In a 1986 interview with Didier Cahen, Jacques Derrida said,
“Narcissism! There is not narcissism and non-narcissism; there are narcissisms that are more or less comprehensive, generous, open, extended. What is called non-narcissism is in general but the economy of a much more welcoming, hospitable narcissism, one that is much more open to the experience of the other as other. I believe that without a movement of narcissistic re-appropriation, the relation to the other would be absolutely destroyed; it would be destroyed in advance. The relation to the other – even if it remains asymmetrical, open, without possible re-appropriation – must trace a movement of re-appropriation in the image of oneself for love to be possible, for example. Love is narcissistic. Beyond that, there are little narcissisms, there are big narcissisms, and there is death in the end, which is the limit. Even in the experience – if there is one – of death, narcissism does not absolutely abdicate its power.”
Jacques Derrida
As you know narcissism is generally understood as an exceptional interest in and admiration for oneself.
I am still wrapping my head around protentional implications of what I hear Derrida seeking to describe. Yet I think I’m resonating with Derrida’s emphasis that love (of another, even and especially kenotic or self-emptying love) is requires self-love. However, as I understand narcissism, it has a self-obsessive quality which is unchanged by the other… what do you think?
Love as seen in Jesus sacrifices everything for another which is for self, this appears to me to be a key piece to aid us in appreciating Trinitarian selflove, or perichoresis. The Father empties self in love of the Son and the Spirit, the Son empties self in love of the Father and Spirit, the Spirit empties self in love of Father and Son, and in so doing, simultaneously each “person” and the Divine ethos is exalted.
Peace, dwight
