There’s nothing more maddening than being on the receiving end of hostility or manipulation without truly understanding what’s going on. Perhaps that’s why we’ve seen so much interest in our current series on narcissism. This is gratifying because the Smart Divorce Project’s goal is to make a murky topic like narcissism a little bit more clear. The feedback we’ve received has bolstered our efforts, with many readers sharing that they find strength in understanding. Having worked with so many exhausted parents, I can relate to this.
However, life is never that simple. I was pleased when one reader wrote a note arguing that a label like “narcissistic ex” is not helpful, but instead represents a simplification of human suffering into simplistic categories. I’m sympathetic to this argument because I’m sensitive to the idea that our diagnostic labels are simplistic and can undermine the dignity of what makes a person a person.
This has prompted me to consider continuing the series by deepening our understanding of narcissism to include the compassion we can show to all suffering souls, even if they cause suffering. Ultimately, the purpose of understanding is not to create a class of people we can all despise. That increases suffering and is not my goal.
Now, I want to respond to this particular reader’s comment, because this discussion is on my mind all the time.
Simplistic thinking about what makes us human is bird-like thinking. We should certainly celebrate the complexity of humanity, not just reduce it. On the other hand, we need a common language to talk about our experiences, one that gives us control over our lives and serves as a shortcut to communicating with others. This in turn enables the sufferer to build a healing community that understands what he is trying to say. Language is slippery, both defining (limiting) and enabling. This tension must be properly acknowledged. The definition is helpful. Reduction is not. Finding the balance is no easy task.
The fact of the matter is that the life of the mind is larger and more interesting than any scientist or poet could ever imagine.
—
I sometimes get a little frustrated when I hear or read people use the term “narcissist” so loosely. It is as if they are describing another race or gender, as opposed to the average individual who has an abnormal learned response in certain situations and environments. There is no such thing as a narcissist, and people, especially those with the title of MD, should not be giving such convenient and biased labels to naive, impressionable people who do not know better.
This is a very useful critique. The truth is that we don’t have any narcissists, after all, because all these labels are mental constructs designed to help us better understand our experience. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th and 5th editions, classify mental issues as disorders, not diseases, for this very reason. Very few of our actions are treated diagnostically, as a broken femur might be.
We all agree that a broken femur means a cracked femur, but we may not agree that a person meets the criteria for narcissistic disorder. There is no MRI or blood test for narcissism, and there never will be. Still, we face the problem of defining our experience, and so we need language and definitions, however limited. When people behave in consistently destructive ways, it is often useful to have a category or label, even if it falls short of scientific evidence. The field of psychiatry struggles with this problem—sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Essentially, I use all of these descriptions of personality traps to help people understand their experiences. They are focused—not perfect—but focused. And I think they have strong heuristic value. The goal is to reduce suffering by lifting the fog of confusion a little bit.
Narcissistic behavior is an abnormal, learned response to environments or situations in which an individual feels threatened, vulnerable, or emotionally or psychologically in danger.
Yes, we are all affected and a person with narcissistic traits should be understood with compassion. I agree. These articles in Psychology Today are often read by those who are grieving the trauma of an abusive ex and need to let go of many of their expectations.
By understanding the limitations of their ex (whether they were narcissistic, paranoid, or psychopathic), a person is better able to grieve and deal with the situation more productively. If my readers or others see that they are suffering from a personality trap, I in no way want to reduce that person to a simple category. But I hope my work will open their eyes to selfish and destructive behavior that can be helped with certain types of therapy.
There is a lot at stake in divorce, especially when it comes to children.
In divorce, everyone feels vulnerable, so is it any wonder that one or both parties end up exhibiting narcissistic behavior? No, it’s not!
As for stress, please take a look at my post on personality traps. The stress of divorce affects everyone. Some react badly, and in my experience, they tend to behave in certain predictable patterns.
The term “narcissist” plays on our evolutionary heritage and the need to see parties in an “us or them” category. This may have served us well as questioning tribes, but as modern, civilized humans, it is an unfortunate flaw; in other words, if they are a danger to us, if we feel threatened by them, then they must fall into the “them” category and be “bad people.”
About us and them; I agree. Polarizing people is an ancient way of organizing the world. Let’s just say that no one needs to belittle a narcissist, a psychopath, or a drug addict. Nor should we envy anyone who suffers from these traits. These people can be dangerous to others and may not be happy with their lot in life. The key for a potential victim of such people is to realistically protect yourself so that you don’t allow such a person to take advantage of you, which is not good for anyone. When we allow people to take advantage of us—steal money, poison children against a parent, or harm another person out of a sense of self-righteousness—or if they are physically, sexually, or emotionally abusive—we are not treating them or the world kindly. Effective self-defense requires knowing what you are dealing with. And when the going gets tough, the playing field can be murky. My prayer is to make things a little clearer for everyone involved—and hopefully help a few souls (and children) along the way.
