Hi Mary,

The two original papers on the manic defense are Melanie Klien's and D.W. Winnicott's, both written in the 1930's.  (I can give you the exact references when I am at home, if you wish.)  Winnicott says that the manic defense "belongs to the depressive position," by which he means that it is a defense against loss and the mourning process (like turning 9/11 into a mobilization of fantasies of omnipotence).  In a piece forthcoming in Psychoanalytic Dialogues, I speculate further about the links begween contemporary manic defences and the theoretical concepts developed in the 1930's.  The forthcoming issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues is devoted to "The Manic Society."

  --Best, Murray


> ----------
> From:         Mary Elkins
> Sent:         Thursday, January 20, 2005 8:26 AM
> To:   Institute for Psychological Study of the Arts
> Subject:      Re: Fw: [Fwd: Spider-Man and a general question]
>
> Hi, Dan,
>
> For the sake of the non-analysts here:  is the 'manic defense' a defense against grief? loss? A refusal to accept loss?  Or is the guilt -- the product of the false, or over-blown sense of responsibility (false self) -- blocking the normal grieving process, hence the mania?
>
> I'm trying to follow the cause-and-effect relationships.
>
> Mary Ellen
>
>
> "Murray M.Schwartz" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>       From: "Daniel Sapen"
>       Subject: Re: [Fwd: Spider-Man and a general question]
>
>
>       Jack
>
>       Boy oh boy - if you hum a few bars I can fake it. A passing reaction,
>       and it seems to make a lot of sense now.
>
>       There' a host of connections that come to mind, both in the Kleinian
>       and Fairbairnian senses and in the more conventional induced mania of
>       stimulant use. Peter is racked with guilt about his grandfather's
>       death; he does not feel up to the task of caring for his aunt, caring
>       for the city, the sacrifices of his special infection/gift; his job,
>       school, etc. Everyone and everything demands of him both what he is
>       best suited to do, given his new condition, and what is sure to deplete
>       him; he may be a hero, but his few failures and almosts can only recap
>       the fatal insufficiency (in fantasy, as he was not really "responsible"
>       except via being not-enough, not on time) that led to his uncle's
>       death.
>
>       His is the Drama of the Gifted Child, in a twisted sense; his false
>       self is also his fate, come to him after a life of ordinariness. He
>       looks like a coke or amphetamine user - bleary eyed, more and more
>       frazzled and out of it, as he works all the more frantically to get the
>       pictures of himself that will let him keep the job that will pay for
>       school, care for Aunt and self, subsidize his super-hero efforts (upon
>       which he depends for his job at the paper) - and so on. He becomes
>       reluctantly addicted to his Spider-powers, without which no other
>       aspect of his life can carry on - or so it seems. This is a neat
>       application of the manic defense - not for the "high of cocaine, nor
>       for grandiosity - the latter obviating the jungian sense of "inflation"
>       that would entail a syntonic identification with the powers - he seems
>       just tired of it, not revve! d. I think the power of the movie and the
>       character is that he seemed ill-at-ease with his abilities except in
>       the swoop and gymnastics, which would quickly yield to a look of tired
>       resignation. Arachnoid, all-too-human. Rather than reveling in the
>       fantasy, the doomed inflation, Peter takes on more and more because of
>       the impending sense of collapse, which has a realistic (!) dimension:
>       too much is at stake if any piece of the puzzle falls out. Be all you
>       can be, all the time - its too much.
>
>       So - defensive mania, driven by the need to repair, both concretely and
>       via the proxies of his Aunt, Mary Jane (god forbid he take his eye off
>       the ball long enough to be a real boy with her) and the whole city.>
>
>       Just a thought.
>
>       Dan
>       On Jan 19, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Murray M.Schwartz wrote:
>
>       >
>       > From: J. R. Raper
>       > Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: Spider-Man and a general question]
>       >
>       > DS,
>       > Could you say more about the! manic defense of SpM? It seemed to me an
>       > extreme fantasy of adolescent inflation or grandiosity, all that
>       > flying about compensating for his family and social situations. It
>       > was fun, of course--esp. sitting in the 2nd row in front of a very
>       > wide screen in a theater filled with folks under 25. The guy seemed
>       > invulnerable, another grandiose fantasy, it turns out. The parallel
>       > you suggested seems extremely apt for a number of reasons, including
>       > the inflation and illusions about pain.
>       > Jack
>       > ----- Original Message -----
>       > From: Murray M.Schwartz
>       > To: [log in to unmask]
>       > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:50 AM
>       > Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Spider-Man and a general question]
>       >
>       >
>       > From: [log in to unmask]
>       > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Spider-Man and a general question]
>       >
>       >
>       > I like it! I was struck by similar themes in the film.
>       >
>       > How about the manic! defense in SpM and GWB? The first is a
>       > conveniently fictional manic defense - it works - in the form of
>       > weightless-supersticky-really fast and strong; GWB in the
>       > Pangloss/Machiavelli lovechild need to put a positive spin on each and
>       > every bit of news; the renunciation of all accountability, and the
>       > refusal to acknowledge even partial failures.
>       >
>       > Peter Parker, at least, managed to document actual achievements, and
>       > refused to give himself a vacation, much less multi-million dollar
>       > parties, or medals of deity to his cohorts. SpM was a model of
>       > reparation; GWB, of envy.
>       >
>       > Disclaimer: I believe the myth of the Superhero, free of moral
>       > ambiguity, is alive and kicking/sticking, quite relevant these days.
>       > My comments about the Pres shall be confined to this context only.
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       > DS
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       > ----- Original Message -----
>       >
>       > Fr! om: Norman Holland
>       >
>       > Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:40 pm
>       >
>       > Subject: [Fwd: Spider-Man and a general question]
>       >
>       > > -------- Original Message --------
>       > > Subject: Spider-Man and a general question
>       > > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:37:15 -0000
>       > > From: Terry Burridge
>       > > To: 'Institute for Psychological Study of the Arts'
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > > I posted a question about spider-Man a couple of weeks ago which
>       > > got no
>       > > response. (Which is the privilege of a group, to ignore posts that
>       > > don> '> tspark any interest.) I wasn> '> t sure, though, if my message
>       > > actually got
>       > > through. Most of the postings seem to be a FW.this or FW that. I> '> m
>       > not
>       > > quite clear where new postings to this group come from, or if they
>       > are> > forwards that Norman has seen/ received which he thinks might be of
>       > > general interest. I> '> d appreciate some clarification from somebody,
>       > > please. That> '> s my general point. My second one is to re-post my
>       > > Spider-Man question in the hope that it might spark some interest.
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > > So, my Spider-Man question runs something like this:
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > > It struck me that the recent Spider-Man movie had lots of interesting
>       > > psychological/ emotional overtones. There> '> s the whole issue of
>       > > Masks and
>       > > true identity which echoed Winnicott> '> s work on True and False
>       > > self. Then
>       > > there are Kleinian themes of guilt and Reparation. Peter Parker> '> s
>       > > fosterfather is killed as a result of his inaction in an earlier
>       > > situation.His life as Spider-Man seems to be an attempt to atone
>       > > for t! his mistake.
>       > > Does this have any national connections for America at the moment-
>       > and
>       > > for Bush Jnr.? I can see various other themes, but hoped that a
>       > group,>
>       > > whose remit was to look at a psychological study of the Arts,
>       > > might have
>       > > some thoughts as well. Please don> '> t disappoint me!
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > > Yours
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > > Terry
>       > >
>
>
>