The Narcissim Delimma

In the study of human psychology, it was at one time fashionable to attribute many social ills to an individual disposition: narcissism. In fact, among Freudian psychologists like Lacan, narcissism was a pervasive psychological disorder that produced many social problems.

In short, everyone suffers from some level of narcissism, which is essentially a denial of "others," of culture, and of institutions, and an aggrandizing of the ego. Narcissism is an overreaching faith in the creativity and agency of the self and a belief in the relative infallibility of the self as a mental/cognitive force. Blind faith in individual opinion/belief is one key symptom. For example, one of narcissism's presuppositions (and falsehoods) is that individual opinions are "subjective." That is, truth, actionable thought, and opinions are generated internally rather externally.

However, if opinions are subjective, then, the "objective" is also denied. Self/Other and subject/object binaries are very similar sorts of language games. So, to affirm the self, the narcissist must also deny that there are "facts of the matter," either logical or empirical. In other words, to fixate on the self, which is the primary meaning of narcissism, also inevitably leads to a denial of objects and/or facts. Truth is, thus, achievable only for the self: the self generates truth for itself to affirm itself in relation to (and negation of) others/objects. Consequently, individual choice is emphasized (sometimes called free will) and collective and institutional forces are for the most part denied or decried.

In the political realm, narcissism is very dangerous. I will provide a number of salient examples. Take for example gun rights. Here the narcissism dilemma is obvious. The reason given for owning a gun is often "protection of the self." Crime represents a threat to the existential security of the self. A hypothetical is often given to justify gun ownership based on emotional grounds: if you and your children were threatened, wouldn't you like to have a weapon. Only under the psychological disposition of narcissism would such a hypothetical be a justification. This is because only the existential security of the individual (the emotional threat arousal) is offered as evidence. The security of the self takes precedence over all things. However, is the person more safe as a result of gun rights collectively?

Here is where the "facts of the matter" do inform our policy decisions. First, is a person safer with a gun in the house on average? No, gun accidents and domestic violence produce grave dangers for the public at large. Even if an individual is a "responsible gun owner," many others are not, and this produces a social cost. In fact, psychological research has shown that there is a range of extreme stress, which, depending on the individual, could make any person with a gun potentially dangerous and "irrational." However, for the narcissist these social costs are irrelevant only because narcissism denies that others matter at all. What about the broad distribution of guns? In fact, no surprise, the distribution of guns produce gun deaths. And, no surprise, urban African Americans and Latinos living in poverty are far more likely to suffer from gun violence. Finally, if the hypothetical criminal were to enter your home, are you and your children better off having a fire fight in the living room? Actually, only under the psychological distortion of narcissism, are these social costs (or personal costs as a result of social costs) irrelevant and inconsequential. They simply do not exist in the realm of the decision making process.

Similarly, only one suffering from the narcissism condition could suggest that "sometimes freedom isn't free" represents a legitimate opinion about international affairs and a justification for war. The Iraq war, therefore, is another example of the negative effects of narcissism, resulting in the destruction of at least a quarter of a million human lives (a conservative estimate).

This is not to say that narcissists always deny facts or objects. Instead, I am suggesting a general disposition or psychological state that inhibits sound political decisions and critical thinking. In addition, I do not deny individuality, only the exultation and idolatry of it, which is the narcissism. Knowing the limitations of the self, its potential for error and bias, and those forces that potentially influence it are some ways to ameliorate the effects of narcissism.

The Phemonology of the Teen

One topic bound to take up a significant amount of ink in post-industrial societies is the "teenager." How many episodes of Oprah and Dr. Phil have been dedicated to the topic? It is one of the pressing issues in Pop. Psychology today.

Common sense reason might suggest any number of ideas: they are stupid, immature, and/or confused. Unfortunately, as in most cases, I argue that such notions don’t offer much but surface understandings of this complex phenomenon. Moreover, these ideas tend to gloss over the larger forces at work that appear now as isolate relics. Most narratives about teens end with fluffy sentiments of, “ah those teens they are so silly, but someday they’ll be in charge.” Unfortunately, my conclusions are far less sentimental or congenial. In effect, I will argue that what is wrong with “teens” stems from the socially constructed category itself. In the 1930s there were no “teens” as we think of them today, this category or social identity did not exist prior to the 1950s for most American youth (the idea of an extended period of leisure and consumption time was a notion reserved only for the progeny of the very wealthy prior to the 30s). The category "teen," I will suggest, produces contradictions that the culture and popular psychology cannot altogether remedy. This is because these poor youngsters are being used and controlled at levels Orwell might only have dreamed. Yet, these mechanisms of control are shrouded in a cloud of individual choice and vacation packages.

The teen’s belief system is a paradoxical combination of anti-authoritarianism and a boundless faith in individual conviction. The teen, in some but not all cases, will lash with every bit of energy at preexisting modes of thinking or logic because these forms are necessarily perceived as being external forces, the signifiers of authority. Thus, any logic, philosophy, or what we might term “reason” represent the preexisting society (or civilization) to the beholding teen to which they are yet only loosely apart of. Thus, the teen largely rejects the parts of the system along with the system because the system is seen as oppressive (only partially).

At the same teenagers accept their vague notions of what is good, classic, the greatest, and coolest while rejecting others notions of what fits into these categories. This is while they accept the infallibility of individual opinion. Thus, you will observe teens arguing at length about what “sucks” or is stupid, no good, and of an obviously lower class of things but never about much of substance. For example, whether Deric Jeter is the best shortstop, or whether the new Spiderman movie is awesome. These argument arise, oddly enough, only because those participating in them have rejected the possibility that such arguments are actually resolvable. Nothing is ever at stake intellectually in these arguments other than your identity to others. These arguments remain entirely in the domain of the subjective where everything is opinion.
Without the philosophies, logic, and reason to intellectually or critically assess the world around them, teens lack the necessary tools to identify what is actually “authority” or what they have been socialized to view as “good” or “bad.” In other words, they reject those tools that they might actually use to resolve conversations of substance and come to some actionable (especially politically actionable) conclusions about the world. Thus, only the subjective world, in which only the individual teen is the expert, is discussed (and not dissected) in everyday discourse. Instead, teens use a simple binary logic. Those modes of thinking outside the self are less trustworthy than those within. Moreover, ideas external to the self are also just opinions with no greater or lesser value than my individual disposition. This of course ignores the contingent nature of individual opinion and common-sense. Worse, it ignores the symbol system used to articulate subjectivity because the process of learning of these modes of thought is immemorial and second nature.

While the teen associates logic, philosophy, and reason with authority and modern society, they fail to identify that most people lack these principles, and because of this, everyday life is filled with decisions that are not guided by the principles of reason, logic, philosophy, or evidence. The tremendously influential developmental psychologists Jean Piaget and his followers have found that less than half of the adult population reaches the last stage of cognitive development necessary for logical introspection and intellectual activity. The teen can see a life-world with much contradiction, hypocrisy, flaw and suffering. As these aspects of adult life become more apparent, the teen places the onus on the modes of thinking (i.e. the philosophies) that supposedly guide the system.

All that guides the teen, then, is the individual and “society” binary. The “society” is all messed up, thus, the modes associated with it are all messed up or insufficient to resolve societal problems. Additionally, the individual must rely entirely on the subjective in order not to become messed up.

The teen becomes the rebel attempting to escape the system that is inescapable, to enter the commune that does not exist, to arrive at the oasis that is a travel commercial, and to reach a place of permanent leisure that infotainment television suggests exists.
Society, then, is not a field where individuals invest their time/resources, debate, communicate, and participate. Instead, it is a tidal wave of complexity and contradiction that one desperately needs to flee from. But who makes society? In a sense, modern life become an exercise of running from one's shadow or reflection: fleeing the disorder that our apathy and ambivalence creates.

This sort of reasoning becomes a powerful positive feedback-mechanism. The "teen" grows up to reject the principles of logic, like the developmental psychologist would suggest, and as an adult reproduces an illogical system that their teens will soon reject.

The Tale of Two Smiths

There are two assumptions upon which economic rationality theory rests: 1) individuals are self-interested and 2) individuals are calculating. There are varying degrees of criticism leveled against each of these ideas. Among economists and sociologists, self-interest is often used as a synonym for selfishness. Thus, economic theory begins with the Hobbesian state of nature. For economists, however, Adam Smith’s invisible hand takes the place of the leviathan. In short, when economic circumstances allow selfish individuals to cheat and manipulate others, firms and other forms of governance emerge to ameliorate these selfish behaviors. Thus, even when selfishness could lead to the breakdown of social relations (e.g. steeling, cheating, or sabotaging), the invisible hand creates firms or governance to control these destructive and suboptimal behaviors. In other words, selfishness is always good even when it is bad. Economist point to the infamous passage in the Wealth of Nations ([1776] 1976):

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Yet, economists are far less likely to read and to cite passages from Smith’s earlier work Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Here Smith (1759:1) writes in the opening sentence of this work:

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it… The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.

Here we see clearly that Smith did not see self-interest as a synonym for selfishness. Order does not naturally follow from chaos and selfishness. Human beings must also have empathy and trust for others in order for social relations to work and for civilization to thrive.

How the Economy is Socially Constructed: Economic Sociology 101

Swedberg and Granovetter (2001) indicate in the introduction to the second edition to The Sociology of Economic Life that there are three types of “social construction” in the economy. First, following Berger and Luckmann economic sociologists suppose that human knowledge takes the form of institutions/routines (or habits) that reduce the cogntive cost and potential errors of infinite individual calculations in each economic transaction. That is, society produces routines and socializes individuals to internalize those habits and norms (e.g., driving on the right side of the road). These routines reduce the cognitive costs of calculating and negotiating order over and over again. To compare, neoclassical economists suppose human decisions are governed by individual rational calculation and optimization. Meanwhile, sociologists argue that people’s everyday activities become institutionalized and that most people are unaware of the history and context of these institutional routines.

The second “socially constructed” aspect of the economy is what Paul David (1986) calls “path-dependent development.” The idea here is that technological changes do not always produce the most efficient option (and in economic sociology technology includes business and organizational practices). Instead, technological solutions can become “locked-in” at an early stage of development, permanently altering the course of institutions and whole societies. The classical example is the QWERTY keyboard. Typewriter technology eventually advanced more efficient keyboard; however, typists had already learned to type using the QWERTY technology and this technology became permanently “locked-in.” Economic sociologists argue that many routines and norms in business and everyday life resemble the QWERTY keyboard. And, without historical knowledge, the “locked-in” form becomes “natural” and second nature to people as if no alternatives exist.

Finally, Granovetter “has generalized the idea of path-dependent development to organizational and institutional forms, arguing that economic institutions are constructed by the mobilization of recourses through social networks, conducted against the background of constraints given by previous historical development of society, polity, market, and technology" (Swedberg and Granovetter 2001:17). Granovetter illustrates this using a case study of the American electrical utility industry and shows how powerful political actors and social networks locked-into the “public utility” model although other models for distributing electricity were possible.

The unifying principle among these types of economic "social constructions" is that they underscore the complexity of human organization and decision making rather than rely on abstract notions like efficiency and optimization. Overall, sociologists do not reject the notion that “in the long run the economy will move toward greater efficiency” but question the theoretical and scientific value of such presupposition.