Did you know that "there is a TV set in the bedroom of most American children by the time they are in primary school"? Or that "more than half of all Australian children have a TV in their bedroom" and that "they spend more time in TV-viewing than any other activity"?
Manne introduces these facts following a discussion of how young peoples' sensibilities and inner lives are shaped. She wonders about the influence of a "predominantly visual culture" on this process. Her interest is more than philosophical given that her own country childhood was relatively unaffected by such a culture -- "we had no television at home until well into my teenage years" --, and that as a young woman her "consciousness, sensibility, sense of self and way of seeing were formed by a radically different view of the world, one embedded in [nineteenth century] novels". This literary engagement endowed her with a "moral narrative" through which she was able to see herself both "from the outside -- one's respect in the community -- and, more deeply, from the inside". It also awakened her to an important distinction between the authorial voice as accessed via a novel (where a special connection is made with the writer's inner life) and via a television program. She notes:
The visual culture has extended and intensified the importance of the presentation of self in everyday life. Self-presentation is increasingly regarded as revealing the 'true' self. All this carries with it a reshaping of sensibility.
And what is preoccupation with the self but ... narcissism? Manne describes a strain of this affliction whose intensity goes beyond the "healthy" self focus and confidence most of us enjoy. She characterises the malignant narcissist as one whose
self has expanded so as to occupy all of consciousness. Whatever is good for the self is good. The malignant narcissist is prone to magical thinking about the grandeur of their life and achievements. It is all or nothing; mediocrity is not tolerated: never good, but always great. They posses an exceptional sense of entitlement, of being uniquely special. Often intensely competitive, they have to be superior to those around them. They can only be up if the people around them are down. They are often harshly critical of others, sometimes to the point of self-righteous contempt. But they are also prone to savage envy. Their arrogance means that taking responsibility for a wrong is impossible. The malignant narcissist is the captain on a ship of fools.
(If you've ticked any of these items, seek therapy NOW. But be warned: if you are a bone fide case, your de-narcissification may be very difficult. You will have to "spend a long time looking at the humiliated shadow lurking beneath [your] grandiose self-image". Also, it is most likely you will eventually subtlety undermine your therapist "by saying how bored [you] are with all this navel-gazing".)
The root cause of the lily pond malignancy is easily identified but far less easily understood:
We all know the story of Narcissus and how he fell in love with his own reflection, withering away by the lily pond, unable to move into life or relate to others, finally dying. But an excess of self-love is not, in any uncomplicated way, the problem with the narcissist. The narcissist is, in fact, an exceptionally shame-prone individual. The grandiose self-image is held up to defend against a central terror: that they amount to nothing at all.
In order to explain where this terror emerges from in the first place, Manne's analysis gets a little Freudian. She invokes such psycho-miscellany as emotional history (stored in the unconscious), the child-parent relationship and emotional regulation (specifically "conservation and withdrawal" as a reaction to manic upness, for example) to explain the abnormalities of the nascent narcissist toddler. Her description of the narcissist's emotional history is illuminating:
The first year is a time when, all going well, the dominant emotions of Your Majesty the Baby are very positive. By the beginning of the second year, as they learn to walk and move, toddlers feel elated at their newfound power. But pride, as the old adage says, goes before a fall. They fall down, break things, get fingers into light sockets and spill milk all over the floor. For the excited toddler there's a shouted prohibition every nine minutes, on average. It is very deflating. They are often humiliated and angry. Toddler-hood is also now recognised as the most aggressive period of any of the human life-cycle. Toddlers are filled with ambitions; without the skills to realise them they are also filled with shame. Every day they are spinning through the cycles of grandiosity and deflation faster than any manic depressive. It is hardly surprising, then, that they get rather pissed off at the whole thing and throw, from time to time, an almighty tantrum - nor that they require a lot of empathy, tact and sensitivity in handling. But at this time the toddler is also noted for a new and importantly human quality: sobriety. Although it's a wilder, bumpier ride than any at Luna Park, slowly they develop the ability to admit flaws in the self; and a related ability, to admit they have capacity to injure others.
It is extremely important that the small child gets help in toning down and pepping up, in being comforted and not excessively shamed. The narcissist has got through the Your-Majesty-the-Baby period nicely. Their problem is dealing with shame. Some have been too harshly shamed: subjected to shame so overwhelming that it cannot be acknowledged. In a mental conjuring trick, they create a perfect self of astonishing grandiosity, one who is always adorable, admirable, holding away the unbearable truth that, in reality, they were not seen as worth loving.
So how does all of this relate to the suggestion that in modern society "self-presentation is increasingly regarded as revealing the 'true' self"? If narcissism is just some statistical blip applying only to niche groups such as celebrities or Eastern suburbs property auctioneers, why all the psychobabble? Why all the theorising? Manne's conclusion is sobering:
By any historical standards, our society is marked by a radical individualism obsessed with the self. And it is a very particular self. It is a self on display, measured by externals and appearance, in pursuit of success and material prosperity more than care for others, of popularity and notice more than respect.
The problem is not just that the cult of self interferes with the good. It is that our values have shifted so far in favour of the ethos of narcissism that the pursuit of our self-interest now defines what we consider good. As [American sociologist Robert] Bellah concludes, "the only measure of the good is what is good for the self". And that, as a defining habit of the heart, is profoundly troubling.
All right kids, got the message? Too much TV means too much immersion in a value system that isolates you -- that is, the trim, tanned and popular SURFACE YOU -- as the centre of everything. And this is bad cos it'll almost certainly result in a long and dribbling descent into total inconsequence in some outer-suburban nursing home where your only visitor will be Mr Shuffles from the adjacent ward who urinates on your armchair and steals your mints.
No comments:
Post a Comment