I'm not sure, but I think it was Erich Fromm who coined the term 'group
narcissism'. It has an offshoot in the term 'corporate narcissism', referring
to the business world (cf. the recent financial frauds in the USA). The dynamics
of group narcissism is a destructive factor in all human enterprise. This
phenomenon is extremely costly to society and to the industrial companies.
Incalculable sums of money are being wasted in projects that are going on the
rocks simply because the working team has alienated itself from reality under a
narcissistic leader whose postulates cannot be questioned.
The vulgar notions of 'arse licker', 'bumsucker', and 'ass kisser', are
quite relevant in this context. The notion actually has its origin in historical
reality. The knights of Christianity used to prove their submissiveness to the
Pope by kissing his bottom.
Fromm writes in 'The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness' that "...most
people aren't conscious of their own narcissism, only those expressions of it
that doesn't give them away. So, for instance, they might feel an incomparable
admiration of their parents, or their own children, and they have no problem in
expressing such feelings since this would generally be deemed positively, as
reverence for the parents, or affection for the child, or loyalty. But if they
were to express their feelings for their own person in terms like "I am the
most wonderful person on earth", "I am the best of all", etc,
they would be suspected of, not only being extraordinarily vain, but also a bit
crack-brained" (my transl.).
The strategy of providing for one's own narcissism by way of reflection in
another 'ideal person', is well-known in studies of personal narcissism. In
group narcissism we see a parallel phenomenon: an unquestioning loyalty and
admiration for the group and its ideals and an intense fervour in the
persecution of any person who questions the authority of the overarching ideals
of the group.
Now, as Fromm explains, the "individual alone could at least have some
doubts about the correctness of his own narcissistic self-image, provided that
he isn't very ill. A member of the group has no such doubts since his narcissism
is shared by the group" (my transl.).
So here we see the reason why narcissistic individuals show a tendency to
gather together in groups: it works as protection and amplification of their own
narcissism. One would expect the narcissist to be 'above' such social
conformity, but, actually, this often represents a stepping up of his pathology.
It is also gratifying to the weak, untalented, narcissist since he becomes a
giant by belonging to this group.
Of course, there is nothing wrong in feeling proud of belonging to a certain
group. This is not narcissism (I'm not particularly fond of the term "healthy
narcissism"). Nor is there anything wrong in showing appreciation for great
personalities and their work. But when we start to look upon Freud, or Muhammad,
or whomever, as unquestionable authorities, then we are falling prey to
narcissistic idealisation. Likewise, when we subscribe to the social group as a
sphere of perfect cleanliness, void of the "destructive influence" of
independent thinkers, then we fall prey to group narcissism.
The narcissistic idealisation is often mistaken for a natural and healthy
form of appreciation of other people. This is a great problem, as pathology is
allowed to hide behind a respectable mask. It's the same thing with group
narcissism. Its devotees are often mistaken for nice fellows, socially mature,
respectful towards other people. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is
a chimera. Such people are only providing for their own narcissism by way of
reflection in the group. Scratch on the surface, and a nasty intolerance
appears. Many psychologists tend to view the social group as an ideal for the
individual to attain. It's an oversimplification. Those psychologists are blind
to the fact that there is a pathological version of social life called group
narcissism.
In religious congregations the pathological fervour, building on
narcissistic idealisation, is often viewed as exemplary. Typical of healthy
people is that they do follow religious ideas, and that they do subscribe to
ideas of great thinkers. It is a great problem that such an attitude, which is
beneficial to psychic health, is, on the surface, so easy to confuse with the
severe pathology of group narcissism.
Many narcissists, and individuals of 'borderline pathology', do not quite
differ between outer and inner reality. Any formulation of outer reality is also
a formulation of oneself. This is the well-known narcissistic short circuit. His
personal feelings and perceptions must always be regarded to be on the same
level of objectivity as anything else. An ego that is blown out of proportion
and expands into outer reality cannot stand criticism. This is because anything
that the subject produces, whether thoughts or anything else, remains part of
his ego. He defines the world on his own. So he doesn't really need to differ
between subjectivity and objectivity. If the narcissistic subject is angry with
In historical times, the narcissistic group had clearly less survival value,
due to bad adaptation to reality and repression of independent thinking.
Historical culture had a remedy against narcissism: they adopted an unassuming
view of the human personality, and set it against the backdrop of all the
powerful spirits of nature to whom man must bow down. This created a healthy
and modest ego that kept within its own confines. In today's society this is
gone, so narcissism is clearly on the increase.
Also gone is the natural dangers posed to the narcissistic group. In our
rich world such people have no problems surviving, they don't really need to be
adapted to reality. Corporate narcissism is funded for by our rich combines, and
by our rich societies. It might seem questionable to use this notion in such a
broad context as this, but, as Fromm explains, its importance has been
miscalculated. Its relevance for the neurotic personality is immense.
© Mats Winther 2004