Cathexis
Recently in talking to someone about a troubling situation they had, I recalled a hypothesis I had once developed. I spent too much time late at night hunting for the file in which I had written it out, so I'll put it here for safekeeping.
"The Road Less Traveled" says that infatuation is sometimes referred to academically with the word "cathexis," which means a softening of boundaries between identities. An infant, for instance, is still developing concepts of itself and the world being independent things. In its mind, they are submerged in each other. This is complete cathexis. The interests of the object of cathexis are difficult to distinguish from one's own interests. This explains why people abuse those they are in love with more easily than strangers, and sacrifice more for them as well. Teenagers are prone to enter states of mild cathexis, which we call infatuation, more easily than adults because they are separating their self-image from their parents and have not yet formed a clear idea of who they want to be.
But adults reinvent themselves as well. For a story containing an example which I found plausible, see the short science fiction story "Fossil Games" by Tom Purdom.
I have an unproven anecdotal hypothesis that a person's view of someone transforms into an infatuation when they are going through an identity shift and the object of infatuation somehow represents the new identity they intend to build. (This can also explain why people sometimes join cults during radical life transitions or in a new environment.) Does this jive with your observations of yourself or those around you?
Comments
eternalmaiden on Nov. 2, 2005 8:07 PM
I think this could have been almost the entire basis of my last relationship. I think I loved her so much, so fast because I want to cultivate in myself a lot of her personality traits. I hadn't thought of it that way at all. As soon as I read this, it kind of clicked. So take that as you may.
sarahmichigan on Nov. 2, 2005 8:37 PM
This matches up with a theory in counseling psychology that when people commit marital infidelity, especially during a "midlife crisis," they often pick someone to have the affair with who embodies character traits that the cheater wants for him/herself.
rachelann1977 on Nov. 2, 2005 9:34 PM
In a lot of ways, I would say that I am trying to reinvent myself using Chuck as a model now.
In my case, I don't consider this unhealthy. I think the value of this practice must be determined on case-by-case basis, if you will. I have a really hard time socially. Chuck does, too, but not anywhere near as much as I do. So I am following his lead in terms of finding ways to be involved with people who share my interests, and trying to be less self-critical when things don't work out like I'd hoped.
I think his lack of social anxiety is part of what attracted me to him in the first place.
Still, there's a saying in psychology that every disorder is merely an exaggeration of normal behavior. I think you're on to something, but you've yet to define at what point such behavior becomes "disordered" as opposed to the way people normally seek mates. What makes the difference between infatuation and love?
matt-arnold on Nov. 2, 2005 10:12 PM
That depends solely on how one defines "love." For me, people can can feel affection, lust, or camaraderie toward each other, or they can simply want what's best for each other, or any combination of the above. But I believe cathexis is what makes a person go beyond those categories of closeness and say they are "in" love.
After all, what are the characteristics? Difficulty with objectivity with a minimization of the negative and a focus on the positive. When the boundary between self and other partially blurs around the edges, they even go so far as to say in some traditional wedding ceremonies that they are "one flesh."
That's why I don't see anything disordered about it as long as the person experiencing it realizes what's going on. Bad cases are those lacking in self-awareness who start believing their feelings of love as if it were a reliable source of accurate truth claims about their loved one and their own future feelings. They don't realize that just like any brain chemistry, it's going to wear off.
Instead, I encourage people to just experience this state of consciousness as one might experience chemical substances or transcendental meditative states of consciousness. I've never smoked weed but from what I hear of it you don't want to believe what weed tells you either. I think people should just enjoy infatuation as a form of recreation, and for the valuable social benefit it provides, and not allow it access to the filing cabinet in one's head marked "facts."
rachelann1977 on Nov. 2, 2005 10:29 PM
I totally agree with that. However, I also do not think of this experience as something one should take on as lightly as taking a hit of a joint.
We are talking about making a major life change. That is something you should go into with full knowledge, and probably not try to do too often.
Anonymous on Nov. 2, 2005 10:37 PM
"That is something you should go into with full knowledge, and probably not try to do too often."
That sounds like taking a hit of a joint, which I personally find a very scary concept. Remember, you're talking about a guy whose strongest mind-altering substance is caffiene, never had a taste of alcohol until age 29, and has never smoked a cigarette.
Besides, love does not always result in a life change. Remember, nobody said anything about the other person also feeling this experience and reciprocating. In addition, I have found that love is not scary at all when know it's just a chemical that's going to go away. "Just experience it and don't believe it" can mean "don't actually do anything about your feelings, just feel them."
rachelann1977 on Nov. 2, 2005 11:27 PM
Do you really think love is just a chemical that's going to go away?
I don't think love is scary, I just take it seriously. I will agree that it is not necessary that people always take love so seriously, though. Anyway, I am, in general, too serious most of the time. I can admit to that much.
matt-arnold on Nov. 3, 2005 12:32 AM
Affection, friendship, understanding, or wanting what's best for another person are not simplistic chemical reactions. They are also forms of "love" depending on how one defines it. My own philosophy (your mileage may vary) is that people change and relationships change with them, so these forms transition from one into another and that's the only way to keep a relationship going for decades. I was referring to cathexis specifically -- that is the most short-lived form of love. The feeling of one-ness makes it easier to treat another person as if they are one's own self. That's why the start of a new relationship so effortless compared to the effort of actually sustaining it. Unhealthy relationship expectations are based solely on the rose-colored glasses of a beautiful and precious chemical influence. It is all-encompassing of the springtime of the universe and everything in it from now unto eternity, and therefore simplistic. Healthy expectations, IMO, enjoy that rose-colored feeling but bear in mind the reality of change.
amanda_lodden on Nov. 3, 2005 3:41 PM
Of course love is a chemical. When it comes down to it, everything about all human beings is chemical. The interactions between the different atoms (or pieces of atoms, in the case of the electrical signals that power our nerves) is what makes us go.
And while love between two people may or may not go away, it will certainly change. We are the product of our previous experiences. I am not exactly the same person that I was yesterday, because I have an extra day's worth of experiences and emotions that make up "me". The same is true of my husband. To expect that we will both grow and change in ways that mesh together perfectly is absurd. Sometimes that growth brings two people closer together. Sometimes it takes them further apart. Most times it does both.
In answer to Matt's original question, I do think that a lot of people develop an infatuation with someone who embodies qualities they'd like to have themselves. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing though, unless it's taken to extremes; if you were to sit down and make a list of all the things you'd like in your ideal mate, you'd probably find that the list has a lot of qualities that you respect and admire. And ultimately, we want to be able to respect and admire ourselves-- if we don't, we end up with huge confidence problems. Infatuations based on those qualities are not terribly problematic unless:
1. The object of the infatuation also has a lot of qualities that you actively dislike, but which you are ignoring because you're focusing on the good qualities. If you're trying to cultivate those good qualities in yourself by being with this person, you're likely going to pick up some of the bad qualities too.
2. The infatuation interferes with you living the rest of your life. Certainly you're going to have a little of that "blending of self" because of the infatuation, but if you leave your spouse to run after someone just because you want to be a better person, you probably need to take a step back and re-evaluate what "a better person" really means to you. And possibly whether you and your spouse have outgrown each other.
rachelann1977 on Nov. 3, 2005 4:43 PM — it's a gestalt thing
Being a medical student, I have to agree with most of what you said. However, I also know that the mind-body connection is extremely complex, and that every interaction that happens inside of our bodies every second involves thousands of chemicals, at a minimum.
We try to symplify things by refering to the outward results of these interactions on a more long-term scale.
Also, everything we experience happens as a result of all of these interactions, combined with whatever is happening external to our bodies, and how we perceive that, etc.
However, when you put it all together, it seems to me that the whole is still greater than the sum of the parts.
matt-arnold on Nov. 3, 2005 4:49 PM
In answer to Matt's original question, I do think that a lot of people develop an infatuation with someone who embodies qualities they'd like to have themselves."
No, I thought that was a given. My question had to do with change. My hypothesis could be stated inversely: that when someone has an extremely firm self-labeling, and solid sense of who they are, they are not as likely to feel strong romantic feelings as they are during periods of intense change.
amanda_lodden on Nov. 3, 2005 8:34 PM
Ahh. No, I disagree on the inverse version-- just because you have a solid sense of who you are does not necessarily mean that you're not looking to be better. It's not how well you know yourself that leads to those types of infatuations, it's how well you like yourself. Or rather, how much improvement you think you need (since there are a fair number of people who do not like themselves but do not see any need to try to improve themselves).
And, to expand the thought a bit, it's not necessarily even how much you like yourself, it's how much you like your life. I like *me* a great deal, but there are certain pieces of my life that I'm tolerating for the long-term effect and hate immensely in the short-term (namely, running a business with my husband, and anything remotely resembling home remodeling). When those pieces of my life take the front burner, I've been known to be briefly infatuated with someone. In my case it's almost always an "escape" fantasy-- running away with the Object of Infatuation Du Jour includes running away from those hated pieces of life, too.
(You did ask if your original question jived with our observations, which is why I did not assume it was a given.)
zifferent on Nov. 3, 2005 8:46 PM
In that case, I would have to say no, I don't agree with that statement.
From my point of view it would be just as likely that someone with a strong sense of self is as succeptible to falling in love, and it would lead to one of two different scenarios:
1.) The strong personality falls in love with someone with a weaker sense of self and dominates the relationship.
2.) The strong personality runs up against a stronger personallity which completely dissolves the original strong personality ending up in identity crises.
Falling in love is such a chaotic thing that I don't think any model can accurately predict the probability of one person falling in love with another.
I also think that part of the issue here is the mixing up of different models of behavior and the world, and the confusion that ensues from that.
phecda on Nov. 2, 2005 9:50 PM
A good match up includes someone whose traits complement yours, so yes, this makes sense on some levels, at least so far as attraction goes. People who are too similar don't make good life partners, if all your strengths and weaknesses are the same. Still, I don't think it explains everything involved with attraction -- what about parental role models, physical preferences, etc.? This sounds more like the root causes of idolization.
treebones on Nov. 2, 2005 10:31 PM
It isn't actually a requirement, but the risk of it happening *is* significantly higher.
Leave a Comment