Agnomenosis 1:

On the obsession with being titled 

Ghiath el-Marzouk

For titles do not reflect honour on men,
 but rather men do on their titles.

Niccolò Machiavelli

I have intended to coin the neologism agnomenosis to point to a specific psychopathology which the mind of the ‘modern’ man is afflicted with so inveterately to the extent that it dominates his or her behaviour and thinking at the expense of the real social demands of his or her role in life. The neologism is simply derived from the Late Latin stemmed nominal agnomen affixed to it the Greek suffix -osis, with the former literally meaning ‘in addition to a name’ and the latter indicating, among other things, a diseased or an abnormal condition as in thrombosis, neurosis, psychosis , and the like. The principal reason for coining this new term is, in fact, the well observed preposterous phenomenon which is typical of a sickeningly sick society and signifies that the agnomen in question becomes, in the eyes of the person who happens to hold it, even more compulsively significant than his or her authentic proper name (or even sense of identity) –just as the prevalent interpretation of a given ‘canonical’ text becomes more coercively important than the text itself, regardless of the deviant nature of this interpretation (see, for example, Adonis, 1989:187).

Given that proper names, unlike any other kind of signifier, do not tend to change or alter their ‘meanings’ at any moment of articulation, as in the Lacanian formulation, the agnomen in question seems to undergo a series of psychically inflationary transformations, where each such transformation imposes a further nuance of signification depending on the level of narcissism which is typically exemplified by the psychical make-up of what will be called, the agnomenotic (on the analogy of the neurotic, the psychotic, etc.). And given that the level of narcissism itself presupposes several different layers or even sublayers of the meaning of ‘self-love’, as in the Freudian formulation, the clinical structure of agnomenosis is in general identified with the most unhealthy incarnation of these layers and sublayers, and is therefore represented as a persistent symptom (or a set of symptoms) of patriarchal ‘power structures’ that are characteristic of very serious clinical structures such as schizophrenia and fetishism, in particular. In consequence, the  megalomaniacal and obsessive manifestations of such clinical structures may well turn, at a primitively aggressive level, into a devastating blow both to human nature and to human society, as will be seen in the upcoming exposition.[1]

The exposition will begin with reference to Freud’s distinction between primary narcissism and secondary narcissism so far as the normal and abnormal (or pathogenic) libidinization of the meaning of ‘self-love’ is concerned. Thus, on the one hand, the exposition will point to the integrational relationship between the two structures of narcissism and egoism in the sense that the former is a libidinal complement of the latter. And on the other hand, it will touch on the oppositional relationship between the two structures of egoism and altruism where the latter is explained in terms of a nullified longing for sexual satisfaction, hence its conformity with libidinal object-cathexis in the state of (heterosexual) love. Accordingly, the exposition will underline the expression of sexual overvaluation which is intrinsic to altruism in the same state with respect to the two contrasting types of object-choice (the anaclitic versus the narcissistic), and is therefore comparable with the symptom of megalomania that is indicative of forms of functional psychosis such as schizophrenia, especially when the symptom is modified by the subject’s adherence to word-presentation rather than object-presentation –whether this latter object is a person or a thing.

By highlighting the close resemblance between Freud’s psychical dichotomy ‘word-object’ and de Saussure’s structural-linguistic dichotomy ‘signifier-signified’, the exposition will make the first analogy between schizophrenia and agnomenosis by which the two psychopathologies converge in the presentational nature of the signifier (the word and the agnomen, respectively), and diverge in the distribution of narcissistic libido with regard to repression as a defensive procedure. Moreover, within the anthropological and psychological conceptions of fetishism, the distinctive aspect of the inherent sexual perversion in the psychological conception will be characterized by the symptom of obsessiveness. Hence, the second analogy between fetishism and agnomenosis will be made on the basis whereby the two psychopathologies agree in the compulsive import of the symptom in question, and disagree in the type of object-choice (the anaclitic versus the narcissistic) as well as the kind of sexual overvaluation (the active versus the passive). This dual analogy will lead to the identification of the clinical structure of agnomenosis with the two (sets of) symptoms of megalomania and obsessiveness, thereby identifying the acquired agnomen under consideration, which is quite bastardized in nature, as a manifestation of what will be termed, the ‘manic-obsessive signifier’ (in contradistinction to Lacan’s notion of the ‘master signifier’). Finally, the dual analogy will also lead to the designation of at least three generalized categories of agnomenosis as a clinical structure: ‘agnomenosis of professionalism’, ‘agnomenosis of factionalism’, and ‘agnomenosis of authoritarianism’. These three generalized categories will, therefore, be discussed and exemplified by drawing on factual observations both in the so-called ‘developed society’ and the so-called ‘underdeveloped society’.

Within the inevitable constitution of the ego, the (desiring) subject seeks to actively orientate a considerable magnitude of the libidinal energy which exists at his or her disposal towards the destined object of desire (be it a person or a thing) for the attainment of sexual satisfaction in the first place. This active orientation of libidinal energy is, at bottom, governed by narcissistic motivation which is, in and of itself, an innocuous character trait in the normal course of psychical development. In the abnormal course of such development, however, the narcissistic impulses tend to emerge far more perniciously when the libido in question is withdrawn from the destined object of desire, thus undergoing a passive (or rather reflexive) orientation towards the (desiring) subject’s own ego.[2] Freud himself differentiates between two generalized categories of narcissism as a psychical structure, primary narcissism and secondary narcissism, with the perceivable similitude between the two, moreover, suggesting a rather recalcitrant aura of self-centeredness where either category is related to the designated meaning of ‘self-love’ in one form or another. Yet it is the first category of narcissism which seems to approximate this designated meaning more closely than the second category, and thus the intended love of self that is prioritized over the love of others may well act as a psychical precondition for at least one kind of ‘sexual perversion’ or even other kinds of ‘sexual disorder’, as pointed out by Freud restating psychopathologists like Ellis, Näcke and Sadger (see, for instance, Freud, 1914:65; 1916-7:465). It appears, therefore, that both of these sexual ‘abnormalities’ (or ‘aberrations’) originate from narcissism as the universal state of things, a primordial affective condition which does give rise to the aforesaid love of the other (but only later), without the narcissistic impulsion vanishing by necessity.

Although both sexual ‘abnormalities’ (or ‘aberrations’) are explained in terms of the libidinal energy that is reflexively directed towards the desired object, they are clearly distinguished by the internal and external nature of such reflexivity, respectively. Whereas a typical example of the ‘sexual perversion’ refers to the tendency of a narcissist who treats his or her own body as if it were the body of the normal object of desire (in which case the tendency would be described as an auto-erotic one), a characteristic example of the ‘sexual disorder’ points to the propensity of a narcissist who regards the body of another narcissist of the same sex as though it were the body of his or her normal object of desire (in which case the propensity would be identified as a homosexual one). In either case of sexual ‘abnormality’ (or ‘aberration’), a quantum of libidinal intersubjectivity manifests itself on the psychical threshold of egoism (or even solipsism), a threshold which, in turn, reveals itself most predominantly in the (normal) state of sleeping where an emulation of intrauterine existence is compulsorily and repetitively conjured up, as will be seen later in the exposition. But insofar as the object of desire is libidinally externalized, as in the latter case of sexual ‘abnormality’ (or ‘aberration’), narcissism is more likely considered to be entering into the less primitive phase of its development.

The second category of narcissism (secondary narcissism), on the other hand, is much easier to discern: the ego and the id are no longer as undifferentiated as they would be under the genesis of primary (or, rather, primitive) narcissism, and the designated meaning of ‘self-love’ is derived from the subject’s impulsive identification with the (external) object of desire as an essentially defensive demeanour whereby the former is induced to disavow the forfeiture of the libido that is associated with the latter. Secondary narcissism, from this viewpoint, is contemporaneous with the formation of the ego through such impulsive identification, and the ‘secondary’ description of its self-love implication can be seen in the retrieval of the libido (which is originally inducted into the ego) from the impulsively identified object of desire. As discussed in a previous article, any amount of libido that is incorporated into a person or a thing (i.e. object-libido) would ultimately be amalgamated into the ego (i.e. ego-libido), thereby resulting in the duplicate proclivity for the enlargement of the infant’s self-awareness (which may itself culminate in self-love) at the one extreme, and the circumscription of his or her emotional affiliation (or libidinal tie) with the parent at the other extreme (see el-Marzouk, 2008a; 2008b).

On such a basis, and by drawing an analogy from the organic world, what appears to be, the ‘extrinsic’ correlation between ego-libido and object-libido may well be juxtaposed with the ‘intrinsic’ correlation between the simplest living organism in this world (i.e. the amoeba) and those unauthentic protrusions or protuberances it constantly and incessantly  formulates (i.e. the pseudopodia). Just as an amount of the protoplasm is flown through these pseudopodia while its main substance remains in the amoeba’s main body, a magnitude of the libido is emitted towards the object (or objects) of desire while its principal assemblage tarries in the ego’s principal abode. Thus, in the normal course of psychical development, there exists no impediment to the possible transformation of ego-libido into object-libido, nor is there any (undesirable) hindrance to the restoration of the libidinal energy that has been actively orientated towards the latter to the ego itself (see Freud, 1914:68; 1916-7:465f.).

With this biological analogy in mind, it would be reasonable to suggest that the ego under the genesis of secondary narcissism, in particular, is forced willy-nilly to stand on a quite precarious interface between the normal conservation of proper self-esteem and the abnormal (or, rather, pathogenic) disposition towards the improper overestimation of the self, a disposition which can only be psychologically sensitized (and therefore socially automatized) through a destructive amalgamation of the subject’s dispirited sense of identity and the nonsensically grandiose and grandiloquent nature of the system of government which manifests itself in the well known institutions (such as, the family, the school, and the state). Since the destructive amalgamation, from this standpoint, is perceived to be a proactively coercive relationship between the ruling (communal) authority as a ‘patriarchal whole’ and the ruled individual as a ‘filial part’, it can also be diachronically traced back to the infantile constitution of such ruling authority. That is to say, the destructive amalgamation, from the same perspective, is understood to be a retroactively oppressive relationship between the so-called ‘developing societies’ and the so-called ‘developed societies’, especially in the aftermath of any form of colonialism (or imperialism) that has been actually practised by some of the latter against the majority of the former.

Given the subject’s retrieval of libidinal energy from the impulsively identified object of desire, its ‘recathexis’ (or reinvestment) in the ego circumscribes narcissism with an egoistic emanation where the subject is unflaggingly beguiled under the delusion that the external world exists exclusively for his or her own advantage or even wish-fulfillment (as in the extreme case of solipsism). Hence, narcissism can be ‘behaviourally’ separated from egoism in terms of the libido theory in the sense that the former is characterized as the libidinal (or, rather, libidinized) consummation of the latter, notwithstanding the possibility of further ‘behavioural’ separation between these two psychical structures. It is possible for the subject to be categorically egoistic but, nonetheless, harbouring a nonnarcissistic predilection for the cathexis (or investment) of libidinal energy in the object (or objects) of desire. In this case, the nonnarcissistic predilection may be consolidated far more intensely so long as the fundamental satisfaction of the object’s need constitutes part of the subject’s need itself, and insofar as the compulsion to maintain such satisfaction does not entail any affective damage to the ego. However, it is also possible for the subject to be categorically egoistic whilst at the same time accommodating a hypernarcissistic inclination towards the ‘decathexis’ (or ‘deinvestment’) of libidinal energy from the object (or objects) of desire. As such, the hypernarcissistic inclination may be fortified to the extent that the subject would have very little need for the same object (or objects) of desire, whether the need in question be generated for the purpose of purely sexual gratification or, on the contrary, be engendered for the sake of highly nonsensual aspiration, with this latter alternative being derived from the subject’s (basic) need under the banner of heterosexual love.

From this ‘behavioural’ separation between the two psychical structures, it can be perceived (albeit not easily) that egoism is the incontrovertible and constant structure, whereas narcissism is the controvertible and variable counterpart (see Freud, 1916-7:467). And given the analogous distinction between the id and the ego (where the former is a constant entity and the latter is a variable one, too), it can be perceived more transparently that egoism establishes a much closer tie with the id than it does with the ego, while the reverse is true for narcissism (see, also, el-Marzouk, 2008a; 2008b). This indicates that it is egoism (rather than narcissism) which abides by the laws of the pleasure principle much more submissively than it does by those of the reality principle, an excessively obsequious manner which is typical of the ‘civilized’ and ‘modern’ man (especially the extremely docile ‘academic’ who is institutionalized by means of some form of opportunism or even nepotism), and thus procreates the most primitive incarnation of the oral phase during the infantile phases of libidinal and ego development. If it is true that the oral phase predominates over the psychical structure of the suborder Anthropoidea for the development of the ego itself, then the sustained egoism of the uncivilized and age-old anthropoid would be far less malignant and baleful than the maintained egoism of the ‘civilized’ and ‘modern’ man –just as the heteronomous infant’s apparently obsessive concentration on material and/or emotional possessiveness is much more instinctive and congenital, and is therefore far more innocent and benign than that of the ‘autonomous’ adult.

As mentioned at the outset of this part, one abnormal manifestation of (primary) narcissism is the impulsive proneness towards auto-erotism, an instinctual structure which is characterized by a connate nature, a persistent, self-concatenate conatus in Spinoza’s sense, not to speak of the connate-acquired qualities of the ego. With the psychical mechanisms that underlie narcissism in mind, there must be something supplemented to auto-erotism (after birth), something acquired as a new psychical activity under such conatus in order to effectuate, and thence activate, those mechanisms (see Freud, 1914:69). Thus, so far as the development of the ego is concerned, the ‘successful’ endeavour to gratify the impulsive proneness towards auto-erotism takes place at the earliest phase of such development by means of an instinctual (or instinct-) component known as passive scopophilia, a component which paves the way for the later inception of its antithetical counterpart, active scopophilia, particularly when the psychical structure of narcissism is entirely depleted of its libidinal content. It follows that the reversed transformation of active scopophilia into passive scopophilia, which is similar, in principle, to the inverted transmutation of (active) sadism into (passive) masochism, necessitates the inescapable recrudescence of the narcissistic object on the one hand, and the inextricable replacement of the narcissistic subject by an alter (extraneous) ego on the other hand, with the replacing ego, moreover, being acquired through impulsive identification (see, also, Freud, 1915a:129).

This means that the transformed passive scopophile (or the transmuted (passive) masochist, for that matter) entertains what may be called an overlibidinized narcissism, a psychical structure which does result from the superimposition of secondary narcissism upon primary narcissism, but whose highly destructive mission is to consummate (or, rather, contaminate) egoism with its overlibidinization, thus culminating, as it does transitively, in the overaggressification of its psychical structure (i.e. that of egoism). The antithetical counterpart of egoism is, of course, altruism, a further psychical structure which is distinguished from all other categories and subcategories of narcissism by one of two (nondestructive) characteristics, at the very least, that may ultimately entail the same affective attitude: firstly, the perceived absence of the libidinal energy which is to be invested in the object (or objects) of desire for the attainment of sexual satisfaction proper; and secondly, the perceivable presence of a psychologically and/or socially determined propensity for the desexualization of the libidinal energy in question under the aegis of ‘sublimation’, which is itself a developmental process (see, also, note 2).  

With regard to the normal state of being in love, however, the psychical structure of altruism seems to operate in parallel with the one that emanates from the (normally) invested libidinal energy, thereby converging with it in a unified psychical structure which cannot be differentiated even if the amorous longing for sexual gratification comes to a climax. In such a state, the object of desire tends to attract a given proportion of the subject’s pent-up narcissism, a proportion whose egoistic equivalent acts as an essential precondition for the sexual overvaluation of the former (that is performed by the latter). This signifies that the altruistic transposition of egoism will generate in the object of desire a delusional feeling of immense grandeur, as can be clearly seen from a love poem written by Goethe in his Westöstlicher Diwan [West Eastern Divan]. In this stanza, Hatim, the lover, appears to ruminate about his beloved Zuleikha in an amatory dialogue between the two (cited in Freud, 1916-7:468) (Notice, here, that James Strachey, the chief translator of Freud’s complete works into English, cites the English version of this stanza from Ernest Dowden’s translation, West Eastern Divan, 1914):

     Wie sie sich an mich verschwendet,
     Bin ich mir ein wertes Ich;
     Haette sie sich weggewendet,
     Augenblicks verloer ich mich.

     (Does she expend her being on me,
     Myself grows to myself of cost;
     Turns she away, then instantly
     I to my very self am lost)

[End of Part 1, to be continued]

*** *** ***

References

Adonis (Ali Ahamad Said) (1989): كلام البدايات [The Beginnings of Arabic Poetics]. Beirut: Daar al-Aadaab.

Darwish, Mahmoud (2004): طباق [Counterpoint]. al-Karmel, 81:68-79.

Dennett, Daniel (1991): Consciousness Explained. Penguin Books (1993).

Freud, Sigmund (1900): The Interpretation of Dreams. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 4.

Freud, Sigmund (1905a): Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 7.

Freud, Sigmund (1905b): Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 8.

Freud, Sigmund (1908): Character and anal erotism. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 7.

Freud, Sigmund (1914): On narcissism: An introduction. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 11.

Freud, Sigmund (1915a): Instincts and their vicissitudes. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 11.

Freud, Sigmund (1915b): Repression. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 11.

Freud, Sigmund (1915c): The unconscious. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 11.

Freud, Sigmund (1915d): Thoughts for the times on war and death. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 12.

Freud, Sigmund (1916-7): Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 1.

Freud, Sigmund (1917): A metapsychological supplement to the theory of dreams. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 11.

Freud, Sigmund (1923): The Ego and the Id. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 11.

Freud, Sigmund (1930): Civilization and its Discontents. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 12.

Freud, Sigmund (1932): The acquisition and control of fire. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 13.

Fromm, Erich (1950): Psychoanalysis and Religion. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Fromm, Erich (1976): To Have or To Be. Continuum (1997).

al-Hakeem, Tawfiq (1938): تحت شمس الفكر [Under the Sun of Thought]. Cairo: Daar Mişr.

al-Hakeem, Tawfiq (1974): عودة الوعي [The Return of Consciousness]. Cairo: Daar al-Shuruuq.

Lacan, Jacques (1953): Some reflections on the ego. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34:11-17.

Lacan, Jacques (1966a): Écrits: A Selection. Trans. A. Sheridan. London: Routledge (1997).

Lacan, Jacques (1966b): Écrits. Trans. B. Fink. New York: Norton (2006).

Lacan, Jacques (1972-3): The Seminar. Book XX. Encore: On Feminine Sexuality, The Limits of Love and Knowledge. Trans. B. Fink. New York: Norton (1998).

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2007a): الدمج [Identification]. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2007b): Identification. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2008a): الأنا [The ego]. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2008b): The ego. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2009a): المسند إليه [The subject]. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2009b): The subject. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2009c): الدال [The signifier]. Damascus: Maaber.

el-Marzouk, Ghiath (2009d): The signifier. Damascus: Maaber.

Orwell, George (1958): The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters: My Country Right or Left 1940-1943. Penguin Books (1982), vol. 2.

Said, Edward (1992): The Question of Palestine. London: Vintage.

Said, Edward (1994a): The Politics of Dispossession: The Struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination 1969-1994. London: Chatto & Windus.

Said, Edward (1994b): Representations of the Intellectual. London: Vintage.

Žižek, Slavoj (2006): Lacan. London: Granta Books.