"Attachment to Inanimate Objects".

There is something I found in the internet about..
An abalyse about people attach to dolls.
sorry for the translation..

An interpretation of "The Doll behind the curtain"

Hédieh HOSSEINI


This story written by Sadegh Hedayat is one of the shorter of contemporary Persian literature.
History

The main character - Mehrdad - is a shy boy, submitted, chaste, humble and sad who was born in Tehran. It belongs to a cultured family, but family life, based on agreements oppressive, does not suit him. He prefers reading to friendly meetings, and tends to isolate itself in the closed world of fantasy and dreams. His family considers him as a failure. He is not more attracted by films, representations, and not visit any gallery or museum. He went again in France to continue his studies at the high school internship Louar. However, upon arrival in France, his disappointment was great: he who dreamed of Paris as the city lights is suddenly in a small school fatally sad, basic french class. It therefore leads a life of studying simple and somewhat naive dandy, without knowing the follies of this time in Paris. The looming depression, and yet it is also the first time he feels truly free, independent, far from the torments. He only likes to walk along the Seine in the streets and observe a world that does not own. One day he noticed a porcelain doll in a shop window. He liked her blonde hair, long eyelashes, and the sinuous curves of his body. Its large eyes seemed set Mehrdad invite him to buy it. It was then that rather than focus on Derakhshandeh - his fiancee - he felt in love with the model of porcelain which seemed to embody the archetype of the woman desired and desirable. He returned to Iran in carefully placing the doll in his suitcase. It now has a body to which it gives a unique beauty: it is full of clothes, goes to his fingers rings of precious stones adorning her neck long necklaces ... He places it behind a curtain. From there, her virginal beauty seems that of Derakhshandeh. He therefore decided to baptize in the name of the latter. Every nitght, at home, he drinks every night, and his heart to ignite the body having to touch to make sure it is real or porcelain. He bought a revolver, resigned to kill this body if it comes one day to life. He speaks to her, takes her in his and believes feel the softness of her skin. Derakhshandeh, jealous and hoping to take the place of the doll, decides one day to make up like her. Mehrdad, in his drunkenness, feels the warmth of his lips. Struck with amazement, a lot of panic mixed with horror, he took his gun and kill her.

 

The concept of idealization in the history of the doll behind the curtain

This story addresses the central theme of the process of idealization and its role in the psyche of the individual as an intermediary between the narcissistic and oedipal stage.

The changing face of the idealization.

The term metamorphosis refers to a change in form, erasing a be replaced by a being - which also joined one of the definitions of idealization. The latter assigns to an object, qualities that exist only in the eyes of the subject. Au travers de ce processus, l'objet subit une métamorphose correspondant au désir du sujet. Through this process, the object undergoes a metamorphosis for the desire of the subject. The existence of Mehrdad is before his "encounter" with the doll, mostly dull it is without wife, suffocating in a solitude, and seems to be no distraction. However, the purchase of the doll allows it to acquire a perfect beauty no woman holds, and falls in love with "it". ..He also considers her as a true character: he takes his hands, kisses her and imagine that she responses , speak to him...
This story raises the following questions: what do we idealize? From what? What door does it really to the rank of a model ? What is the origin of idealization? What is the "gain" about a such a mental preparation?

The idealization as a purification of desire.

Mehrdad is dedicated to the admiration of this statue by disgust and contempt for the fairer sex. Anime and intoxicated by a “pure” desire, we see in him an austere detachment from the object.
One can interpret this as an inability to confront the real woman: "He lived without a wife, unmarried. Mehrdad pursues the chimera of the possession of the object of his dreams. He wants his dream comes true. To this end, he rejects the pursuit of desire, with the risks to be involved: the disappointment, accept his own jealousy and the fact that the object loved has itself another object of pleasure, the rage that the object is different from the image projected onto him, the suffering that this internal conflict can lead ... Mehrdad refuses pleasures and prefer stay locked into his "bubble" idealistic.

Idealising means projecting onto reality "ugly" the beauty of an internal representation.

Mehrdad can not invest a real object, he can not believe that a real woman could have features common to the idealized internal image. He prefers to give an object made in the image of the representation that it bears, which it prohibited to have connections with the outside world. With all real women, there is a lacks something to Mehrdad, essential, vital. He refuses to give up an object, it also refused to move his original investment to another external object (his fiancée).

Idealising is imposed on the object synonymy with an internal object.

The possibility of displacement is minimal from Mehrdad. The desired object should be similar, even synonymous with the internal object, original. If this object is finally created, it leads its risk of permanent euphoria. Consequently, the sexual object does not have the status of an object repulsed, but the persistence of an exciting image. What could be the benefit of such a state? It hypothesizes that love is in the position to speak only of the object of his preference, all he feels is related to the object. He speaks always of the other and never of his own impulses.
As a first step, Mehrdad seems not wait for the world outside the object that triggered his passion. He bought the woman he wants in the image of its internal representation, and expects nothing from the real world, it creates itself the only object that can attract.

The idealization immobilizes the object.


By purchasing an inanimate object, an object that meets all their desires related to the perfection and beauty, Mehrdad trying to freeze, making what is eternal life in him and the other to create a monolithic world that has all the appearances of death. The idealization freezes the movement and fate in the appearance and thinks he found a way to escape the degradation of the death.
However, when it uses the tactile sense, Mehrdad faces with the coldness of this "woman" ideal.

The idealization as denial of the reality and the missing.

The idealization is also associated with a devaluation of reality. Mehrdad's terror is that a woman may not be consistent with what it must be towards him, as part of his master-owner. Accept the reality of the other would be to accept the lack and separation. But idealization is to create a situation of conflict where the lack is absent. It encloses the subject in the fascination for a lure, which introduces a dependence proportional to the hope which has been placed in him. Furthermore, this process does not allow the investment or questioning. The idealization is the guarantee that having an object that nothing changes, it is the refusal of a lack in the name of maintaining stability first.

The ideal object does no difference.

Passionated, Mehrdad has all the signs of a love more powerful than him, impatience, compulsion to get close to this model, the control, take ownership. He tends to focus his life around it, to sacrifice all their interests. As an inanimate, it does no resistance, no difference. She did it nor desires, nor subjectivity. As an ideal, it only exists by and in the thoughts of Mehrdad. There is a gap between the Freudian view that the overstatement of the object is associated with a sense of inferiority. Mehrdad's love seems to include the overestimation of the woman but not an inferiority to it (his narcissism is not diminished by the feeling of love). For the narcissistic nuances of this relationship adds a contrast: the need to give, without calculation or expectation of give back.

The idealization is a narcissistic investment of the object.

What interests Mehrdad narcissist is the possession of the object (through the affirmation of its omnipotence, and by the unique beauty and perfection of the doll). The link is established with the narcissistically invested in the other part which has a replacement value, which gives the illusion of a relationship with something original (his fiancée).
In this sense, the idealization provides a bulwark against the original suffering of the loss. It provides a report that reconciles the topic with the exile from paradise, it makes it possible to find a relationship with the woman without the presence of a third party. The purpose this is supposed to be a perfect replica of the image inside. It is an object that fills the waiting, or better, creates the illusion in this, a wait made.

The idealization is also a desire to control.

If there is a request from Mehrdad, it seems frozen by the desire to hold on the partner. What is missing from this relationship is a reciprocal space. The idealized woman is crushed by the projections of man. The participation of the other, its free provision are overwhelmed by the ideal projected. This could be the meaning of the relationship Mehrdad and his beloved frozen porcelain: the woman has to undergo a predetermined pattern. The idealization of the object therefore deny acceptance of any other of the other as she is. In this sense, Mehrdad can not accept the transformation of the statue.

The failure of sublimation?

Tout semble montrer qu'à partir du moment où il s'éprend de ce mannequin, Mehrdâd perd progressivement contact avec la réalité. Everything seems to show only when it becomes this model, Mehrdad gradually loses touch with reality. He created the illusion of a woman's body, reaching his feminine ideal, as opposed to what the women of today.
: His "erotic" delirium is manifested in several stages:
- In a first step, the hesitation between illusion and reality
- Then complete the illusion
- Once installed the illusion, Mehrdad behave with this model as with a living person, speaking to him as a beloved woman
- He offers the first small gifts and presents more valuable

 

But falling in love with a doll, is it the same as falling in love with a bridge or a wall.. Do you think you could marry you doll as a woman did with the Eiffel Tower ?

 

I'm the same way cari! I grew up believing that all my
stuffed animals and other possessions had feeling's
and perhaps even thoughts that I was unaware of.
I blame this on two things, 1: my Mother! because
she's the same way and it definitely rubbed off.
2: Those horrid books like the velveteen rabbit
and Corduroy the bear It took me a long time
before I realized that they left a huge & not very
favorable impression on me. Also I had a very
traumatic event (for a child) in which a very loved
stuffed toy was forced out from my hands and left on
a store dumpster, in the rain no less because it was
deemed "bad" by my grandmother.
So it's been a battle of sorts for most of my life, but
I have realized that while everything has energy that
said energy is not the same as feelings. My old purse
will not cry because I give it away!

All that being said, I find this a very interesting topic.
I've wondered what makes some doll owners, who
give their dolls so much "life" and personality along
with backstories, what then makes them say:
I find that my doll isn't getting enough attention from
me, I hope she/he can find a loving new home"?
To me this is a contradiction." My doll is neglected,
it just sits there (what else is it going to do? )
so I need to get rid of it." Is that an honest thought/comment
or just a way to evoke a feeling out of a potential buyer?
Or a way to not seem like all you want is to get your money
(or more) back?

I also ran across a person on a certain photo sharing
site selling a tiny doll of hers a while back. I peeked
at all of her photostreams, when she first got her doll
and sending it to be modded, all her pics stating how
much she loved her and how she was her "dream" doll
only to then say she decided to sell her after having her
a total of maybe 5 months. I thought it was odd.
Then I saw another photo a bit later , of another tiny she was
claiming was her dream doll and how happy she was...
a few weeks later that "dream doll" was on ebay.
I understand some people need to "bond" with their
doll, but when is a doll just a doll? And not something
you need to feel a certain way about or else it's
pointless to keep it?

I could go on and on, but I'll stop right here.

 

I'm generally not too much of a packrat. I do have some things, mainly certain books that I would hate to lose but other than that, the way my dolls have wound me around their little fingers shocked me. They own me, not vice versa.

Lula - I think owners who say their dolls don't get enough attention and they'd like them to find a new loving home really mean that. If you have lots of dolls for example and you don't really feel much for a certain doll, the doll gets neglected. That does not mean that the owner wouldn't want the doll to be loved, thus selling the doll to someone who would appreciate it to the fullest. Maybe I just see the best in people but that's what I would feel anyway

 

I've always been attached to certain things, like stories I write, characters I make up, stuffed animals and dolls. They always have a personality, and feelings, even though I know that they aren't 'really' real, or living. For the stories that I write, I get so attached to the characters that I can't seem to finish off the story! I just keep going, or else leave it as is, instead of writing the 'last paragraph' or 'last page'.

Though, I have never in any way been attached to something like a pen, eraser, blanket, purse, etc.

 

I think it is very easy to grow attached to something like a doll because they look, well, real! Even though you know your doll is not a living breathing being, you'll still get attached to it. I think if the item has a face with eyes, and a smile, it's all but impossible to not think of it as a friend! This is why I can't eat seafood with the head still attached, or even gingerbread men for that matter! If I'm looking at its face, I can identify with it, and identifying with your food can be a real downer. This is why I STILL have piles of stuffed animals! Curse you Toy Story for making me think toys and the like will be sad if I get rid of them!

 

I've always found attachment to inanimate objects to be easier for me. When I was a little kid, I had almost no concept of empathy for people until I was six or seven, but I would feel bad for toys, cars, electronic devices, furniture, etc. and have attachments to those objects that were stronger than my attachments to people. Now that I'm older, of course, I have developed very strong relationships with people, but I'm still a pack rat and I still get those attachments to objects. I suppose this did help with my bonding with Callahan; when I got him I was going through a very stressful situation, and I preferred seeking comfort in his company than in the company of friends and family (I'm one of those people who doesn't like to cry or break down in front of other people).

 

Cari, this whole question is just fascinating to me. What makes some people attach like that? Why isn't everyone like that? Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met just don't have the gift you're talking about. In order to make the connection between an object and a feeling or personality, you need to have a special kind of creativity -- one that allows you to imagine and project feelings. Part of this process is called anthropomorphosis, but it's really never crossed my mind before to ask what is really behind the fact some people can do it, and some really can't.

Btw, if you have a hard time letting go of objects, it's a good reason to go to a charity with those items, or to sell them to a good home. You can sit down and have a good chat with whatever it is, let it go, and let it move on. Being a packrat can be painful. You don't need to feel like the stuff around you controls you.

Particularly if the stuff around you is a Vesuvia. (You can let go! Really!)

 

This is SO like me!!! (btw, this is a wonderful thread!) I'm very sentimental and overprotective with the things/people I love.

I have a very strong bond with kyoshi, he's like a son to me, he's my baby!! I love him to death and I would totally die if something bad (God forbid) happens to him >__< I realized that this is because I love kids and my main dream is to have a son one day but the doctor told my mom when I was 14 that I couldn't have kids (I had a terrible accident when I was a kid) I'm just 21 but God! I want a baby so bad I know i can't so i put all my love on kyoshi, but that's because he's my ideal doll and i created him to my tastes. he's now complete and thus, he's perfect in my eyes

Still, I know he's a doll and doesn't have the same 'value' (for the lack of a better word) as a human being, my family (especially my mom and little brother) is the most important thing in my life. If I were to have the need to sell my dolls because one of the members of my family needs money or anything, I would sell all my dolls for the sake of them (even kyoshi ) I hope that never happens though!!!

Tsk tsk I know what it means to bond with a doll and what not. I've sold 3 dolls before because i didn't 'click' with them, and i have different bonds with all my boys. Some of them are more important (kyoshi and Dantès) than the others, but I love them all (not equally but you get the point)^^ The same goes for other personal things like my Ipod, I love it because 'he' is always with me. My brother asked me why I don't buy a new one because my ipod is very old and has scratches everywhere. I told him that even if there are better Ipods out there, I would never change mine^^ he's just precious to me!

 

I've been told and saw on the internet people falling in love with objects.. But the objects were the Eiffel tower, the Berlin wall, bridges, bows, cars, etc..
But in fact, there were people only sexually attracted by object, not human being.
This incapacity to bound with people, is, may be, from Asperger syndrom (as they said).

In our case, I don't know if somes are sexually attracted by their dolls but I'd been explained that beeing attached with them is more...weird because of their ressemblance with human people. Thing who make us seems weird to other, as an incapicty to bound with human beings.

 

I have this bad habit of naming everything and giving them personalities, not always distinct ones, but a presence let's say.... the phone, the guitar, the piano, the laptops are all named....it took me three days to turn off the old laptop and use the new one because I just felt SAD (my friends thought it was hilarious)... and once I was involved in a really bad car accident, the entire front end of my car was crushed underneath a pickup truck, I was horrified when I stepped out of the car and then this liquid was on the street, it was reddish (I think it was the oil) and then I was in tears that Maglore (the car) was hurt and 'bleeding'. Again, my brother in law who I called to help me thought it was hilarious after we calmed down after that episode.

When I got the dolls , everyone knew they were instantly going to be personified and given backstories, and ADORED, because if the electronics and such got such treatment from me, then how would the dolls who were lovely and articulate and such a creative outlet for me. It's to an extent that even the people around me don't call them dolls, they either call them by named or 'the boys'. So basically yeah, guilty of attachment to inanimate objects.

 

It is possible to be very attached to your doll and still have normal relationships with real people--one does not preclude the other in any way. As much as I love my dolls, they do not fill the need for interaction with actual humans. I would say being attached to them is less weird because they are human shaped--I think it's natural to have a strong response to something that does resemble us and has many lifelike qualities. It is also possible to love something in a non-sexual way, that too should be very obvious.

After all the time and energy I've put into my doll's characters, how could I not be attached to them?

 

There are people who name their boats, motorcycles, cars, musical instruments, and even sports equipment. I think back to Norse mythology (or any mythology for that matter). Many sacred weapons that belonged to heroes had names (such as Excalibur in the Arthurian legends), and whenever the item was mentioned, it almost always seems that they are talking about a person, as opposed to a piece of metal. My husband named his Ford Focus Fuji. I named my peace-pipe (I smoke Native American herbal blends during Shamanic-like rituals) Truth Bringer. I named my husband's first car Lil' Porkchop. I suppose the point I'm trying to get at is that if it's something special (even something little), you'll probably begin seeing it as a sort of 'friend'. I don't think it's weird at all. I know Buddhism teaches that attachment leads to sorrow, but I find that there can be much joy from it to. Sorry. Starting to get REALLY philosophical about this.

 

Oh, I've always thought it's not the attachment, but when the stuff gets taken away. <g>

(Lil' Porkchop? )

 

Agreed as far as 'normal' goes. I don't believe anything was meant by the comparisons made, though.

Actually, I often think (re. my fave doll): I chose his face (up); I chose his hair and eyes; I chose his clothes; and I thought I chose his personality. But in a great tribute to gestalt, when I got him altogether he was something different than I thought he'd be. It turned out he was better.

 

I admit, I do not identify with seafood. <g> However, there must be something going on since I don't kill fish when -- through some accident -- I somehow catch one. But the gingerbread men are like the goldfish and animal crackers: gone-o. You have a good heart.

 

I'm the absolute SAME way, now that I have my SD I don't like being near him at all

 

I have many things that I've collected over years for a large collection of Fantasy items, dragons, wizards, fairys, lots of goodies like that. Well, last winter I had to clean out and get rid of a huge chunk of my collection, and it was more difficult than I ever thought it would be. I was surprised by the items I kept over the ones I gave away (giving them away made it easier. One of my coworkers game many of the pieces to her daughter for Christmas, which I thought was cool.)

Well, I found myself keeping things that had a much stronger memory behind it, it wasn't that I was personifying my stuff at all. It was who gave it to me or if an event surrounded it.

I still haven't gotten my first doll, as she's still being produced, but what's going to bond me to her isn't so much as her imaginary personality and back story, but all the effort of looking and choosing her and her accesories, and waiting for her arrival. For me, this is more of an artistic venture, with a doll as a muse.

 

I'd make a bad Buddhist, something I've had to point out to my friends who are into detaching from "things". I'm thing-oriented. I don't think there's anything bad about that so long as you don't let it get way out of control. I always see a lot of possibilities in even the most pedestrian things and can get really excited over dumb stuff like the shapes of miniature shampoo bottles from hotels.