The effects of collective narcissism on society

[Introversion]

I thought this was thought-provoking?

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/11/group-narcissism/620632/

In 2005, the psychologist Agnieszka Golec de Zavala was researching extremist groups, trying to understand what leads people to commit acts of terrorist violence. She began to notice something that looked a lot like what the 20th-century scholars Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm had referred to as “group narcissism”: Golec de Zavala defined it to me as “a belief that the exaggerated greatness of one’s group is not sufficiently recognized by others,” in which that thirst for recognition is never satiated. At first, she thought it was a fringe phenomenon, but important nonetheless. She developed the Collective Narcissism Scale to measure the severity of group-narcissistic beliefs, including statements such as “My group deserves special treatment” and “I insist upon my group getting the respect that is due to it” with which respondents rate their agreement.

Sixteen years later, Golec de Zavala is a professor at SWPS University, in Poland, and a lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, leading the study of group narcissism—and she’s realized that there’s nothing fringe about it. This thinking can happen in seemingly any kind of assemblage: a religious, political, gender, racial, or ethnic group, but also a sports team, club, or cult. Now, she said, she’s terrified at how widely she’s finding it manifested across the globe.

Collective narcissism is not simply tribalism. Humans are inherently tribal, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Having a healthy social identity can have an immensely positive impact on well-being. Collective narcissists, though, are often more focused on out-group prejudice than in-group loyalty. In its most extreme form, group narcissism can fuel political radicalism and potentially even violence. But in everyday settings, too, it can keep groups from listening to one another, and lead them to reduce people on the “other side” to one-dimensional characters. The best way to avoid that is by teaching people how to be proud of their group—without obsessing over recognition.

 

[mccardey]

I've read quite a bit about this. Thanks for this link..

 

[Kat M]

Holy . . .
My mother and I were literally just talking about this. She (Golec de Zavala) hit the nail on the head.

Nothing to add, just, thanks for sharing. I wonder how much of this I can secretly incorporate into my classroom?

 

[SWest]

Now if we could just get people to argue about this research on F*cebook...

 

[Roxxsmom]

It seems to be an inherent quality in highly evangelical religions. I mean, how do you have that fire in the belly to spread the Word without thinking your faith is greater than everyone else's. And if one feels this way, how can one avoid feeling angry when others (not to mention one's very society) fail to acknowledge the superiority of one's faith?

This certainly applies to other sociopolitical groupings too, and not just among those with conservative or political leanings. Look at how weirdly angry people can get when arguing about which diets are healthiest or most natural for humans. People can be as evangelical, judgemental, and defensive about diets as they are about religion or politics.

 

[Ravioli]

I'm Israeli. Watching my society flaunt collective narcs is my Tuesday.

 

[SAWeiner]

I'm Israeli. Watching my society flaunt collective narcs is my Tuesday.

BTW, the Palestinians with their fifth rate leadership absolutely exemplify collective narcissism. They are utterly incapable of admitting their errors that made the situation worse for them. Deliberately targeting civilians from a population that suffered the Holocaust has just produced stronger resistance and greater Jewish unity. Also, this has made any settlement involving a single bi-national state a non-starter. By contrast, the Irish under Michael Collins, the Indians under Gandhi, and the African National Congress(South Afroca) were careful not to attack civilians. Collins signed off on a compromise settlement to help his people and move the cause forward, even though it led to him taking a bullet. Instead, Yasser Arafat was too selfish and a big opportunity for peace and independence was lost. Arafat not only rejected the Israelis proposals. He refused to make a counteroffer. And then there is Hamas with a charter that literally blames the Jews for World War I and other major tragedies beyond the Middle East.

It has meanwhile become fashionable for the Palestinians' supporters to physically attack Jews outside of Israel in the name of the cause. This has been going on for some time in Europe, and has recently spread to the USA. These actions serve to increase aliyah ( Jews moving to Israel).

I hope I don't get too much flak for this politically incorrect post. People may have a just cause, but without good leadership and wise strategy and tactics, the cause will fail.

 

[T.D.H.]

While I certainly see the value of this research in understanding the actions of those whom I'm ideologically opposed to, isn't it equally important to use it in questioning my own prejudices?

 

[mccardey]

While I certainly see the value of this research in understanding the actions of those whom I'm ideologically opposed to, isn't it equally important to use it in questioning my own prejudices?

Bloody nuance, again. I thought we'd agreed not to do that?

 

[Unimportant]

While I certainly see the value of this research in understanding the actions of those whom I'm ideologically opposed to, isn't it equally important to use it in questioning my own prejudices?

But--but--but--if I question my prejudices, I may realise some of them are wrong! And then I'd have to get rid of them! And where will I get replacements, I ask you? It's not like K-Mart is having a two-for-one sale on prejudices this week.

Sheesh, T.D.H. Think this stuff through.

 

[Introversion]

It's not like K-Mart is having a two-for-one sale on prejudices this week.

They can’t; supply-chain issues.

 

[Roxxsmom]

While I certainly see the value of this research in understanding the actions of those whom I'm ideologically opposed to, isn't it equally important to use it in questioning my own prejudices?

That's it too.

Though there do seem to be folks (no one in this thread, but omg it abounds on social media whenever a dispute comes up) who seem to enjoy stating that "both sides are equally to blame" whenever any sociopolitical debate or conflict comes up.

I don't think blame is always symmetrical. Sometimes victims are really victims and it's not (unreasonably so, at least) culturally narcissistic to categorically reject a position that says victimizing someone is a simple extension of someone else's sincerely held belief that gives them a right to victimize. Sometimes there is more hard evidence to back a particular position than there is for another. Other times it's useful and important to examine the historical context of a conflict, or the rationale for different positions, to see the shortcomings on different sides.

I don't think anyone here would ever deny this. I guess the take home is to always look into your own biases and question your own reality, but there are going to be times when someone has gone so far off the deep end of reality that empathy won't help.

Scientists are human and certainly not immune from bias, or from subjective blindness, and most definitely not from narcissism

But one thing you are supposed to do when conducting science, or assessing evidence for something, is to have a good view of what evidence that falsifies your hypothesis (or position) might look like. Scientists aren't always great at this either, and sometimes the evidence supporting falsification is nebulous or subject to different interpretations (and even carefully conducted experiments or observations aren't always repeatable), but it's a valuable approach to keep in mind.

What evidence could someone present to make me change my mind about a given issue, or position, or belief or whatever?

Of course some would argue that my acceptance of the existence an empirical reality that can be measured and observed is in of itself a result of my cultural narcissism. Ultimately, that is non falsifiable, as we could all be subroutines in a big simulation, or we could be fleeting ideas darting through the mind of a dreaming god or something. However, I don't see how it's useful to give this possibility equal weight to the notion that reality is, well, real, and what we do actually matters.

 

[Kat M]

It's not like K-Mart is having a two-for-one sale on prejudices this week.

They can’t; supply-chain issues.

Always shop local! They usually have more.

But one thing you are supposed to do when conducting science, or assessing evidence for something, is to have a good view of what evidence that falsifies your hypothesis (or position) might look like. Scientists aren't always great at this either, and sometimes the evidence supporting falsification is nebulous or subject to different interpretations (and even carefully conducted experiments or observations aren't always repeatable), but it's a valuable approach to keep in mind.

What evidence could someone present to make me change my mind about a given issue, or position, or belief or whatever?

This. Exactly this. And this sort of nuance is getting lost on every side. Of course it's a fine line to walk—if someone's POV is leading to actions that are causing people real pain, you don't want to give that first POV the time of day. (There's also the issue of privilege—how much emotional labor will it actually take? I have almost every privilege in the book so I can theoretically take a lot. I want to make sure I acknowledge that.)

And yet. Thinking through the other side hones and improves our own positions, as you say, but it also helps us find common ground with those who aren't too far gone in any one direction.

I had a conversation with a colleague recently about a hot-button issue (obscured for privacy). We had completely opposite viewpoints. At first we kind of flung our positions at each other, agreed to disagree, and then we both went home frustrated. We came back and listened to each other for longer and found common ground. It was possible because we had some very similar core values, which isn't always the case, but if we'd left it at the surface we wouldn't have found and affirmed those. I still think she's wrong, but she gave me some stuff to think about and some questions to ask. And if we have another conversation about this topic we have a common base to draw from. But it was a damn hard conversation and people don't seem to have the energy or capacity or willingness to have them these days. I know I barely do.

 

[Snitchcat]

Group narcissism. Let's not point any fingers, but.... *koff* Chi Gov *koff*. Way too much to say about this topic and not enough time.

 

[mccardey]

Group narcissism. Let's not point any fingers, but.... *koff* Chi Gov *koff*. Way too much to say about this topic and not enough time.

Sending you love and strength because omg, this is tough times...

You don't need me to tell you to keep yourself safe, do you...

 

[Roxxsmom]

Group narcissism. Let's not point any fingers, but.... *koff* Chi Gov *koff*. Way too much to say about this topic and not enough time.

A classic example of how both sides do not always share blame

These are very hard times. Sending my best wishes and hopes.

 

[T.D.H.]

That's it too.

Though there do seem to be folks (no one in this thread, but omg it abounds on social media whenever a dispute comes up) who seem to enjoy stating that "both sides are equally to blame" whenever any sociopolitical debate or conflict comes up.

I don't think blame is always symmetrical. Sometimes victims are really victims and it's not (unreasonably so, at least) culturally narcissistic to categorically reject a position that says victimizing someone is a simple extension of someone else's sincerely held belief that gives them a right to victimize. Sometimes there is more hard evidence to back a particular position than there is for another. Other times it's useful and important to examine the historical context of a conflict, or the rationale for different positions, to see the shortcomings on different sides.

I don't think anyone here would ever deny this. I guess the take home is to always look into your own biases and question your own reality, but there are going to be times when someone has gone so far off the deep end of reality that empathy won't help.

Scientists are human and certainly not immune from bias, or from subjective blindness, and most definitely not from narcissism

But one thing you are supposed to do when conducting science, or assessing evidence for something, is to have a good view of what evidence that falsifies your hypothesis (or position) might look like. Scientists aren't always great at this either, and sometimes the evidence supporting falsification is nebulous or subject to different interpretations (and even carefully conducted experiments or observations aren't always repeatable), but it's a valuable approach to keep in mind.

What evidence could someone present to make me change my mind about a given issue, or position, or belief or whatever?

Of course some would argue that my acceptance of the existence an empirical reality that can be measured and observed is in of itself a result of my cultural narcissism. Ultimately, that is non falsifiable, as we could all be subroutines in a big simulation, or we could be fleeting ideas darting through the mind of a dreaming god or something. However, I don't see how it's useful to give this possibility equal weight to the notion that reality is, well, real, and what we do actually matters.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said.

 

[Ravioli]

BTW, the Palestinians with their fifth rate leadership absolutely exemplify collective narcissism. They are utterly incapable of admitting their errors that made the situation worse for them. Deliberately targeting civilians from a population that suffered the Holocaust has just produced stronger resistance and greater Jewish unity. Also, this has made any settlement involving a single bi-national state a non-starter. By contrast, the Irish under Michael Collins, the Indians under Gandhi, and the African National Congress(South Afroca) were careful not to attack civilians. Collins signed off on a compromise settlement to help his people and move the cause forward, even though it led to him taking a bullet. Instead, Yasser Arafat was too selfish and a big opportunity for peace and independence was lost. Arafat not only rejected the Israelis proposals. He refused to make a counteroffer. And then there is Hamas with a charter that literally blames the Jews for World War I and other major tragedies beyond the Middle East.

It has meanwhile become fashionable for the Palestinians' supporters to physically attack Jews outside of Israel in the name of the cause. This has been going on for some time in Europe, and has recently spread to the USA. These actions serve to increase aliyah ( Jews moving to Israel).

I hope I don't get too much flak for this politically incorrect post. People may have a just cause, but without good leadership and wise strategy and tactics, the cause will fail.

I'd be wary of putting the onus on oppressed people who are being systematically withheld electricity, water, even have entire villages either ethnically cleansed or demolished, or their kids shot with impunity, because they've become disgruntled with us. I know how the media can make it look like they're the problem. I used to believe it, too.
Palestinians owe us no counter-offer, and decent potential leaders have a way of ending up assassinated by the Mossad. We owe them an end to the siege on Gaza and the military and settlement advancement into the West Bank. We owe them the corpses of their loved ones back, and access to representation for the MINORS held in prisons without trial, a known tactic used entirely to pressure and demoralize their adult entourage. We owe them reparations and basic human rights, instead, my mother was stopped from bringing GROCERIES into the Gaza Strip by the IDF despite the soldiers checking and truly finding nothing but foodstuff. God forbid someone in there has one less meal to worry about in their home that no longer has walls.


Also, history documents have shown again and again that Israel is sabotaging peace agreements to have an excuse to play the victim and somehow, in self-defense, end up with more land each time, one of them being Egypt's Nasser's attempts in the 1960s. My own grandfather has meticulously documented just how brazenly Israel is running its hasbara machine where everything is everyone else's fault and Israel is a light unto the nations with its $4 minimum wage as recently as 2013, and dumpster-diving Holocaust survivors. One of its hasbara steps being to blow up a boatful of Jewish refugees to show just how endangered we are outside of Israel.


The single bi-national state is not something we are entitled to demand of them to accept - plus, Israel doesn't want it. It wants a Jewish nation-state and is working hard to achieve it, too. If someone were to beat you out of your family home and then offer you a room with a bathroom and kitchenette in it, I'm not sure anyone would accuse you of narcissism or stubbornness if you were to take up arms. I'm born and raised in Israel. I have seen how Palestinians in Israeli society are treated. Some put up a zionist or unpolitical face as a survival tactic, but behind closed doors, they're seething, and I'm seething for them. The cops don't even respond to calls if the victim is Arab or there's Arab-on-Arab crime. They're left to their own devices. Convicted pedophiles have been allowed to rent a place with a view of a school playground in an Arab neighbourhood when they were explicitly banned from doing so "anywhere else", but these Arab kids didn't matter to authorities. Is that the bi-national state the Palestinians should accept?
And then, there's the wonderful two-state solution, where the Palestinians don't get to establish a defensive military. Wonder why.


And you've absolutely recognized the benefit for Israel concerning Muslim-on-Jew crime outside of Israel. It benefits no one but Israel, and certainly not the Jews making Aliyah, they get disillusioned real quick much of the time, and many get fed up and leave, so more must be bribed or pressured to come. Former Mossad and Shin Bet people have spoken out about Israel either staging false flag attacks, deliberately inciting the victimization of the people it claims to represent (it really doesn't or else we'd all live there), or exploiting it. This, too, has been well documented, such as the bombings of Baghdad Jewish places that turned out to NOT originate from the Muslim community, but from the Zionist underground, to make Jews feel threatened and drive them into Israel because a budding state needed cheap labour and didn't want to inflict that on the European immigrants who came with money. My own family was one of the Jews scammed this way, and my grandfather, Naeim Giladi, has written extensively about this atrocity. We fell into intergenerational trauma and socioeconomic demise as did many others.
I mean, no, the anti-semitic attacks today are probably not carried out by Zionist agents. But Israel knows why we become targeted in diaspora, and it's exploiting this shamelessly. There is a reason why most Jews are still not living in Israel even though they could get paid to move. And each time a hate crime happens, Israel cackles because another planeful of Jews finally got "motivated", and so, Israel carries on with ethnic cleansings, bombings, and child arrests in broad daylight because it sparks a rage it can then weaponize its victimhood of.


And once Bennett was elected, he emboldened the Zionist lynch mobs like Trump did the alt-rights. They stormed Palestinian homes and cars all over Israel to drag Arabs out and beat them. They said "We got Sheikh Jarrah, let's take the rest as well". There is VIDEO of settlers announcing that they hope to turn all of East Jerusalem Jewish through ethnic cleansing. The police did nothing about any of it. The administration did nothing either. "Proud boys, stand by" all over again. But the Palestinians are supposed to be the problem? They're angry. They hate us because we're committing a genocide against them. Is it fair to attack random Jews as a result? No. But Arab anti-semitism is little more than a predictable mutation of rightful anger, like a few BLM protesters looting and burning stuff. And like those protesters, it's a tiny, but loud minority of Arabs that is an actual threat to us. I walked Berlin's Arab neighbourhoods with a glow-in-the-dark Star of David and was never even looked at funny. I hitch-hiked through the West Bank, with Palestinians. Most are just like most people, harmless and happy to be left alone, but also angry and hopeless. Angry and hopeless breeds crime anywhere in the world. And Palestinians make up a whole nation of people being deliberately and strategically kept angry and hopeless by an entity that wants them to snap so it can call self-defense when it wipes them out.


Palestinian pride makes it easy to dehumanize them: they appear to the world media as an angry people primed to slaughter all the Jews and proud of every child who got themselves killed trying. But this is just defiance and an attempt to appear to Israel unbroken. It's well-documented, by Israeli press no less, that in private, behind closed doors, they're devastated and hate nothing more than the thought of their child going "martyr". A defiant face is all they have left, when in reality, the Palestinian land grab-genocide and the Native American land grab-genocide are only different in that the Palestinians have access to better tools of retaliation and the mass media. It's still a genocide, and I'm done excusing dehumanizing and blaming the victim just because their retaliation is "counterproductive" or "violent" (so is cluster-bombing Gaza's civilian population with American tax dollars). We all know that, as Israelis, Americans etc., if the roles were reversed, we would retaliate much more brutally than the Palestinians with their chants, their rock throwing, and their blind missiles. I mean, 9/11 was met with 20 years of gratuitous massacres.

 

[mccardey]

I've read that post three times now, and it's so clear and powerful. Thanks, Ravioli.

PS: Your mum sounds nice

 

[SAWeiner]

I'd be wary of putting the onus on oppressed people who are being systematically withheld electricity, water, even have entire villages either ethnically cleansed or demolished, or their kids shot with impunity, because they've become disgruntled with us. I know how the media can make it look like they're the problem. I used to believe it, too.
Palestinians owe us no counter-offer, and decent potential leaders have a way of ending up assassinated by the Mossad. We owe them an end to the siege on Gaza and the military and settlement advancement into the West Bank. We owe them the corpses of their loved ones back, and access to representation for the MINORS held in prisons without trial, a known tactic used entirely to pressure and demoralize their adult entourage. We owe them reparations and basic human rights, instead, my mother was stopped from bringing GROCERIES into the Gaza Strip by the IDF despite the soldiers checking and truly finding nothing but foodstuff. God forbid someone in there has one less meal to worry about in their home that no longer has walls....

Regrettably, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. Even if you and I could, this conflict will just play out for decades anyway. Conversely, if I fight it out with you and get myself banned from AW, nothing substantial will change in the Middle East.

 

[SAWeiner]

While I certainly see the value of this research in understanding the actions of those whom I'm ideologically opposed to, isn't it equally important to use it in questioning my own prejudices?

Unfortunately, many times powerful emotions of anger , frustration, and especially fear, cloud objectivity on all sides. This doesn't mean that all positions are equally legitimate. It does mean rational, fair resolutions to problems are often not going to be forthcoming.

With more thought and reflection, I'd blame deeply held negative emotions much more for the world's intractable issues rather than any collective narcissisms.

 

[mccardey]

With more thought and reflection, I'd blame deeply held negative emotions much more for the world's intractable issues rather than any collective narcissisms.

I'd blame humans.

 

[Friendly Frog]

BTW, the Palestinians with their fifth rate leadership absolutely exemplify collective narcissism. They are utterly incapable of admitting their errors that made the situation worse for them.

Are you seriously just trying to be cruel?

Those people have been abandoned by pretty much everyone and lost pretty much everything. They're in an dreadful tangle which is most definitely not entirely of their own making. And you're faulting them for having a smidge of defiance left in the face of great misery? And for having poor leaders they can barely even choose themselves?

And they're the narcists? Did you even read the article?

 

[mccardey]

Did you even read the article?

It's an excellent article expressly because it is so clear about the difference between Personal Narcissism and Collective Narcissism: it discusses Collective Narcissism. I can't, myself, see a way in which Collective Narcissism pertains to the Palestinian people.

(Not to derail further, but

I hope I don't get too much flak for this politically incorrect post.

*non-PC* is actually not a cool thing to claim on the ACEH page. It's mentioned in the stickies)

 

[mccardey]

ETA: stupid computer will be the death of me...

ETA2: I can do links again!!
Thank you, ADMIN!