WOW! This is fascinating stuff. And it makes so much sense. This sort of gives psychological support to the concept of "selfishness" which is considered so evil by so many. I think it underscores and supports Ayn Rand's analysis of Capitalism (which she called the "unknown Ideal". thanks.
JohnS | Email | Homepage | 04.17.05 - 6:33 pm | #

Fascinating discussion, but wanted to throw out a few comments- maybe you'll find them useful.

I think there is some breakdown when using a conceptual vehicle that describes subjective psychological processes to interpret the purpose and effect of government.

For one, it is suspect because it is provincial. Interestingly, the ideal government is associated with the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘capitalism’, which are terms associated with our own government.

A concept that describes the experiences within the individual that result in an effect- in this case the effect being either maturation or internal dysfunction- must also describe subjective experiences when analyzing a new effect- in this case the thesis that healthy individual self-integration arises from and supports some types of governments and not others.

Are there not individuals, regions, and groups that experience the impact of their organizing group or government differently? If subjective experiences of the effect of government differ, then it is difficult to classify types of government as either supporting of psychological health or not supportive of psychological health. Is not what is important the individual experience of the government (or other organizing group) as mediating between the needs of the self and the needs of the other, or of being imbalanced?

Following that suspicion on, (that there may be a problem when applying this subjective and personal concept to the group existence), the question becomes, could a member of a Socialist society or Theocratic society create an equally valid argument that their social structure best serves to create balance between the Grandiose Self and the Omnipotent Other? And if they could, then possibly the application of this principle to social structures requires some further refinement to acknowledge that social structures are experienced subjectively.
Mgp | Email | Homepage | 04.17.05 - 8:57 pm | #

A member of a Socialist or Theocratic society could indeed create an equally valid argument. At least on paper.

But the fact is, any utopian Socialist or Theocratic state will be done in by "human nature." While this may be hard to prove on paper, it is very evident in an examination of empirical evidence.

Capitalism is most certainly the way to go, but one must acknowledge the limits and constraints noted by Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes et al.
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 04.17.05 - 11:33 pm | #

Mgp,

"in this case the thesis that healthy individual self-integration arises from and supports some types of governments and not others."

Isn't a better statement of the thesis involved: "some types of governments provide strong support for a person exhibiting a degree of personality fragmentation of a narcissistic nature"? Or even more simply "Socialism tends to reinforce narcissistic traits."

After all, the focus of the post is narcissism - not "healthy individuals".
Rick Ballard | Email | Homepage | 04.18.05 - 12:17 am | #

I think so. I do agree that there are some cultures and governments that appear to function in a highly narcissistic way. The Islamic world tends to breed a great deal of narcissistic imbalance (not to bash people who come from this part of the world- I don’t know every one of you individually). The “pigs become men” argument about human nature is certainly valid, but does that mean that by default democratic capitalism is the most supportive of a healthy balance of personality? Isn’t democratic capitalism in fact an ideal?

It seems as though the ‘other’ governments are constructed as ideal-driven, (or perhaps dogmatic) when in fact our own society is ideal-driven and dogmatic. The real evil of communism was that the ideal was an oppressive imperfection- some say made oppressive and imperfect by human nature- but isn’t that failure to live up to an ideal what breeds evil in every society?

And- is it indeed “better” to have a balanced personality? Perhaps it is a redundant expression of Western values to say, ‘democracy is better than other systems of government because it supports a healthy expression of self and other’. I certainly think it is better to be free and have a balanced personality, but the logic in the analysis does not make that conclusion self-evident.
Mgp | Email | Homepage | 04.18.05 - 5:40 am | #

Hey,

No big deal.

People are selfish.

People are vain.

Governments are the same.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Papa Ray | Email | Homepage | 04.18.05 - 10:34 am | #

A well done series by Dr. Sanity. If I may add my $.02, Dr. Sanity suggests that we should not be reductionistic, and I agree. There are multiple developmental lines (psychosexual, cognitive) that mature alongside narcissism, and distortions in these lines can cause their own pathology and/or shape narcissistic pathology.
On another note, while it is always problematic to diagnose from afar, narcissists tend to overvalue their own productions, verbal and otherwise (just look at the self-aggrandizing of Saddam Hussein who built palaces to himslef while his people lived in penury)and many ideologues do exactly the same with their particular theories of how people should behave and how society should be organized.
Finally, the "good enough" parent allows the child to de-idealize them without devaluing them via "optimal frustration", ie, frustrations that are not too harsh and not too gentle. An archaic concept, love (that was mild sarcasm, which is driven by its seeming disappearance from our mass culture), allows a child to tolerate parental frustration without destroying the object.
ShrinkWrapped | Email | Homepage | 04.18.05 - 12:55 pm | #

Mitzell, you surprise me!!! I was floored to see your comment stating that capitalism was the way to go!!!!!
wolverine | Email | Homepage | 04.19.05 - 4:10 pm | #

I see a basic conceptual flaw in the idea that narcissism can be displaced onto society. The definition of narcissism is that the subject shows no empathy, that they are interested only in themselves and will become users of others in the social setting.

What the Dr. appears to be describing seems more like megalomania to me. True narcissists don't give a damn about society.

One other thing: having withstood ten years of Jungian therapy, I can say unequivocally that theories come and go, schools of thought (Kohut, Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.) abound and that they are all like religions. But at least religions start you with a soul, an indestructible essence granted by the universe. All but Jungianism are silent on the soul. Caveat emptor.

My contribution is to say: Take the one (religion, politics, therapy) that fits and run with it. But, always look for the one that asks the most of you, not the one that offers the most benefit.

BTW: Of course capitalist democracy as practiced by our republic is the best style of government. The USA is the best society ever produced by humanity by any objective measurement (even a psychological yardstick). It requires true adult individuals who are in charge of themselves, their actions, and their fate. All the isms appeal to the infantile, to the desire to be cared for, to the stunting of growth.
DLC | Email | Homepage | 04.19.05 - 6:17 pm | #

DLC- first, the Doctor does not displace it onto society. It is a process each individual goes through on his or her way to emotional maturity. She is using it to explain possibly why people (especially people at different stages of emotional growth) might be attracted to one political system or another.

Second, "megalomania" is the unrestrained grandiose self, as she describes it (or Kohut does). The real value of this analysis is the idea that a SECOND aspect of narcissism --that comes from the original psychological fusion of infant and mother--is Narcissistic idealism and that it, along with the grandiose self must BOTH develop for emotional health.

It does not seem like a conceptual flaw to me, but a new understanding of narcissism grounded in human biology. At any rate, I think that is what she is saying and it makes a great deal of sense to me.
JohnS | Email | Homepage | 04.19.05 - 7:02 pm | #

Richard Sennet discussed this topic in his book, The Fall of Public Man. He is not as thorough on Kohut as Dr. S due to a more historicist bent in his sociology. Nevertheless, in Chapter 14 he broaches this subject in at least two explicitly titled sections, "The Mobilization of Narcissism and the Appearance of a New Class", and, "Narcissism is the Protestant Ethic of Modern Times", echoing Weber and associating (Protestant) aceticism with narcissism: "In both there is a projection of the self onto the world, rather than an engagement in worldly experience beyond one's control." Unlike Dr. S, however, Sennet, particularly in later books, hints at capitalism and modern society at large as creating its own brand of narcissism in the bureaucratic structure of companies (seeing the company as an extension of the self). This seems like a subject that could benefit greatly through more serious attention and interdisciplinary pioneers like Dr. S.
LS | Email | Homepage | 08.11.05 - 11:11 am | #

I'm surprised that Christopher Lasch's _Culture of Narcissism_ doesn't get mentioned in the discussion? Or have I missed it?

Totalitarian states demand a selflessness in which the state or party (as in _1984_)replaces the normal ego. The ego problem of the narcissist is that the ego is deficient, as is the ego of the egocentric child. These people have trouble separating objective reality (exteroception) from their other emotional and kinesic senses. What something external means depends upon what they are doing and feeling. There is no independent reality relative to which the person may individuate, experience self from nonself.

If you consider the socialization occuring in a postmodern context, devoid of objective reality, you can see how a society can be conducive to narcissism. Another major factor in the social narcissism game is technology's promotion of a virtual reality. In the modern materialist society, the individual person's feet seldom touches the ground until he/she encounters the hard, obstinate reality of death.

Consider developmental consequences for people who had to deal with the consequences of their acts immediately, rather than as mediated by techology. Such were the experiences of those who assumed the automonous person for which the Constitution was written. Few reading this blog have ever been cold to the point of frost bite, had to dispose of their own bodily or other wastes, had to survive by killing/growing their own food, and so on. The more mediated and remote our experience becomes from brute reality, the more society/technology approximates the womb or egg for the developing embyro which Freud used to illustrate narcissism. Relative to what objective reality can the ego objectify itself when all its needs are immediately met? As has been frequently noted, childhood is lasting longer these days; one can see why.

Here is where I have bogged down at the notion of a culture of narcissim since I first read Lasch: when the norm of the culture is a psychopathology, of what use is the diagnosis? Maybe the shink is sick?
DuMaurier-Smith | Email | Homepage | 04.07.07 - 3:38 pm | #

very well
ghd Hair staightener | Email | Homepage | 10.07.09 - 10:00 pm | #