Readers of this blog know that I identify one of the major causes of our cultural and societal dysfunction as the increased loading of Narcissistic pathology within the post- war baby boom cohort. The reasons for the increased tendency toward Narcissistic pathology are among the very things of which our culture is most proud. The combination of our material wealth, our medical advances (especially anti-biotics) which led to the expectation that our children would survive childhood (a reason for the trend toward smaller families) and our extended life span are all part of what has made the individual more invested in himself and relatively less invested in others. This is by no means universal, but the various post-war trends have all pointed in the same direction. Furthermore, the related diminution of religious belief in large parts of our society and its replacement by equally faith-based belief in human derived theologies such as Communism, have reinforced the tendencies to idealize the self and left many people without the counterweight that religion once provided to such self involvement.
In Psychoanalytic terms, increased Narcissism leaves a person with impoverished "object relations". It was perhaps an unhappy decision to call other people "objects" in our theories but the point that the early Psychoanalysts were concerned with was how people relate to the internal representations of the important people in their lives. Because the Narcissist relates to others on a less mature level, seeing other people in terms of their use as "need satisfying objects" they do not recognize that other people have their own independent desires. In the worst cases, there is a failure to appreciate that other people's minds can work differently than theirs. The Narcissist turns other people from people into objects and they relate to other people primarily in terms of what the other can do to enhance their self esteem. This is what I mean by my title, "objectifying the object."
In our culture, one of the worst outcomes of such objectification concerns the way in which we treat our children. We give lip service to the idea that our children are the most important people in our country and then turn around and make cultural and legal decisions that enhance the desires and pleasures of adults, often at the expense of children.
A growing body of literature supports the idea that children do best when raised by two, married parents. (There is not enough data yet to know how children of same-sex couples fare.) Yet our culture has consistently made it easier for people to have children without marriage and easier to divorce once children are in the picture. In the weighting of what is best for the parents versus what is best for the children, the children's needs come in a distant second.
Another place where this is an issue is in abortion. At one time there was no question among people that life began at conception. Whether or not you believe that holds, it is certainly true that for a wanted pregnancy, the child begins to become a real person, invested with the love, hopes, and dream of its mother, fairly early in pregnancy. By the time of quickening, when the baby's first movements are felt, no prospective mother would call her baby anything but a human being. On the other hand, in order to make it psychologically possible to abort an unwanted baby, the prospective child has to be turned into a devalued object, a mere "fetus" or a "choice".
[For those who are interested, I am somewhat conflictually pro-choice; my position is that abortion should be legal for those who wish it but only early in a pregnancy. This may not be entirely consistent but I can tolerate the inconsistency. This position recognizes how difficult the decision to abort should be for women who can not or will not objectify their pregnancy; the decision should never be easy in my opinion and my concern is with those who try to make it an easy decision.]
In a Narcissistic culture, children are increasingly seen as objects, possessions, if you will. Abortion fits into this paradigm because a possession can be easily disposed of while a child is a person who may have other desires.
Some of these thoughts have been stirred up by the recent adoption of a child by that paragon of Narcissism, Madonna. I do not know Madonna and cannot comment on her actual personality, but her public persona is a celebration of Narcissism and the reports of her adoption of an African child certainly accentuate the Narcissistic quality of her choice.
[Prior to her last tour I commented on reports that she was so strict with her children that she wouldn't let them watch her videos. In About the Children: Part V I also pointed out that her Narcissistic aggrandizement had apparently not changed:
I won't comment on her plans for another tour, which apparently is to include an only slightly reduced quota of nudity and profanity, but I suppose we should be grateful she can appreciate how damaging such casual sexuality and profanity as is found in her act and on TV can be to her own children, though her solicitude for other children ends when there is money to be made.]
Andrea Peyser comments on Madonna's adoption in her article today, THIS MA IS MADE OF BETTER 'MATERIAL':
YOU can't say Mama Madonna is not a savvy shopper - she made a beeline for the express checkout lane to get her hands on her latest baby boy.
Other would-be parents should be so lucky.
When Merle Hoffman sought to adopt a Russian girl, she went through more than a year of red tape, paid in excess of $20,000, and had to fly to Siberia - twice - in snowstorms before she stood a chance of taking home a bundle of joy.
But Madonna's ease in taking possession of a human being - cavalierly ripping him from his father while bulldozing through Malawian laws - leaves Merle perplexed.
"It's like going to the ASPCA," said Merle, president of Choices women's clinic.
"You get the one that looks the cutest. It's like putting people on the auction block. I can't even imagine what's in her consciousness."
Merle, a widow, chose to adopt from Russia for the same reasons Madonna claims motivated her - to save the world one child at a time.
Unfortunately, Madonna had no qualms about removing a baby from a father who loved him, but could not afford to care for him. Madonna also went directly to the orphanages of Malawi to get her pick of the litter - choosing her little David from a lineup of 12 boys.
Although Madonna might be the most wonderful mother to little David, the public reports of her behavior are quite troubling and there is something deeply disturbing about this.
It is certainly possible that the trend of Hollywood celebrities adopting impoverished orphans is an entirely laudable one yet so much of the time these celebrities present themselves as thoroughly shallow and desirous of using the child for purposes of enhancing their own self-esteem. If the interests of the child were primary, we wold never hear about this adoption and furthermore, it is unlikely she would adopt a child who has an extant parent.
Again, I am not condemning Madonna; I have no way of knowing what is going through her mind, but I can comment on the public depiction of her behavior. I can point out that these celebrity adoptions are publicly presented primarily as celebrations of the celebrity. I would have been much more impressed with Madonna if she had sponsored the father and child and brought them to her home, or made some other arrangements to help this father care for his son. If she had done such things without any publicity, she would have truly been doing "good works" but alas, that might be too much to ask for in our celebrity addled, Narcissistic age.
Recent Comments