Phil's Philosophy

Mind Meanderings of an Alchemist

Tag: Shamelessness

Anatomy of Narcissism v1.0 (ii) – Sadism, Sins and Necrophilia

Page 1
Motivation
What is Narcissism?
Definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Deriving Characteristics from the Tale
Fatal and delusional self-absorption
Unresponsive to love
Sees people as objects
Only accepts actions that mirror his will
Narcissism and Idolatry
Shrine-Metaphor
How is Narcissism Brought Into Existence?
The Soothing- versus the Shaming Inner Parent
Construction of the Self-image
Page 2
Narcissism versus Sadism
Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism
1.Shamelessness 2.Magical Thinking 3.Arrogance 4.Envy 5.Entitlement 6.Exploitation 7.Bad Boundaries
Narcissism versus Necrophilia
Worship of Technique
New Character Types
Page 3
Narcissism versus Addiction
Narcissus the Addict
Definition: Narcissistic Audience
The Addiction of the Narcissist
The “Malignant Self-Love” Misnomer
The Love-Hate Relationship with his Audience
Volatile and Schizoid
Narcissistic Rage
References

Narcissism versus Sadism

noun /ˈsāˌdizəm/

  • The tendency to derive pleasure, esp. sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others
  • (in general use) Deliberate cruelty

Source

It should come as no surprise that the vindictive nature of the narcissist features sadistic streaks. Although less specific, Fromm does suggest a generative route leading to the formation of the sadistic personality that is reminiscent of the one leading to the narcissistic personality as mentioned in the section What Brings the Narcissist into Existence:

“Individual factors enhancing sadism are all those conditions that tend to make the child or the grown-up feel empty and impotent (a non-sadistic child may become a sadistic adolescent or adult if new circumstances occur). Among such conditions are those that produce fright, such as terroristic punishment. By this I mean the kind of punishment that is not strictly limited in intensity, related to specific and stated misbehaviour, but that is arbitrary, fed by the punisher’s sadism, and of fright-producing intensity. Depending on the temperament of the child, the fear of such punishment can become a dominant motive in his life, his sense of integrity may be slowly broken down, his self-respect lowered, and eventually he may have betrayed himself so often that he has no more sense of identity, that he is no longer ‘he’.” (Fromm; p. 397)

Note the similarity between the shaming but unsoothing parent of Hotchkiss with the sadistic punisher of Fromm. The only difference being that Hotchkiss refers to the shaming of specific undesired behavior while Fromm refers to unspecific punishment meted out at the sadist’s whim. But this is nonetheless just a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference since its function is the same: humiliation and propagation of shame; it has a destructive- rather than constructive psychological effect. As such, since they share the same generative mechanism, one may expect a certain comorbity to exist between sadism and narcissism. That is, where either narcissism or sadism is found in a person, the other psychopathology is likely to be present too.

But Fromm offers another generative route towards sadism, one that is consequential to chronic boredom and lethargy:

“The other condition for the generation of vital powerlessness is a situation of psychic scarcity. If there is no stimulation, nothing that awakens the faculties of a child, if there is an atmosphere of dullness and joylessness, the child freezes up; there is nothing upon which he can make a dent, nobody who responds or even listens, the child is left with a sense of powerlessness and impotence. Such a powerlessness does not necessarily result in the formation of the sadistic character; whether or not it does, depends on many other factors. Yet it is one of the main sources that contribute to the development of sadism, both individually and socially.” (Fromm; p. 397)

It is interesting to speculate on what may cause boredom. If one is envious of someone doing some sort of activity, rather than using this unhappy feeling as a motive to try and improve one’s own ability in that activity, a lazy approach is to try and depress or deny those feelings of envy. The envious person may go ahead and look for reasons to condemn and disqualify the activity and as such simply render it unworthy of being envied any longer.

While this strategy may succeed in reducing envy, the great disadvantage is of course that none of the activities that have been previously condemned can now be pursued; if they were, then the person would have to deal with the psychological tension belonging to hypocrisy and even self-hatred. And so the more a person condemns different types of activity, whether driven by envy or not, the more he limits the spectrum of possible activities he could enjoy and so the greater the risk of boredom becomes. Boredom basically is a state of depression of general motivation and may very well be brought on by a lazy man’s response to envy. Also note that the narcissist runs the risk of developing boredom via this route; he too has a condemnatory character.

To Fromm a sense of powerlessness is necessary for the development of sadism. A few pages back he elaborates on his preferred definition of sadism:

“Sadism is one of the answers to the problem of being born human when better ones are not attainable. The experience of absolute control over another being, of omnipotence as far as he, she, or it is concerned, creates the illusion of transcending the limitations oh human existence, particularly for one whose real life is deprived of productivity and joy. Sadism has essentially no practical aim; it is not ‘trivial’ but ‘devotional’. It is transformation of impotence into the experience of omnipotence; it is the religion of psychical cripples.” (Fromm; p. 386)

“For the sadistic character everything living is to be controllable; living beings become things. Or, still more accurately, living beings are transformed into living, quivering, pulsating objects of control. Their responses are forced by the one who controls them. The sadist wants to become the master of life, and hence the quality of life should be maintained in his victim. This is, in fact, what distinguishes him from the destroying person. The destroyer wants to do away with a person, to eliminate him, to destroy life itself; the sadist wants the sensation of controlling and choking life.

Another trait of the sadist is that he is stimulated only by the helpless, never by those who are strong. It does not cause any sadistic pleasure, for instance, to inflict a wound on an enemy in a fight between equals, because in this situation the infliction of the wound is not an expression of control. For the sadistic character there is only one admirable quality, and that is power. He admires, loves, and submits to those who have power, and he despises and wants to control those who are powerless and cannot fight back.

The sadistic character is afraid of everything that is not certain and predictable, that offers surprises which would force him to spontaneous and original reactions. For this reason, he is afraid of life. Life frightens him precisely because it is by its very nature unpredictable and uncertain. It is structured but it is not orderly; there is only one certainty in life: that all men die. Love is equally uncertain. To be loved requires a capacity to be loving oneself, to arouse love, and it implies always a risk of rejection and failure. This is why the sadistic character can ‘love’ only when he controls, i.e., when he has power over the object of his love. The sadistic character is usually xenophobic and neophobic — one who is strange constitutes newness, and what is new arouses fear, suspicion, and dislike, because a spontaneous, alive, and not-routinized response would be required.

Another element in the syndrome is the submissiveness and cowardice of the sadist. It may sound like a contradiction that the sadist is a submissive person, and yet not only is it not a contradiction — it is dynamically speaking, a necessity. He is sadistic because he feels impotent, unalive, and powerless. He tries to compensate for this lack by having power over others, by transforming the worm he feels himself to be into a god. But even the sadist who has power suffers from his human impotence. He may kill and torture, but he remains a loveless, isolated, frightened person in need of a higher power to whom he can submit. For those one step below Hitler, the Fuehrer was his highest power; for Hitler himself, it was Fate, the laws of Evolution.”

(Fromm; p. 388, 389)

But again these are also all properties of the narcissist. Like Fromm’s sadist, i.e. the person who possesses “the passion for unlimited, godlike control over men and things” (Fromm; p.226), the narcissist too “loves” (in a practical sense this translates to: tolerating and accepting) only that which perfectly mirrors his will. Anything short of his picky demands is worthy of condemnation at best, and downright bloody persecution at worst. Things that do not mirror the narcissist’s self-image are worthy of his wrath as they range from being perceived to be annoying all the way up to being regarded as threatening. Spontaneous unguided acts are unpredictable and may end up shaming the narcissist and since this prospect is unbearable, no stone should be left unturned at trying to prevent actions that are beyond his control and will. Or alternatively, the narcissist may use the failure of the satisfaction of his will as an excuse to shame the ones he holds responsible, which essentially is a main defining function of sadism. Hence it seems warranted to assume that, for all practical purposes, the sadist and the narcissist are identical.

Although it should be noted that not all sadists go around reveling subjecting others to physical torture. It is key to keep in mind that the sadist enjoys seeing other people suffer, and suffering does not have to be limited to the infliction of physical suffering but may also include mental or emotional suffering (e.g. verbal abuse). Also the sadist need not be directly responsible for the inflicting of the suffering but may use proxies if he has the necessary power (e.g.political sadists such as dictators).

Regarding self-assertive aggression, the type of aggression normal healthy non-sadistic people have in order to achieve objectives of whatever kind, minor or major, Fromm comments:

“The person with an unimpeded self-assertive aggression tends, in general, to be less hostile in a defensive sense than the person whose self-assertion is defective. This holds true both for defensive aggression and for malignant aggression like sadism. The reasons for this are easy to see. As to the first, defensive aggression is a response to a threat. The person with unimpeded self-assertive aggression feels less easily threatened and, hence, is less readily in a position of having to react with aggression. The sadistic person is sadistic because he is suffering from an impotence of the heart, from the incapacity to move the other, to make him respond, to make oneself a loved person. He compensates for that impotence with the passion to have power over others. Since self-assertive aggression enhances the person’s capacity for achieving his aims, its possession greatly diminishes the need for sadistic control.” (Fromm; p. 263, 264)

In order to make sense of Fromm’s quote, this “incapacity to move the other” should be interpreted as the narcissist/sadist having the mindset of someone who presumes he cannot make, or fears that he cannot make, the other “move” on a voluntary basis (i.e. by asking) and so he sees himself obliged to resort to compulsion and manipulation. The use of power does provide one with the “capacity to move the other”, albeit of an involuntary kind. I suspect that the reason why a narcissist/sadist is incapable of loving a person, “impotence of the heart” as Fromm calls it, is that the closer a person gets to him the more damage they can do by way of shaming. And therefore intimacy is an inherent liability to the narcissist. He cannot genuinely and deeply love another person because consciously or unconsciously he registers it as being too dangerous. I previously raised this issue in section The Soothing versus the Shaming Inner Parent.

“She looks at herself instead of looking at you, and so doesn’t know you. During the two or three little outbursts of passion she has allowed herself in your favor, she has, by a great effort of imagination, seen in you the hero of her dreams, and not yourself as you really are.” (Page 401, 1953 Penguin Edition, trans. Margaret R.B. Shaw). Wikipedia

Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism

The full implications of the adoption of a superior self-image together, account for all of what Sandy Hotchkiss calls the seven deadly sins of narcissism and succinctly capture the essence of the narcissist in a phenomenological sense. The narcissist has never learned to deal with shame, and it is therefore considered intolerable and worthy of avoidance, cost what it may. The first sin, shamelessness, is a direct consequence of seeking to deny acts that would normally shame normal people. Hotchkiss writes:

“In the Narcissist, shame is so intolerable that the means have been developed not to experience it at all. What psychologists call ‘by-passed shame’ looks like shamelessness or the absence of a conscience, hiding behind a protective barrier of denial, coldness, blame or rage. Since there are no healthy internal mechanisms available to process this painful feeling, the shame is directed outward, away from the Self. It can never be ‘my fault.'” (Hotchkiss; p 5,6)

The second, magical thinking, automatically comes with the delusional mindset of the narcissist, also responsible for the adoption of an inflated self-image grounded in wishful thinking and fiction. Magical thinking serves to distort reality and to smoothen its harshness into a more palatable semblance. The loftiness and boldness of the self-image is naturally accompanied by arrogance and a sense of entitlement the third- and fifth sin, respectively — although any self-esteem derived from the self-image remains fragile as it is fragile itself by being vulnerable to sudden deflation on occasions at which the shaming inner parentis invoked. Hotchkiss writes:

“If they are feeling deflated, they can reinflate themselves by diminishing, debasing, or degrading someone else. This is the reason why Narcissists are often bossy, judgmental, perfectionistic, and power-hungry. They are simply are trying to secure the kind of status that will afford them the most distance from the taint of personal defect and shame. If their balloon gets torn by the ill winds of life, they can repair themselves by showing someone else to be inferior.” (Hotchkiss; p. 11)

Unfortunately, putting people down does come with a psychological cost: it creates conscience debt. You may get yourself pumped yourself up, whether you put someone down in their presence or absence, but your hostility forces you to prepare for retaliatory action, revenge coming from the insulted party. This of course, is not a healthy means to inflate yourself as it is fear-based. And the more you practice it, the more you’ll get stranded in fear and ultimately paranoia as your conscience debt piles up, expecting more and more retaliation coming from an ever increasing number of people who have been disadvantaged by your arrogant demeanor. In order to avoid confrontation with the people you’ve put down or condemned, you limit your freedom of mobility. It’s again the same mechanism that contributes to the risk of experiencing chronic boredom (and self-hatred), something that Fromm blames for the development of sadism.


Although the purpose of the narcissist is to inspire awe and envy through hoisting his aggrandized self-image high up in the proverbial sky — which is about the ultimate act of defiance and arrogance, BTW — it should be reminded that, to begin with, he is propelled by envy himself; thus bringing us to the fourth sin. Indeed, he is extremely envy-sensitive for the goodies and traits other people have, and as such unwittingly challenge his superiority, a threat which he then in turn tries to neutralize with scorn and contempt — which is functionally the same as arrogance as it too works to depreciate the object of contempt.

Regarding the fifth sin, entitlement, Hotchkiss writes:

“Whether overwhelmed with shame or artificially protected from it, children whose infantile fantasies are not gradually transformed into a more balanced view of themselves in relation to others never get over the belief that they are the center of the universe. Such children may become self-absorbed ‘entitlement monsters,’ socially inept and incapable of the small sacrifices of Self that allow for reciprocity in personal relationships. The undeflated child turns into an arrogant adult who expects others to serve as constant mirrors of his or her wonderfulness. In positions of power, they can be egotistical tyrants who will have their way without regard for anyone else.” (Hotchkiss; p. 21)

Self-confessed self-aware narcissist Sam Vaknin writes:

“Narcissists are angry men – but not because they never experienced love and probably never will. They are angry because they are not as powerful, awe inspiring and successful as they wish they were and, to their mind, deserve to be.” Narcissists and Women – Sam Vaknin

Since the narcissist can only bring himself to be “loving” whenever things perfectly mirror his own demands and preferences, it is only logical to expect that the narcissist naturally tends to gravitate to positions of power. The more power the narcissist has the more he will be able to control the circumstances to his own liking and the less frequent menacing imperfect reflections of his will are presented to him.

“Ns install a mental filter in our heads a little bit at a time. Before we know it, everything we do, say, or think, goes through this filter. ‘Will he get upset if I do/say/think this? Will he approve/disapprove? Will he feel hurt by this?’ Until we can uninstall the N-filter, our actions are controlled by N to some degree.” NPDQuotes

Hotchkiss captures the essence of the sixth sin, exploitation, nicely when she says:

“Empathy will not develop, however, unless the child achieves a separate sense of Self and the capacity to tolerate a range of emotions, including shame. Bypassed shame — the shame that narcissistic people so deeply suppress that it remains beneath conscious awareness — stunts the growth of empathy. Without empathy, people have difficulty controlling aggressive impulses. Driven by shame[lessness] and prone to rage and aggression, the Narcissist never develops the capacity to identify with or even to recognize the feelings and needs of others. This is a person who, in terms of emotional development, got stuck around the age of one to two. Others are not seen as separate entities but rather as extensions of Self, there to do the Narcissist’s bidding. This, along with an underdeveloped conscience, tends to make them interpersonally exploitative.” (Hotchkiss; p. 24)

Since other people are viewed as extensions of the Self, to be subjected to the whim of the narcissist, there is no reason why he should respect their individuality or persons who possess inviolable boundaries. The narcissist does not recognize the boundaries between his own person and that of other people. Observing bad boundaries is the seventh and final narcissistic sin that Hotchkiss mentions. She writes:

“Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who offer the possibility of some sort of gratification will be treated as if they are a part of the Narcissist and will be expected, automatically, to live up to that person’s expectations. In the mind of a Narcissist, there is no boundary between Self and other.” (Hotchkiss; p. 28)

In the mind of the narcissist the personhood of other people factually do not exist. For all practical purposes he views them as self-animating objects whose motility may or may not be co-opted to his service.

“Death is no longer symbolically expressed by unpleasant-smelling feces or corpses. Its symbols are now clean, shining machines… But the reality behind this antiseptic facade becomes increasingly visible. Man, in the name of progress, is transforming the world into a stinking and poisonous place… He pollutes the air, the water, the soil, the animals – and himself. He is doing this to a degree that has made it doubtful whether the earth will still be livable within a hundred years from now.” (Fromm; p. 465, 466)

Narcissism versus Necrophilia

The above quote illustrates a more general kind of necrophilia, love of death, to be distinguished from a more specialized sense of the word, love of the dead:

“The term ‘necrophilia’, love of the dead, has been applied generally only to two kinds of phenomena: (1) sexual necrophilia, a man’s desire to have sexual intercourse or any other kind of sexual contact with a female corpse, and (2) non-sexual necrophilia, the desire to handle, to be near to, and to gaze at corpses, and particularly the desire to dismember them. But the term has generally not been applied to a character-rooted passion, the soil in which its more overt and cruder manifestation grows.” (Fromm; p.433)

We will follow Fromm and focus on the character-rooted “soil” of necrophilia. Rather than concentrating on people literally loving corpses we will focus on people loving death or, more generally still, loving unaliveness and how it relates to narcissism. The resemblance with narcissism can already be gleaned from this wider meaning:

“Necrophilia in the characterological sense can be described as the passionate attraction to all that is dead, decayed, putrid, sickly; it is the passion to transform that which is alive into something unalive; to destroy for the sake of destruction; the exclusive interest in all that is purely mechanical. It is the passion to tear apart living structures.” (Fromm; p.441)

First of all, the necrophile’s penchant to “destroy for the sake of destruction” can easily be read as the ultimate form of punishment, capital punishment in fact. This punitive character is what the necrophile and the narcissist have in common, the latter too is driven by a vindictive and destructive character.

Secondly, “the exclusive interest in all that is purely mechanical” is one that is naturally favored by the narcissist as well. Indeed, his interpretation of the world around him is based on the shallow notion that people, or living beings in general, are self-animating objects which are either under his control to cater to his needs and desires, or discarded or ignored if they fail to that end. What better measure of control if those “objects” are controlled directly by the will of the narcissist?

In a mechanical world, the narcissist has the fullest ability to see service of his will. While in infancy his mother served as an extension of his will, a stage of development Freud called Primary Narcissism, a selection of blindly obedient and ungrudging robots and machinery could perhaps ideally substitute for the narcissist’s Mother Dearest.

Fromm goes on to discuss the appearance of necrophilia in dreams. “The attraction to what is dead and putrid”, he writes, “can be observed most clearly in the dreams of necrophilous persons. ” (Fromm; p.441) As he mentions several dream events, one struck me as being of particular interest in relation to this treatment of narcissism:

Dream 5. ‘I have made a great invention, the super-destroyer. It is a machine which, if one secret button is pushed that I alone know, can destroy all life in North America within the first hour, and within the next hour all life on earth. I alone, knowing the formula of the chemical substance, can protect myself. (Next scene.) I have pushed the button: I notice no more life, I am alone, I feel exuberant.’ This dream is an expression of pure destructiveness in an extremely narcissistic person, unrelated to others and with no need of anyone. This was a recurrent dream with this person, together with other necrophilous dreams. He was suffering from severe mental illness.” (Fromm; p.445)

The necrophile glorifies violence and like the narcissist, he lives in a perpetual state of warlike emergency, unable to relate to his fellow human being in a compassionate manner:

“Another manifestation of the necrophilous character is the conviction that the only way to solve a problem or a conflict is by force and violence. The question involved is not whether force should be used under certain circumstances; what is characteristic for a necrophile is that force — as Simone Weil said, ‘the power to transform a man into a corpse’ — is the first and last solution for everything; that the Gordian Knot must always be cut and never dissolved patiently. Basically, these persons’ answer to life’s problems is destruction, never sympathetic effort, construction, for example. … Motivated by this impulse they usually fail to see other options that require no destruction, nor do they recognise how futile has force often proven to be in the long run.” (Fromm; p.449)

Worship of Technique

Indeed, no less than an unabashed promotion of the irrational “worship of speed and the machine” can be found in the works of a prominent Italian Fascist, named F.T. Marinetti:

“The overt connection between destruction and the worship of technique found its explicit and eloquent expression in F.T. Marinetti, the founder and leader of Italian Futurism and a lifelong Fascist. His first Futurist Manifesto (1909) proclaims the ideals that were to find their full realization in National Socialism and in the methods used in warfare beginning with the Second World War. …

1. We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness. […] 7. Except in struggle, there is no more beauty. No work without an aggressive character can be a masterpiece. […] 9. We will glorify war — the world’s only hygiene — militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman. 10. We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice. 11. … deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing; and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd. (R.W. Flint, 1971)

Here we see the essential elements of necrophilia; worship of speed and the machine; glorification of war; destruction of culture; hate against women; locomotives and aeroplanes as living forces.” “The second Futurist Manifesto (1916) develops the idea of the religion of speed:

Speed, having as its essence the intuitive synthesis of every force in movement, is naturally pure. Slowness, having as its essence the rational analysis of every exhaustion in repose, is naturally unclean. After the destruction of the antique good and the antique evil, we create a new good, speed and a new evil, slowness. Speed = synthesis of every courage in action. Aggressive and warlike. Slowness = analysis of every stagnant prudence. Passive and pacifistic….(R.W. Flint, 1971)

It has been said that Marinetti was a revolutionary, that he broke with the past, that he opened the doors to a vision of a new world of Nietzschean supermen, that together with Picasso and Apollinaire, he was one of the most important forces in modern art. Let me answer that his revolutionary ideas place him close to Mussolini, and still closer to Hitler. It is precisely this blending of rhetorical professions of a revolutionary spirit, the worship of technique, and the aims of destruction that characterize Nazism.” [emphasis mine] (Fromm; p.457-459)

Again, the desire for control or satisfaction of will, expressed in the control over machinery, and the glorification of speed, an emphasis on destruction and war are all traits that are also shared by the vindictive mind of the narcissist. The worship of speed (factual rashness and irrationality) and the condemnation of slowness (representing deliberation and rationality), is synonymous to a craving for all stimuli that bring exhilaration and excitement and a loathing for all those that bring agitation and depression; it is essentially the identity of the addict, much like the narcissist who is also animated by a rash and warlike character, i.e. fueled forward by the stream of adulation from others.

The connection of technicalization of society and necrophilia became particularly apparent at around WWII:

“The fusion of technique and destructiveness was not yet visible in the First World War. There was little destruction by planes, and the tank was only a further evolution of traditional weapons. The Second World War brought about a decisive change: the use of the aeroplane for mass killing. The men dropping the bombs were hardly aware that they were killing or burning to death thousands of human beings in a few minutes. The aircrews were a team; one man piloted the plane, another navigated it, another dropped the bombs. They were not concerned with killing and were hardly aware of an enemy. They were concerned with the proper handling of their complicated machine along the lines laid down in meticulously organized plans. That as the result of their acts many thousands, and sometimes over a hundred thousand people, would be killed, burnt, and maimed was of course known to them cerebrally, but hardly comprehended affectively; it was, paradoxically as this may sound, none of their concern. It is probably for this reason that they — or at least most of them — did not feel guilty for acts that belong to the most horrible a human being can perform.” (Fromm; p.460)

In short, by using machines, the act of killing becomes more and more an exercise of anonymity and more and more depersonalized (by way of being more and more remote controlled) and as such any possible obstructive conscientious reservations become less and less significant.

With this “technicalization of destructiveness”, as Fromm calls it, comes

“the removal of the full affective recognition of what one is doing. Once this process has been fully established there is no limit to destructiveness because nobody destroys: one only serves the machine for programmed — hence, apparently rational — purposes.” (Fromm; p. 462)

Hence this increasing mechanization of warfare, at the expense of obstructive human affective sentiments, enables the narcissistic leaders of war to see to it that their will gets to be more rigorously implemented. As such, they are able to enjoy a higher accuracy of seeing their mirror image reflected by a world they seek to create. The preferred tool of the narcissistic necrophile is destruction and the progressive replacement of living breathing beings–guided by a relatively uncontrollable and potentially resistive will–by mechanical contraptions that are completely devoid of initiative and will. His ultimate wet dream has to be to command a perfectly controllable purely robotized mechanical world.

Hence it should come as little surprise that of all the character types addressed by him, Fromm acknowledges the necrophile to be the most narcissistic:

“Freud and his co-workers … discovered that sadism was often a by-product of the anal character. This is not always the case but it occurs in those people who are most hostile and more narcissistic than the average hoarding character. But even the sadists are still with others; they want to control, but not to destroy them. Those in whom even this perverse kind of relatedness is lacking, who are still more narcissistic and more hostile, are the necrophiles. Their aim is to transform all that is alive into dead matter; they want to destroy everything and everybody, often even themselves; their enemy is life itself.” (Fromm; p. 463)


New Character Types

Commenting on the most recent times (early 70s at the time of writing), Fromm mentions the existence of a new type of character arriving on the scene. This “character of the new type of man does not seem to fit into any of the older categories”, he writes, “such as the oral, anal, or genital characters. I have tried to understand this new type as a ‘marketing character'” (E. Fromm, 1947). He writes:

“For the marketing character everything is transformed into a commodity not only things, but the person himself, his physical energy, his skills, his knowledge, his opinions, his feelings, even his smiles. This character type is a historically new phenomenon because it is the product of a fully developed capitalism that is centred around the market — the commodity market, the labour market, and the personality market — and whose principle it is to make a profit by favourable exchange. The anal character, like the oral or genital, belongs to a period before total alienation has fully developed. These character types are possible as long as there is real sensuous experience of one’s body, its functions, and its products. Cybernetic man is so alienated that he experiences his body only as an instrument for success. His body must look youthful and healthy; it is experienced narcissistically as a most precious asset on the personality market.”[emphasis mine] (Fromm; p. 464, 465)

This cybernetic character

“turns his interest away from life, persons, nature, ideas — in short from everything that is alive; he transforms all life into things, including himself and the manifestations of his human faculties of reason, seeing, hearing, tasting, loving. Sexuality becomes a technical skill (the ‘love machine’), feelings are flattened and sometimes substituted for by sentimentality; joy, the expression of intense aliveness, is replaced by ‘fun’ or excitement; and whatever love and tenderness man has is directed towards machines and gadgets. The world becomes a sum of lifeless artifacts; from synthetic food to synthetic organs, the whole man becomes part of the total machinery that he controls and is simultaneously controlled by. He has no plan, no goal for life, except doing what the logic of technique determines him to do. He aspires to make robots as one of the greatest achievements of his technical mind, and some specialists assure us that the robot will hardly be distinguished from living men. This achievement will not seem so astonishing when man himself is hardly indistinguishable from a robot.” (Fromm; p. 465)

“The cybernetic man is almost exclusively cerebrally oriented: he is a monocerebral man. His approach to the whole world around him — and to himself — is intellectual; he wants to know what things are, how they function, and how they can be constructed or manipulated. This approach was fostered by science, and it has become dominant since the end of the Middle Ages. It is the very essence of modern progress, the basis of the technical domination of the world and of mass consumption.” (Fromm; p. 467)

“The monocerebral man is characterized”, Fromm writes,

“by special kind of narcissism that has as its object himself — his body and his skill — in brief, himself as an instrument of success. The monocerebral man is so much part of the machinery that he has built, that his machines are just as much the object of his narcissism as he is himself; in fact, between the two exists a kind of symbiotic relationship: ‘the union of one individual self with another self (or any other power outside of the own self) in such a way as to make each lose the integrity of its own self and to make them dependent on each other’ (E. Fromm, 1941). In a symbolic sense it is not nature any more that is man’s mother but the ‘second nature’ he has built, the machines that nourish and protect him.” (Fromm; p. 468, 469)

By seeking to merge with machine, man effectively surrenders (part of) his free will in order to meet a closer approximation of some overall societal narcissistic ideal, in which human spontaneity and unpredictability are the enemy.

To be sure, by turning the “mass man” into an ever more robotic being, our narcissistic leaders gain an ever closer grip of the world and as such are ever better able to see their will mirrored back at them by the world they raise into being. By seeking to obliterate general human free will, we progressively lose the ability to resist the megalomaniacal ambitions of our control freakish leaders who are infected by the most virulent kind of narcissism, necrophilia.

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3

Anatomy of Narcissism v1.0 (i) – What and How

Page 1
Motivation
What is Narcissism?
Definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Deriving Characteristics from the Tale
Fatal and delusional self-absorption
Unresponsive to love
Sees people as objects
Only accepts actions that mirror his will
Narcissism and Idolatry
Shrine-Metaphor
How is Narcissism Brought Into Existence?
The Soothing- versus the Shaming Inner Parent
Construction of the Self-image
Page 2
Narcissism versus Sadism
Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism
1.Shamelessness 2.Magical Thinking 3.Arrogance 4.Envy 5.Entitlement 6.Exploitation 7.Bad Boundaries
Narcissism versus Necrophilia
Worship of Technique
New Character Types
Page 3
Narcissism versus Addiction
Narcissus the Addict
Definition: Narcissistic Audience
The Addiction of the Narcissist
The “Malignant Self-Love” Misnomer
The Love-Hate Relationship with his Audience
Volatile and Schizoid
Narcissistic Rage
References

Motivation

This is a report of my present understanding of the psychopathology known as narcissism. It’s an ongoing investigation as to what makes the narcissist tick. Feel free to share your insights with me, either as comments or by private communication. I might just absorb them into a new version.

What is Narcissism?

Although there are many different definitions of pathological narcissism or Narcissistic Personality Disorder floating around on the web, since it is a standard work of reference in the field of psychiatry and in spite my reservations to accepting it as the only and ultimate authority (read: “bible”) on psychiatric illnesses and disorders, I will nonetheless opt for the definition as stated in the DSM-IV:

Definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

DSM-IV-TR 301.81

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity(in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

  1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
  3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique 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, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
  6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
  7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
  8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
  9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
  10. Often mild to moderate paranoia, that others are out to do him in.
  11. Predominant “name dropper” boasting or suggestion association with people or affiliations of importance.

It is also a requirement of DSM-IV that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.Wikipedia

John William Waterhouse – Echo and Narcissus

Deriving Characteristics from the Tale

The origin of narcissism traces back to Freud, who derived inspiration from the Greek Myth surrounding Narcissus, a pathologically self-absorbed young man. Since Narcissus proved to be unwilling to return the love other people had for him, “the gods” punished him by making him fall in love with his own reflection in a pool; thus he could learn to feel what it was like to love without being returned affection. Tragically, Narcissus became so much in sway of his mesmerizing self-image that he died of self-neglect.

Here is a rendition of a key excerpt of the tale:

One day whilst out enjoying the sunshine Narcissus came upon a pool of water. As he gazed into it he caught a glimpse of what he thought was a beautiful water spirit. He did not recognise his own reflection and was immediately enamoured. Narcissus bent down his head to kiss the vision. As he did so the reflection mimicked his actions. Taking this as a sign of reciprocation Narcissus reached into the pool to draw the water spirit to him. The water displaced and the vision was gone. He panicked, where had his love gone? When the water became calm the water spirit returned. “Why, beautiful being, do you shun me? Surely my face is not one to repel you. The nymphs love me, and you yourself look not indifferent upon me. When I stretch forth my arms you do the same; and you smile upon me and answer my beckonings with the like.” Again he reached out and again his love disappeared. Frightened to touch the water Narcissus lay still by the pool gazing in to the eyes of his vision.

He cried in frustration. As he did so Echo also cried. He did not move, he did not eat or drink, he only suffered. As he pined he became gaunt loosing his beauty. The nymphs that loved him pleaded with him to come away from the pool. As they did so Echo also pleaded with him. He was transfixed; he wanted to stay there forever. Narcissus like Echo died with grief. His body disappeared and where his body once lay a flower grew in it’s place. The nymphs mourned his death and as they mourned Echo also mourned. Source

Salvador Dalí – Metamorphosis of Narcissus

The prime characteristics of narcissism that we may derive from the meaning of the tale are:

Fatal and delusional self-absorption:
The narcissist is hopelessly infatuated with a perception of himself (footnote 1) that is not grounded in actuality. Narcissus falls in love with a shallow representation that exhaustively resembles a shallow and flattering representation of himself (his own mirror image), an image of himself that conveniently ignores the gloomy truth that the inner being of narcissus is nowhere near as praiseworthy as his appealing exterior. Indeed, since he is incapable of loving any other being his character must be like that of constantly disapproving kind, critical of everything and everyone. Thus it can safely be assumed that his unseen interior, his character, is rooted in fear rather than love. By being susceptible to be mesmerized by the mere exterior of a being that perfectly mirrors himself, Narcissus proves to favor an effectively inflated and idealized representation of himself as the darkness of his ugly interior is conveniently ignored against the brightness of his beautiful exterior. In addition, he demonstrates the shallow nature of his interests, including those of the romantic kind, in other beings.

The tragedy of the narcissist is that reverence to what is nothing more than an illusion ultimately leads to his own demise. Or, as self-confessed self-aware narcissist Sam Vaknin puts it, he commits “the ultimate narcissistic act: self-destruction in the service of self-aggrandizement.”

Unresponsive to love:
The narcissist is handicapped at being at want to return the love people show to have for him; his self-absorbed and disapproving nature makes him blind to the affection from other people and make him incapable of reciprocating. He suffers from what Erich Fromm calls “impotence of the heart,” i.e. he is incapable of making people love him and instead seeks to control and manipulate them.

Sees people as objects:
The narcissist is only satisfied when things go according to plan, his plan of course. If not, he is displeased. As such, his relentless insistence on perfection, makes him too anxious to leave room for loving people. Consequently, he lacks empathy and has no genuine respect for people, as empathy and respect both have to have a basis of love for one’s fellow human being. And therefore he is unable to appreciate the personhood of people. He rather views them as objects, preferably extensions of his own will.

Only accepts actions that mirror his will:
Yet another main defining characteristic of the narcissist, a deeper meaning that can be deduced from this tale is that he only loves that which perfectly mimics his own ideal course of action. In the context of the tale, Narcissus only loves that which perfectly mirrors his own preferences. In other words, he is extremely picky and accepts and approves (“loves”) something on the condition that it is perfectly conformal to his own will.

But this, by definition, is conditional love that we’re talking about then. One may rightfully wonder: can this kind of love that the narcissist professes also be regarded as genuine love?

Suppose your boss is an N and you do your utmost best to gain his approval. But, due to his obsession with insistence on perfection, the narcissist does not nod in approval that quickly. So here you are, working your butt off trying to please someone who’s extremely critical and demanding and thus exceedingly hard to please. Most of the time, the narcissist will cause you to feel miserable for delivering, what he considers, below standard work. Perhaps every so often, when you somehow miraculously manage to meet all the stringent conditions imposed by the narcissist, you may earn his gratitude. And so by being extremely demanding, he sets the tone of an anxious and tense working atmosphere. The narcissist, figuratively speaking, radiates anxiety and tension to his employees and the rare event of you succeeding to do gain the favor of the boss is likely to flood your brain with feelings of relief and pleasure. It is thus very much like a drug addict finally getting his fix after a long period of forced abstinence. The druggie also experiences relief washing over him as the withdrawal symptoms are yet again dismissed to the background. The appropriateness of the analogy with the drug addict serves as a confirmation that the kind of love the narcissist dispenses, conditional love, in a practical sense equals addiction.

In general, this is a recurring theme for any kind of relationship with a narcissist. By his very demanding nature and his stinginess to show “love” — the narcissist, wittingly or unwittingly, works to make addicts of the people who end up in a relationship with him.

But the narcissist not only makes addicts, he is one himself too. I will expand on the link between narcissism and addiction, in section Narcissism versus Addiction.

Frans D.J. Francken – The Idolatry of Solomon

Narcissism and Idolatry

The word idolatry comes (by haplology) from the Greek word εἰδωλολατρία eidololatria parasynthetically from εἰδωλολάτρης from εἴδωλον eidolon, “image” or “figure”, and λάτρις latris, “worshipper”[4] or λατρεύειν latreuein, “to worship” from λάτρον latron “payment”. Wikipedia

Hence, idolatry simply means image-worship.

wor·ship

1. reverent honor and homage paid to god or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. n.a.
3. n.a.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard. freedictionary

I further suggest that the practice of worship presupposes a state of submissiveness to the entity of worship.

Hence idolatry is the practice of submissively paying homage to- or revering the image; regarded as sacred and hence perfect, incontestable and beyond criticism.

Narcissism is about submitting to- and revering a presumed sacred image of the self; it is worship of an (inflated, distorted, idealized, etc.) image of the self, or worship of a self-image, or self-image worship, which is: self-idolatry.

The following metaphor captures the essence of the narcissist.

Shrine of St Valentine

Shrine-Metaphor

The narcissist may be imagined as the host to his own proverbial mobile shrine. Picture in the center of the shrine a huge portrait of the narcissist in which his most flattering features are embellished and distorted in a grandiose manner so as to inspire both awe and envy.

People in the his social environment (his audience) are invited to enter the shrine and instead of paying a regular cash entrance fee, they pay by worshiping the portrait. As such, the portrait is maintained in proper condition as it would otherwise quickly wither away and fall apart together with its host whose very reason for existence hinges on its welfare.

“Narcissism appears realistically to represent the best way of coping with the tensions and anxieties of modern life, and the prevailing social conditions therefore tend to bring out narcissistic traits that are present, in varying degrees, in everyone. These conditions have also transformed the family, which in turn shapes the underlying structure of personality. A society that fears it has no future is not likely to give much attention to the needs of the next generation, and the ever-present sense of historical discontinuity — the blight of our society — falls with particularly devastating effect on the family. The modern parent’s attempt to make children feel loved and wanted does not conceal an underlying coolness — the remoteness of those who have little to pass on to the next generation and who in any case give priority to their own right to self-fulfillment. The combination of emotional detachment with attempts to convince a child of his favored position in the family is a good prescription for a narcissistic personality structure.” (Lasch; p.50)

How is Narcissism Brought Into Existence?

What motivates the narcissist to devote one’s life to the construction and maintenance of a fantastic and lofty self-image? To answer this question we need to examine the human childhood. This section is largely inspired by Sandy Hotchkiss’ book on narcissism called Why is it Always About You? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism. Especially chapter 8, Childhood Narcissism and the Birth of Me served as a source of information.

When we are toddlers we enter into a developmental stage what Freud called Primary Narcissism. This is a normal form of infantile narcissism in which we unwittingly view our caregivers as inseparable extensions to our own being. At our beck and call, our primary caregiver (usually the mother) fulfills our needs much like servants tending to the call of their master. In a narcissistic sense they more-or-less loyally mirror our needs and so there’s no incentive yet for us to perceive them as being separate and distinct from ourselves.

We need their symbiotic attachment in order to derive a necessary level of confidence to go and set out on our wobbly legs to explore the environment. Call it the mommy-takes-us-by-the-hand stage of development, if you will. This protective narcissistic proverbial bubble gives us a certain sense of invincibility, a much needed attitude in order to confront an environment that is filled with potential danger and as such is quite threatening to, what is in actual fact, a very vulnerable toddler.

The child derives comfort and support from a securely attached mother, who assists him in coping with the intense joy and excitement as well as the frustration of being small and vulnerable in an expanding toddler world. The attachment of the child to the mother equips him to be able to cope with the stress-burden belonging to the exploratory behavior committed with a disproportional zest that is characteristic of infantile narcissism.

The function of the attached mother therefore is to help regulate her child’s moods and emotions to, on the one hand, dampen over-excitement as well as distress, and, on the other hand, not pamper the child too much so that it also learns to cope with a bit of tension and agitation. This two-staged practicing period (happening around 10-12 and 16-18 months of age) is essential for the development of a separate sense of Self, and is the time during which the part of the brain that regulates emotion, is hardwired for life.

In the course of the practicing period, the role of the mother will shift from being a playmate/nursemaid to a more prohibitive “no-no” role. When mother gives the toddler a “cold shower” act of socialization for doing something “bad”, an initial mood of elation is likely to give way to what are called “low arousal states”, resembling a toddler version of somberness or even mild depression. But this is a normal development nonetheless, and this training-phase helps the mind of the toddler to learn to conserve energy and to inhibit excessive emotion. By moving in and out of these low arousal states, the child learns to depress intense or unpleasant feelings with ever less assistance from Mommy Dearest. This helps him to develop psychological autonomy.

The Soothing- versus the Shaming Inner Parent

The goal of socialization is to stimulate the child to try and live in harmony with the rest of the world. In order to do this, undesirable behavior needs to be restrained and discouraged as much as possible. The designated tool of persuasion for giving up pleasure for an undesirable act, is the powerful emotion of shame.

Hotchkiss writes:

“For the child, the first experience of shame is a betrayal of the illusion of perfect union with Mother that has persisted up to this point. Her beloved face now may radiate shame, extinguishing joy and exuberance in an instant. Instead of being pumped up by Mother, the child now feels deflated, even injured. This is an essential and instructive wound, however, which teaches the child that Mother is not only separate but different, and that his place in the world will not always be on top of the mountain.” (Hotchkiss; p.41)

Fig 1. The toddler (“Me”) is being shamed for doing something bad. Right before being shamed he “imagined” himself to be omnipotent, in a infantile kind of way of course. This is because his infantile mind is unable to see the separateness between himself (the valiant “Knight”) and his powerful primary caregiver (“Mom”, the “Queen”). The act of shaming serves to burst that bubble of normal infantile narcissism and promotes the development of the more realistically grounded individual. This is called the separation-individuation process.

The shaming experience helps to pop the bubble of the toddler’s infantile form of narcissism: the “omnipotent” toddler-version of a self-indulgent and relatively recklessly exploratory bravado-attitude (see Fig.1) that seems to correspond most closely with Freud’s idea of the ID. Since unmitigated shame may result in lasting psychological damage however, it is of the utmost importance that the wound be inflicted gently.

After the mother has shamed the child, a soothing follow-up response (“soft-looks, warm touches and kind words”) is necessary in order to help the toddler deal with his shaming experience in a healthy manner. The cycle: initial elation for doing something that is considered bad, followed by the mother socializing the child through shaming and the ensuing recovery — constitutes a positive learning experience which fosters the development of a healthy Self.

This recovery part is crucial for the toddler to learn that hurt feelings can be mended again and that the caregiver can be trusted. Emotionally, the young child needs compassionate help in managing emotions and protection from overwhelming feelings until his brain matures sufficiently for him to be able to do this on his own. Small doses of shame followed by soothing, help the child gently and responsibly deflate his infantile narcissism towards the development of a more realistic sense of Self. As he progresses through the practicing period, the toddler becomes more and more independent from the caregiving mother. This is called the separation-individuation process.

In the words of Hotchkiss:

“The first two or three years of life are the age of narcissism when the child’s underdeveloped Self and lack of awareness of the otherness of others are normal. Grandiosity, omnipotence, magical thinking, shame-sensitivity, and a lack of interpersonal boundaries come with the package. We are meant to outgrow this stage, but we need the help of parents who can tolerate and love us while we get through to the other side. We need them to hold the boundaries that we don’t yet see, to recognize who we really are and can be, to help us manage shame and contain rage, and to teach us to live in a world of others. When that doesn’t happen, we can become stuck in childhood narcissism. Failure to complete the separation-individuation process is what leads to a narcissistic personality.” [emphasis mine] (Hotchkiss; p. 45)

When a child has been shamed but lacks a loving and forgiving follow-up, it is left with a festering psychological wound. The failure to mitigate shame leaves the toddler inclined to interpret the behavior as being unforgivably shameful. This may be traumatic for the child–the first narcissistic injury if you will, and lack of mitigation reinforces the immoral severity of the shameful act. Although it should be understood that the experienced degree of the trauma also depends on the capacity of the child to sustain disciplinary action. If the child has a rather fragile and vulnerable psyche then it is only reasonable to expect that the impact of the trauma is more severe than a child who possesses a more robust psychological constitution. In the former case the soothing part is more important than with the latter.

The toddler registers the emotionality of the shaming mother — shaming facial expression, agitated voice and embarrassed mannerisms — deep into his memory through his senses. I suspect that this perception of a shaming caregiver (or caregivers) gives rise to the formation of a sort of internally projected mental presence of the shaming parent; one that is reinforced with every recurrence of an unsoothed shaming experience. Call it the emergence of the shaming inner parent if you will.

Hotchkiss also suggests the coming into existence of such an inner authoritarian presence:

“The child’s normal narcissistic rages, which intensify during the power struggles of age eighteen to thirty months — those ‘terrible twos’– require ‘optimal frustration’ that is neither overly humiliating nor threatening to the child’s emerging sense of Self. When children encounter instead a rageful, contemptuous, or teasing parent during these moments of intense arousal, the image of the parent’s face is stored in the developing brain and called up at times of future stress to whip them into an aggressive frenzy. Furthermore, the failure of parental attunement during this crucial phase can interfere with the development of brain functions that inhibit aggressive behavior, leaving children with lifelong difficulties controlling aggressive impulses.” [emphasis mine] (Hotchkiss; p.21)

Without our faculty of mimicry it would be impossible to assimilate cultural elements, e.g. karate techniques, and propagate them from person to person. Pictured is a karate class in Okinawa with the Shuri Castle at the background.

Indeed, one should not forget that our learning potential crucially relies on our ability to mimic. By virtue of imitating our parents, and later our peers, we absorb the cultural environment around us like a proverbial sponge. One might call this process, that never needn’t be complete, adaptation to the local cultural climate. More than our self-reliance craving egos perhaps like to admit, our lives — especially our childhoods, when the need and potential for learning is the greatest — revolve around the activity of copying each-other activities, behavior and later opinions. In general, the propagation of culture would be impossible if it weren’t for the existence of our faculty of mimicry, which in turn relies on a strong innate capacity to, in great detail, register and assimilate sensory expressions of other people; facial expressions of our parents at first, and vocal chord sounds later on when our minds have developed sufficiently to enable us to learn our native tongue. Indeed, it would be impossible to learn something as profoundly elementary as language without our faculty of mimicry, which vitally relies on a capacity to accurately duplicate the speech sounds made by the people in our environment in general and our parents in particular. To put it succinctly and generally, we are beings of imitation.

Therefore it is plausible to assert that, even more so given its developmental significance, we do strongly register the emotionality of the shaming parent. Later in life, any experience that may be considered shaming is likely to be met with the wrath of this shaming inner parent, which is just a form of internally generated- and directed form of punishment. The child thus has been saddled with the mental burden of an inherently condemnatory and disapproving inner mental judge, a punisher. In terms of Freud’s ID, ego and Superego Structural Model, it seems justified to suggest that this prohibitively natured inner parent most closely corresponds with the Superego.

Fig 2. The nature of soothing is constructive and restorative whereas that of shaming is destructive; its precise function is to destroy the motivation for the activity or behavior which the caregiver deems to be not allowable. When soothing is applied after an act of shaming, its role is to help the child recover from the negative impact of shaming. Soothing is an act of love, shaming without soothing is an act of selfishness and fear. Soothing works to liberate, shaming without soothing works to control and suppress. Soothed shame does not obstruct the development of genuine self-love whereas unsoothed shame does; it fosters self-resentment, self-hatred, malignant self-love and self-sadism/masochism (self-shaming) or plain sadism when shaming is directed outwardly unto others through (retributive) displacement.

Therefore when the toddler has never enjoyed shame-mitigating follow-ups, a soothing inner parent has never been given chance to develop in tandem with the shaming inner parent. The subjection to shame is therefore an extra painful experience. Whereas the character of the shaming inner parent is punitive and destructive, that of the soothing inner parent is constructive and restorative. In addition, the shaming inner parent functions to control behavior, whereas the soothing inner parent works to unburden or mentally liberate the child after it has been disciplined. It is presumed to be self-evident that in order to warrant the mental health of the child, the presence of a soothing inner parent is indispensable (see Fig.2).

Fig. 3. Upper part: If shaming is applied without soothing, the unmitigated destructive effect of shaming may encourage the toddler to learn to start viewing other people as liabilities, as if they are out to punish him. Bottom part: If shaming is applied with soothing, the corrosive effect of shaming is contained and there is no cause for the toddler to learn to grow wary of other people.

If the toddler is shamed without soothing, the seeds are planted in his mind for viewing other people as being out to hurt him (see Fig. 3). By its destructive character, shaming is an act of hostility and if the subsequent soothing part remains lacking and the more he is exposed to shaming the more likely the toddler will come to harbor negative perceptions of other people, potential punishers if you will. He therefore is more or less forced to view other people with caution and even as liabilities. The seeds of mistrust have been planted, and prepare him to receive people defensively (, aggressively). Even those who show genuine affection toward him are reinterpreted as ones who still may have nefarious ulterior motives of secretly wanting “to do him in,” and so never really can be trusted. The narcissist-in-the-making thus is severely handicapped at being able to imagine that other people view him in a loving and amiable way. I will address this issue again in section The Love-Hate Relationship with his Audience.

As a way to prevent future recurrence of having to feel raw unmitigated shame, the mind of the toddler is urged to develop his own means to compensate and dampen the reception of the mentally corrosive shame. Another way of putting it, is that he is forced to learn how to deal with his rudely deflated narcissistic bubble. You could say that the child is plunged into a psychological crisis marked by a need for improvisation and a sense of selfish emergency.

The child’s strategy of choice consists of walling off these intolerable, raw and unadulterated feelings using several crude ego-defensive mechanisms. Whenever shame threatens to seep into his life again, he learns to seek refuge behind a protective barrier of denial, coldness and rage. Alternatively, the shame may be outwardly projected, away from the vulnerable Self. Someone else is blamed instead, so that the child does not have to deal with it himself. It is an attempt to redirect persecuting eyes away from oneself onto others, thus bypassing the painful need to admit one’s error and to adjust oneself. If and when it has become impossible to deny that the cause for blame is not to be found in other people as much as it is in oneself, the blame-game called projection may however foster the development of self-hatred if the capacity to forgive oneself is absent.

In other words, to deal with shame without parental soothing, the child retracts into a (self-)deceptive world of make-belief, acting (histrionics/theatrics) and insincerity (lying).

Referring to the apparent shamelessness of the narcissist, Hotchkiss comments:

“More typically, the shamelessness of the Narcissist comes across as cool indifference or even amorality. We sense that these people are emotionally shallow, and we may think of them as thick-skinned, sure of themselves, and aloof. Then, all of a sudden, they may surprise us by reacting to some minor incident or social slight. When shaming sneaks past the barriers, these ‘shameless’ ones are unmasked for what they really are – supremely shame-sensitive. That is when we see a flash of hurt, usually followed by rage and blame. When the stink of shame has penetrated their walls, they fumigate with a vengeance.” (Hotchkiss; p. 6)

I suggest that this unhealthy and improvised reaction to shame, rooted in a lack of parental loving concern for the growing child, is to be regarded as the psychological basis for the coming into being of the grandiose and fictional self-image.

“The N I write about probably never did a thing, unless there was something in it for him. He simply did not bother. He started from a position of weakness, in that he had a huge inferiority complex, but the pretentiousness of his facade gave the impression of enormous self-confidence.” NPDQuotes

Construction of the Self-image

Unsoothed ossified shame, the first narcissistic wound(s) rudely deflating the child’s narcissism, is likely to arouse sentiments of inferiority with respect to people who do not seem to burdened by the same fate as he is. Consequently, the child may start to become envious of supposedly normal people. The very presence of these “normal” people, whose proverbial grass always seems to be greener than his own, then turn out to be painful reminders of how he could have ended up himself. He could have been one of them, hadn’t he suffered a damaging blow to his vulnerable psyche. And by becoming distraught he may start to resent their very existence. And so starts to view them as a liability, a menace, undesirable. Depending on the strength and resilience of his mental health, or better: lack thereof, he may even go so far as to blame them for causing him to feel envious, and making him feel miserable. (footnote 2)

Fig. 4. After having sustained sudden deflation of his narcissism, the toddler is left psychologically wounded. He feels inferior as compared to his peers and may be, or may fear to become, the target of shaming (scorn, ridicule and condemnation). This leaves him feeling miserable and so feelings of envy towards his peers, whom he holds in relatively high esteem, kick in.

As a way of dealing with the burdensome feelings of envy (see Fig.4), his mind comes up with a resolution. He starts looking for reasons to justify disqualification of the people he envies. The apparent underlying motive being that people who are not worthy are automatically not worthy to be envied. And so he may go ahead and condemn the perceived mediocrity of their lives, or at least certain visible aspects of it. However, tragically, the act of condemning their lives, forces him into a position at which he no longer can afford to try and become one of them himself. He cannot become that which he already has chewed up and spat out. It would make him not just a hypocrite, he would now have to stoop low in order to become one of them.

Note that this condemnatory attitude falls right in line with the mind of the narcissist in spe burdened with the condemnatory natured shaming inner parent. Just as he has been persecuted, he may derive some sense of gratification though engaging in persecution himself. Also note the inherent destructive nature of this type of broadly retributive behavior is. The act of shaming is a destructive act. It serves to destroy the specific motivation for doing that which has been flagged by the parent as being prohibited. And so when shaming is not compensated through soothing, parents may inadvertently encourage the character of their child to be formed with an appetite for destruction. Especially when the child is the subject of scorn coming from peers, for personality traits that he beliefs are caused by that of which he is ashamed, he may likewise develop an appreciation for scorn when he can find personality weak spots in other people. The matter then becomes a sort of retribution and, I believe, lies at the basis for sadism.

Returning to our narcissist-in-the-making, by condemning mediocrity, normalcy, he must strive for something superior; something bigger, bolder and better. And so his mind starts to seek out the justifying conditions for embracing a perception of the self which, in a grandiose manner, trumps those of the “normal” people. See it as a pathological way of wanting to get even, a kind of revenge. And as he works to see to the construction of his superior self-image, ideally, the necessity for envy is numbed.

Indeed, by being driven by a desire for vengeance, he is likely to be motivated to set out and reverse the subject- and object roles of envy. Rather than the subject, he now will strive to see himself becoming the object (target) of envy (see Fig. 5). In the narcissist’s mind, the time has now come for the normal people to become envious of him; or more accurately, to become envious of his intimidating and super-sized self-image.

In addition, the grounds for his burdensome sense of shame can be avoided as they belong to a part of him that has been tucked away and blotted out by a lofty and irreproachable new version of himself, embodied by his self-image. The act of identification with his fantastical self-image can be understood to be an attempt at psychological dissociation from his real but tainted self.

Supporting this generative route through envy, I suspect that the shaming inner parent may also be instrumental in bringing about his superior self-image. The character of this inner shaming parent — fortified perhaps by later mental impressions of shaming inner peers working in tandem with the already resident shaming inner parent, forming a shaming inner presence — is decidedly negative and prohibitive and may be an incentive for the ego to revolt through generating a challenging and self-indulging representation of himself. The inflationary defiance of the emerging self-image thus may be understood as a coping strategy of the ego intending to offset the deflationary damage done by the shaming inner presence.

Fig.5. The purpose of the grandiose self-image is to inverse the envy/scorn roles. If he can manage to persuade his peers (and himself) that he really is the very antithesis of the worm he feels himself to be, he may now become the subject of envy. If and when that happens he has a reason to put other people down and gain some sense of vindication.

Footnote 1 I refer to the narcissist as being masculine but this does not mean that I therefore believe that no feminine narcissists exist. I just prefer to keep notation simple and brief and so I choose to use “him” instead of the more proper but lengthier “him or her” or the confusing but likewise proper “them”. As it turns out, most narcissists are males anyway.

Footnote 2 Let me be clear though that I am not at all suggesting that anyone person who has experienced some sort of trauma earlier in life, by necessity, ends up becoming a narcissist. I suspect that many or even most people are quite capable of handling trauma, provided they have a resilient enough mental health, trauma coping power if you will, and are supported by loving and caring family members and/or close friends. The more defective the underlying mental constitution is and the more the support of family and/or friends is lacking, then the greater I’d regard the likelihood for traumas left unresolved, which may then promote the formation of narcissistic tendencies.

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3