Dear Dr. Santy,
Excellent post!
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitude
Unfortunately, our Dear Leader, George W. Bush has all of the above. Dr. Kohut was quoted in MR461 in the section of how the efficient, rational technician class can become dangerously subordinated to a Hubris-Nemesis leader.
No. We don't know GWB's private thoughts, but we can observe his behaviors. I've seen contrary evidence for 7 in particular and could make a reasonable case for all of 3-8 being absent. The only way that could be missed is through having an a priori confirmation bias.
Its all right though. The whole point of science is to propose theory, see if it fits the evidence, then reconsider if it doesn't.
Collin,
Some would totally diagree that it is Bush that has all of these. Some would say Bill Clinton had them all. Remember Dr Sanity notes we ALL have some of these traits.
It appears to most Bush had a more "normal" relationship with his Mother (or as Dr Sanity puts it, the slow separation of Self from Other) than Clinton. George and Laura have by far the more loving and better marriage than Bill and Hillary.
I ain't the Doc but.......
Dr. Pat, all I can say (well, maybe not all) is BRAVO. Prior to the election I described Kerry as the ultimate political narcissist only to receive a good deal of hooting from my liberal friends. Perhaps deserved, perhaps not. But, I didn't have anywhere near the eloquence of discription that you have shown. I'm waiting with bated breath for part II. Hurry, hurry!!
Narcissism, like other aspects of human nature that can go bad, exists on a continuum.
Eric Fromm was one of the first to study the relationship of psychology to political systems.
Of course he was greatly influenced by WW2.
Alice Miller has done some good work on this subject as well.
Extremely interesting. Like GM Roper I will be looking forward to Part II.
BTW I'm a Bush supporter but I'd like to point out that Hitler showed empathy to some and not others.
He especially liked German children and dogs.
So yes I have seen Bush show empathy. The question is: how fully developed is it?
From my point of view it is developed enough - the war we are fighting is a low casualty affair compared to past wars. Despite the fact that Bush has the power (and some support) to pile the skulls higher than Ghengis Kahn.
Of course others may see it differently.
I think it is mostly wishful thinking on the part of some here to paint Bush as narcissistic. (Or maybe as the Doc would say, it is projection). Of course, they want to see the psychopathology in him as it will prove them right. Was FDR narcissistic and grandiose? Was JFK? I think Bush has a healthy narcissism like most people should. He makes mistakes, sure, but he acts only after thought and reflection and he cares about consequences. As others have pointed out here, we have had a recent president who does things "because he can"--now THAT sounds like narcissism.
Doc this is a great post. I particularly note the comments. Many seem to really delight in pointing out problems in the "other." (In this case GWB) In my mind I went immediately into introspection, concerned that I should not fall to far into the categories listed. I hope I'm OK.
Mason
It is always dangerous to diagnosis people from afar. One can say that Clinton appears to have many of the attributes of a narcissistic character (especially his need for admiration and grandiose sense of being able to get away with whatever he wants) but there are always alternative pathways for unconscious needs to be expressed in behavior and withour having a patient in therapy, a diagnosis is merely speculation. That said, it seems clear that GWB does not have an excessive need for admiration, otherwise he would make sure to have photo ops whenever vising wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, et al.
As far as Hitler, many analysts use the ocncept of malignant narcissism for those whose grandiose fantasies require the anhililation of others in order to support their deficient self esteem. I wrote about pathological and malignant narcissism here:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/
b...wwwindsofc.html
Dr. Santy, why post this on your blog? Do you believe the prospects for "discussion and debate" would be dim if you published in an appropriate professional journal?
Solomon,
Don't be trying to get the Doc not to post something on her blog. Her posts are why I come here to read in the first place. If I wanted a weather report in Ann Arbor I would call my ex-girlfriend's mother. Besides, I don't have any subscriptions to journals like that.
Whoo hoo, I think you're on to something here Pat.
Solomon, I don't think posting on the blog and publishing formally are mutually exclusive: in Computer Science and Mathematics we commonly publish or distribute working papers that are papers in preparation, in order to raise ideas informally, pre-peer review.
A very ambitious project you're undertaking here, Dr., and very well done. I personally have a theory that all politicians have some elements of narcissism--they have to, in order to run for office, IMHO. But that's a lot different from being a narcissist--that is, having narcissistic personality disorder.
It is interesting that some people here think Bush exhibits the syndrome. I don't see that at all. I'm with those who attribute it to Kerry--in fact, I've been blowing that horn for quite a while (if anyone is interested, here's my analysis of how it is that Kerry fits the clinical definition of "narcissist.") Fortunately, though, we don't have to worry so much, since Kerry is now a political has-been (of course, they said that about Richard Nixon...and look what happened!)
If you have dealt with a diagnosed malignant narcissist you won't bother using the term to describe presidents (or presidential candidates). The damage they are willing to inflict upon others in order to maintain their self image is incredible. There is absolutely no joy for the mental health professional who makes the diagnosis either.
I hope Dr. Pat mentions the prognosis for diagnosed individuals. If you have one in your life my advice is "Run away, run away".
Very provocative stuff. Can't wait to read how you bring it all around.
Hitler showed "empathy"?! Right ... I think you might be confusing "empathy" with "sympathy". Wasn't it Hannah Arendt who made the same distinction between these words when she noted that "pity" was at the root of The Terror in the late-18th century?
The archetypal psychologist Pat Berry had some interesting things to say about the myth of Narcissus in her book "Echo's Subtle Body" (Spring Publications, 1982). First, she reminds us that Narcissus is a virgin, and that his reflection is as if "alchemically closed within the narrow limits of the pond."
"But despite this depth of vertical reflection, or perhaps because of it, the horizontal world of Echo is ignored. ... Let us say that Echo is the echoing of what is 'out there' - objects, the daily, others, the lateral. Narcissus ignores these reverberations from surfaces, things around. Attempting to find insight and meaning within oneself, one becomes deaf to surroundings" (p. 100).
One might add the word "ideology" to the more virginal of those vertical quests for insight and meaning.
As with a Robbespierre, whose pity was so great for Humans that he had to kill them, the more ideological the modern progressive the more certain it is that his virtues will require him to disparage everything that is not a paean to the horizontal world - a world that he doesn't dare yield to.
"I know all this is more or less obvious, but it puts our discussion on the proper plane; it teaches us one great lesson -- a pill that for modern man may be the bitterest of all to swallow -- namely, that we seem to be unable to approach the problem of human evil from the side of psychology." - Ernest Becker
Solomon2 - I have no objection to publishing it in a journal, but I plan to write a book eventually and writing on my blog helps me organize my thoughts. I have published many articles in my career and it is not a high priority for me at this stage, though. And, finally, from a practical perspective, the blogsphere gives just as much intelligent criticism and analysis as you might find in any professional journal (and it reaches more people).
Rick -
"If you have dealt with a diagnosed malignant narcissist you won't bother using the term to describe presidents (or presidential candidates). The damage they are willing to inflict upon others in order to maintain their self image is incredible."
You mean damage like siccing the FBI on a travel agent to preserve the public facade that you were a nice guy and didn't fire people just to do favors for others? Or were perfectly willing to delegate cabinet, staff, family, and party members as designated liars to cover an affair? How about the nascent campaign to totally destroy Ms. Lewinsky that derailed only after the infamous blue dress and Goldberg tapes became public?
I've got no problem accepting Bill Clinton as a classic example of narcissistic disorder writ large.
He is, granted, most certainly in the right party.
Great post! By narcissism, I think Dr. Sanity means more than just being a show-off; true narcissim implies a false self, as Alice Miller put it, an overly grand version of self asserted to win the love denied (or perceived to be denied) the authentic self.
Which brings me to my pet theory: that the post WWII generation was brought up in hardship and yet achieved affluence and freedom quite easily-- too easily, in fact, to feel "good." Thus Arendts' and others' belief that neurotics can end up envying the less fortunate and identifying with them as their saviors, like our left or Baader-Meinhof, for instance, to achieve the grandiose goal of their narcissim.
Oh, and the flip side of narcissim is deep depression, as in our radical left and their despair at even living in America after Bush won.
TmjUtah,
Every politician will have some narcissistic tendencies. It's almost part of the job description. Certainly President Clinton has a large serving but I think if you got deeply into the nasty retribution part you would find heavier involvement on his partners part than on his. A really nasty narcissist will go the extra mile in vindictiveness in a heartbeat. They are also very, very careful about controlling their environment - they will go miles out of their way to avoid confronting someone capable of exposing their weaknesses. They will also react stupidly to criticism by blaming someone who is obviously not responsible. I don't believe that President Clinton makes it to that league. Sen. Kerry made a few absolutely stupid remarks "I don't fall down, that SOB pushed me." being the classic but he doesn't have the deep mean streak that indicates a pathological condition. Bill's co-president is the one to watch but I doubt she will be a candidate.
I also think Dr. Pat's focus is somewhat larger than any particular individual. Hurry up, Doc.
Rick -
I agree that the Doc is working on a much larger canvas.
I admit that I rose to the fly cast by that ridiculous first comment, too.
Your observations on retribution, controlling, and stupid comments (remember "...that woman..." and "...meaning of is...?") seem to reinforce a diagnosis of the condition in question, to me.
He's a brilliant politician with superb people skills. He's also a franchise; the people who are closest to him have always been there for their ability to buffer and fix, or to provide a suitable charicature of political correctness in employment - not to perform any specific productive task.
Some people could care less that the wagon they are on is full of trash, just as long as they think it's going their way.
I'm working on Part II and hope to have it finished by the weekend. It is proving more difficult to organize (so much information, so little space!) than I would like. Stay tuned....
Great article!
These two additional resources may augment the blog entries:
Primer on Narcissism
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/vi...type/doc/id/
419
And more about corporate narcissism:
http://samvak.tripod.com/
corpora...narcissism.html
Looking forward to the next instalment!
May I have your permission to post the first installment here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/na...cissisticabuse/
Sam
Well, I've read your post carefully. I am a bit confused since points 1-9 sound like many teenagers, so I gather it is a matter of degree and how all this plays out in one's interactions with the world. I will read the additional links provided by Sam above.
I don't think Bush fits the bill. I don't really think Clinton does either - he seemed to me to be fixated on pleasing other people so much that he had no fixed sense of self and ethics. Not a bad guy, just not a reliable person in any sense of the word. But not really self-centered either. I'd guess that he had a weak sense of self instead of an exalted sense.
Kerry - somewhat. I'll give you one that fits the bill - Ward Churchill. He's a permanent star in his own fantasy, shows no sense of ethics, steals/plagarizes others' work, feels no respect for objective truth, has been reported to be quite abusive to people who anger him etc.
Another is Hitler. I have read Mein Kampf. If you read chapter 2 carefully you realize what a cognitive whack-job the man was. As far as I can figure out he lost some arguments to Jewish labor organizers, met some Jewish philanthropists of whom he was envious, and from there got all the way to the certainty that Jews were going to destroy the world.
Almost all teens struggle with narcissistic issues and this is a key age for the sense of Self to begin to gel into what it will be at full maturity. Some kids do it faster than others. Some never fully achieve a cohesive self. In the mental health field, we often joke that all teens could be diagnosed as narcissistic or borderline--that's why those diagnoses aren't generally made until AFTER the age of 18 or so. (no personality diagnosis should be made on a child because the assumption is that the personality is still developing.)
Dear Dr. Sanity
You saved me I am a psychiatry trainee and the way you described Kohut's theory has enlightened me and gave me more insights to pursue in practice.
Please keep up the good work ! I will be reading everything you write
Jane
Nice to find you through SC&A. Nice also to wander around and find the post that you consider your favorite and comment on it.
In general, I happen to think the post is in error because it reifies what are essentially analytical and intellectual concepts ('narcissism', 'narcisstic personality disorder') applied to what actually is a far more complicated and ambiguous human experience when looked at from the inside, as a man or woman, rather than from the outside as either a scientist, ('narcissism') or as a moral philosopher ('personality disorder').
This error, I think, starts here: "a seeming epidemic of malignant Narcissism caused by a crushing of human nature and the human spirit".
Human nature and human spirit are not in the least axiomatic concepts to be assumed without proof in the interests of what is clearly a political philosophy which you propose to develop later.
There is no solid evidence of the existence of either "human nature" or "human spirit" in the same sense that each of us has solid evidence of our own two hands. Their existence is essentially a matter of faith, in exactly the sense in which we speak of "having faith in human nature."
To assume them is to reify, without justification, what may easily be concepts as contentless as "the present King of France." They must be either explictly proven or explicitly treated as "faith-based".
Without serious intellectual examination this covert reification will simply not pass muster, since you are clearly going to develop a political point of view from it with the end of political persuasion.
We may see the same error in the "definition" of the "self" you propose:
"The “Self” can be thought of as a content of the mental apparatus; a structure within the mind that has continuity in time and a specific location. The “Self” is therefore analogous to how one represents other people within the mind...“Identity” can be thought of as the Self’s socio-cultural position in the world."
Wow. Let's see, first the self is a "content" of some nebulous "mental apparatus". Both these concepts are, of course, metaphors, since neither you nor I have ever seen a piece of clockwork between our own ears, or between anyone else's.
As far as I know clocks don't have "content", so exactly what similitude you mean by "content of an apparatus", is not particularly clear.
But then the self is also a "stucture" with "continuity in time" and a "specific" location. "Structure" is also a metaphor, and a "structure" which has a specific location that is also a "content" inside an "apparatus" is mixed metaphor the size of the Matterhorn!
Presumably, the location of the structure is somewhere inside the apparatus and the structure of the apparatus is its content.
I think.
This little bit of literary criticism has a point. The language used is a base coinage that conceals the really serious question: Just what is it in our experience that has location in space and continuity in time? What is the advantage of concealing this question? So we can all assume that we already know the answer.
We don't.
To see how problematic this question is consider, "The “Self” is therefore analogous to how one represents other people within the mind."
Now the "one" who creates images of other people in our "mind" is ambiguous to begin with--after all, we have a "one" doing the creating and something somehow separate called a "mind" in which the images are created.
Let's consider those images. Let's think about our mothers' maiden names.
Now it is clear that the image of our mother and her maiden name is very plain upon our minds at the moment. But where was this image back when we were talking about metaphor? And where will it be two hours from now?
Did the "one" voluntarily create it and just project it on the mind in response to my directive? Or did my "one" create it first in my mind and then in your mind, or did my "one" somehow force your "one" to create it in your mind?
But matters are even worse than this. The "self" is somehow "analogous" to those images which the "one" creates. So now we not only have a "self", we have a "mind", a "one", and "mental images of other people" which are like the "self" but not the same as the "self".
It's getting kind of crowded in there, don't you think?
Beyond this however, we have an "identity", which is the "self's socio-cultural position within the world". Now I presume that my socio-cultural position is marked out by things like my Driver's Licence, my w2 forms, my SSN, and my food stamp award letter.
It goes by the handle of Joseph Marshall, who is on record with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles as being 5' 7" tall, weighing 260 lbs., having grey hair, blue eyes [with a large twinkle, so I'm told], and a full beard.
So do these components of my socio-cultural position refer to my body or my "self"? And if they refer to my "self", what about my "one", my mind, my mental images, my human nature, and my human spirit?
It's been a pleasure tackling Part I, but I am tiring. But I will say that I strongly suspect what the scientists call "narcissism" stems from our difficulty sorting out just who and what we really are, and is not a "personality disorder" of a "self" wandering in a truly mapped and completely understood inner human landscape.
I love your explanations Dr. Sanity -- very descriptive and thorough. For a hilarious example of narcissism at it's finest, see http://ragingnarcissist.googlepages.com. Enjoy.
odds on sports odds on sports odds on sports // medicare prescription drug and modernization act medicare prescription drug and modernization act medicare prescription drug and modernization act
Dr. Sanity:
I believe your attempt to connect narcissism with political belief both simplistic and off-base. Positions of power and authority are attractive to the selfish and corrupt regardless of party affiliation.
You might consider that conservatives defend individual freedom against the power of the government. The problem for narcissists with a defense of freedom is that you must allow others to have it. A narcissist can only pay lip service to freedom.
On the otherhand, the left believes in the unchallenged primacy of the state over the individual. Politicians across the entire spectrum of the left, from Che, Hilter, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Mussolini and Stalin, all believed that absolute personal selfishness was the highest moral value. Selflessness and obedience were for the rank and file. It made mass murder so much easier.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
