In my efforts to elucidate the underlying dynamics of narcissism and the intra- and extra-psychic contributions to the development of problematic narcissism, I sometimes overlook some of the more overt results of developing a culture of narcissistic enhancement. I was reminded of this by reading Armed Liberals post from yesterday. On the anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination, he commented:
In a certain sense, his brief (and really not terribly effective) presidency marks the apogee of post-war American confidence. We may have been worried that the Russians might nuke us, but somehow we were filled with a kind of optimism that we could make it though, and not only make it through, but make it better.
I attribute no small part of that to the systemic collapse of leadership - both in the quality of being able to lead, and of being able to be led - in our society.
Armed Liberal blames "celebrity" for the "collapse of leadership" in our culture. "Celebrity" is another word for Narcissism. The reason celebrities can't lead is that their need for approval is so intense that they cannot do anything that might meet with disapproval from their preferred audience. AL links to a post by neo-neocon on leadership; she in turn links to a post by Sigmund, Carl and Alfred from several weeks ago. Both take a look at the lack of leadership in the country and seem to have, at first glance, contradictory positions.
neo-neocon said:
That refusal to put a leader on too high a pedestal is a good thing, and it has a long and illustrious history in this country--starting with Washington's refusal to go for a third term. But, as with so many things, balance is important. I believe the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and makes it hard to see whatever good really does exist in our political leaders.
SC&A said:
If we contrast those people with those we call 'leaders' tody, we are made painfuly aware of how cheated we really are. Those who claim the mantle of leadership in government, in the arts, education and business are not really leading us anywhere. In fact, they are depriving us of those very things that our teacher and so on, saw in us. They do not want to see us elevated, reaching our potential, but rather, they want us to follow their agenda, and adopt it as our own.
Where neo-neocon sees the problem as a reflection of our need to undermine our leaders, SC&A sees the problem as a failure of leaders to pursue a course worth following. Both are pointing at different, complementary, sides of the problem of Narcissism in the public square. The Narcissist, without necessarily being aware of it, elevates his own desires above those of all others. This has profound implications for leadership. Since politics, from the 1960's on, has increasingly rewarded style over substance (with the able assistance of the media) politicians tend to be self-selected for a surfeit of narcissism. Journalists are another group who have elevated their own Narcissistic Pursuit of Perfection above their previously held duty to discover the facts and inform their fellow citizenry. As a result, you have opposing groups of Narcissists, who are unable to differentiate between their own welfare and the welfare of the state and society, trying to run the machinery of state at the same time those who disagree with them see their job in the exact same light.
The narcissism of the politician demands that his first job is to get elected and his second job is to get re-elected; this is not a formula for political courage. The opposition sees their job in exactly the same terms, with the added fillip that we have a cadre of politicians who are united in a Utopian philosophy with journalists of the same bent; they need to win power in order to rescue their Utopian vision from those who would thwart their ability to make the world a perfect place; for the Narcissist, ends always justify means.
We end up with a perfect narcissistic storm. Our politicians pander, our journalists attack those who disagree with them, our opposition politicians are willing to use any and all means to discredit those in power, and most people find themselves turned off to politics by the images of opposing flocks of strutting peacocks fighting over spoils.
And when we do find leaders willing to make difficult decisions which they believe will protect the country, they are held to impossible standards of perfection, attacked unmercifully and unfairly and vilified by elites that believe (correctly) that their needs are being repudiated. It is nothing short of miraculous that our President and our military are able to do their jobs in the face of such abuse.
Recent Comments