The Trend of Collective Narcissism
The Trend of Collective Narcissism
And the All-inclusive Scope of Bigotry
TLDR: A collective norm of narcissism is the necessary outcome of postmodern, subjectivist society.
For better or worse, I’m a consumer of what’s happening in society today (i.e. what we would have previously called “news”).
In recent weeks, dozens of clips have gone viral—some of which you may have seen—that have left me feeling. . .perplexed, to say the least.
In particular, I have been led to wonder:
What factor lies in our collective social psychology today that would facilitate a situation where naked adult men (full genitalia exposed) can be out in public interacting with children with no vocalized opposition from nearby onlookers or even the parents of those children?
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, one clip last week showed a group of fully naked men riding bicycles in a main street of Seattle, going up and high-fiving people (including kids).
A similar thing happened in Boston.
Some other clips involved adult males bending over and twerking in front of children (well, at least these adults were wearing underwear 🤷♂️. . . albeit one was a g-string and another was translucent mesh).
( Does reading any of this make you feel at all uneasy? Or maybe you feel inspired, because you believe that this is what real beauty is supposed to look like. . . 🧐 )
To showcase the raw effect and let you experience what your own personal feelings would be, I considered posting the videos and images here for you to see.
After all, if as a society* we are apparently ok for an 8 year old to involuntarily experience these things firsthand, in the flesh, a few feet away, why should I believe that you, as a hardened adult, would object to being exposed to these things in the mere context of staying informed?
Still, at risk of downplaying the issue, I didn’t want to do that you, since you’re just trying to get through your own problems of the day, and I’m trying to keep these Musings fairly classy 😅.
*By the way, I don’t actually believe that in general, people would be ok with this dynamic. . . yet. But given the institutional silence (if not, in certain cases, outright encouragement) amidst these overt displays, I do wonder what energy would emerge to guide society back towards a less naked state of affairs.
Perhaps you see no problem with this, and we should all just “get with the program”. But if you do think this is perplexing, let’s try to unpack some of the mystery. . .
We have come a long way in recognizing Narcissism at the individual and family level.
If you look, there are countless institutional resources and sources of support for how to identify and deal with narcissistic individuals. In fact, a Google search of “narcissistic personality disorder” will give you 22.7 million results.
Through these, we understand characteristics related to narcissism, such as:
Excessive need for attention and admiration
Hypersensitivity to criticism and feelings of shame or guilt
Being hypercritical of others
Belief in being “special” and that one can only be properly understood by other “special” people
Pursuing what one wants, with little to no consideration of what other people want / how other people feel
I once saw the core of narcissism described as being a terror of insignificance, or pathologized insecurity, which—no doubt—comes often as a result of trauma.
Again, there is an overwhelming abundance of mainstream content available addressing the complex dynamics that surround narcissistic individuals.
Yet when it comes to thinking about narcissism in terms of group behaviors, or narcissism as a pervasive cultural force that permeates the air we breathe, there seems to be an unusual institutional silence.
Perhaps this is because the present power structures (businesses, governments, etc.) benefit opportunistically in the short-term from the mobilization of such energy.
e.g. gratification of consumerism and greed, splitting of family and other close interpersonal relationships, reduction in willingness to negotiate with opposing points of view, etc.
So then, what are the signs and characteristics of this Collective Narcissism?
In its simple rendition, just look at the same characteristics of individual narcissists and apply them to general cultural themes:
Excessive need for attention and admiration:
Social media
Hypersensitivity to criticism and feelings of shame or guilt:
Consider how difficult it’s becoming to tell someone, even lovingly, that you believe they may be doing something “wrong” or bad for their wellbeing.
Being hypercritical of others:
Social media (the aspect of online bullying and hate-messaging), as well as the spike in using ad hominem (character attacks) as substitute for rational argumentation
Belief in being “special” and that one can only be properly understood by other “special” people:
There are many segments where this is becoming increasingly prevalent, including any among many of the “elite” categories, as well as within the resurgence of Gnosticism / cultism.
Pursuing what one wants, with little to no consideration of what other people want / how other people feel:
I’ll leave you, the reader, to decide how you want to interpret this one.
These connections are far from earth-shattering.
What I really want you to notice, though, is the philosophical soil that’s been producing the fertile conditions for these behaviors to take off.
It’s that we’ve been promoting a culture of rampant subjectivism (thanks to postmodern philosophy), that would lead a person to colloquially say things like:
“That’s true for you, but not true for me.”
“My perspective is just as valid as yours.”
"There is no definitive right or wrong, just different viewpoints."
Now, these types of beliefs, which postmodernism engenders, aren’t quite to the level of active narcissism, in of themselves, since those parallel beliefs would look like:
“What’s true for me should also be true for you.” / (~ ‘You need to see things my way’)
“My perspective is more valid than yours.”
"There is no definitive right or wrong, just different viewpoints. . . except for the topic of my identity, in which there is one way that you should view me (which is the way that I view myself), and there is only one correct perspective on the topic of ‘me’ (mine)."
However, the secular proliferation of postmodern subjectivity and its corresponding denial of objective truth has empowered the growth of our collective narcissism by virtue of eliminating the social barriers that would have otherwise kept this heart-destroying preoccupation with self in check.
What I mean is, that to get from the worldview of:
A) My beliefs about things might be wrong. What I personally believe is less important (and different) than what the truth actually is, even if the truth is difficult to identify and know directly.
i.e. Objective truth exists separately from my own interpretation of it.
to:C) My beliefs about things cannot be wrong. What I believe is the most important belief / the only belief that matters.
i.e. Subjective supremacy (late-stage postmodernism) => Narcissism
there is the necessary intermediate step of:
B) All beliefs are equal. What I believe is no more or no less important than any other belief.
i.e. Early stage postmodernism
I’ll keep unpacking this philosophy next, but feel free to skip down to the last section where I’ll connect the concepts back to the street of Naked Bicycle Men™. . . 🤝
The rampant subjectivism that underpins secular society has reduced everything that traditionally carried “more importance” (e.g. social norms and “rules” of conduct) to being viewed as “artificial” constructs, arbitrarily established by whomever was in power at a particular point in history.
The collapse/restructuring of our foundations seems to have been as such: Truth + right and wrong has been reduced to mere preference. And preference has been reconstructed back into “right” and “wrong” purely on the merits of power.
Now don’t get me wrong, there is certainly a legitimate element within this idea of the preference of the rulers infecting the perceptions of the ruled’s senses of right and wrong. Anyone would agree with this. But it’s an altogether different claim to say that this power dynamic is all there is, and that there is no non-arbitrary basis to anything.
To the sincere postmodernist, the concepts of “right” and “wrong” were always and only just a euphemism for “the preferences of those with the most power”. As such, the efficient postmodernist must now believe: Why don’t we just pursue this line of thinking explicitly?
Rather than go through life asking, in a non-postmodernist way:
“What is the right thing to do, in my current situation?” (the virtue of prudence)
The postmodernist will only ask:
“What do I want to do, in my current situation?” (Since what I want is synonymous to what is “right” anyway)
But then what if what I (playing the role of the postmodernist) want involves the lives of other people and what they want? Well, since there is no“right” or “wrong” way to reconcile the different wants, the only questions that matter are:
How badly do I want it?
If I want it badly, do I have the power to enforce what I want?
If I don’t have the power to enforce what I badly want, how can I attain that power?
To summarize this postmodern, narcissistic shift in a different way, we could consider that in the past, the way people understood beliefs and Truth was:
“I believe X, because there is evidence logically leading me to believe X (assumption: certain reasons have more power than others, based on their relationship to Logic). Although I can’t be 100% sure, I do believe that X is true, and I’m open to exploring an opposing perspective, to see if there’s any evidence that I missed, so I can refine my belief and get closer to the Truth.”
Now, we are on the precipice of:
“I believe X. My reasons for believing X don’t matter (assumption: all reasons are equal and arbitrary). Also, simply because I have the most power, I can say with full certainty that X must be true. There is no need for us to discuss this. And, given my supreme power, I strongly suggest that you also acknowledge X as being true 🙂.”
The mission of the postmodernist has been to extract the power that is intrinsic to the Logos (logic) and reattribute it to the subjective will, in order to make the subjective will more powerful than the Logos.
This is the “my will be done” vs “Your Will be done” struggle.
Postmodern Narcissism has diluted the meaning of bigotry
No one likes to be criticized. That’s normal.
The problem with a narcissistic personality is not just a mere dislike of criticism.
It’s that hypersensitivity and over-reaction to criticism.
Now, words like “hyper”sensitivity and “over”reaction imply some element of a judgment call, where one must have a threshold in mind of what is a reasonable / typical / appropriate reaction in a given circumstance.
A narcissist would tell you that they aren’t being overly- or hypersensitive, but responding very fairly within the interaction. So how do you even know whether narcissism is itself a thing? Isn’t the threshold of what’s normal itself subjective?
Well, traditionally, for establishing these types of social barriers, the Golden Rule would settle the matter.
If a person dishes out criticism towards others in a grossly higher proportion compared the criticism they are willing to receive, the community would consider that person to have a personality fault.
Similarly, if that person engages in higher rates of criticism behaviors towards others, than the rate of criticism behaviors others do and/or if that person reacts more severely to criticism compared to how the majority of their community members would react, then that person would be deemed to have a personality fault.
These norms were fairly stable since the Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was considered the de facto human principle, irrespective of religious or areligious leaning.
But again, with the subjectivity of postmodernism, even the Golden Rule must necessarily be reduced to an artificial construct. And as such, the “powerful” and paradoxically “enlightened” thing to do, would be to disregard it.
Instead, if your behaviors cause other people problems, through the tenets of narcissism, you can reframe any such criticism of your behaviors as being an even greater problem than the alleged, faux problem your community members are accusing you of.
As a matter of fact, you could claim that the person calling out your behaviors is not merely challenging the things you do, but is actually challenging who you are, your identity.
And in a postmodernist world, anyone who challenges your sense of identity is guilty of the gravest offense of them all: bigotry.
Taken a narcissistic step further, the person who initially expressed concern with your behaviors is not only bigoted against you, but they are bigoted against the entire group of people who would use similar words as you to describe themselves (even if the members of such group are in reality very different from one another and have far from a uniform opinion on things).
The technique that emerges is as follows:
Start with a behavior that you want to do but other people don’t want you do.
e.g. I’ll use the (not so) hypothetical behavior of “be naked in public”. You want to be naked, but other people don’t want to see you naked.
If someone expresses concern or requests that you put some clothes on, you disregard how your behavior might affect them. Instead, reframe the conversation away from behavior and make it about identity. Consider what kind of language you can use to codify a “group” around the sets of behaviors that you want to engage in.
i.e. It’s not that you are engaging in the behavior of flopping around naked. No. It’s that this is about your identity as a nudist (or exhibitionist). And being naked is simply what nudists do.
(bonus) What’s important here is also to consider how common vs uncommon your desired behavior currently is. If your behavior is uncommon, the identity group you choose to classify yourself under should also be uncommon. Being part of an uncommon group = being part of a minority group. As such, you could potentially leverage the pathos and ethos of Civil Rights and the postmodern narrative of the oppressors vs the oppressed in service of your cause.
Rather than acknowledge that your behavior could be problematic for others (empathy), accuse the other person of being intolerant and bigoted against you and people who are like you.
This is an extension of 2b. You are part of the nudist class. The majority of society is part of the non-nudist (clothing-normative, fabric-typical) class. The non-nudist class benefits disproportionately from existing power structures that favor non-nudist thinking.
In other words, there exists non-nudist privilege, and the person who is requesting you put some clothes on is exercising that privilege and oppressive power against you 💪
Because there’s nothing more that conscientious people are scared of today than being branded a bigot (because to be a bigot is to inhabit the same spirit that occupied the Nazis, the colonizers, and the plantation slaveowners), the person who requested you put some clothes on will likely leave you alone.
You can weaponize this fear especially by the fact that people’s livelihoods depend on their employers and social groups not viewing them as “bigots”.
i.e. The power of your narcissistic technique (as enabled by an economic and political system that supports collective narcissism) is that you can make someone lose their job 💸 and be ostracized from their existing community 🙈, since most people are too distracted and/or apathetic to care about the original nuance and context of your critic merely stating a preference that you behave differently.
(bonus) Since the strength of your power is dependent upon society’s institutions to continue promoting unconditional acceptance (and endorsement) of all non-violent behavior as the cardinal rule of the land, it’s worthwhile for you to politically engage in promoting your nudist class, setting precedent for future nudists and exhibitionists to walk around freely without shame or stigma.
The bigotry framing technique I’ve described above is what’s available for nearly anyone to use today—though as you can tell, it requires you sacrifice the Golden Rule and its good-faith empathy towards those with whom you disagree.
But who cares, by virtue of disagreeing with you, they are bigots anyway. 🙂
The point is that, from the perspective of a narcissistic, anyone who doesn’t like what the narcissist is doing is a bigot.
Now. . . lest some readers misunderstand what I’m saying here, real bigotry does exist.
People have and still do discriminate against others based on features or characteristics that they cannot control.
But how, and from what perspective can we determine the boundaries of “real” bigotry vs “opportunistic classifications” of bigotry?
This goes back to the threshold problem above, where I mentioned that, even at the individual level, prudence and sound judgment are required to determine the cutoff of when someone is deemed as being “hyper”sensitive and “hyper”critical.
Yet fair, high-integrity judgment can only be established as such when anchored into a transcendent moral ideal, such as the Golden Rule. And something like the Golden Rule can only have true meaning if it is indeed an objective Truth, connected to Beauty and Goodness itself.
But the tenets of a postmodern, subjectivist, collectively narcissistic culture rule out the possibility of such Meaning.
Within that cultural environment, it becomes an entirely arbitrary exercise to distinguish between real, hateful oppression and the kind of oppression that a proud, narcissistic heart will scream against.
Absent a higher Authority to appeal to (beyond yourself), the game becomes one of establishing pseudo-authorities (lower-case “a”) and competing with other groups/classes to use existing power structures (academia, banks, laws) to linguistically establish new concepts and categories, relentlessly propagating adoption of your own subjective viewpoints.
Concretely speaking, here is the dilemma:
Coming back full circle, if you consider the situation of Naked Bicycle Men™ frolicking among children to be problematic, on what foundation can you suggest that the behavior is wrong?
To do so would require that you contradict the subjectivist ideal of “acceptance”.
For individuals who are a few generations removed from having a parent believe in “objective-truth”-promoting systems like religion and hard science (i.e. fully “postmodernized”/secularized people), they may not not even “see” at an immediate perceptive level why there should be any problem with naked male strangers being near children.
In fact, they instinctively would believe that any feeling of disgust that might arise within some, must necessarily and exclusively arise from the artificial constructs that society currently has in place—so what’s the real problem anyway? Isn’t the most noble mission that one can undertake the eradication of all such artificial constructs. . .🤔
Therefore, you either get with the program and join the collectively narcissistic vision for a utopia with no barriers on your own personal power, or step aside.
Earlier this year, I mentioned how I believe these two alternatives for living will continue to be accelerated by technology.
The sad thing about all of this is that
In a culture of collective narcissism, as is the case at the individual narcissist level, real Love is not possible.
For Love to be practiced, it requires that you recognize that other people exist as separate beings outside of yourself and consequently accept the constraints on your personal desires that your relationships with those people may organically impose.
It also requires that you desire the genuine Good for the other person, which is a much different notion than merely desiring that the other person always gets what they want.
The problem with the secular, postmodernist climate we find ourselves in today, is that it breeds an deep culture of apathy and indifference towards your neighbor.
Things like “live and let live” essentially boil down to: “I don’t really care about you and whether you are making decisions to make your life better. Just don’t bother me and get in the way of what I want for myself.”
Under such a paradigm, who are you to intervene and help the addict friend or family member taking steps towards their own demise?
The person struggling with addiction is presumably going with full abandonment after what they want. Doesn’t the culture of “acceptance” require that you just let them go on and do it, rather than use your position of non-addict privilege to oppress them with notions that there may be a better path they could consider pursuing?
We are surrounded by addiction. We all struggle with disordered attachment. Hearts are broken and there is a famine of Love.
Will we be courageous enough to help and truly love one another? Is the postmodern vision of a collectively narcissistic utopia really what we want to aim for?