In my post yesterday on Canaries in the Coal Mine, I suggested some reasons for concern that a state run by those who have the enhanced Narcissism so often found in the baby boom cohort and their offspring, would be at risk from internal dissolution. Israel is such a state and is in danger of placing themselves at great risk by their failure to recognize the disconnect between their conception of negotiations and the very different conception of the same by their "partners in Peace" among the Palestinians. David Foster raised an excellent point in the comments:
"... Narcissists cannot conceive that other people have minds that are organized and operate differently than their own does"...this feels correct; however, how do we square it with the fact that these same Narcissists are often cultural relativists and believe that beliefs very different from their own (about the role of women, the drinking of alcohol, etc) are equally valid because they are part of a different culture?
Sarah Rolph offered a beginning of an answer:
It's the mental model of narcissism that makes cultural relativism possible. It's not that the leftists have carefully considered the cultures they defend and come to the conclusion that all of them are indeed valid. They sweep aside the particulars in a stunning display of denial and assume that the evidence before them couldn't possibly be true. Terrorists couldn't be people who have actually decided to kill innocents; they are "militants," you know, like we were in college. Working for change against those in authority. You know, The Man. Just like the brave people here who speak out against the government. You know, The System. These empty words are used for a reason: to keep the truth at bay.
I would like to amplify on this answer because there is a very good reason the Left celebrates cultural relativism, which on the surface appears to contradict the premise that they also make the Narcissistic error.
Consider a prototypical parenting scene which all of us have probably noted from time to time; it is the kind of scene that has given Dr. Spock and "permissiveness" the negative valence they have earned since the 1960s. A young child, perhaps 4 or 5, at a supermarket check out. The child asks for a piece of candy or a small toy. The parent says, "No", though perhaps with less certainty than one would hope and the child escalates. Before long, the child has begun to create a "scene." The bewildered and annoyed parent debates within herself what to do; she knows (intellectually) that setting limits is important, yet she doesn't want to be seen to be a "bad" mother. She probably would like to swat the child on the backside, but that risks being labeled, and treated as, a child abuser (with the "moral clarity" our now zero-tolerance culture substitutes for rationality and judement.) After a very few moments of crying and pleading and angry demands, the Mother gives in and purchases the toy or candy for the child. Order is restored and peace in our time is achieved.
While this story is a bit of a caricature, we have all seen it, and perhaps been guilty of it from time to time ourselves. What does it tell us about the mother and her theory of the child's mind?
We start with the fact that the Narcissist unconsciously accepts that there exist no greater needs than his or her own instinctual drives. There is little distinction for the Narcissist between needs and desires. This is because a frustrated desire is a severe injury to their self-esteem; they need the confirmation of gratification to feel loved and worthwhile. It is no surprise that many of our current pathologies bequeathed to us by the baby boomers involve the uninhibited expression and gratification of primitive, uncivilized, drives. The current imbroglio over offering birth control to Middle Schoolers could only come from people who disdain maturity and believe that the ultimate goal of life is to have the freedom to express all one's instinctual desires with the expectation of consequence free gratification. This is Narcissism run rampant.
An additional factor concerning the prototypical Narcissistic Mother described above; such Mothers do not experience their offspring as separate and independent objects with their own desires and needs. In fact, their children are self-objects who primarily serve the purpose of gratifying the mother; as well, the mother imagines the child shares her own desires for gratification and shares her intolerance of deprivation and frustration. Such a Mother has an extremely hard time frustrating her child, even when she intellectually recognizes that the world cannot and will not gratify all her, or the child's, needs. Since the child is unconsciously experienced as a part of the mother, frustrating the child is equivalent to frustrating herself.
The analogue in the political world is that the Liberal Narcissist sees the dark skinned other as, essentially, a child. It is not so much that they cannot make judgments of other cultures, though that is the manifest content of their theories of multiculturalism, but that they see the child/other as authentically seeking to gratify primitive, ie infantile, desires. To thwart such desires is, in this world view, tantamount to child abuse. Children cannot be held to adult standards of responsibility and neither can other (primitive/childish) cultures.
The inherent paternalism and racism is obvious, but there is yet an additional problem that arises from this conception. As noted, for the Narcissistic parent, the child is a self-object, serving the necessary function of stabilizing and enhancing the parent's self-esteem. As such, the parent cannot tolerate the child becoming a fully independent adult. Maintaining the child as a dependent is in the (unconscious) interests of the parent. Note how similar is the modern liberal approach to the underprivileged, without whom the liberal would be bereft.
Modern liberalism maintains its victim class as victims; without victims there can be no liberals. Without victims to champion, the liberals would lose an important source of self-esteem, the good feeling they gain from supporting the poor victims (as opposed to actually doing much to help the victims abandon their victimhood and become fully functioning adults.)
The Palestinians, most of sub-Saharan Africa, and too many impoverished Americans of color have been trapped for the last 50+ years in the grip of dependency because of the triumph of modern liberalism. No one can expect much from children and such children do not disappoint.
Recent Comments