Who would you choose? I am going to look at the life stories of some iconically famous people, one at a time, and ask what narcissism theory says about them and what their lives tell us about narcissism.
First though, in this post and the next, I am going to describe a theory of narcissism that should frame the details I look at in the biographies of each icon. This is a theory that describes what narcissism is, what causes it, how it goes wrong and what improves things – both for the person in question and for the people on the receiving end of their behaviour. It is this theory that dictates the questions I will ask about each iconically famous individual. I want to make this theory accessible. In fact, one of my motivations for writing about narcissism is the inaccessible or confusing way in which it is sometimes explained. * Let me know how I get on.
Trigger warning: all posts in this blog will contain references to trauma and neglect.
What is narcissism?
I am going to dispense with the three-paragraph summary of the myth of Narcissus and Echo that is so often inserted here. There are conflicting definitions about what is meant by narcissism. In short, I define narcissism as the use of grandiosity, admiration, denigration and power in order to avoid felt experience of vulnerability, shame or humiliation1. In severe cases, this is associated with a lack of emotional empathy, a readiness to exploit others and difficulties with sustained emotionally intimate relationships1. Importantly, this use of grandiosity, idealisation and power is inflexible and represents a narrow repertoire of ways of being – so that in some situations it backfires or has unwanted consequences.
An author is an internationally renowned psychologist** who writes about the emotional needs of children and parenting. He communicates with thousands about this subject, from a distance, in his work. When his daughter comes to him in distress, having been dumped by her boyfriend, he cannot connect emotionally with her and is stunned into speechlessness – unable to comfort his child. This is a real example of this inflexibility - described by the daughter of the famous author in an article, after she had grown up and trained as a psychotherapist2.
What is a ‘narcissist’?
Many books and blogs describe narcissism as a kind of person. If narcissism is a kind of person, we can write about them or even try to deal with them, without ever having to ask whether we ourselves are being narcissistic. We can even be their therapist, safe in the knowledge that we will never be ‘one of them’. One problem with this idea, is that narcissistic behaviour can provoke narcissistic behaviour. And narcissism is not as black and white as this: there is a continuum. If we look across all theories of narcissism, we find ‘healthy narcissism’3 all the way through to ‘malignant narcissism’4 and ‘narcissistic personality disorder’. One consequence of this is that, if we are having trouble with a person who might be labelled a ‘narcissist’, we stop labelling the person in trying to move forward. Instead, we focus on labelling the behaviour. This is much easier said than done when we are in pain. But I am not here to write about dealing with narcissism in our relationships. In many ways, those blogs are more important than this one.
I suggest along with British psychotherapist Tony Ryle5, that instead of thinking of narcissism as a kind of person, we instead identify narcissistic strategies and their behaviours. We might catch ourselves dealing with pain or our own insecurities by displaying some narcissism ourselves – perhaps when someone makes us angry. If a narcissist is a kind of person this may be highly alarming or shameful. Have I become one of them? Was I always one of them? We probably cannot face even the idea. But if narcissism is a kind of strategy that we employ from time to time, for better or worse, then it may not be such a big deal. Unless it is our fixed and inflexible way of dealing with everything. Unless our narcissistic strategy causes others pain or loss of freedom. Unless in order to maintain our strategy, we have to use drugs. Then it becomes a big deal. Narcissism theories themselves are also a response to narcissism. And likewise, I think it is important to ask, to what extent a theory is using narcissistic strategies on behalf of the author or therapist. Again, if we can notice ourselves doing this, we can correct it, and move on.
Later on, I will write a post comparing narcissism with ‘neighbouring’ concepts – ‘narcissism’s neighbours’ as it were. These might include narcissistic personality disorder, psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder (AKA emotionally unstable personality disorder AKA complex emotional needs) and complex PTSD. These are names of concepts that are different from but sometimes confused with narcissism. For example, a UK production of the fictional ‘Sherlock Holmes’ stories referred to Benedict Cumberbatch’s Holmes as a ‘psychopath’ when the character displays almost textbook narcissistic traits and would not score highly on the Psychopath Checklist.
Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes
What causes pathological (problem) narcissism?
Some authors have explored how Western culture may contribute to increases in narcissism or even a “narcissism epidemic”7. This is probably true to some extent. I am going to focus in this blog, though, on how this socially-spread phenomena arrives with the individual, and how it gets passed from one of us to the next.
Where it all starts: The human infant and attachment
I need to start by saying something about what human infants and children need in order to develop and flourish – not to pad-out a blog post but because this is vital to understanding the links between trauma and narcissism and fame. Human beings are born with a huge amount of ‘plasticity’ – meaning that we are far more able to adapt to the world we arrive into, compared with other species on earth. We are born with a hugely developed brain to make this happen. Compared to other animals on earth though, we are also born incredibly vulnerable - depending heavily on protection and nurturing of others. We are unable to walk for 12 months. With our huge brains and physical vulnerability, there is a system to protect us. This system helps us get protected, helps us learn how to protect ourselves, and helps us learn how to get together with other human beings in order to do well – to cooperate. This system is our emotions.
Emotions can be thought of as seven or eight distinct core programmes for different situations in life. While it is easy to come to think of emotions as something we would be better off without, let’s put this thought to one side for a moment. Fear is to help us survive danger. Joy and curiosity help us join with others and learn things. Desire helps us reproduce, build community and achieve goals. Shame helps us to correct our behaviour and to fit into community to share resources. Sadness signals to others that we will need support and protection for a time having lost something or someone. Anger helps us stop others from taking advantage. Although our experience might be a lot more complicated than this, these are some intended functions of these programmes we inherit.
If an infant is in distress, what is their experience of it? It is partly physical/chemical - certainly urgent. Aversive, uncomfortable. How long will it last? Is it lethal? How can it be stopped? What is it? Is it distinguished in their mind from other emotions? Adults might call it ‘fear’. What we now know is that the infant is born with a default setting: to reach out for comfort to its caregiver. But when they reach out, what happens next? Are they picked up and held? Are they spoken to in a way that immediately makes them feel less afraid? This might become their more-or-less predictable experience when scared. This strategy of reaching out helps make fear (and other uncomfortable emotions) manageable. The child learns to trust the care giver. Later this becomes more of a verbal exchange as the child develops. John Bowlby6 called this process ‘attachment’. Later still the child will learn to speak to themselves in this helpful way – noticing the emotion, taking it seriously, connecting it with some kind of trigger.
Attachment trauma
Different emotions in the infant trigger them to reach out to get their emotions managed or comforted. They start a process of learning how to tolerate and regulate their own emotions through the caregiver – called the attachment figure. In the past 30 years, much research has established some details of how this actually works in the intimate connectedness of infants and their attachment figures8.
But this comforting and protecting response from the attachment figure to the infant is not the only possibility. The caregiver might not be interested in the child’s distress, having just injected a wrap of heroin. The child is left with its feeling – unable yet to do anything to identify it or manage it. Another caregiver might feel an intolerable sense of helplessness themselves – and in response to a scared child become highly distressed themselves. The child is left still scared but with an added sense of their fear having harmed their only protector. It has been shown that infants are sensitive to the emotions of their attachment figures – something that signals what is safe and what is not9. What do these infants learn about their own fear? And vulnerability? Can it be managed? Is it safe? No. Instead, a chemical, physical and mental process designed to signal danger – like a flag – becomes itself danger. The flag – the emotion itself – must be avoided.
Adapting to less helpful adult responses – attachment patterns
The good news is that the infants of our species are good at adapting to the situation they find themselves in. Do they learn to persist loudly in order to get what they need from the other? Or do they learn to deal with it alone. Bowlby named the child’s potential strategies for managing emotions ‘attachment styles’ and there are four: ‘secure’, ‘insecure preoccupied’ (persisting, loudly etc), ‘insecure avoidant/distanced’ (dealing with the emotion alone) and ‘disorganised’ (alternating between insecure styles)7. One of these attachment strategies – ‘avoidant’ or ‘distanced’ – which can later become described as ‘dismissive’ - is linked to narcissism**. Repeatedly experiencing punishment for or neglect in response to emotional need and vulnerability, can be described as attachment trauma. We often associate trauma with more specific events that are dangerous or exploitative. Attachment trauma can be harder to identify, compared with overt abuse or physical neglect. And even for the survivor of such difficult experiences, it may be difficult to identify later in life, looking back – assuming they can remember. What do we compare the experience with?
Attachment trauma and narcissism
I have talked about the emotion known as fear, above, to illustrate attachment trauma. But fear is not the main emotion spoken about when psychologists talk about the development of narcissism. Shame and humiliation seem to be more important. Ryle10 developed a theory of narcissism, returning to the importance of this early nurturing environment in which the child gets its emotions managed and begins to learn ways in which to manage emotions within themselves.
Building on psychodynamic theory (of Kernberg11, which ultimately links back to Freud), Ryle used the concept of ‘reciprocal roles’, to be more specific about what nurtures a narcissistic set of strategies in the child. They are reciprocal, appearing in pairs, because they are interactions: the judging in relation to the judged, the neglecting in relation to the neglected, etc. There is a ‘doer’ and a ‘done to’ and in choosing these descriptions it is the quality or nature of the emotional experience that is important. These experienced roles can be divided into two groups: firstly, experienced traumatic roles the child has to deal with, and secondly, other types of roles that can be occupied in order to escape. It is these specific roles that Ryle brought together into a map of narcissism that I will set out in the next post.
In this post I have described the needs of the human infant, through the lens of attachment theory and attachment trauma. I have begun to describe reciprocal roles as a way to be specific about what experiences in attachment relationships have had an impact on a child, and how some roles offer an escape. In the next post, I will build on these ideas, to set out a theory of narcissism, including details of this set of specific ‘reciprocal roles’ that come together to form a ‘map of narcissism’. I will go on to describe how this theory of narcissism connects with celebrity, influence and leadership. Then, I will be ready to explore the life of my ‘icon number 1’, using this theory as a frame.
Disclaimer: All views expressed are my own unless otherwise stated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution I have been employed by. The content here is for information and should not be interpreted as advice.
* For those who are trained psychologists familiar with the jargon, this theory owes much to Cognitive Analytic theory5, attachment theory, mentalization theory and the theory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
**I will use ‘psychologist’ to refer to psychologists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts and counsellors
References
1. Jellema, A. (2000). Insecure attachment states: Their relationship to borderline and narcissistic personality disorders and treatment process in cognitive analytic therapy. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy. 7, 138–154.
2. Erikson Bloland, S. (2014). Fame, Narcissism, and the Capacity for Intimacy: A Daughter’s Reflection. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 34:486–497.
3. Malkin, C. (2015) Rethinking Narcissism. Harper Wave.
4. Diamond, D., Yeomans, F.E., Stern, B.L. & Kernberg, O.F. (2022) Treating Pathological Narcissism with Transference Focussed Therapy. Guildford.
5. Ryle, A. & Kerr, I.B. (2002). Introducing Cognitive Analytic Therapy. Wiley.
6. Twenge, J.M., Miller, J.D. & Campbell, W.K. (2014). The narcissism epidemic: Commentary on modernity and narcissistic personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment, 5(2), 227-229.
7. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
8. Allen, J.G., Fonagy, P. & Bateman, A.W. (2008) Mentalizing in Clinical Practice. American Psychiatric Publishing.
9. Waters, S.F., West, T.V., Karnilowicz, H.R. & Mendes, W.B. (2017). Affect contagion between mothers and infants: Examining valence and touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 146(7), 1043-1051.
10. Ryle A. 1990. Cognitive Analytic Therapy: Active Participation in Change. Wiley: Chichester.
11. Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.
Hi Tove K,
Good question!
There is empirical research demonstrating these patterns of parenting in people scoring highly on narcissism. For example, adults report parenting that was ‘cold or neglectful’ (eg otway&vignoles 2006),‘overvaluing’ (eg brummelman et al 2015) or ‘controlling’(eg horton et al 2006). There are problems with how to apply alot of research as they measure things like “warmth” and “lenient parenting” and these concepts are a bit vague. There is also no doubt some genetic aspect which affects how we respond to parenting styles. As you say, we now know that autism is much more genetic and not brought about by adverse childhood experiences. The evidence with narcissism, as i understand it, is moving in the opposite direction.
The main treatments for narcissism are based on an understanding that a particular set of childhood relational experiences are behind narcissism: they include transference focussed psychotherapy, mentalization based treatment, CAT (from which i took the map of narcissism), Schema Therapy and others.
Narcissism is associated with a ‘dismissing’ adult attachment style. A huge amount of research evidence connects a dismissive attachment style with particular parenting experiences.
Much more research has been done into borderline personality disorder( bpd/eupd), and there is more evidence connecting this to parenting styles and trauma. However, increasingly, narcissistic personality disorder is understood as a similar kind of pathology on a continuum with bpd. See my ‘neighbours of narcissism’ post for more on this.
My own little experiment looking at icons of music and film is not scientific. But i have been surprised by the unusual childhood experiences of these examples, chosen only on the basis of earned iconic fame. My clinical experience also backs up the theory i have described, and so there are further dramatic stories that i cannot write about.
This trauma-explanation of narcissism: Is it scientific or is it just a theory? I mean, do we know that if a person is exhibiting narcissistic traits, they were treated wrongly as a child?
Autism was also thought to be caused by parents. Now it is thought to be heritable. Do you think the explanation of narcissism could change the same way?