Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited

Excerpts from the Archives
of the
Narcissism List

Part 8

1. Do Infants Trigger their Own Abuse?

It is conceivable that certain infants are born with a genetic propensity NOT to attach to the mother (I won't use "caregiver" or "primary object"). Could it be that this PROVOKES abuse/neglect by the mother?

Other infants are born DIFFERENT. For instance, how would a mother cope emotionally with an exceptionally gifted or handicapped child? What about physical defects? These children are "alien", threatening - especially to teen mothers or inexperienced ones (or culturally conditioned ones).

Perhaps children TRIGGER the treatment that they receive in certain cases?

This sounds a lot like shifting the blame to the victim (a classic with rape victims).

I am NOT trying to justify abuse or neglect. There is no justification or mitigating circumstances for abuse, even in the case of the abuser's mental illness.

But we are very far from deciphering the delicate and intricate mechanisms that bind infants to objects and later, to meaningful others. Attachment is still mysterious.

Over the years I had the chance to hear from HUNDREDS of mothers the following:

1. Children are BORN with distinct "characters" (they mostly used the term "personalities" which is going too far, of course). Many mothers insist that - from the third or fourth postnatal day - they could tell if a child is obstinate, temperamental, mentally alert or intelligent, possessive and envious (and many other traits).

2. As a result, these mothers concluded that children are IMMEDIATELY distinguishable from one another.

3. This leads to different treatment and emotional investment accorded to each child, even in the same family and by the same mother and under similar social, cultural and economic circumstances.

There are two possibilities to relate to this common claim:

1. (Cultural, societal, or personal) prejudice and bias ( of the mothers),   or

2. Part truth. In which case, it is interesting why this very important observation by mothers has been largely ignored hitherto.

2. Narcissism, Wife Beating and Alcoholism

Issue number one: is narcissism equivalent to alcoholism, wife beating and stealing?

Absolutely not. Narcissism is a personality structure. Wife beating and stealing are specific behaviors. "Personality" is a MUCH wider concept.

Issue number two: does this absolve the narcissist of responsibility? 

The narcissist is responsible for most of his actions because he can tell right from wrong. He simply doesn't care enough about other people to restrain or modify his behaviour. There's more in the archives and in my FAQs. 

It is true that the narcissist intellectualizes and rationalizes his actions. But he does so to justify the specific action, not its overall nature. For instance: a narcissist berates and demeans his wife in public. He knows that GENERALLY speaking it is wrong to berate and demean anyone, let alone one's spouse. But he has an excellent explanation why the WRONG, unfortunate, and usually regrettable act had, IN THIS CASE, to be done. He would say:

Demeaning one's spouse in public is wrong

BUT

In this case, the circumstances were such that I was left with no choice but to demean and berate her in public.

3. Disinterested Narcissists

Narcissists are like all other humans. BUT, there is a difference. They do not COMPARE.... He is both incapable AND disinterested in your predicament, personality, emotions, in YOU.

They cannot fathom love. But they can definitely fathom anger, indignation, or envy. 

Meta language means a language common to us both. Thus, there isn't your meta language or mine, only ours. You can never KNOW if I am hurt. You can assume, guess, deduce, learn that I am hurt from what I tell you, from a similarity of circumstances, from some safe assumptions you are making.

If you call me "idiot" I can PRETEND to be hurt and you would think that I am hurt - irrespective of whether I am truly hurt or not. We cannot KNOW the internal states of anything but ourselves (cogito, ergo sum). We can only INFER them. 

4. Superego

The Ego Ideal is not "subsumed by the Superego". It is simply the earlier name given to the Superego in Freud's writings. He then changed it to Superego. 

The Superego IS the conscience (in psychodynamic theories). There is no separate conscience. BUT it is true that if the primary caregivers were not "good enough" (Winnicott) the Superego turns out to be idealistic, sadistic,  makes unrealistic demands on the Ego, etc.

A conscience can, therefore, be realistic and impose a realistic test of right and wrong - or ideal and sadistic and torment the Ego with its taunting, unrealistic demands. If one grew up in a restrictive, religious environment, chances are that one has a conscience - only "too much" of it, making impossible demands upon one and torturing one with moral self-flagellation and doubts.

5. Emotional Daltonism

By philosophical and logical definition I CANNOT know how is it to be you.   You can describe it to me. You can say to me: "this hurts". Then I remember MY pain and I ASSUME that you are having the same thing. Can we PROVE that your pain=my pain, your love=my love? Never. Ours are PRIVATE languages. We are limited to our META-language: we can talk ABOUT our selves, our emotions, our thoughts. We can never be SURE that we share the same experiences or emotions - because there is no WAY to objectively measure, test, evaluate, analyze or compare them.

Narcissists, in this sense, are like all other humans. BUT, there is a difference. They do not COMPARE. When you say: "it hurts (emotionally)", the narcissist has nothing to compare it to. He is an emotional Daltonist. He, therefore, stares at you blankly. You say: "it hurts" (physically) - and to him it is simply a superfluous and rather boring bit of information. He is both incapable AND disinterested in your predicament, personality, emotions, in YOU.

Unless, of course, you represent a potential source of narcissistic supply.

You can never "know" a person. We are all locked within impenetrable walls, speaking incomprehensible private languages, communicating through distant echoes, often misinterpreted by others. We can KNOW only actions. We can GUESS or ASSUME that what is happening inside another human being is SIMILAR/IDENTICAL to what is happening inside us (this is empathy). Tastes and preferences unless expressed remain unknown. If expressed - they are no different to actions. We are all blind to each other. Hence our existential pain.

If a computer were programmed to behave in strict accordance with all ten commandments + Asimov's three laws of robotics + all the legal codex of the USA - would it have possessed a conscience?

Don't people engage in moral activities on strictly utilitarian grounds?

See my "Philosophical Musings":  http://musings.cjb.net

top | continued | table of contents

home | about me | narcissism defined | faq | narcissism list excerpts
the book | book excerpts | articles | email me