I’d like to take a bit of issue with par of this post, Rod. As someone who has been in psychotherapy longer than I’d care to admit, I have to say that human psychology can not be well-described by a label such as narcissism, even though I find much of the above insights do resonate with me. However, human failure and failings follow a complicated course and need to be treated with compassion and carefully thought through. It’s important to set aside the label, and look at someone’s whole history, and the context of their actions.
The more I hear the Mel Gibson tapes, the more I think that this is a pathetic, aging star who no longer has the matinee idol looks that would lead people to forgive his failings. He sounds so out-of-control (and Oksana sounds as if she is in the driver’s seat) on these tapes that I feel sorry for him. Mel had clout in Hollywood for a long time. Now he’s losing it. I’ve honestly never been a fan, but I feel like I’m coming around to more sympathy for the man.

Her legal case looks wobbly at best
and sophomoric at the least.
She clearly did not think through the legal problems
before she taped him and asked him for money before going to the police. This is a clear case of extortion
no matter how you feel about the personalities involved. California law is very clear on these matters, especially when you review the precedent and stare decisis of cases like these.

In fact, it might be useful, in cases such as Gibson’s, to ask yourself, “What would Hitch do?” I’ve always admired the man’s tendency to not only refuse to jump on bandwagons, but to run in the opposite direction of the bandwagon.
When everyone in the world was falling over themselves with paeans to the late Princess Diana, Hitch dared to voice a few critical thoughts. When everyone was engaging in schadenfreude over the jailing of Paris Hilton, Hitch defended her and argued that it was cruel to glory in her misfortune. Just a thought.
Hilarious catchpa: have preached

Nobody ever said all Humans qualified as intelligent life, Mr. Dreher.
Given what I see in the courts, in politics and on the news, I can’t believe that even a majority of them do.
Lord Karth’s Second Rule: “In any given situation, don’t just ASSUME the influence of Human stupidity, foolishness and depravity—RELY on them.”
Living by that Rule has kept me eating for 20 + years–results count !
Your servant,
Lord Karth

Interesting post, Rod, and I agree with the assessment in general, though I’m not sure about Mel in particular. I’m not sure that he’s necessarily a poster child for narcissism; he’s just a raging drunk. The woman is a money grubbing bitch, and every bit as narcissistic as Mel. In fact, she might be worse in that she is extraordinarily cold and calculating.
In general though, I agree with Brooks, and ultimately this is why we can have no real political dialogue. Logic and reason left long ago.

As an attorney, I have had both clients and opposing parties who have had personality disorders. In fact, I would estimate that at least half of legal conflicts are drivin by “high conflict personalities.” Those personalities are DSM IV “Cluster B” personalities–Borderline, Narcissistic, Antisocial, and Histrionic.
High functioning parties can usually resolve complex issues in litigation with the assistance of good counsel (meaning competent but not litigious) and mediation. Low functioning parties can’t agree the sky is blue.
Unfortunately, personality disorders are on the rise. I haven’t heard the Mel tapes, but the armchair diagnosis of others makes sense. And he undoubtedly sees himself as a huge victim in all of this.
Personality disorders are incredibly difficult to treat. The issues are characterological, not medical. Because these people make everyone’s lives hell, it is hard to feel compassion for them. In my better moments, I am able to feel some compassion, because they are at least as miserable as the people they are maltreating.

I hear the voice of people who believe they have the right and the obligation to deny and radically reshape ancient institutions and teachings, because they will submit to no teaching, discipline or authority that challenges their sense of themselves
Like slavery, heliocentrism, treating women as chattel property, limiting the right to vote to white property owners, or the assuredness of Anglo-Saxon “white man’s burden”?
I mean how dare some people have the temerity to challenge ancient institutions and long held beliefs! Some people are so uppity…
BTW, what would you call a person who thinks he or she knows better than the people around him or her just how they should define their own relationships?
Presumptuous arrogance? Perhaps even narcissistic?
Just a thought.

BTW…there was breaking news today that some experts are claiming that the Gibson tapes appear to have been significantly altered by a professional.
Context and content appears to be missing, and some phrases may have been altered with words being digitally rearranged.

I am surprised at the level of vitriol being heaped on this woman.I’m not saying that she’s not a gold digger, she may or may not be. But she wasn’t married with 7 children – she did not take vows before God to be faithful until death – she isn’t a member of an sect of Catholicism that views Vatican II as so liberal that remaining in the mainstream Church was intolerable.
So she wants child support – why does that make her a gold-digger – because she wants lots – he has lots – is this child not entitled to her share of her father’s resources?
I would also point out that abusive & controlling men often use money to control the people around them & Mr. Gibson is clearly an abusive and controlling man.

Sorry, Rod, but this looks a mess.
The jump from emotivism to what you take to be (increased?) narcissism is just fishing. Emotivism doesn’t mean what you think it does. Emotivism, properly understood — that rather than asserting facts, the statements of morality express moods or attitudes — is perfectly compatible with as brutish and authoritarian a conservatism as you could wish for (David Hume’s your man, for a historical example.) I think you might have meant to suggest that there’s more ethical subjectivism about. Maybe so, but you’re hardly going to show that by pointing to a single survey result about increased self-esteem, are you?
The MacIntyre passages you quote seem hopeless. Scientists don’t need agreeement on what counts as a scientific definition or scientific practice before they can conduct scientific disputes: as I understand it, Galileo’s conception of scientific method differed radically from those of his predecessors and contemporaries; yet he was able to enter recognizably scientific disputes with them.
Anyway, what’s the point of the McIntyrean analogy? It’s supposed to be necessary for scientists to agree on their procedure, right? How does that show that moralists have to agree on the end of their discipline before they can have reasonable arguments? Surely the sensible analog would have been to require that scientists agree on the aim of their discipline — a total theory — and then argue that that agreement is necessary for reasonable dispute. But once it’s put that way, the problem is obvious. Scientists disagree, vehemently, about the aim of scientific activity. Why should ethicists suffer a different standard?
One other thing. McIntyre claims that genuine ethical debate is impossible in the culture we live in. He’s a guy possessed of dazzling dialectical skillz; those have been put to good use defending his views over the years. If genuine ethical debate is impossible in the culture, then what on earth has he been doing these last few years?

Count me with the skeptics who are reluctant to derive larger sociological/cultural trends from the rantings of an abusive, alcoholic actor. When I was growing up in the late 70s/early 80s, we had a family that lived across the street, who, after partaking their libations of choice, would entertain the entire block on warm summer nights with outbursts of insane rage like that on the Mel Gibson tapes. My own mother often told me similar stories about her own Polish Catholic upbringing in the 1950s, when no Friday night went by without an empty fifth of vodka on the table and her hiding in her room from the drunken wrath of her parents. So yeah, no sale.
Plus, “David Brooks”. (ultra-mega-eyeroll x 1000).

I see the connection… But I tend to believe my generation were sold a bill of goods with self-love (i.e. self-involvement) as a cover for the fact that promises for future achievement, happiness, stability, and so forth, would inevitably fail to meet our expectations. They were lies to begin with. Self-involvement sets us up. When life turns out differently than the promised romance, the trouble must be the world, not ourselves.
What’s better about this narrative, is that it doesn’t wrongfully elevate those who were more self-effacing, no less greedy, and no more honest. The responsibility rests with everyone.

I never cease to be amazed at how Rod manages to take things that on the surface seem to be totally disconnected, throw them into a blender and have something come out that is totally disjointed.
There is of course, a fundamental difference between scientists and ethicists (except when the individual scientists and ethicists get carried away and try to cross discipline) in that science deals with things which are supposed to be provable, while ethicists live to tell other people how to live. Thus a scientist can be listened to while an ethicist can (and in my view probably should) be simply ignored. And because the evidentiary nature of science makes it difficult to attack an accepted idea without new evidence, the assertion of an ethicist can be batted aside with a well placed one liner, witness John F. Kennedy’s answer to a reporter questioning the fairness of one of his policies, “Life is unfair,” and with one, simple sentence blew C. S. Lewis’ fundamental argument in the opening paragraph of Mere Christianity out of the water.
Thus it is that science is vested with an actual, practical authority. Things can be made to work with it, while ethics has no authority other than that which individuals choose to grant it.
Now what any of this has to do with Mel Gibson is one of the greater mysteries.

celticdragonchick @ 1:03 PM, writes:
”
BTW, what would you call a person who thinks he or she knows better than the people around him or her just how they should define their own relationships?
Presumptuous arrogance? Perhaps even narcissistic?”
How about “Federal judges” “social workers”, “sociologists” or “supporters of ‘gay marriage’ ?
But your terms work, too. };-)
Your servant,
Lord Karth

@Karth
For a supposed lawyer, you show an amazing lack of basic reading comprehension.
Perhaps, however, you would be good enough to actually demonstrate just how “Federal judges” “social workers”, “sociologists” or “supporters of ‘gay marriage’ actually try to intrude upon the basic nature of other people’s relationships in a patronizing or arrogant manner, which was point of my barbed comment.
Have one of these people done so you personally, or are you clumsily trying to be flippant without actually understanding just what I was getting at?

Count me with the skeptics who are reluctant to derive larger sociological/cultural trends from the rantings of an abusive, alcoholic actor.
I’ll second that. This column is far from Rod’s better work, and reads like something Peggy Noonan threw away the morning after a dead-line date with her word processor and a half bottle of single malt scotch.
Sorry Rod.
captcha: Jacobite 24th
Sounds like a Highland Regiment

Narcissism is, of course, invariably what other people are engaged in when they do and say things we take horrible offense at.
That summary of MacIntyre has given me a whole new level of sympathy for the man. His description of the pre-Modern perspective/condition is accurate and about as attractive as it can be made. His theory of Modernity is so shallow and sadly defective and denialist, though, that I see why he doesn’t really get taken seriously.

This was very helpful.The reaction of the wounded pride of those who resemble the remark validates your position.

Nobody gets to tell you you are not Catholic? Can anyone tell you you are not Buddhist? How about that you are not an ape? Or a rock?

The best book I’ve ever read on Narcissism is Alexander Lowen’s “Denial of the True Self”. Lowen was a well-respected psychoanalyst trained in Freudian methods for treating neurosis, but in the 1960s and 70s he noticed that more and more of his patients were suffering from forms of narcissism, rather than neurosis. He concluded that the large cultural shift initiated by Freud’s investigation of the pysche and sexuality had in fact succeeded to some degree in “curing” the highly repressed and neurotic personality problems of many people, such that the cultural itself was no longer dominated by neurotic problems. However, what he noticed was that this didn’t leave them entirely free of psychological problems, that many people merely began to show the signs of narcissistic personality disorders rather than neurotic ones.
And this of course goes with the general cultural shift to a more “me” centered psychology, rather than one in which the “me” is repressed or suppressed. In Lowen’s view this is an advancement, but still one fraught with troubles.
Lowen’s general theory of narcissism is that it’s a disorder of the self-image. He points out that having a realistic self-image is a very important part of the human psyche, that forming and using a self-image is essential to mature functioning, and that if the self-image gets out of hand, trouble ensues. n his view narcissism is the result of an “escape” from the natural, bodily-based self-image into one that is removed from the body, dissociated and immune, and dwells in a life inside the mind and emotions, where it can take on whatever qualities one imagines. That escape is generally motivated by childhood stress and trauma, in which the bodily life is very painful and threatening, and the child therefore escapes into his inner imaginative life, and creates a self-image there that acts as a counter-balance to the painful realities of their bodily life, family life, or whatever conditions they are suffering. For the child, this is actually a sound strategy, but it has some terrible effects if it contineus into maturity and becomes the basis for one’s life as a self in the world. It means that the self is constantly threatened by the realities of the world, and retreats into the mind and imagination where it can feel safe. A creative narcissist can even be highly successful, like Mel in his movie career, in creating alternative realities, which is of course what most movies are.
One of the problems with narcissists is that they always blame others for their problems, and see the psychological problems in others, but never in themselves. I thought it amusing that Rod, in introducing this post on narcissism, tells us how he sees this same pattern in everyone around him, including commentators on this sight, but he never mentions seeing it in himself. Not a good sign. Narcissists never see themselves as narcissists, it’s always projected onto others. And Mel I’m sure would never see himself as a narcissist, but would simply presume that other people are picking on him unfairly and making a scapegoat out of him. Which may even be true to some degree, but it doesn’t change the fact of his own unfortunate psychological development. One can probably trace a lot of this to his own childhood, being raised by a delusional religious fanatic father who was abusive to his kids and constantly scared them with the threats of hellfire and Divine punishment for one’s sins.
There are real consequences to bad parenting. In one sense, the narcissistic child never actually grows up, because they are so fixated on their self-image rather than their bodily life and bodily relations. The images and stories they make up in their minds about themselves are more real to them than the life of the body, and far preferable. They seek salvation through a transformed self-image, rather than a transformed bodily life.
And of course narcissism is hardly a new phenomena. Nor are hardcore narcissists more prevalent today than in the past. It’s probably the opposite, because abusive childhoods are on the decline. But the general flavor of the culture is definitely shaded towards narcissism, which while better than neurosis, is still hardly a healthy condition for a culture.

Argue for something that violates someone’s self-esteem, and watch them explode in righteous anger. How dare you tell them they can’t have what they want!
Hmmmm. I know it’s easier to see narcissism in other people, but every time the general laws conflict with the personal beliefs of politically conservative Christians, y’all seem to think you are owed an exception simply because your personal beliefs are so darned pure.
You argue strenuously that you have the right to discriminate against people who don’t abide by your religious beliefs (even if the general law says otherwise) simply because you think you are right, but you would deny the same privilege to those who think that you don’t abide by theirs.
That’s a form of narcissism, too.

I don’t see much of a connection between him and the state of religion or the wider culture. Mel Gibson is a garden-variety alcoholic/abuser undergoing some sort of midlife crisis and happens to be a multi billionaire. True, he had been something of a hero with a certain type of traditionalist Catholic but now they are backtracking at the speed of light. The danger of making a hero of a mere mortal. I hope he straightens up and gets some help for the sake of his kids.

Jails are full of people with rage … harming others…Is that because they are all narcicisstic ??? PLEASE!!

It’s hard for me to tell in this type of situation whether Gibson is a narcissist or whether he reflects the overly protected, cocooned (in a bubble of sycophants) life of a megacelebrity. As well as some of the problems that a boozer can have. He definitely sounds like he needs help. I would recommend AA with its 12 step program, becauses it requires working on self awareness.
As for the rest of your post, I followed some of it but couldn’t quite connect other parts. Narcissism, self absorption, self centeredness, overly high self esteem, nornak but mostly harmless dude like posturing based on status issues (hey, you can never let the other guy win in a combox!), clinging too tightly to values defined by others (political types). What’s it all mean? I can’t untangle all of that very easily in thinking about why people do what they do. It’s also hard to tell the difference between authoritarian personality types (my way or the highway, I’m right, everyone who disagrees is wrong or evil) and people who just lack the ability to emphathize with others or to look at things from their perspective. Some of that is learned behavior and can be worked on. Some of it reflects what parents taught people. Who knows.
The political stuff gets hard to unravel, too. I, too, am really tired of people acting tribal and dividing each other into them and us. I think the tendency to do that has something to do with lack of humility (the inability to step back and say, hey, this is what I think but I’m a mere human, I could be wrong). That’s not a characteristic of any one party but it does seem to be the characteristic of a lot of people who become most enraged in comboxes. Based on certain people I actually know, I’ve always linked it to basic insecurity or anxiety rather than overly high self esteem. The most confident people I know don’t tend to be angry or arrogant but pretty serene. But I’m not an expert, I don’t know how psychologists view any of this.
Wiegel, subbing for Andrew Sullivan this week, has a great quote from a columnist named Gene Weingarten about journalism and comments from the public and how people trot out hobby horses:
“In this hectic environment, mistakes are more likely to be made, meaning that a story might identify Uzbekistan as ‘a subspecies of goat.’ Fortunately, this new system enjoys the services of tens of thousands of fact-checking ‘citizen journalists’ who write ‘comments.’ They will read the Uzbekistan story and instantly alert everyone that BARACK OBAMA IS A LIEING PIECE OF CRAP.
I basically like ‘comments,’ though they can seem a little jarring: spit-flecked rants that are appended to a product that at least tries for a measure of objectivity and dignity. It’s as though when you order a sirloin steak, it comes with a side of maggots.”
Perfect! I saw it during the Bush years, and am seeing it still now, although the roles are reversed.
Captcha dude gets it wrong: teamster said
But I don’t belong to any unions!

Mr. Dreher writes: “Argue for something that violates someone’s self-esteem, and watch them explode in righteous anger.”
I guess it might seem that’s true from the his perspective, but until Mr. Dreher deigns to see his theological and philosophical foes as more than just props, he will be just another hack. Very disappointing – stopped reading right there.

a better way to argue: http://www.xkcd.com/767

Mel Gibson is clearly mad as a hatter, and like the original mad hatters, likely for the same reason. Most medical exposure is from the medical milieu (Thimerosal in shots, amalgam in dental fillings, the old disinfectants used in the 1960′s, etc.) but some of it came from contact lens solution prior to 1989 as well as larger fish (Tuna, Shark).

A long post and 27 comments and nobody has mentioned Christopher Lasch’s the Culture of Narcissism yet….
Though Lowen and Rieff had started to define the problem it was Lasch who expressed it most eloquently – and who helped to bring down poor Jimmy Carter whose ‘national malaise’ broadcast quoting from it got him ridiculed as a hopelessly out of touch intellectual.

Lasch’s book is well worth reading,although it has been a long time since I perused it. The “Narcissism Epidemic” sounds like a good updating of Lasch’s work.
This focus on self manifests itself among the “volunteer” world. Look around at all the organizations in which you may participate. It’s the same small minority of members carrying the load. The others are fishing all day, pulling the weeds out of their lawns my hand, polishing their cars almost daily, etc. Or, when asked to make a real contribution to their church or community, they complain they can’t afford it. These are the folks with a luxurious home in Wisconsin, a second home in Florida and a comfortable cabin in western Tennessee where they (and do!) stop for a break on their annual drives to and from their winter home.
What’s tragic and almost frightening is that these people seem to think that the entire society, economy and society will continue to function for their benefit without any significant and meaningful involvement by themselves. As if others exist simply to service them!! And it’s personally very puzzling for me to join in a conversation with these people; they are almost “unreachable” in terms of discussing anything else except themselves!

That is not what women want. I know that and i’m an idiot