behavior” and “experience” or “thought.” She consistently referred to all as “behavior.” When I argued the difference, using a computer analogy, it did not seem to register. She did not respond, and continued calling it all behavior. I could not get her to acknowledge the difference between “mental” or “metaphysical” and “physical” either. Nor could she recognize a possible distinction between “physical” and “real.” After being queried on this, with reference to Berkeley, she used the terms interchangeably, as if in defiance: where I had written “physical,” she quoted me as writing “real.” 

This looked semi-intentional. At some level, she understood the distinction, but she refused to acknowledge it.

This seemed to make her a total materialist. Yet, surprisingly, she claimed to be an unchurched Christian, who believed in a soul and an afterlife. 

Then, in another context, she lamented that her husband was currently so depressed he thought he was going to die.

(Odd—why hadn’t she used her listening therapy to cure him? Or had it failed?)

I pointed out, hoping to ease her presumed concern over her husband, that death is not necessarily a bad thing for a Christian. She responded that in his case, he was also expecting “the worst possible outcome”—nonexistence. 

Very odd—claiming to believe in an afterlife, and a Christian afterlife, yet even in the context of a Christian afterlife, the concept of hell does not come to her mind as conceivable. For surely that is worse than nonexistence.

She was superficially perfectly lucid, and congenial, indeed, conspicuously socially skilled. Charming--or, more accurately, manipulative. She could probably have given a casual acquaintance a good impression of herself at a cocktail party.

But whether or not her son was mad, it was clear if one listened carefully, and probed, that in literal terms, she was as mad as a hatter. 

She was an example of what Fleiss called “ambulatory psychosis,” or M. Scott Peck called “ambulatory schizophrenia.” Both are alternate terms for what we call narcissism. And both Fleiss and Peck maintain that this character type in a parent leads to mental illness in a child. As it seems to have done here.

These are people who seem at least reasonably sane to the world around, and respectable, while actually holding delusional views about themselves and the world. They think of themselves as godlike, and will fabricate imaginary narratives to reinforce this impression, both to themselves and others. Yet it is their children, rather than themselves, who turn up at the psychiatrist’s office. They will never go to see a psychiatrist because, of course, they cannot be mentally ill. It must be everyone else. If and as their child, growing up, sees inconsistencies in their claims about themselves and the world, the child is forced into the role of mental illness, of mental problem. For being too sane.

In her own mind, this woman was convinced she was a scientist as great as Harvey. Descartes and Berkeley were obvious idiots compared to her. It emerged, as each of these subjects came up in discussion, that she had significant academic background in English literature, psychology, and philosophy. When the Iowa Writing Workshop came up, it turned out that her husband was a graduate, and her daughter worked for that university. Possibly true, but a pileup of coincidences.

My speculative observations:

The narcissist type—I prefer the term “hubristic,” but as exemplified here--is an absolute materialist, but also believes in an immortal soul. How is this possible? Because they believe that THEY have an immortal soul; but actually, nobody else does. Everyone else is a bundle of unconscious behaviours. 

They must believe they are immortal, being their own gods; but will not accept the possibility of divine punishment. There can be no question of them ever having acted immorally. Others do, of course, but since they are automatons, it is not their fault.

If they cannot plausibly make a boast about themselves, they may boast of association with someone else who is great. Otherwise, everyone else is worthy of scorn. This is the genesis of the co-dependent Echo type of narcissist. While describing all her close relatives as insane, this woman also claimed her father was a great scientist who designed essential parts of the first Canadian nuclear reactor. 

Her first instinct was to run anyone else down, but she would flip to the exact opposite when it seemed useful. This has often been commented on in narcissists: their reaction to everyone is either adulation or devaluation, and most often, in relationships, first the one, in order to entrap, then the other.

I deeply pity her son. She is, as are narcissists generally, a vampire feeding on his substance.