Malignant Self Love, Samuel Vaknin [reading tree txt] 📗
- Author: Samuel Vaknin
- Performer: -
Book online «Malignant Self Love, Samuel Vaknin [reading tree txt] 📗». Author Samuel Vaknin
British Columbia, Canada. Ms. Ratzlaff was a professional ‘cellist
before entering law school. Ms. Ratzlaff has two sons.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION # 53
The Selfish Gene
The Genetic Underpinnings of Narcissism
Question: Is pathological narcissism the outcome of inherited traits -
or the sad result of abusive and traumatizing upbringing? Or, maybe it
is the confluence of both? It is a common occurrence, after all, that,
in the same family, with the same set of parents and an identical
emotional environment - some siblings grow to be malignant narcissists,
while others are perfectly “normal”. Surely, this indicates a
predisposition of some people to developing narcissism, a part of one’s
genetic heritage.
Answer: This vigorous debate may be the offshoot of obfuscating
semantics.
When we are born, we are not much more than the sum of our genes and
their manifestations. Our brain - a physical object - is the residence
of mental health and its disorders. Mental illness cannot be explained
without resorting to the body and, especially, to the brain. And our
brain cannot be contemplated without considering our genes. Thus, any
explanation of our mental life that leaves out our hereditary makeup
and our neurophysiology is lacking. Such lacking theories are nothing
but literary narratives. Psychoanalysis, for instance, is often accused
of being divorced from corporeal reality.
Our genetic baggage makes us resemble a personal computer. We are an
all-purpose, universal, machine. Subject to the right programming
(conditioning, socialisation, education, upbringing) - we can turn out
to be anything and everything.
A computer can imitate any other kind of discrete machine, given the
right software. It can play music, screen movies, calculate, print,
paint. Compare this to a television set - it is constructed and
expected to do one, and only one, thing. It has a single purpose and a
unitary function. We, humans, are more like computers than like
television sets.
True, single genes rarely account for any behaviour or trait. An array
of coordinated genes is required to explain even the minutest human
phenomenon. “Discoveries” of a “gambling gene” here and an “aggression
gene” there are derided by the more serious and less publicity-prone
scholars. Yet, it would seem that even complex behaviours such as risk
taking, reckless driving, and compulsive shopping have genetic
underpinnings.
What about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
It would seem reasonable to assume - though, at this stage, there is
not a shred of proof - that the narcissist is born with a propensity to
develop narcissistic defences. These are triggered by abuse or trauma
during the formative years in infancy or during early adolescence [see
FAQ 48]. By “abuse” I am referring to a spectrum of behaviours which
objectifies the child and treats it as an extension of the caregiver
(parent) or an instrument. Dotting and smothering are as much abuse as
beating and starving. And abuse can be dished out by peers as well as
by adult role models.
Still, I would have to attribute the development of NPD mostly to
nurture. The Narcissistic Personality Disorder is an extremely complex
battery of phenomena: behaviour patterns, cognitions, emotions,
conditioning, and so on. NPD is a PERSONALITY disordered and even the
most ardent proponents of the school of genetics do not attribute the
development of the whole personality to genes.
From “The Interrupted Self” [http://samvak.tripod.com/sacks.html]:
“‘Organic’ and ‘mental’ disorders (a dubious distinction at best) have
many characteristics in common (confabulation, antisocial behaviour,
emotional absence or flatness, indifference, psychotic episodes and so
on).”
From “On Disease” [http://samvak.tripod.com/disease.html]:
“Moreover, the distinction between the psychic and the physical is
hotly disputed, philosophically. The psychophysical problem is as
intractable today as it ever was (if not more so). It is beyond doubt
that the physical affects the mental and the other way around. This is
what disciplines like psychiatry are all about. The ability to control
‘autonomous’ bodily functions (such as heartbeat) and mental reactions
to pathogens of the brain are proof of the artificialness of this
distinction.
It is a result of the reductionist view of nature as divisible and
summable. The sum of the parts, alas, is not always the whole and there
is no such thing as an infinite set of the rules of nature, only an
asymptotic approximation of it. The distinction between the patient and
the outside world is superfluous and wrong. The patient AND his
environment are ONE and the same. Disease is a perturbation in the
operation and management of the complex ecosystem known as
patient-world. Humans absorb their environment and feed it in equal
measures. This on-going interaction IS the patient. We cannot exist
without the intake of water, air, visual stimuli and food. Our
environment is defined by our actions and output, physical and mental.
Thus, one must question the classical differentiation between
‘internal’ and ‘external’. Some illnesses are considered ‘endogenic’
(=generated from the inside). Natural, ‘internal’, causes - a heart
defect, a biochemical imbalance, a genetic mutation, a metabolic
process gone awry - cause disease. Aging and deformities also belong in
this category.
In contrast, problems of nurturance and environment - early childhood
abuse, for instance, or malnutrition - are ‘external’ and so are the
‘classical’ pathogens (germs and viruses) and accidents.
But this, again, is a counter-productive approach. Exogenic and
Endogenic pathogenesis is inseparable. Mental states increase or
decrease the susceptibility to externally induced disease. Talk therapy
or abuse (external events) alter the biochemical balance of the brain.
The inside constantly interacts with the outside and is so intertwined
with it that all distinctions between them are artificial and
misleading. The best example is, of course, medication: it is an
external agent, it influences internal processes and it has a very
strong mental correlate (=its efficacy is influenced by mental factors
as in the placebo effect).
The very nature of dysfunction and sickness is highly culture-dependent.
Societal parameters dictate right and wrong in health (especially
mental health). It is all a matter of statistics. Certain diseases are
accepted in certain parts of the world as a fact of life or even a sign
of distinction (e.g., the paranoid schizophrenic as chosen by the
gods). If there is no disease there is no disease. That the physical
or mental state of a person CAN be different - does not imply that it
MUST be different or even that it is desirable that it should be
different. In an over-populated world, sterility might be the desirable
thing - or even the occasional epidemic. There is no such thing as
ABSOLUTE dysfunction. The body and the mind ALWAYS function. They adapt
themselves to their environment and if the latter changes - they change.
Personality disorders are the best possible responses to abuse. Cancer
may be the best possible response to carcinogens. Aging and death are
definitely the best possible response to over-population. Perhaps the
point of view of the single patient is incommensurate with the point of
view of his species - but this should not serve to obscure the issues
and derail rational debate.
As a result, it is logical to introduce the notion of ‘positive
aberration’. Certain hyper-or hypo-functioning can yield positive
results and prove to be adaptive. The difference between positive and
negative aberrations can never be ‘objective’. Nature is
morally-neutral and embodies no ‘values’ or ‘preferences’. It simply
exists. WE, humans, introduce our value systems, prejudices and
priorities into our activities, science included. It is better to be
healthy, we say, because we feel better when we are healthy.
Circularity aside - this is the only criterion that we can reasonably
employ. If the patient feels good - it is not a disease, even if we all
think it is. If the patient feels bad, ego-dystonic, unable to function
- it is a disease, even when we all think it isn’t. Needless to say
that I am referring to that mythical creature, the fully informed
patient. If someone is sick and knows no better (has never been
healthy) - then his decision should be respected only after he is given
the chance to experience health.
All the attempts to introduce ‘objective’ yardsticks of health are
plagued and philosophically contaminated by the insertion of values,
preferences and priorities into the formula - or by subjecting the
formula to them altogether. One such attempt is to define health as ‘an
increase in order or efficiency of processes’ as contrasted with
illness which is ‘a decrease in order (=increase of entropy) and in the
efficiency of processes’. While being factually disputable, this dyad
also suffers from a series of implicit value-judgements. For instance,
why should we prefer life over death? Order to entropy? Efficiency to
inefficiency?”
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION # 63
The Weapon of Language
Question: My wife was diagnosed as a narcissist. She twists everything
and turns it against me. She distorts everything I ever said, ignores
the context, and even invent her own endings. It is impossible to have
a meaningful conversation with her because she won’t commit to anything
she says.
Answer: In the narcissist’s surrealistic world, even language is
pathologized. It mutates into a weapon of self-defence, a verbal
fortification, a medium without a message, replacing words with
duplicitous and ambiguous vocables.
Narcissists (and, often, by contagion, their unfortunate victims) don’t
talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade and avoid and
disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary unpredictability,
of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes - they perfect the ability to
say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches.
The ensuing convoluted sentences are arabesques of meaninglessness,
acrobatics of evasion, lack of commitment elevated to an ideology. The
narcissist prefers to wait and see and see what waiting brings. It is
the postponement of the inevitable that leads to the inevitability of
postponement as a strategy of survival.
It is often impossible to really understand a narcissist. The evasive
syntax fast deteriorates into ever more labyrinthine structures. The
grammar tortured to produce the verbal Doppler shifts essential to
disguise the source of the information, its distance from reality, the
speed of its degeneration into rigid “official” versions.
Buried under the lush flora and fauna of idioms without an end, the
language erupts, like some exotic rash, an autoimmune reaction to its
infection and contamination. Like vile weeds it spread throughout,
strangling with absent minded persistence the ability to understand, to
feel, to agree, to disagree and to debate, to present arguments, to
compare notes, to learn and to teach.
Narcissists, therefore, never talk to others - rather, they talk at
others, or lecture them. They exchange subtexts, camouflage-wrapped by
elaborate, florid, texts. They read between the lines, spawning a
multitude of private languages, prejudices, superstitions, conspiracy
theories, rumours, phobias and hysterias. Theirs is a solipsistic world
- where communication is permitted only with oneself and the aim of
language is to throw others off the scent or to obtain Narcissistic
Supply.
This has profound implications. Communication through unequivocal,
unambiguous, information-rich symbol systems is such an integral and
crucial part of our world - that its absence is not postulated even in
the remotest galaxies which grace the skies of science fiction. In this
sense, narcissists are nothing short of aliens. It is not that they
employ a different language, a code to be deciphered by a new Freud. It
is also not the outcome of upbringing or socio-cultural background.
It is the fact that language is put by narcissists to a different use -
not to communicate but to obscure, not to share but to abstain, not to
learn but to defend and resist, not to teach but to preserve ever less
tenable monopolies, to disagree without incurring wrath, to criticize
without commitment, to agree without appearing to do so. Thus, an
“agreement” with a narcissist is a vague expression of
Comments (0)