一个很感兴趣的关于背包客的心理研究

看的有点吃力,昏..

用谷歌的翻译功能囫囵吞枣地浏览了一下……

Introduction简介

Imaging packing some clothes in a big backpack, buying a ticket, and leaving your home, family, friends, career, and country. Some people are doing this right now. They travel the world carrying their basic essentials on their backs, and they venture alone into the unknown in the hope of discovering the world and the people in it. Backpackers experience a great deal of autonomy while traveling and many end up venturing on their trips purposefully alone.

试想下，把一些衣服装进大背包，再买张票，离开你的故乡，你的家人，朋友，职场，以及你的国家。（事实上）有人正在这么做。在他们周游世界时，用背包携带基本的生活必需品。他们敢于独自一人在未知中冒险，希望发现置身其中的世界和人们。背包客的旅行带给他们许多独立自主的体验，也有很多（背包客）在有意识的单独旅途中不再继续冒险。

This study is an attempt to better understand this word, “alone”. In the scant literature available on backpackers, the sense of autonomy and vitality is clearly apparent. However, to accomplish this, many choose to travel alone. In this study I focus on a particular population of backpackers who chose to spend an extensive period of time without physically available long-term relationships in an ever-changing physical environment. It is my hope that this study will help shed light on the role of long-term relationships in people’s lives through the closer examination of the character structures of those individuals who choose to live without them.

这项研究的目的在于更好的理解“alone”这个词。在缺乏可用的关于背包客的文献资料前提下，对独立自主和生命力的感受显然会流于表面。无论如何，为了更深入的理解这两个词的含义，很多人选择独自踏上旅途。在这项研究中，我的注意力集中在这样的一个特定的背包客群体。这个群体中的成员把自己投入到一段相当长的时间段内，在这个时间段内他们置身于千变万化的自然环境中，并且没有可用的身体上的（身体上，也就是身心这个词里的身）长期关系。我希望这项研究能通过对选择在生活中缺乏长期关系的这些个体的性格构造的近距离观测，使长期关系在人们生活中的作用能更加清晰的展现出来。

The importance of close relationships has gained great popularity in the field of psychology in part with the backing of object relations theories in psychoanalysis and the great body of literature on attachment theory. Nonetheless, backpackers enjoy a great sense of independence, autonomy and vitality while, for a period of time, they forsake close relationships. It is this paradox which is the focus of this study. Since I could locate no literature in the field of psychology examining the population of backpackers, this study is constructed as an exploratory study into the experience of backpackers. This study is also restricted to Chinese backpackers. Backpacking in other cultures such as Israel, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and parts of Europe has become normalized and is accepted in these cultures as a normative developmental stage (Weber,2008). In China, backpackers receive less support and understanding from friends and family than in those other nations due to national ingrained Confucius and piety. As such, the wish to backpack for Chinese is more likely to be powerfully internally driven, making them suitable candidates to investigate attachment theory, and the experience of backpacking alone.

由于有精神分析范畴的客体关系理论的支持，以及大量的关于依附理论的文献的部分支持，亲密关系的重要性在心理学范畴是广为普及的。尽管如此，当背包客们在一个时期内抛弃亲密关系时，他们享受着感觉非常好的独立，自治以及活力。这个悖论也是这项研究的关注点。由于无法查找到任何关于背包客群体的心理测试文献，我的这项研究的建立也是深入研究背包客体验的一个探索性实验。这项研究同样也仅限于中国的背包客。背包旅行在其他文化中，比如以色列，澳洲，新西兰，美国以及部分欧洲国家，已经变得规范化，（当背包旅行）发展到规范阶段后被在这些文化所接受(Weber,2008)。在中国，由于植根于民族深处的儒家文化和孝敬观念的影响，与其他国家相比，背包客们从家人和朋友那里获得的理解和支持要少的多。同样地，对中国人来说，成为一个背包客更可能是源于强烈的内在动力，这也使他们成为研究依附理论以及单独的背包体验的合适对象。

Attachment Theory 依附理论

Attachment theory originated with John Bowlby’s observations that disturbed teens tended to carry with them a history of extensive separations from their parents. Bowlby noted the importance of the attachment system throughout the life cycle. As with infants, the attachment system becomes more acutely activated during periods of elevated stress. In adulthood, attachment figures may include parents, friends and romantic partners (Bowlby, 1944).

依附理论起源于John Bowlby对失常的青少年的观察，他们倾向于受长时间的与父母分离的经历所影响。Bowlby注意到，依附系统在人的一生中的重要性。就婴幼儿时期而言，依附系统在压力持续生高时，变得更为活跃。在成年期，依附标志可能包括父母，朋友，以及恋人。(Bowlby, 1944)

The solo backpacker appears to contradict the central tenets of attachment theory. He leaves his attachment figures behind as well as his previous identity, status, and group affiliations. Furthermore, he is likely to encounter numerous continuous challenges in foreign lands. Even accessing a phone or an internet café in order to make contact with his attachment figures is not always possible. Traveling alone into the wilderness or into other cultures is an extreme version of exploration, far away from any secure base(s). While thoughts about attachment and attachment figures may substitute for the physical presence of the attachment figures, a better understanding of the different attachment styles is needed in order to make sense of this paradox. Also Bowlby suggests that the self reliant man would be classified as secure, but can those backpackers really be tagged as “secure”?

单独的背包客似乎在否定依附理论的核心原理。他不但把自己的依附标志抛在身后，而且被同样对待的还有他之前的身份，地位以及群体隶属关系。此外，他还有可能在国外遭遇大量的连续挑战。甚至通过电话或网吧和他的依附标志取得联系也不总有可能。在远离安全范围的情况下，进入荒原或其他文化的单独旅行是探险的一种极端版本。虽然说，想到依附和依附标志或许可能代替依附标志的实体存在，但是对不同的依附风格的更好的理解，对搞清这个悖论是必须的。同样地，尽管Bowlby认为，依赖自我的男人可以被归类为安全，然而那些背包客们真的可以被标定为“安全”吗？

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 马斯洛的需要层次理论

Drawing on Maslow’s motivational hierarchy, they point out that Maslow ranked belongingness and love needs in the middle of his hierarchy, placing them before esteem and self-actualization needs. In his description of belongingness and love needs Maslow emphasizes both the need for intimate relationships and the need to feel embedded in a group and a place (Maslow, 1954). Maslow suggested that once the lower basic physiological and safety needs has been fulfilled, the individual is ready to focus on belongingness. But solo backpackers have developed beyond the stage of belongingness and love, and are therefore capable of mature love. They often choose to maintain relationships with a small number of individuals to whom they have particularly deep ties. Maslow postulates that their decreased need for sociability stems from a strong reliance on their own sense of identity and personal views as well as a decreased vulnerability to the opinions and value judgments of others. In Maslow’s view, a preference for solitude may be a sign of pathology or health. Yet Maslow also mentioned that once the self-actualization has been realized, one is free to enjoy solicitude without harm to them and without discomfort. Furthermore, it is true for almost all that they positively like solitude and privacy to a definitely greater degree than the average person (Maslow, 1954).

马斯洛的需要层次理论图中，指出马斯洛把归属感和爱的需要归类于他提出的层级结构的中间，并置于尊重和自我实现的需要之前。在他对归属和爱的需要的描述中，马斯洛强调指出了亲密关系的需求和感受到融入一个团体或一个地方的需求(Maslow, 1954)。马斯洛提出，一旦低一层次的基本的生理和安全需求被满足后，个体将乐意集中于归属感。但是，单独的背包客的需求发展已经超越了归属感和爱的需求阶段，也就是到了成熟的爱的阶段。他们通常选择和少数的个体保持关系，他和他们之间的联系非常的深入。马斯洛假设他们对社会交往的需求降低不但来源于对他们自己的认同感以及个人观点的强烈的依赖，而且与他们不易受其他人的意见以及价值判断所影响有关。在马斯洛看来，对孤独的偏爱或许是病理学或健康状态的一个标志。但是他也提到，对个体而言，一旦自我实现成为现实，那么他就可以自由的享受焦虑而不会对他产生危害，同时也不会觉得不适。此外，事实上，几乎对所有人而言，这一类人和一般人相比，在很大程度上更加倾向于喜爱孤独和隐居。(Maslow, 1954)

Therefore, here comes a supposition that if it is in response to conflicts during the belongingness and love stage, it is pathological. However, if this basic need was sufficiently addressed, and the individual faces the self-actualization need, the choice of solitude may indicate relative psychological health.

因此，一个假设出现了。这是否就是在归属感和爱的需求阶段对分歧产生的回应。（也有可能）这是病态的。无论如何，是否当这种基本需要被完全满足后，个体在面临自我实现需要时，选择孤独可能表明某种程度上的心理健康问题。

Backpacker 背包客

Not much is known about the backpacker population, and even less is known of the American backpacker traveling alone. Much of the research on backpackers is motivated by the marketing industry’s attempt to improve their service to, and profit from, this population. Much of the remaining research stems from the health community’s concern over backpackers’ risk-taking behaviors and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. Black, 1997; Egan, 2001; Wickens, 1997).

目前，背包客这个群体的数目究竟有多大？关于这点，人们所知寥寥。更不用提究竟有多少美国背包客在独自行走。大部分有关背包客的研究出自（旅游等行业的）市场营销对提高（行业）服务水准，并从背包客这个群体中获取利润的动机所激发。很多现有的对背包客的研究源于卫生领域对背包客的冒险行为的关切，以及性传播疾病的扩散。（(e.g. (比如)Black, 1997; Egan, 2001; Wickens, 1997).

Backpackers are budget travelers who prefer longer trip duration over basic comforts. They stay at budget accommodations and carefully budget their money allowing them to prolong their journey. An integral part of the backpacking experience is meeting people and socializing with other backpackers and locals. As part of their experience, backpackers prefer informal settings and participatory recreational activities. These preferences facilitate the experience of closer contact with the host culture. In the backpacker’s view, the backpacker is open to be affected by the host culture and hence achieves a more authentic experience of that culture than other travelers. Finally, backpackers greatly emphasize independence, and stick to a flexible travel schedule. They view their experiences as challenging and hence further fostering independence (Weber, 2008).

背包客是精打细算的旅行者，他们把持久的长途旅行看的比满足基本的舒适度要高。他们暂居在廉价的旅舍，仔细安排自己的预算，以延长他们的旅途。背包旅行体验的核心部分是与人结识以及和其他背包客以及当地人交往。作为他们体验的一部分，他们更热衷于非正式的场合以及参与娱乐活动。这种选择使他们能更密切地接触当地文化。在背包客看来，他们愿意接受当地文化的影响，和其他旅行者相比，他们更容易达成对当地文化真切体验的目的。最后，背包客更加看重独立性，并坚持灵活的旅行日程。他们把自己的经历看成挑战，并由此培养更进一步的独立性。(Weber, 2008).
[/quote]

试着翻了下。
希望有更准确的版本出来。
尤其欢迎楼主的原本。
PS：这个似乎只是某篇论文的导言，论文的主体在那里？

你要看主体？很长很长，我把引言节选了一下，拿出来给大家看了

如果可以，当然好了。

再多说一句，假如支撑这篇文章的样本数目很少，或是某个旅游公司主导的项目，那就算了。

It looks like a phD thesis...

Can you please send me the full version of this report?

thanks

yc1982xady@hotmail.com

期待 更深的切入

期待深入

一美国心理学博士的毕业论文，全文三百多页。
正好俺也要毕业，也准备写Backpackers，就问作者拿来了...我回去找一下发给大家。
可能中外有异~

这个蛮有意思，期待正文出现

有意思。。。。。。
一个持久的背包客，并不仅仅在于行或走，精神上的流放比肉体的流浪更可怕，个人内在的心理因素或精神因素，以及某些内在体验的驱动力。。。。。。

我想问个问题，大家觉得背包客身上是否存在与常人不太相同的心理品质？

持续关注

都只是生活的一部分而已

Review of the Literature

Time Apart From Long-Term Relationships
Individuals who spend significant amounts of time alone are frequently pathologized in the psychological literature both for the choice to isolate themselves from close long-term relations (Barnett, 1978; Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1954; Storr, 1988) and for their preference for solitude (Burger, 1995; Storr, 1988). When not quite pathologized, solitude has been frequently correlated with decreased happiness (Burger, 1995; Fischer and Phillips, 1982; Larson and Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Larson, 1990) contributing to the common belief that solitude is aversive. From an evolutionary perspective, it has been argued that humans are social animals who were shaped by the forces of evolution to thrive in the context of a social network (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2003).
Baumeister and Leary (1995) attempt to advance a strong comprehensive and uncompromising argument against the benefits and value of isolation. In their belongingness hypothesis they propose that humans are driven to establish and maintain a number of long-term positive and significant interpersonal relationships. These relationships must involve frequent and emotionally pleasant interactions in the context of long-term, stable, and mutually caring relationships. To support their hypothesis they present an extensive literature review drawing on research examining human behavior, cognition, and affective states in various experimental and naturalistic settings. They point to evidence that humans laboriously seek to form social bonds and protect social bonds from dissolution. Within social bonds, individuals tend to demonstrate cognitive distortions and biases which are understood by the authors as strengthening the sense of belongingness (1995). Affectively, they point out, individuals in intimate personal relations demonstrate greater happiness and a decrease in anxiety . Baumeister and Leary further suggest that close relationships, and romantic relationships in particular, may serve as an anxiety buffer.
Baumeister and Leary argue that human beings universally need to feel that they belong throughout the life cycle and do so in the context of long-term relationships. Furthermore, they emphasize that individuals need frequent positive interactions with these others. The authors view the need to belong as more than a need for intimate attachments or social interactions. They note that the frequent positive contact with the relationship partners serve to create the longed for feeling of belongingness. Drawing on Maslow’s motivational hierarchy, they point out that Maslow ranked belongingness and love needs in the middle of his hierarchy, placing them before esteem and self-actualization needs. In his description of belongingness and love needs Maslow emphasizes both the need for intimate relationships and the need to feel embedded in a group and a place (Maslow, 1954). He comments on the difficulty of fulfilling this need in the American culture where, he feels, intimacy, interpersonal connection, and a firm sense of belongingness cannot be taken for granted. He argues that the flourishing of self-help groups and other “intentional communities” (p. 44) are motivated by

…unsatisfied hunger for contact, for intimacy, for belongingness and by the need to overcome the widespread feelings of alienation, aloneness, strangeness, and loneliness, which have been worsened by our mobility, by the breakdown of traditional groupings, the scattering of families, the generation gap, the steady urbanization and disappearance of village face-to-faceness and the resulting shallowness of American friendship (p. 44).

Maslow views belongingness as a central need immediately following the need for safety. He labels this need ‘Belongingness and Love’ though the conditions for fulfilling this need remain more vague than Baumeister and Leary’s belongingness hypothesis. Maslow’s views suggest a greater emphasis on a sense of belongingness to a group than on ongoing close interpersonal relationships. He writes of the individual who satisfies his safety needs, “He will hunger for affectionate relations with people in general, namely, for a place in his group or family, and he will strive with great intensity to achieve this goal” (1954 p. 43). Maslow’s exact wording here de-emphasizes the importance of a connection with a particular individual in favor of a more general sense of belongingness to a group and positive interactions with others in this group.
While a sense of belongingness is important, research suggests correlations between being in close relationships, intimate romantic relations in particular, and greater reported happiness and decreased anxiety (Burger, 1995; Fischer & Phillips, 1982; Florian et al., 2002). Florian, Mikulincer and Hirschberger draw on Becker’s view to represent the role of romantic relationships. They write, “In Becker’s view, with the breakdown of organized religion in Western cultures during the 20th century, romantic relationships emerged as one of the primary social domains through which people may obtain a sense of security and function with relative equanimity in the face of existential concerns” (p. 529). Here, Becker’s view echo’s Maslow’s observation of increased difficulties establishing a sense of belongingness suggesting that romantic and close relations may now replace the role of organized religion. Florian et al.’s research suggests that close relations and romantic relationships in particular, may serve as an anxiety buffer. They suggest thinking about one’s close romantic relationship may free the individual from needing to activate defenses against anxiety, or at least anxiety over mortality emphasized in their research (2002).
Other researchers examining the state of solitude offer more balanced descriptions of the experience and its repercussions. Larson’s research on the experience of solitude throughout the lifespan and his close examination of research on the topic offers a more nuanced position, highlighting the change in preference and response to solitude at different developmental stages of one’s life (Larson, 1990; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1978). Nonetheless, Larson points out the many negative reactions to solitude. Solitude tends to be associated with feelings of loneliness and passivity. These feelings are most prominent during adolescence. Individuals who are alone also tend to be less aroused as well as more susceptible to fear. However, with age, solitude becomes more weakly associated with the painful feelings of separation suggesting that solitude tends to be a less aversive experience in the older adult population.
Larson points out that solitude and loneliness are separate concepts that are often inter-related. Loneliness is rooted in one’s subjective experience, while solitude is rooted in the objective state of separation from others (Larson, 1990). Both loneliness and privacy are concepts rooted in the subjective experience. These subjective states are often associated with the experience of social isolation and may shed light on the nature of that experience. However, isolation does not evoke the same subjective reactions in all individuals. Some individuals are more susceptible to feeling lonely when alone. Individuals who are lonelier respond more negatively to time spent alone, while those who report less loneliness view solitude as a satisfactory and benevolent state (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982). Likewise, individuals with more private lifestyle attitudes demonstrate a preference for more isolated wilderness backpacking experiences (Twight, Smith & Wissinger, 1981). Other research points to the complexities involved in establishing a firm connection between loneliness and solitude. Fischer and Phillips (1982) found that an isolation measure was tenuously correlated with subjects’ stated wish for more confidants or friends. However, regardless of the stated wish, the preference for solitude remained correlated with reported unhappiness (Fischer & Phillips, 1982) as well as to the subjective experience of loneliness (Burger, 1995). Burger suggests that these individuals who are both lonely and prefer solitude may not have the type of relationships they want (1995). A related question, alluded to in that same article, is whether these individuals may, in fact, have difficulties establishing fulfilling interpersonal relationships.
Attempting to better understand the tension between sociability and isolation, Leary, Herbst and McCrary attempted to investigate the relationship between sociability and a desire for solitude. Using a wide range of self-report measures, they conclude that the reported enjoyment of solitude is more related to a high desire for solitude rather than an avoidance or dislike of sociability (2003). In contrast, Rubenstein and Shaver (1982) place a greater emphasis on individual differences in the experience of aloneness and susceptibility to loneliness. They tentatively suggest that individual differences may stem from early object relations and the individual’s intrapsychic adaptation to his or her childhood environment.
Individuals differ in the degree to which they can be and feel their true self in the company of others. Storr suggests that this ability may be connected to Winnicott’s concept of the true self (Storr, 1988). The capacity to express and experience one’s true self in the company of others may be rooted in early relationships with the primary care-givers. Storr suggests that individuals may have greater difficulties because of either the need for placation or avoidance. Individuals who feel the need to be overly compliant to the external world and depend on others for validation and the sustenance of their self esteem, may seek isolation as a time to reconnect with their inner true self. Individuals in the second group are described as introverted, choosing to avoid social interactions and perceived social pressures. Storr suggests that schizoid individuals represent the extreme version of this pattern.
While accepting that the pull toward social isolation may represent psychopathology, Storr is a strong opponent of the pathological view of solitude on the whole. He suggests that the link between mental health and meaningful close relationships is relatively recent, becoming particularly strong in psychoanalytic writings with the rise of object relations theories. Storr draws support for his argument from Eagle’s suggestion that psychoanalytic theory has not paid sufficient attention to the role interests play in personality functioning. Instead, Eagle argues, interests are viewed as sublimated libido (Eagle, 1981). To the contrary, infant research appears to suggest that infants demonstrate great interest in the external non-relational world (Storr, 1988). Storr highlights the many influential thinkers who were known to live without close relationships with friends or family members including Descartes, Newton, Lock, Nietzsche, Kant and Schopenhauer. For Storr, the choice of solitude may represent a healthy capacity to be alone (in Winnicott’s sense, see below) rather than a withdrawal due to a defensive organization. Storr suggests that the preference for solitude could represent psychic health or intrapsychic difficulties.
In itself, time alone has been shown to be helpful in a number of different respects. Solitude has been linked to the development of the self and integration of new self experiences as well as facilitating change in personal attitudes (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Larson, 1990; Storr, 1988; Westin, 1967). Larson highlights Westin’s seminal work on privacy. Westin argues that solitude may provide an emotionally valuable release from social roles and pressures, providing instead the opportunity for self evaluation and integration of personal experience (Westin 1967 in Larson 1990). Storr argues that mourning the death of a loved one is one example of the experience of separation and isolation which facilitates change in beliefs. According to Storr, the mourner comes to realize that the meaning in life is not entirely embedded in personal relationships and that the life of a person in isolation is also meaningful (Storr, 1988 p. 32). Here, the loss of the relationship facilitates a particular change of attitudes.
Larson’s research links solitude, at least in small quantities, with a decrease in self consciousness. Lower self consciousness may be linked to greater openness to experiences and to the exploration of different parts of the self. Time alone, at least for short periods of time, has also been associated with an increase in concentration as when young and full adults perform their work or homework alone (however, as was seen above, solitude has also been linked with decreased arousal and boredom). Finally, Larson suggests that short periods of solitude are necessary for emotional renewal. Returning to the company of others after a period of solitude, participants in his study reported feeling more alert and cheerful than at other times they were in the company of others (Larson, 1990).
Periods of solitude or relative social isolation have also been utilized for healing. Suedfeld emphasizes the benefits of Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy (REST) particularly for individual with psychological difficulties (1982). In the past, a rest cure for individuals with mental illness was recommended. It was conceptualized as helpful in providing time with less stimulation. The change in environment was viewed as allowing for change apart from old patterns reinforced in the patient’s home setting. Today, isolation as a therapeutic method is rarely mentioned in psychiatry (Storr, 1988), while ‘quiet rooms’ where patients are placed in isolation are still commonly utilized. Suedfeld points out that experiments with solitude combined with partial sensory deprivation have yielded encouraging results in increasing general well-being (Suedfeld, 1982). Taken together, the research on solitude suggests that at least some period of isolation may encourage healing, self-regeneration and growth.
Some individuals seek solitude in search of self growth and a transcendental experience. In many cultures such as some of the Native American cultures, young men set out alone on spiritual quests. The time in solitude allows the young men to reconnect with themselves, find their spiritual guides, and return to the community as men, ready to assume their adult responsibilities (Suedfeld, 1982; Storr, 1988). Apart from the culturally normalized developmentally appropriate period of isolation in these Native American cultures, other cultures depict their spiritual leaders as spending a period of time in solitude before returning to the community with spiritual teachings. Commonly cited examples of these type of leaders include Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Zoroaster (Suedfeld, 1982; Storr, 1988). While solitary journeys in the search for visions may be less common in today’s United States culture, some backpackers such as wilderness backpackers and mountain climbers appear to be seeking a personal growth experience in their solitary journeys .
Some evidence points to a recent trend in the United States towards a greater preference for solitude. In a 1999 replication of a 1981 study on wilderness backpackers, Hammitt, Backman and Davis found an increase in the stated wish for solitude in the population studied (2001). This study may be an early indication of wider changes in the role of solitude in the United States, but the nature of these changes cannot be postulated from this one study.
Maslow suggests that at the highest level of personal development, the individual is free to enjoy solitude (Maslow, 1954; Storr, 1982). Maslow’s final stage in his hierarchy of needs is self actualization. Once the lower basic physiological, safety, belongingness and love, and esteem needs are fulfilled, the individual is ready to focus on the need for self-actualization. Once this is accomplished, the individual is free to be in solitude “…without harm to themselves and without discomfort. Furthermore, it is true for almost all that they positively like solitude and privacy to a definitely greater degree than the average person” (Maslow 1954 p. 160, italics in original). Maslow envisions these individuals as motivated by self-growth which may actually be hampered by others (1954, p. 162). These individuals have developed beyond the stage of belongingness and love, and are therefore capable of mature love. They often choose to maintain relationships with a small number of individuals to whom they have particularly deep ties. Maslow postulates that their decreased need for sociability stems from a strong reliance on their own sense of identity and personal views as well as a decreased vulnerability to the opinions and value judgments of others (Maslow, 1954). In Maslow’s view, a preference for solitude may be a sign of pathology or health. If it is in response to conflicts during the belongingness and love stage, it is pathological. However, if this basic need was sufficiently addressed, and the individual faces the self-actualization need, the choice of solitude may indicate relative psychological health.

Boundaries Between Self and Other- when alone and when together
Being alone or being with others affects an individual’s internal sense of boundaries between him/herself and the other as well as one’s sense of self definition and identity consolidation (Altman, 1975; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kernberg, 1995; Larson, 1990; Maslow, 1954; Storr, 1988). Altman advanced the view that the concept of privacy can be understood as dialectic between forces that push people together and apart. Privacy is utilized in order to regulate and maintain self-identity as well as to evaluate and interpret the self in relations to others (Altman, 1975; Twight, Smith & Wissinger, 1981 ). Altman and Derlega and Chaikin place particular emphasis on viewing privacy as a dynamic process of self-other boundary regulation (Altman, 1975; Derlega & Chaikin, 1977).
Baumelster and Leary (1995), in advancing their belongingness hypothesis, draw on research examining cognition and memory which highlights the diffusion of boundaries between the self and one’s relationship partner. For example, Aron et. al.’s research suggests that individuals have more difficulty making me/not me judgments about traits where they differ from their spouse than on these traits they share with their spouse (Aron et al., 1991). This evidence in cognitive processing suggests a cognitive merger with the relationship partner. Aron et. al. view cognition about a close relationship partner as a circumstance where “…[the] other is treated as self or confused with self- the underlying reason being a self/other merging…” (1991, p. 242). Interconnectedness of cognitive representation of self and the partner is seen in this increased difficulty making me/not me distinctions. This pattern in cognitive processing suggests that cognitively, closeness to another individual creates confusion between internal characteristics that are part of the self, and those that are part of the other. This factor may be linked to the findings that solitude may aid individuation and identity formation (Larson, 1990).
Storr (1988), drawing on Winnicotian theory, emphasizes that some individuals have greater difficulty remaining true to their own internal experience in the context of others. These individuals may seek solitude in order to reconnect with their internal experience. These individuals may be overly compliant to the external needs of others leading to difficulties maintaining a stable level of self-esteem so that their self-esteem, and hence their experience of themselves, is vulnerable to fluctuations caused by interactions with others.
Paradoxically, Larson suggests that when individuals are alone they experience less self definition (Larson, 1990). This experience can be disturbing leading to an increase in reported negative affect. However, Larson argues that this experience also facilitates individuation and identity formation. Furthermore, in the absence of one’s social network, the individual is free to experiment and experience different parts of him/herself that are not encouraged, reinforced, or may not be tolerated in the individual’s interpersonal milieu hence facilitating self growth (Altman, 1975; Hammitt, Backman & Davis, 2001; Larson, 1990, Storr, 1988, Westin, 1967).
The decrease in self-definition may also facilitate transcendental experiences and the experiences of complete unity with the universe akin to Freud’s description of the oceanic feeling (Freud, 1961). While Freud originally discussed the oceanic feeling in the context of group religious ecstasy, Storr points out that it is an experience often reported in solitude. In fact, Suedfeld suggests that one group of individuals who seek out solitude are searching for this transcendental experience (1982).
The sense of self definition and intrapsychic boundaries between self and others is affected by the state of solitude, by the company of others in general, and by the context of intimate relationships in particular. As was discussed above, some individuals seek the company of others to regulate their sense of selves; others seek to avoid others for the same purpose. Altman’s description of the dialectical nature of the forces pushing people together and apart may be particularly useful in understanding the place of intrapsychic boundaries. Likewise, Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs suggests that at different levels on the hierarchy, others may be needed in different ways (1954). In the psychoanalytic section of this chapter I will review a number of different developmental models pertinent to the discussion of intimacy and personal isolation.

Backpackers
Not much is known about the backpacker population, and even less is known of the American backpacker traveling alone. Much of the research on backpackers is motivated by the marketing industry’s attempt to improve their service to, and profit from, this population (e.g. Locker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Murphy, 2001; Pearce, 1990). Much of the remaining research stems from the health community’s concern over backpackers’ risk-taking behaviors and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. Black, 1997; Egan, 2001; Wickens, 1997). One noticeable exception is the Israeli backpacker who has been heavily studied (Avrahami, 2001) due to the high prevalence of Israelis choosing to backpack after completing their mandatory post high school military service and before commencing employment or university studies. This high prevalence (and consequent normalization) of backpacking during this particular developmental stage limits the applicability of the research to American backpackers. As such, research findings pertaining to the American backpacker’s character structure and quality of interpersonal relationships is quite scarce.
Backpackers are budget travelers who prefer longer trip duration over basic comforts. They stay at budget accommodations and carefully budget their money allowing them to prolong their journey. An integral part of the backpacking experience is meeting people and socializing with other backpackers and locals. As part of their experience, backpackers prefer informal settings and participatory recreational activities. These preferences facilitate the experience of closer contact with the host culture. In the backpacker’s view, the backpacker is open to be affected by the host culture and hence achieves a more authentic experience of that culture than other travelers. Finally, backpackers greatly emphasize independence, and stick to a flexible travel schedule. They view their experiences as challenging and hence further fostering independence (Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Murphy, 2001; Riley, 1988).
The modern phenomenon of the backpacker, as well as tourism travel in general, can be traced to the “Grand Tours” of the 17th and 18th centuries. These were long-term tours taken by young European aristocrat males that were deemed to enhance sophistication, worldliness and social awareness. Their counterpart for the lower classes was tramping. Artisan workers would travel from town to town searching for work and living in inns that were established by their guilds for this purpose. With the rise of the industrial age in 19th century Europe, youth movements developed in reaction to the harsh conditions of the cities. In England, the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) and the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) were established offering cheap lodging. Meanwhile, in other parts of Europe and most noticeably German-speaking Europe, treks through the countryside gained popularity among the youth and hostels were established to offer these travelers cheap accommodations. Travel continued to be associated with worldliness and sophistication while an infrastructure for youth budget travel was developing (for a more extensive history see Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995 and Riley, 1988).
The European “Grand Tours” as well as tramping were viewed as a rite of passage by most young men. It was a time for separation from home and family (Loker-Murphy and Pearce, 1995; Riley, 1988). Today, many of the modern backpackers also view their travels as a rite of passage (Avrahami, 2001; Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Riley, 1988). Many backpackers view their trip as a time to gain independence, feel complete freedom from social responsibilities, and as a time to reflect on their life, and often spiritual life, before assuming their adult responsibilities back home (Avrahami, 2001; Riley, 1988).
Today’s backpackers, or budget travelers, represent a somewhat unified sub-cultural group, at least while traveling. In their qualitative studies, Riley (1988) and Murphy (2001) identified major personal qualities which backpackers viewed as defining the backpacking culture. These included tolerance of others, having fun and not being “uptight”, willingness to speak with strangers, and readiness to learn from the trip and the experience of interacting with a foreign culture. Living cheaply and budgeting one’s money is emphasized in order to prolong the duration of the trip. Living cheaply and finding the best bargains is one way status is established among backpackers (Riley, 1988). Hardship on the road is also greatly valued and is a source of pride (Riley, 1988).
Neither Murphy nor Riley explicitly discuses solitude in the backpackers’ experience. However, the statement by one interviewee speaks to the prevalence of traveling alone. This 23-year-old Canadian male stated, “you more readily talk to complete strangers than you would at home, but I guess everybody does that when you’re traveling alone” (Murphy 2001, p. 60). Riley points out that most backpackers travel alone. They prefer freedom and complete autonomy. Many do travel with others for a few days, even a couple of weeks, until their chosen routes part. While backpackers state a greater sense of security and protection when traveling with others, they often prefer greater independence to greater security (1988).
Backpackers distinguish themselves from other tourists. They view themselves as placing a greater emphasis on budgeting their money and extending the length of stay (Murphy 2001). For example, they trade privacy and comfort in hotels for cheaper, dormitory style hostels where they often have access to a communal kitchen. The quality of their trip is also perceived as different from that of other tourists. They view their travels as exposing them to a more authentic experience of the foreign culture. They place a greater emphasis on interacting with locals, avoiding commercialized packaged tours, and avoiding locations where tourists abound (Murphy 2001). As Black writes, “For them [travelers] traveling is a form of cultural identification and an important aspect of identity….Tourism is seen by travelers to be based upon shallow experiences in contrast to their own more authentic travel experience” (Black, 1997, p. 170). Backpackers view themselves as a separate sub-culture from other tourists.
So what are the demographic characteristics of the backpacker? The majority of backpackers are from Europe, followed by Australia/ New Zealand, and then North America (Egan, 2001; Murphy, 2001 ). American backpackers are underrepresented, at least in South and South East Asia (Riley, 1988). Backpackers tend to be highly educated, with one study showing that 76% of the sample population had a partial or full college/university degree (Egan, 2001). Most come from middle class families (Riley, 1988). Studies using different inclusion criteria report that the majority of backpackers are in their early to mid twenties (e.g. Avrahami, 2001; Pearce, 1990), or late twenties to early thirties (Riley, 1988). Some evidence suggest that there may be a greater proportion of backpackers over 30 (Ryan & Mohsin, 2001) who travel alone (Maoz in Avrahami, 2001) then has been commonly reported. According to Riley, most backpackers are at one of life’s junctures. Many have just completed college, are in between jobs, or are unsure of their career path. Nearly all backpackers are single, and most were never married (1988). Interestingly, the population appeared to be more secular, with very few members attending church on a regular basis (Egan, 2001).
Many backpackers find themselves traveling for longer than they originally intended, and it is not uncommon to meet people who are away from home for 3-4 years (Riley, 1988). Most maintain regular contact with their families and indicated feeling close to both their parents and siblings. American backpackers reported feeling less support from both family and friends than travelers from other nations. While backpacking is more accepted in other developed nations, American backpackers often reported being viewed at home as irresponsible for leaving behind traditional adult responsibilities (Riley, 1988).
As was stated above, socializing with locals and backpackers is a major component of traveling. Backpackers attempt to learn about the foreign culture through their contacts with locals. They also socialize with other backpackers with whom they can more easily identify and share their excitement and challenges. Socializing and the ability to initiate conversation emerged as a central theme with this population (Black, 1997; Murphy, 2001). Murphy’s qualitative study reveals the existence of an accepted social etiquette for socializing with other backpackers (2001). The initial conversation is expected to revolve around where the backpacker is from and where he/she has been and is planning to travel. This initial conversation serves to assess compatibility as potential travel companions as well as transmit practical information pertaining to the region. While many backpackers complain of boredom with this phase of initial superficial exchange of information, they also communicated that it is a faux-pas to skip this initial stage. Many stated that it is inappropriate to discuss personal details about one’s life too early in the interaction. However, Murphy’s research suggests that backpackers tend to create more intimate relationships, and that these relationships are viewed as developing much faster than they do ‘back home’. Riley also notes that interpersonal relationships on the road are very intense and that friendships develop rapidly (1988). An integral part of the backpacking culture is the initiation of relationships, though it appears many remain superficial.
Sexual intercourse is one kind of relationship which appears integral to the backpacking experience of at least some portion of the backpacking population. Studying the sexual life of backpackers is interesting as it is a type of socializing which may be considered intimate. The sexual life of backpackers has received relatively more attention due to the health consequences of unprotected sex. In this present study, examining the sexual life of backpackers informs our understanding of the nature of intimacy and intimate relationships in the lives of backpackers on the road and back home.
Egan’s study compared long-term backpackers (trips >30 days) with short term travelers with respect to sexual behaviors. In her study, those who engaged in casual sex while traveling were more often male, had a history of casual sex prior to the trip, reported a greater number of partners prior to the trip, expected to engage in casual sex on their travels, and were backpackers as opposed to short term travelers (2001). Here, a tentative association between casual sex, multiple partners, and a preference for backpacking is suggested. However, only twenty five percent of her sample engaged in casual sex on the trip. Of those engaging in casual sex, approximately forty percent stated they planned on having casual sex while traveling. Stated another way, the majority of those engaging in casual sex did not expect to be doing so.
Backpacking has been conceptualized as a time away from daily responsibilities and social conventions (Wickens, 1997). However, Egan found that the experience of being far from home and the chance for anonymity was not rated very high as a reason for engaging in casual sex (2001). Instead, the use of alcohol and drugs emerged as a far stronger cause for casual sex (Wickens, 1997, Egan, 2001).
Unprotected causal sex touches on both quality of intimate relationships as well as risk-taking behavior. Research suggests that risk factors for contracting sexually transmitted infections and/or HIV while traveling include being female, young, a long-term traveler, a solo traveler, and having a sexual history of limited condom use (Egan, 2001). Another strong risk-factor for engaging in unprotected sex is being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol (Wickens, 1997). This research may suggest that both being a backpacker and traveling alone may serve as risk factors for engaging in casual sex with more partners and/or engaging in unprotected sex. Egan further points out that women were more likely than men to report using condoms during casual sex at home, but less likely to have used a condom during their last sexual intercourse on the trip. This statistic may be related to Egan’s findings that while men reported more sexual partners during the trip, women were more likely to have had sexual intercourse with a local man.
In summary, Egan’s study suggests that at least one quarter of backpackers engage in casual sex during their travels. These individuals tend to also have a history of casual sex back home and to choose long-term travel. These findings suggest a link between individuals who choose long-term travel and those who engage in casual sex, sexual relations without an intimate interpersonal relationship. Her research also highlights a potential link between solitude, or solo travelers, and risk-taking behaviors such as unprotected sex, in the context of an attempt to create a (sexual) relationship with a partner.

Traveling Alone
I was unable to locate any literature focusing on the solo-backpacker though the literature already mentioned does allude to this group. Many backpackers in Murphy’s study (2001) alluded to the need to socialize in order to find travel companions, hence suggesting many may be traveling alone, and Riley (1988) explicitly suggests that most backpackers travel predominantly alone. Black (1997) suggests that backpackers traveling alone are more susceptible to engaging in casual sex and in succumbing to external pressures. She suggests that peers may act as a buffer to external pressures. Her comments suggest that backpackers are frequently alone, and that this leaves them in a more vulnerable position. She states that loneliness, the pressure to socialize, and sexual advances from others lead to a greater prevalence in sexual encounters. As mentioned above, Egan’s study suggests that both traveling alone and traveling for longer durations are risk factors for engaging in unprotected sex. As was noted above, time spent in solitude is associated with a decrease in self-esteem and a decrease in the sense of self definition. These factors may be associated with the greater prevalence of casual sex and risk-taking engagement in unprotected sex while traveling for long time-periods and while traveling alone.
Examining the research on the effects of solitude in concert with the culture of backpacking suggests that backpackers have a complex relationship to intimacy and close relationships, at least while they are on the road. Backpackers on the road forfeit the possibility to nurture long-term intimate relationships. Instead, many state the wish to focus on self-actualization, personal growth, independence, and cultural awareness. However, the period of isolation from close intimate relations can have aversive consequences including a decrease in self-esteem and an increase in risk taking behaviors. In the next section I will take a closer look at how psychoanalytic theory helps inform our understanding of who chooses to do without close relationships.

Understanding the Solo Backpacker Through the Lenses of Psychoanalysis and Attachment Theory
How can the choice to travel alone be understood from a psychoanalytic perspective? It may be viewed as a proactive strategy for avoiding intimacy, casting this choice in a pathological light. Alternatively, it may suggest healthy psychic development allowing the individual to suspend, at least temporarily, the need for intimacy and freeing the individual to pursue personal growth through solitude, self exploration, and identity consolidation. It is likely that traveling alone, in itself, could not be meaningfully used as a litmus test for psychic pathology (or health). Instead, it is the traveler’s internal object relations and ego development which color the motivation for traveling alone and is most pertinent for answering these central questions.
Examining the nature of solo travel and the culture of backpacking, I selected a number of psychoanalytic developmental models which are particularly relevant to enriching our understanding of the relationship between solo backpackers and intimacy. I will introduce these psychoanalytic concepts briefly before delving into a more through review of the models proposed. Guntrip and Fairbairn emphasize the schizoid position. Guntrip’s description of the individual struggling with the schizoid problem has many similarities with the lifestyle of the solo backpacker. In contrast, Winnicott discusses the capacity to be alone and how this capacity rests on the internalization of a soothing object which allows for the growth and development of a true self. In Winnicott’s model, it will be seen, the solo traveler may embody a capacity to be alone, or the struggle of a false self (a hidden true self) to circumvent intimacy. Pathological narcissism will be discussed briefly, emphasizing the narcissist’s need to deny his dependency needs and the threat intimacy poses for his or her cohesive sense of self. Finally, attachment theory will be reviewed. In attachment theory what will be emphasized is the contrast between individuals enjoying a secure base from which they can safely explore and travel, and individuals who, lacking both a secure base and the early childhood experience of a secure base, choose to deny dependency needs, avoid closeness, and exult independence. Solo travel may indicate secure attachment which frees the adult to explore the world, or insecure attachment and an avoidance of closeness.
All of these models assume the infant’s early dependence on his mother for his physical and psychic needs. These models offer different interpretations of how the inadequate fulfillment of these needs will lead to difficulties with intimacy and a proclivity for solo travel. Conversely, some of these theories suggest that a ‘good enough’ (to use Winnicott’s term) navigation through this early dependency phase may free the individual to travel and develop, at least temporarily, without ‘running away’ from intimacy.

Guntrip and Fairbairn - The Schizoid Problem
Central to the schizoid problem is the experience of danger in close relationships. According to Guntrip’s clinical observations, individuals struggling with schizoid concerns “…find their lives slipping away changing houses, clothes, jobs, hobbies, friends, engagements, and marriages, and unable to commit themselves to any one relationship in a stable and permanent way- always needing love yet always dreading being tied” (Guntrip, 1969 p37). Guntrip adds that these individuals tend to value self sufficiency as a means of reducing their anxiety over needing others, and tend to hold self sufficiency as an ideal. It should be apparent how this description is consistent with the lifestyle and values of the backpacker culture where independence is vital and change is constant.
From Fairbairn and Guntrip’s perspective, libido is, from the beginning, object seeking (Fairbairn, 1944; Guntrip, 1969). The major developmental task of the individual is to navigate through the stage of infantile dependence, and towards achieving mature dependence. The capacity to embrace and tolerate one’s dependency needs throughout the lifecycle is essential for psychic health. From their perspective, object relations are essential for both the development of the ego and for living a meaningful life. Guntrip describes Fairbairn’s position, “…man’s need of a love-relationship is the fundamental thing in his life, and that the love-hunger and anger set up by frustration of this basic need must constitute the two primary problems of personality on the emotional level” (Guntrip, 1969, p. 45, italics in original). Fairbairn points out that the final stage is ‘mature dependence’ and not ‘independence’ since close relationships necessarily involves some dependency (Fairbairn, 1946). However, unlike infantile dependence, mature dependence is two-sided and is not limited by a weak ego’s ability to express dependency needs through emotional identification and incorporation only.
Fairbairn chose to name the earliest developmental stage ‘the schizoid position’ because the immature ego is split. In brief, Fairbairn argues that good experiences with the primary caregiver are encoded as memories. Bad experiences with the primary caregiver cannot be tolerated by the young ego, and are internalized instead. As such, the internalized object relations are composed of originally frustrating external experiences with others. The internalized bad object is split into a (tantalizing) Needed Object and a (frustrating) Rejecting Object. The frustrating external experience embodied both of these qualities. The infant’s young ego is unable to tolerate ambivalent feelings towards the same object, and the object is split. In Fairbairn’s model, an object does not exist outside of an object relation. The Needed Object is attached to the Libidinal Ego, and the Rejecting Object is attached to the Antilibidinal Ego (or Internal Saboteur). The Libidinal and Antilibidinal Egos are split from the Central Ego and are repressed. Since no infant is free of frustrating experiences, this process is universal. However, individual differences exist in the capacity to navigate past this position.
Between Fairbairn’s infantile dependency stage and mature dependency stage there is a transitional period generally filled with conflict and defenses. In this period, the individual establishes relationships with external objects while coping with his internalized (bad) objects. Fairbairn argues that the basis for different pathological symptoms are rooted in the individual’s techniques and defenses for dealing with his internalized objects as well as his attempt to get rid of the frustrating objects without losing them (Fairbairn, 1946). The schizoid process may manifest itself with a variety of defenses, but when the anxiety leads to a massive repression of affect, a full schizoid state is present and a sense of futility descends (Fairbairn, 1944).
The dilemma for an individual struggling with schizoid concerns is that loving has become dangerous. The fear is that one’s needs and dependency will devour and destroy the loved object. Guntrip suggests that dating from early infancy, these individuals felt that their needs, their infancy love, was unbearable to their mothers. Their neediness and hunger left them feeling rejected and even more needy. As this is the predominant type of object relations that the young ego experienced, the individual comes to expect the same from others, that the other’s neediness would devour him. The individual feels suffocated and smothered in close relationships and feels that he must break free to protect his autonomy (Guntrip, 1969). Unlike the individual whose main struggle is in the depressive position and who fears that his hate will destroy, the individual whose main challenge is the schizoid position fears that his love will lead him to devour or be devoured. For the individual struggling with the depressive position, feeling hate towards a relationship partner is dangerous because his hate may lead him to destroy the relationship partner, an external other whose closeness and love is desired. In contrast, for an individual struggling with schizoid concerns, love, itself, is experienced as dangerous. Love threatens to lead to annihilation through a dangerous destruction of self-other boundaries. Love threatens to lead one of the relationship partners to devour the other partner. In the act of devouring boundaries between the self and other are erased, and the self or relationship partner is consumed and annihilated. Since love is dangerous, closeness is dangerous, and since object relations are central to the experience of being human, in Guntrip and Fairbairn’s view, this individual would feel alienated from others as well as himself (Guntrip, 1971).
The fundamental cause of the schizoid condition is the infant’s experience of isolation from his primary caregivers. Guntrip describes this sense of isolation as the loss of rapport with the mother at the time of infantile dependency, a time where the mother is the only environment and the entire world for the infant. The young ego does not have any alternative defenses to navigate the troublesome relationship. He resorts to massive withdrawal from the external world, and from the struggle to maintain external genuine relationships. The loss of maternal rapport and the experience of absence of this basic relationship hamper the infant’s ability to form a solid sense of his own selfhood (Guntrip, 1969).
In relationships, the individual struggling with the schizoid problem both craves closeness and fears it. Closeness remains threatening because the individual, now an adult, has not outgrown the stage of infantile dependence. When he is alone, he feels insecure and alienated from himself. When reunited with others, he feels smothered, as though his individuality is absorbed and he is merged with the other. The adult continues to find closeness through infantile strategies of incorporation and identification so that closeness does indeed pose the threat of merger where the other is either incorporating or being incorporated, and, in a sense, annihilated. As Fairbairn and Guntrip maintain, the ego requires object relations in order to grow and develop. The schizoid solution is withdrawal from external objects and hence “…a flight from life...” motivated by fear and a hope for safety (Guntrip, 1969, p. 53).
Internalization of the early frustrating objects and an inability to negotiate infantile dependence leads to inadequate separation and individuation so that loving and dependency needs become threatening. The adult now unconsciously fears destroying the object with his neediness or being smothered to death. One’s neediness itself is experienced as dangerous and to be repressed. The solution adopted is keeping distance from intimacy and withdrawing from external objects.

Winnicott- The True Self and the Capacity to be Alone
Winnicott’s developmental model describes the infant’s progression from infantile dependence towards mature independence. Unlike Fairbairn and Guntrip who emphasize mature dependence, Winnicott highlights how mature independence is an indication of mental health and, as he states, “…this capacity is one of the most important signs of maturity in emotional development” (Winnicott, 1958, p. 29). In mature independence, the individual attains the capacity to enjoy solitude.
Achieving mature independence is rooted in the infant’s earliest experiences and is intertwined with Winnicott’s concepts of the True Self and False Self. If the infant’s earliest environment is insensitive to the infant’s needs and experiences, the infant’s True Self will go into hiding leaving a False Self to interact with the external world. The infant’s earliest experiences affect the relative dominance of the infant’s True and False selves. Under the most unfavorable conditions, the True Self is completely in hiding and the False self is established as the ‘external person’. The True self remains inaccessible to both the external world and the developing infant/person’s inner world. Under the most favorable conditions, the False Self is superficial, drawn upon during such circumstances where social politeness or social etiquette is required. Here, the True Self dominates and voluntarily calls upon the services of the False Self when needed (Winnicott, 1960).
Without the experience of the True Self there can be no capacity to be alone because the self is not there to begin with. A mature capacity to be alone depends on the strength and security of a True Self. When a False Self dominates the individual’s existence, it brings with it a sense of non-reality, futility, and fragmentation. The dominance of a False Self also makes it impossible for the individual, child or adult, to develop genuine relationships with others (Winnicott, 1960; Winnicott, 1962).
The starting point for Winnicott is the infant in a state of absolute dependence and contending with a weak developing ego. The infant’s immature ego leaves the infant in a predominate state of unintegration. In this state id-impulses arise and are spontaneously expressed by the infant in some form. The external expression of the id-impulse is the earliest expressions of the True Self. From this point, favorable conditions facilitate the development of a True Self and the capacity to enjoy solitude. As the infant’s ego matures and strengthens, id-demands will come to be experienced as originating from one’s own internal self. However, for the immature ego, these id-impulses can be quite disorganizing and overwhelming (Winnicott, 1960). While the infant is in a state of absolute dependence, the mother needs to be in a state of ‘primary maternal pre-occupation’. In this state, she is very identified with the infant and is therefore able to adequately respond to the infant’s id-demands so that the infant’s experience of disorganization is minimized. Here, the good-enough mother (to use Winnicott’s phrase) is able to sufficiently meet the needs of the infant so that the infant experiences a sense of omnipotence. While he is in a state of infantile dependence, he is essentially unaware of his dependence and fragility. As the ego develops and is strengthened, the infant is able to gradually relinquish his infantile omnipotence and gradually become aware of his dependence (Winnicott, 1963).
Because the infant’s awareness of his dependence emerges and unfolds at a rate tolerable to the infant and strengthening ego, the True Self does not need to go into deep hiding. The ego is able to gradually integrate different parts of the self, different ‘me-experiences’, which creates the sense of a continuity of being. These ‘me-experiences’ are genuine, accurately reflecting the experiences of the True Self. As the ego develops, the ego can allow for breaks in the continuity of being when the False Self is called upon. In other words, the healthy young infant quickly and naturally learns to comply with external demands without threatening the vitality of his True Self (Winnicott, 1960; Winnicott, 1963).
In normal development the ability to enjoy solitude begins in early infancy, before the immature ego is capable of maintaining self integration. During the earliest phases of being alone the infant needs to feel his maternal figure’s ego support. The paradox is that the infant must experience solitude in the presence of his mother. For Winnicott, the earliest form of being alone is the state where the infant attends to his internal experiences and is free to respond to them without attending to the external world. It is also a time for the infant to relax and allow himself to become less integrated. The mother’s role is to create a safe, positive, and non impinging environment. As the infant develops, he comes to introject the ego-supportive mother. This ego-supporting mother is not an internalized object of the mother, but more like the internalization of mother-as-environment, the internal sense of security, confidence and relative freedom from persecutory anxieties. As the ego develops and matures, the individual is able to rely more and more on this internalized mother-as-environment rather than the presence of an external mother (Winnicott, 1958).
If the infant does not enjoy good-enough mothering, the development of the True Self as well as the capacity to be alone is hampered. When id-impulses arise, the mother is unable to accurately respond to the infant’s spontaneously generated gestures. She instead responds with her own reactions. She is unable to suspend her own subjectivity and sustain attunement with the infant’s needs and wishes. Her tolerance for the infant’s expression of his infantile omnipotence is not ‘good-enough’. The mother’s reaction startles the infant out of the experience of omnipotence and forces him to attend and adjust himself to his external environment. In this fashion, the development of a False Self is encouraged while the True Self hides for safety. The infant learns to imitate and comply to an external world while his own spontaneity ceases (Winnicott, 1960). At the same time, the inability of the mother to adequately provide ego-support to the infant’s immature ego and the infant’s needs leaves the infant vulnerable to highly disorganizing states of anxiety and discomfort. These states of intolerable anxieties resemble the experience of falling to pieces, loosing one’s sense of orientation as well as disrupting the connection to one’s body (Winnicott, 1962). The infant looses his experience of self integration. These experiences of disintegration hinder the infant’s ability to create the feeling of an integrated solid sense of self. The infant suffers from unbridgeable breaks in the sense of going-on-being, and the self then remains fragmented.
With the not good-enough mother, the infant, and later adult, depends on a False Self to navigate the external world. The infant’s True Self is hidden, unintegrated, and is haunted by disruptive persecutory anxieties stemming form the infant’s early disruptive experiences of intolerable anxieties. The False Self dominates and is not linked to the person’s internal experience. Because responses to internal experiences are generated and tied to the True Self, the individual-as-False-Self remains feeling unreal and is plagued by a sense of futility (Winnicott, 1960). Furthermore, the individual does not have the capacity to be alone in Winnicott’s terms. He has lost contact with his True Self and he does not enjoy an introjected mother-as-environment. While the individual has the ability to be alone, it remains unsafe to allow for a state of relaxed unintegration (Winnicott, 1960).
The solo backpacker may be viewed as spending his journey essentially alone, as any relationships that he forms must necessarily remain superficial and transient. The backpacker’s contacts with more meaningful others from ‘back home’ are relative brief and sporadic. Some solo backpackers may embody the mature capacity to be alone and enjoy a good internalized mother-as-environment. These individuals should feel free to explore and enjoy their solitude, taking the time to further consolidate their identity, open themselves to immersion in other cultures, enjoyment of nature, archeology, or whatever their particular interests and goals are for the trip. However, solo-backpacking may also function as a good compromise solution for the False Self. Relationships remain superficial and the presence of a full person connected to his affective inner life in the relationship is not required. The trip itself may be used as confirmation of being real. The individual who is dominated by a false self does not feel real. He has a great need to have intense experiences so that his life is occupied by the need to react to these experiences. The self gains confirmation of being alive and real through continuously reacting to the external world rather than depending on internally generated actions (Winnicott, 1960). Backpacking provides an almost continuous sense of intense living and the ongoing need to adapt and respond to a foreign environment. This experience may serve to occupy the False Self and reinforce the individual’s fragile sense of being real and alive.

Narcissism
Narcissistic states make it impossible to know another and be known by them, ‘warts and all’. Closeness with others and the acknowledgment of one’s own and others’ dependency needs is experienced as extremely dangerous to the narcissistic individual’s self esteem and sense of self (Barnett, 1978). Intimacy is rendered dangerous at the least, impossible at the worst. Relationships are maintained on a superficial level or else no true relationship is present at all. Many individuals are vulnerable to narcissistic states as a response to injuries inflicted on their sense of self or self esteem. However, narcissism is also an integral and more stable aspect of many character types and psychopathologies as well as the defining characteristic of the narcissistic personality (Barnett, 1978; Freud, 1991/1914; Guntrip, 1969).
Freud utilized libido theory to explain narcissism. He states that loving involves awareness of one’s needs and dependency, thereby lowering “self-regard” while the experience of being loved is the experience of possessing the loved object, and self-regard is raised once more. When the ego is in a depleted state it is weakened, and may need to withdraw its object libido in order to replenish itself. The return of object-libido to the ego strengthens the ego but sacrifices the possibility of forming relationships with external others or acknowledging threatening dependency needs. (Freud, 1914/1991, p. 94). In post-Freudian and non-libido theories, narcissism may be conceptualized as self absorption arising from damage to self esteem and sense of self (Barnett, 1978).
Narcissism may be viewed as a regression or fixation at the state of primary narcissism. Primary narcissism is a normative developmental stage often described as the infant’s experience of symbiotic unity with his caregiver and omnipotent control over his environment. From Mahler’s developmental perspective, the infant experiences a psychic fusion where the infants’ early memory of beginning self representation and representation of the mother are fused and are colored by omnipotence (White, 1986). The infant will spend the remainder of his life separating from this symbiotic mother while longing for this state of fusion with an all good, omnipotent mother. From Mahler’s theory’s perspective, the infant will develop his sense of identity in the context of his object relations with his mother and through the process of separating and individuating from her. The narcissistic individual is unable to mourn the loss of the early symbiotic relationship attempting instead to relive this state of omnipotence through fusion with a self-object (White, 1986). At the same time, the narcissistic individual defensively avoids intimacy with others in order to protect his sense of separateness. His early attempts to experience a symbiotic unity with his mother were spoiled by the intrusiveness of the mother as her own subject rather than allowing for the infant’s subjectivity to dominate (Modell, 1986).
From Kohut’s perspective, under favorable conditions the infant is born into an empathic and warm human environment. The infant’s self is weak and depends on others to provide the experience of cohesion, resilience, and self-constancy. The infant is left at the mercy of his caregivers to provide this for him, and they are experienced by him as selfobjects. Two types of relationships develop with the selfobjects, both expressing the infants’ basic narcissistic needs. The mirroring selfobjects mirror back to the child his omnipotence and grandiosity. This is done through facilitating the child’s experience of agency as well as the pride and joy the caregivers take in the child and his activities. The child becomes exhibitionistic and grandiose. Somewhat later the second selfobject relation emerges. Here the child experiences merger with an idealized selfobject. The child must be able to idealize at least one of his primary caregivers and experience merger with this selfobject (Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983).
In normal development, the child’s primary caregivers are experienced as frustrating. They fail to live up to the idealization, and fail to mirror back pride in all of the child’s activities. If these frustrations are gradual and tolerable, the child comes to internalize his selfobject relations and their function is replaced by the self (Kohut and Wolf, 1986). The child is then free to form object relations proper.
Kohut argues that failure to sufficiently enjoy and internalize at least one of these selfobject relations lead to the inability to maintain adequate and stable levels of self esteem and an adequate sense of self (Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983). When the developing child is confronted with disapproval and rejection rather than interest, encouragement, and approval unadulterated by the parents’ own narcissistic needs, he may become developmentally fixated and repress a grandiose self-representation (White, 1986). The child may be viewed as left with damage to the internal psychic structures needed to maintain stable self esteem and self-cohesiveness. The individual develops enslaved to his repressed grandiose self-representation and continuously searching for relationships that will mirror to him his grandiosity. As Stolorow states, “narcissistic object relationships are to be understood as regressive efforts at identity maintenance though mirroring in the object” (Stolorow, 1986 p 200). The individual withdraws from forming relationships with others since his first priority is stabilizing and maintaining a sense of cohesiveness and a stable positive view of himself (Stolorow, 1986).
The narcissistic individual’s shaky sense of self is tentatively maintained by grandiose and omnipotent fantasies. These fantasies allow the individual to maintain the illusion of self sufficiency and deny his dependency needs (Mitchell, 1988; Modell, 1986). The narcissistic illusion protects the individual from the painful acknowledgment that, as a child, his dependency needs left him feeling frustrated and enraged. Now, as Kernberg writes, the individual is left in a “vicious circle of self-admiration, depreciation of others, and elimination of all actual dependency. The greatest fear of these patients is to be depende

full parts of this dissertation's introduction.

引文好长。
关于alone这样一个给背包客的标签，LZ自己是怎么想的呢，MF其实看不到多少backpacker 会enjoy traveling alone 的

我觉得应该是enjoy travelling with strangers at most time and travel alone for a little time

继续问，你觉得常人是怎么样的？
或者换个问法，社会上的常人，和MF上的常人，是怎么样的