Читать книгу The Handbook of Solitude - Группа авторов - Страница 61

As described above, in Freudian theory the initial state of the human being is that of autoerotism and primary narcissism. The stimulus barrier seems to be the mechanism that ensures the preservation of this way of being. Freud (1920/1955a) first described the stimulus barrier as an innate organization that functioned as “a protective shield against stimuli” (p. 27) in the neonate. This protection against noxious, overwhelming stimuli is regarded as a more important function for the vulnerable neonate than the reception of stimuli.

Freud (1920/1955a) has ascribed a biological‐neurological character to this metaphor. He regarded it as a sensory and perceptual threshold for incoming stimuli, an external membrane, under which other, deeper layers exist. The stimulus barrier is the forerunner of an intermediary between the id and the external world, which later came to be called the ego. Therefore, the stimulus barrier is a threshold for internal stimuli too. Tension is reduced and homeostasis is maintained through this barrier.

However, this merging of biological and psychological concepts has led to some confusion about the stimulus barrier (Esman, 1983). Daniel Stern (1985/2000) was critical toward this concept because Freud had placed it in the framework of autoerotism and primary narcissism, a conceptualization that Stern disputed. Other writers from the psychoanalytic field have reformulated the concept. According to Esman (1983), the stimulus barrier is “an innate, selective, maturing screening mechanism” (p. 204), an active mechanism with a dual self‐regulatory function: (i) to accept stimuli of certain kind and intensity and (ii) to ward off other stimuli, according to the degree to which these contribute to the adaptation of the organism. In this regard, the stimulus barrier seeks to preserve optimal stimulation (Esman, 1983; Gediman, 1971). This means that the infant both seeks and avoids stimuli. The avoidance of stimuli is facilitated through this innate, idiosyncratic organization and through the protection provided by the mother, who seems to function as a stimulus barrier herself (Benjamin, 1965; Khan, 1963). Search for stimuli promotes attachment and avoidance of stimuli is the forerunner of defenses and individuation (Shapiro & Stern, 1980) – one could also add here of the capacity to be alone. The stimulus barrier is regarded by many to be present throughout life and to evolve from a more passive mechanism into a complex ego function (Furst, 1978; Gediman, 1971). This means that throughout life the individual is well‐equipped when he/she needs to minimize internal and external distractions and achieve a level of self‐regulation, all of them necessary for being able, on his/her own, to deal with challenges and vicissitudes or engage in various forms of creative activities.

A breach in the stimulus barrier, caused by the penetration of stimuli, may be called trauma. However, trauma can be the result both of overwhelming excitation and of stimulation deprivation. Both situations can be acute or chronic, as well as cumulative. Stimulus infatuation and stimulus hunger are the two sides of the same coin: whereas the individual wishes to reduce the effect of a stimulus, he/she continually searches for new similar stimuli. What is usually avoided is the human relation in favor of other stimuli. Thus, the individual’s inability to feel satisfied, fed, when on his/her own may stem not only from deprivation and from a strong stimulus barrier but also from chronic overload and a weak stimulus barrier (Gediman, 1971). Withdrawal, in the form of a better‐be‐alone‐than tactic, emerges then as a defensive response, and in Freudian terms, may be regarded as an expression of secondary narcissism (discussed above). In light of the aforementioned text, the simultaneous desire and aversion toward stimulation (i.e., craving to escape solitude while struggling to protect it) becomes a less‐puzzling paradox.