Narcissism, Psychological
Egoism
&
Game
Theory
R.W. Rummery
November Media Music 2015
Acknowledgments:
Academic staff at UNE, and all those silent supporters who stood some distance by in the face of the difficult task of articulating this thought in strictly analytical and argumentative terms, completed under the worsening conditioning caused by a radical doubt about my abilities and motivations in doing this work. I hope the reader will appreciate the effort put into this work and gain insight and understanding as a result of this very appreciation.
All rights reserved R.W. Rummery/ November Media/Music 2009
Australia
rrummery@gmail.com
Index:
Preface: p3
The Myth of Narcissus and Echo – p6
Chapter 1: The ‘Narcissus factor’: implications in Personal and Social Dynamics – p8
Chapter 2: Narcissism as a form of Psychological egoism – p10
Chapter 3: Self interest and Rational Choice Theory (RCT) – p16
Chapter 4: Value and determination in social dilemmas – p20
Chapter 5: Game theory and self determination – p27
Chapter 6: Rationality and Choice in the social dilemma – p34
Chapter 7: Self Mastery and Psychological Egoism: the limits of the PD solution – p37
Chapter 8: ‘Me and you’ and Game theory – p41
Chapter 9: Narcissism and Trust: Reactivity in Social Dilemmas – p46
Chapter 10: Desire and Rationality – p51
Chapter 11: Domination: The Matrix of Power and the Art of Coercion – p59
Chapter 12: Hyper-Narcissism: Case study of Michael Jackson – p61
Chapter 13: Narcissism and Value: Intrinsic worth versus judgments and agreement – p70
Bibliography – p71
All authors rights reserved.
Copyright November Media
rrummery@gmail.com
R.W. Rummery
2015
Preface:
The following work is the culmination of several years intensive research into the meaning, use, legitimacy and implication so the concept of narcissism (as opposed the ‘Psychoanalytical theory of Narcissism’). It became clear that no person would willingly allow themselves to be rejected by others, or harm their prospects for happiness and success in the future. And yet not all of our actions lead to satisfaction, even when that is the intention above all. Through his configuration as a self lover who rejects others and is himself also rejected, desire and love are connected at the very basis of our self consciousness and self knowledge, and this is profoundly affective in the regulation or dysregulation of instinctual responses whose function is self preservation. The fact that society is filled obviously with oppressed, weakened, irrational, inconstant and akratic people is perhaps due to the unfair cost that reality has upon the beliefs we hold that serve the attaining of social stability and or satisfaction in the future. Desire and ambition can be crushed by resistance and misunderstanding. Many have surrendered to mediocrity and do well to huddle in the herd as a non-individual – when it suits them. The paradoxical nature of the concept is due to the way that thought is structured, that is, the way that thought is always and only about ones own self or a relation to it that we perceive and identity as our own (instead of the assumption that others will act with the interest of themselves re valued things). Lavelle’s theologically inclined analysis of the concept of narcissism, and the supposed dilemma, provided a rich source of wisdom removed from the trappings of Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud appropriated the term for his own anti-humanist ambitions in the late 1890’s, and by excising all reference to divine beings or ontologically suspect theories of universal order and thus altering the concept, dragging it from its strictly moralistic, and simplistic if not thoroughly ambiguous notion of self love. The self esteem paradox can be seen from a thought experiment: how would an alien being interpret our behaviour and the causes of it without deep knowledge of our history and ideas. How could one determine if one was truly acting for the benefit of others? This question, I dare say, is not far from the naturally inquisitive nature of mind. Although this work is not without particular difficulties, perseverance will pay off – as it did for me – in an understanding that overarches all others; a self realization which also an other–realization so confirming that all human being has its basis in the self experienced in time (duration). This experience of self knowledge cannot be erased from the history of my own thought for one good reason: because it was so clear and felt so right. The confirmation of the power of this idea has not ceased to prove itself to this day despite the necessity to suppress any feelings of self-satisfaction or intellectual clarity in order to remain objective and motivated in the face of rejection. The modern world, with its technologies that penetrate to the heart of the home, bedroom, stage and boardroom is based on the dynamics nature of human personality as predicted by the problem that Narcissism represents for us. So, is that a good thing? Only you can say, and yet who can say? Who is the arbiter of value if not ones own self and its judgments? And is not satisfaction purely subjective?
The Myth of Narcissus and Echo
Paradoxically, the myth of Narcissus, as written by Ovid in his Metamorphoses (1AD), which had been made to represent ‘self love’, describes not the capacity of the lover, but the tragic inability of one to love or even participate with anyone else at all. Narcissus rejects admirers of both sexes and chooses to gaze and admire his reflection until exhaustion. Not even mute Echo could convince him to yield to her encircling arms. Contrary to Tiresias’ prediction, Narcissus does not discover himself, rather he discovers his mortality and vulnerability but all too late to change the course which his desire had led him which was ‘turned inwards towards himself’ such that no other could penetrate his ‘haughty heart.’ His vanity and arrogance were not admired by others, one could assume, because he would not cooperate with others to gain an advantage all round. Through his example writers over the centuries have appropriated his figure in an attempt to highlight psychological and moral truths or limitations. In doing so, they have not adhered to any formal meanings, rather his figure represents an opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the basis of morality and its link with self and other awareness in a medium called ‘the world’ which is little more than a conglomeration of facts and bits strung together in a sequence that only makes sense to the individual. We learn the nature of the error he is supposed to have committed by an awareness of the ethical framework which gave rise to the varied discourses of Narcissism. Finally, the concept offers a philosophically informed account of self and consciousness, society and desire operating under the ‘illusion of nothing’ and avoidance of the effect of the fear of death. The risk in acting alone, fuelled by illusions of self sufficiency, is apposite the calculability and moral responsibility we are presumed to have and enforced by social pressure to conform. Mediocrity is ‘not enough’ to satisfy the urges of some people; are they so wrong? How else can the world progress unless it is prepared to take the risk of failure? Narcissism is a problem because one cannot ‘have it both ways’.
Reputedly a ‘beautiful youth’, Narcissus was the son of the ‘union’ of the river god Cessiphus and Liriope. But this was not a union of consent, rather he was conceived by rape; Cessiphus clasping Liriope in his “winding streams” the result being her impregnation and Narcissus birth.[1] Liriope, like any mother concerned as to her beautiful child’s future, consults the wisest person in the land, the blind seer Tiresias whom reputedly lived as a woman for seven years before resuming his masculine form. Tiresias is asked by the anxious mother if her son will “live a long life” to which he replied; “Only if he does not discover (see) himself”[2]. So, Narcissus is one who will die young if he gets to know himself, and that can be predicted. But because of his cold pride and haughty heart he would not allow any of the young girls and boys, who admired him, to touch him. He rejected their admiration, and wandered alone. The nymph Echo, whose power of initiating speech had been taken away (Juno’s cursed her for complicity with Zeus in hiding his infidelity) was fired upon at the sight of Narcissus, and following him secretly in the woods. Her heart was enflamed like a “sulphurous torch” as she tailed him.
As a result of others beseeching vengeance from the gods so that “he may suffer like we have; to know love and not be loved” the myth has it that one day Narcissus comes across his reflection in a pool and drawn to stare at it, he became trapped by his own sense of beauty and value. He mistakenly took the reflection for his real self, not recognizing (understanding) that it was merely himself who he could now see. He became one enchanted, in love with the beautiful image which was in fact himself. Narcissus’ error is that he could not see that he was in love with a reflection, thus he was deluded to that extent. Reality escapes him, and there is no escape from ones own consciousness or the world in which one is embedded. His futile efforts to grasp and possess, converse with the image filled him with deep despair, until finally he realized that he was the image in the pool, saying “I am he! Oh, now I know for sure the image is my own; it is for myself I burn with love; I fan the flames I feel.” [3] Now depressed, he wished that he could separate the image from his body, so that the image he loved would disappear from him. Finally, he sensed that death was the only solution, since then the image he loved and the body which burned for it could become one, in death; “now we two – one soul, one death – will die.”[4] Echo, who had watched fervently secreted by the bushes as Narcissus enchantment intensified rushes out at his request for them to be together. “…..Together, she says, and immediately runs from the trees where she had hidden to finally embrace Narcissus, fulfilling her desire. But Narcissus would not have her. “Away with your encircling arms” he cries. Heartbroken, she retreats into the woods, wasting away only to become a disembodied voice, reportedly still heard softly in the distance at his funeral byre.
Chapter 1
The historical development of the Narcissus factor in personality and social dynamics
The paradox and so dilemma of Narcissus consists in the impossibility of being an individual in the world who is also the originator of that world one exists (already) in. It leads to a defensive and proactive self formation wherein affect dysregulation becomes a problem in need of a solution. However, typically the narcissist does not want to be cured, rather one expects, irrationally, that the whole world is their oyster which they can consume without loss. But we are the oyster not the world and the irritation which produces the beauty and tragic, the pearled wisdoms of the inner experience, is a product of narcissistic dynamics. Narcissus’ self fascination was a rejection of others and the world, as well as god, whose point of view Narcissus adopts (falsely). It was his fatal exhaustion that the moralese warns one against, and is based in a delusion about ones own self. It is not just about the relation between self and other, and the perceived and actual world, but how we encounter reality in the search for perfection, and ideal which is a relic of primordial narcissism. As will be argued herein, Narcissus and Echo is a paradigmatic albeit analogical exemplar of the dilemma which each person must countenance in order to live with others, and, further, highlights the strategies we adopt that would serve to avoid social or individual dilemma, which are largely ineffective as tragedy is the condition of man, and what one tries to overcome in so many ways. Nevertheless, social cohesion results from so many compromises to our individual egoism, which tends toward the grandiose and the beautiful in the pursuit of freedom and perfection in its myriad forms.
The figure of Narcissus has since been appropriated by various writers since he became associated with sinfulness and pre-occupation or self adulation in the early Renaissance. The first transformation from myth to stage play was by Calderon de le Barca (Eco and Narcissus) published in 1661. He explained in his dramatisation that Narcissus self love was not of sinful self love, but of flight. Flight is a desirable, if not impossible, result of incompatible, irresolvable conflicts and desires in a young man, who was portrayed as still too attached to a domineering and protecting mother. Calderon’s Narcissus is confused by the alternations of seductive invitation and mute rejection by Echo, and torn between the warnings and advice from his mother and male confidentes. Calderon thus remains true to the myths internal structure and ethical framework but in a confused and disorderly way. However, he introduces an interpersonal element to the myth of Narcissus. He portrayed Narcissus as one struggling with inner pride, confusion, sexual feelings, shame and guilt – all normal attributes of the modern person undergoing that phasal shift, or cause a possible affect dysregulation throughout the events that befall one.
The most important of those that followed are J.J. Rousseau (1752), Sigmund Freud (1914) after Havelock Ellis used the term ‘narcissus-like’ to describe the problem of autoeroticism in the late 1880’s, and Louis Lavelle (1946). They explicated not just the moralistic implications of Narcissus, but assumed his figure as emblematic of a concept in psycho-development. Under the paradigm of energetics Freud assumed each human being is subject to biological necessity, which the sex drive is paramount, and that each possessed a capacity for self determining action. However, these writers have all assumed that at the basis of the problem of self, society, morality, and communication is choice, and it is this proper ‘choice’ which the mythical Narcissus did not, or was unable to take or make. Firstly, because he did not realize his reflection was in fact his own; he did not recognize himself – at least not until it was too late. And secondly, because he did not take the offer of communicated desires that Echo represents thus avoiding being in the unenviable position that he is remembered for. But it cannot be forgotten that it is the ethical framework in which the events in the myth are ‘played out’ which is of most interest. For instance in social psychology, Narcissism is relevant at each level of analysis, and every construal of the person is riddled with the paradox. The conceptual, experiential, and the empirical modes of analysis each rely upon a conception of the conceiving self, and it for this reason that the discourse of ‘our Narcissism’ (or meta-narcissism) must account for this paradoxical factor in knowledge and existence.
For Lavelle, Narcissus’ ‘self love’ (amour propre) is hubris; he assumes himself the creator of his own beauty. That mistake is his function in the moralese. As infants we are yet to make any choice for ourselves, yet gradually we must learn to determine our wants and needs and act so as to bring about the satisfaction – or dissolution of the sense of urgency that desire or drive demands of us – upon which all adjustment to reality relies. On Freud’s theory, Narcissism is described as that original state of consciousness, called primary Narcissism, which is a state of “oceanic contentment” and “fusion” [5] which we do not forgo. It remains in the psychic structure as the original horizon of possibilities which all expectations derive from, and on Freud is the origin of the ideal of Perfection. Thus, Primary Narcissism is a pre social condition from which identity and self determination arises as a response to others, whom Kohut called selfobjects. Thus, narcissism is a useful descriptor of our ‘natural’ state (because original state) which is also a product of reflecting upon nature itself. It is a state in and out of which we become a part of the social milieu knowing that we may defect at any time – which represents so many attempts by narcissistically derived persons to escape their fate as mortal and fallible. Narcissism is manifest in the drive to better oneself and improve the prospects for the future, just as in Science, which is the discovery of our nature in Nature by natural means.
Chapter 2
Narcissism as a form of Psychological Egoism
Narcissism is a form of psychological egoism that can be seen as a one-agent social dilemma; he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. But it is also emblematic of the age old ‘battle of the sexes’; the fundamental conflict for humanity is based around sex, desire and emotions. It is a concept that begs the question how a society can prosper and avoid conflict when each person is only rational and cooperative for and in their own self-interests. Are our interests those of others, and to what extent are they the same or different? The concept of Narcissism also alludes to the ‘problem of equalized alignment’: how can our own interests be aligned with others such that cooperation is assured, and not just expected when our identity is derived from perceptions that are driven by and molded by a primordial instinctual urge to not just preserve life, but to expand its scope of power and influence in the world? The nature of psychological egoism and Narcissism makes us unable to disassociate ourselves from own source of self-regarding unless through an act of will, what I call ‘active reflection’. With groundless hopes of salvation or security, justice or an equality of value always at the perimeter of our intentions this acts as a restraint when it reveals the actual self and its limited power to us, whilst allowing us an estimation of the problem that needs attention so as to strategically operate to its end. Thus, protected maximization is a safeguard or defense against and from our own otherwise wanton desires. The social or individual aim in constructing such a restraint must be that agents gets maximal satisfaction or benefit – such that is possible without sustaining or causing harms (e.g., Ulysses bondage to the mast so as be protected and still enjoy the fatal charming ‘siren’s song without losing control of himself or his rationality). ‘Protected maximisation’ is the notion that each person is free to pursue their goals provided they do not interfere with those of others. It is enabled by the adherence to the laws of institutional or moral systems, which cannot aim to serve the liberty of the individual above all; rather they preserve the good only if people follow the codes and laws as predicted by the strategists of government. But people are inconstant and akratic, and while personal consent has meaning in relationship and reciprocity, it loses its specificity on the level of the social. We are not sure at all what we are consenting to; rather we must trust the word of others that they will act for all interests. Thus political consent is not meaningful, since no voter asked to be in the social contract situation, nor would they, since it is arguably based on a dilemma from which it cannot absolve itself; the Prisoner’s Dilemma. [6]
Hobbes Leviathan was the first to understand the nature of the dilemma that society poses for the individual, and analyse the response and supposed resolution to the ‘war against all’ which competition for scarce valued things breeds. We are expected, supposed to cooperate and accept a Pareto sub optimal result as reward. But according to the mathematical solution of the PD this leads to a weaker outcome for everyone all round. Defection, in the face of radical mistrust (and its reinforcement) is the rational choice, but the consequences may well be a loss of reputation and the good will of others. For Hobbes, the biggest threats to social cohesion comes in the form of the endless and relentless pursuit of not just desired objects that promise to preserve, conserve, and enrich ones life but the seeking of Status. This is manifest in our attempts to enact deeds that are loaded with the implications of Glory, Success, Honour and that which promotes Respect (or even awe) from others. Hobbes psychological theory of the individual is both simple and robust in its description of what people do to and for each other, but it is in the logical dilemma of choosing from under a ‘veil of ignorance’ that options which promotes life and avoids death are put into relief. Society functions by way of a ‘social contract’ pertaining between individuals, groups of people, and society as a whole It hardly needs pointing out that no Government can be legitimate in demanding allegiance to their codes, and so the force of such a compact is only ever provisional at best. The presocial condition is the ‘state of nature’ from which we emerged as participants with natural ‘rights’, normally enforced only spasmodically and imperfectly. Hobbes assumes that social dilemmas are due to the endless competition for desired objects, whose number increases to cover more and more things over time, and the inability of one to become convicted against their will mean that cohesion is only matter of lack of complaining.
What is the ‘state of nature’? We seem to have evolved from the planet (earth). But in fact we are derived from the ‘world’ – according to Sufi mystic Rumi.[7] The world we envisage is not our own, yet how could it not be? Rather, it is our imagined world, and we exist within it, and yet believe we cannot or would not exist without it. The ‘state of nature’ envisaged by Hobbes, in which we are a descendants of a nasty, brutish solitary figure in a ‘war of all against all’[8] is a pre social condition out of which society emerged. Society is based on interactions with others that rely on trust or control (by coercion or force). The family is the nucleus of the group, and the dynamics of power within it form the foundations for other group activities that rely on cooperation for a common (or commensurate) purpose or end. But no matter what the specific goal is for these parties who would cooperate for some short term benefit the end is the same; domination by any and all means of others so as to enjoy freely all things that one would desire to have or experience. It is clear that the biggest and most ‘beautiful’ beasts in the herd have the best chance of success, and so one tries to make themselves ‘big’ and beautiful. Society emerges from the necessary expansion of the family unit, but too much competition for scarce resources hinders ones ability to accomplish the parental role of caring for the neediest and more helpless members of the community (e.g., elderly, children, infants, the ill and handicapped). Society emerges from community just as community emerges from the family level of interaction, which itself depends upon individual commitments, promises and trust. The individual is a function of how others see one, a ‘reflected entity’ according to Mead that has no real existence. But reflected or not, choice is still the one power we have to affect outcomes so as to proper rather then decompose and rigidify the endless creative will, and the ingenuity of man.
In the Prisoners Dilemma (PD) – taken as a one-shot game in which a decision to cooperate or defect over a range of different valued possible outcomes – the rational choice does not lead to long term benefit according to the mathematical solution. Rather, it is rational to defect and ‘run away with the lot’ rather than accept a Pareto sub-optimal reward for cooperation, which carries the risk that the other will defect first. When people are in an arrangement, by law or habit, on expects the other party to perform certain roles from time to time, and they too musty be prepared to reciprocate. Such an arrangement works well for a time, but then one person may suspect that they are being deceived or ‘diddled.’ And so are not getting equal value out of the situation (e.g., marriage). This will surely affect their willingness to cooperate, or enhance the prospect of defection at least. The party who defects first is in the non-enviable position of having values things but a bad reputation which may make it difficult to find partners to cooperate with in the future. It is only by assuming that others will cooperate that we can be secure. The end result of the rational decision is, it seems, the domination of others by way of strategy. Those dominated are, by default, inferior to the one who dominates. Domination and freedom are confounded, as we are, in the PD/society analogy. But in a real-life situation we may also abstain from the promise or pact to cooperate, betraying those others who kept the contract, so enabling the conditions that brought the present choice to bear. This may see the defector end up with the ‘lions share’ of valued resources, persons or objects but at the cost of their reputation. It is irrational to trust a person who has no track record of being able to be trusted. But we cannot know the details of another’ alacrity or integrity without an external reference (e.g., credit rating). This is complicated by the fact in practice not all defectors are detected. The ‘stool pigeon’ survives by keeping his act of betrayal secret. One may or may not feel guilt over such an act. In order to be super-rational we need to also get into the mindset of the defector (or criminal). So the sub-optimal choice for maximal utility reflects an unwillingness to defect at odds with rational behaviour. Clearly, for the sharks to survive they must prey on smaller fish whom they can be said to depend on. But the fish population also responds to the shark’s presence (e.g., reduced numbers), such that we observe at any time a reflexively tuned ‘equilibrium’. Similarly, society is not characterized by our mere participation, but by the control, regulation and rejection of those ho would take the ‘easy way out’ called defection and dishonesty.
In an experiment conducted comparing cooperation amongst people who had been labelled as ‘narcissists’ according to the DSMV IV in an interactive situation which involved cooperation with others who were non-narcissists it was found to be positively related to acquisitive goals such as harvesting or collecting materials for a common purpose (firewood). The more narcissists harvesting in the competitive group of four (Study 1) or dyad (Study 2), the less timber was harvested overall and the more rapidly the forest was depleted. Within competitive groups and dyads, however, narcissists harvested more than the non-narcissists competing with them. In all, narcissism provided a benefit to the self, but at a long-term cost to other individuals and to the society overall.
It seems the stability of an interactive social system such as what we call ‘society’ (civilization) is not predetermined by the collective deterrents of defectors, or non-participants, but rather relies on the presence of narcissists, psychological egoists, or belligerents in order to justify the continued existence of a repressive social order that exacts more than it gives in terms of freedom for the individual. It is by the limitations placed upon us as security measures, laws, morals, etc which dictate or indicate what ones choice ought to be – which in the end is to cooperate for Pareto sub optimal reward (equal mediocrity). It would be far better, and rational, for an individual to defect rather than accept the mediocrity that the solution to large-scale dilemmas gives rise to (as GT modeling has shown). But occasionally, desire and temptation will be too strong, and they may succumb to basic self interested greed to satisfy brute desire, which is experienced as a demand which has the authority bestowed by the universal tendency of the psyche to control and domination over unpredictable things or events as a means to self preservation and enhancement of power and pleasure. Satisfaction is the cessation of the demand, and the urgency of the body to find repose without anxiety and fear. Pragmatically, one ought perhaps to appear fierce and attempt to dissuade would-be defectors and thieves.
Desire can be for an object which is a substitute for another object, situation or person. Individual egoism is formed from the tendency to narcissism that self preservation and cooperation requires, since it is the basis of choice itself. It appears the norm rather than the exception in modern society, leading to diagnoses like Lasch’s, who sees the USA as being a ‘culture of Narcissism.’ The constant search for the ‘real self’ within and the theatricalisation of the everyday in the form of media and celebrity trivia and pseudo-psychological insight does not lead to the expansion of consciousness that they naively expect. Rather it causes a paradoxical minimalisation of the self. Instead of the expansiveness, freedom, and the realization of their own potential despite the burgeoning ‘self help’ industry, and the preoccupation many have with the intimate details of the lives of others, the actualization of goals and self realisation are at an all-time low. Moreover, according to Lasch, the prevalence of ‘cultural narcissism’ is accompanied by diminishing expectations,[9] which increases the urgency for the individuals to prosper and attain the naked ambition towards which our narcissism urges us to consummation. But the consumer is only a digit in a finger that manipulates in the name of advertising to fulfill (and/or create) a demand which is only fulfilled in the economic sense, despite the promise of the satisfaction of desire that the marketing mentality brings with it in the pursuit of their own niche market demographic.
.
The instinct for self-preservation, and the internally felt, unshakeable conviction in ones ‘natural right’ is intensified by a self knowledge attained through what I call ‘active reflection.’ I argue that it is only through the repeated attempts at the realization of our nature, ‘our Narcissism’, that we can re-orientate the instinct-drive-self-other-desire formation which aims at perfection, freedom and control in the pursuit of satisfaction. In doing so, self interests become other’s interests, thus solving the dilemma. This will be proved to be theoretically possible, if not practically difficult, by analysing the concept of Narcissism separately from its function in Psychology, where the standard criteria for what is known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is so broad and there are so many varieties now, that there is no person who cannot score a ‘pass’ on the standard test. The concept has been transformed into a tool of psychological determination rather an instrument of freedom and understanding. However, by removing narcissism from its traditional role in Freud’s metapsychological constructs, the concept can be used to analyse social dilemmas. Insomuch as one has a choice in how to act rationally to achieve satisfaction for their ever-burning desire for more of what brings pleasure, they also have a choice to forego, or compromise their present needs for future gains. But future gains are not, and can never be, assured. Society, just as in the self regulation of our instinctual possessiveness and grandiosity that leads to Narcissism (or the problematics caused by psychological egoism) suffers from affect dysregulation on the socio-political level.
This self-regarding (our narcissism) which is instrumental in deciding itself, is an intrinsic part of what others will call our ‘character’; this is our predisposition to act in a particular way given certain circumstances that offer short and long term benefit. We are a body housing a privately judging critic who thinks that they see things from the perspective of others. But such a perspective is only available by an act of imagination which precludes any provable relation to reality. The realists must find a lever to open the doors to the object itself, which Kant famously denied was possible. As an agent in a social dilemma, one thinks they understand another’s reasons for acting or choosing by inferring it from their other actions or gestures. But in reality, one can never know if another is thinking or believing, saying and feeling what they indicate, express, say and would have others believe. Actors one and all, we perform according to the role that ‘our Narcissism’ creates for us in each situation in which the defense of our integrity is paramount.
Could it be that the urges of desire for success, glory, status, public respect, honour etc are indispensable to creating a social order? If so, then these are also the aims of a type of narcissistic person, the Hobbesian egoist, who is such a disturbance to social order that only by mass resignation to an absolute monarchy can peace exist. But there should be no conflict of interests if the values sought are the same as the nation or state. But are they? States have an interest in appearing cooperative to their counterparts or rivals, but if there is conflict, the previous entente dissipates immediately, falling into a ‘war’ situation which allows them to make certain moves on moral grounds, but which are actually strategic advantages for domination of the other state’s power.
We maintain the entitlements that accomplishment of our aims allows us through the almost ritualistic repetition of deference to signs of authority and superiority. This is an act, however, which serves as an elaborate defense to protect or bolster a depleted sense of value. But it is in the notion of the promise, the gift, and the nature of trust that cohesion, when it does occur, is unstable, because psychological egoism has it that it is necessary to put our needs first and foremost if that is how we feel. It makes no rational sense to do otherwise, especially if one believes themselves ‘special.’ Every infant is special to their mother, and we want to live up to this to gain and continue to enjoy their approval. Thus, we all have a vested interest in being special so as to enjoy the benefits of exceptionality that society affords. But most of us are not special in any important sense, so we tend to create a fiction, a dream; a universal self-deception in which that special-ness or uniqueness satisfies their desire, and counteracts the sense of inferiority which social interaction confirms or denies. Moreover, we cannot be sure where the rights, needs and wants of the self begin and end and so we can only imagine and hope we are right, or that others will not take avenging action against imagined wrongs, perhaps supported by fabricated or distorted evidence.
Every person would be loved if they could be. No person wants to be rejected, rather they want to be admired. But admirers, one and all, we do not see our real selves, but a form of internal reflection or ‘a turning around upon oneself’ makes it seem so. The ‘I’ that ‘thinks of itself’ is the overseer of the multiple me’s which comprise, and compromise our characterlogical quality. And with each passing moment, the structure of that self-orientation must be bolstered, defended, explored, expressed, and created so as to rise from the disappointments that reality-checks bring to us, reminding us of our own unrealistic, and unspoken expectations. Wishes and expectation blur as we negotiate our self and define its limits through others
Chapter 3
Self interest and Rational Choice Theory (RCT) in the ‘state of nature’
According to Game Theory (GT) it is always rational to keep promises or contracts, even when the other party reneges (breaches), since this puts the keeper in the enviable position in relation to the other, as adjudged by an observer. That is, it is morally more valued to keep to the contract than it is to breach the deal and run away with the spoils at the expense of the other party and to the detriment of contracting generally. The higher the potential losses suffered, the greater the risk involved in the choice to hold/keep the bargain, and in the case of a unilateral bargain in which the keeper stands to lose more than the breacher, the holder is in a high risk situation in which only the integrity of the other party can affect the relative entente, or security that they share by virtue of the pact.
Yet all that contractual obligations amount to is adherence to the promise, for a contract does not hold in the state of nature, where ones self preservation is paramount. The alternative of simply reneging so as to self interestedly continue to enjoy the benefits of an object without interference from others carries a cost to ones reputation which can deter potential confederates in other contracts and in some cases can be fatal. The posse of moral adjudgers (or their agents) may catch up with defectors, refusers and conscientious abstainers to bring them ‘into line’, and so conformity with the expectations of the promising others, upon whom society’s stability depends.
However, self interestedness involves more than rational decisions in relation to the principles of ones preference for survival strategies. Rather, self interestedness involves thought about oneself as if within the sphere of action which they ‘imagine’ and ‘believe’ contains the scope or limit of the actual possibilities they choose from. The criterion for this intrinsic judgment of those values emerges from our instinctual choice to preserve above all our own life, and this begins with the self conception of potential, action, and desire which has been mistakenly called after an interpretation of Narcissus and Echo as a moralese that warns of the danger of undisciplined self consciousness in the form of ‘self love’ in the Augustinian sense; a hubristic and sinful love of the body.
Narcissism is now a conceptual term under re-evaluation, but as a term of psychological discrimination (NPD) and a social dilemma it perhaps carries the axiological assumptions of an earlier age too far. Each person has ‘eyes’ for themselves, and curiosity about oneself and body is a natural aspect of childhood development. But in order to empathise, it is assumed one must be able to look at themselves as if another might if they are to know what value others see in them, and whether one thinks they can be trusted to cooperate. That is, I trust you will not stab me in the back and steal my wife or valued goods or even my status as soon as I turn my head away because you seem trustworthy. It is irrational for one to expect to exceed the potential they actually have, but it is not irrational if one does. If one fails because they are or were unaware of the exact potential or the gamut of choices available to them they cannot be blamed or held accountable (the baby broke the Ming vase, or scribbled on the van Gogh painting). Ignorance of the relevant facts in any interactive situation is not a reason to hold someone at fault for the consequences of their actions, and yet the law presumes we are all calculable and responsible for its purposes. It fails to match the crime with the penalty; the punishment is partly symbolic, so as to appease the population into security and revenge. The victim and the perpetrator operate under different rules, but they are both operating via narcissistic dynamics, since it is at the basis of personality, which itself is the basis of society.
Children are expected to learn a particular moral code by inferring the rules or restrictions, expectations and norms from observing and participating with others. Cooperation is clearly not essential for any socialization, since one could defect and betray others who are trusting enough to be taken in by them. But it may be in one’s self interested aim to merely appear to be cooperative to make their ability or value seem more extensive and powerful than it really is. Until a better opportunity arises which has more promise in terms of satisfying their desire (for it and more of it), one settles for ‘second best.’ Our ability to regulate and maintain (narcissism) our needs motivates to us to even greater highs and lower lows. A bird in the hand now is worth more than two in the bush if we died later today. So the long term versus short term rationalizations in GT analysis are severely restricted – to the point of being irrelevant – by the inability of mathematics to represent social dilemma’s, which are always based around the central problematic which traditionally history records by the name of Narcissism.
The ‘state of nature,’ from which cooperation as a substitute for conflict is said to have emerged, cannot be substantiated by inductive argumentation strategies as an anarchic, chaotic, lawless, Hobbesian ‘war against all’ in which scarce resources were unevenly divided between the sly, big, quick and the strong. The reason for this is that the pre social condition is not a lawless state, nor is it unconventional since it is only by laws and convention that society is a coherent concept. That is, the enforcement of a principle of ‘good for all’ through cooperation with rules, the transgression of which carries socially metered punishments ranging from ridicule, shame, blame and humiliation. From snubbing through execution of that transgressing other who threatens to ‘beat the system’ by not playing according to the moral rules. And this, on Hobbes, is ones ‘natural right.’ According to Jean Hampton’s interpretation of Hobbes Leviathan argument both the Passions the Rationality account of the origins of the social contract, deemed necessary for society and so human survival, fail. This is because the actual ‘state’ of the state of nature cannot be determined by induction alone. Nor can it be determined by experience, and yet that is how society emerged as a succession of trials and errors in people management, with the family being the paradigm case. The base principles of human interaction cannot be adduced by testimony, or experience. However, it is reasonable to suppose that it the prime mover of all human action is still in operation, albeit in a form that has been obscured by the very thing that has appeared ‘in its place’ – society. Society, on such a view, is a complex defense mechanism which (and particularly in the case of Democracy) operates on the presumption that no person can be trusted to perform their end of the bargain, which involves them keeping the social contract above all other cares or considerations. A lack of trust necessitates finding a way of forcing compliance from others – for whatever ‘good’ reason. But a person cannot be convinced against their will, for he will be still of the opinion that is his own whatever coercion is used.
Narcissism is a result of existential choices and irrational judgments that show a blindness to the reality of others in relation to the pursuit of their satisfaction in its many (indirect) forms. But Society gives the individual choices that one did not ask for, and we are forced into interactions in which the options are not as clear as one may like to think (banking, supermarkets, music). Ones realizable options are formed by the range and limits of our narcissistically-funded interest, which is expansive and also contractive. Interest is also at the basis of our creativity, so it is vital that its function in personality and society is understood properly. So far it has not been. The Freudian legacy has obscured the purpose and meaning of his ideas about civilization and the individual; he failed to make the theory of Narcissism account for why we have respect for others, self confidence, dignity, pride and love, and why society is not overtaken by the pursuit of vainglory, honour, status and vanity which is part of normal narcissism. Instead, it has taken a hundred years for writers to interpret Freud in a more useful light, as one who explored the shadows in the corners of the mind of others through himself, and yet failed to see that his own Narcissism was ‘responsible’ and part of for his (grandiose) endeavour in showing the nature of our instinct and its relation to unconscious processes.
Hobbes theoroms (principles) are a result of his commitment to his psychological characterisation of human beings as persistent pursuers of their own self preservation whose only hope lies in foregoing our penultimate power to an authority whose benevolence or loyalty is not ensured in any case. Yet one is expected to contract themselves to this authority, and in doing so, ones self is contracted too. One in the Hobbesian state of nature is compelled to conform not because they are free, but to preserve their own life (or quality of their -significantly -‘expected’ life). But Hobbes restricts his terminology to such a basic level that the principle of self preservation is indistinguishable from the desire which motivates its acts. His theoretical use of the term ‘desire’ covers so many aspects of human motivation and action that it is indistinguishable from Narcissism. And is not his grand vision just as grandiose as Hobbes – with admiration being a key factor in the coherence and harmony of society. This is typified in the cover-illustration of Leviathan which shows a giant man, made of people, who comprise the members of one body. Each of these individuals is shown looking up at the sovereign monarch, who is the head. But individuals do not just look up at another, rather they look down upon themselves. It is a looking down because there is no even playing field, no equal footing from which one part of mind can address the other without the introjection of a ‘voice of authority’ into their mind/world. Hobbes tries to persuade with an inductive argument which serves the interests of all, which paradoxically means giving up the natural right to be what one would be, and instead defeat the motivation to glory, honour, success and ‘happiness’ upon which social progress depends. Technologies for releasing time back to the self are pointless if there is only an empty, minimalised self resulting from the costs of the family and civilization upon the individual who ironically, is the potential recipient of those same technological advances/rewards. The drudgery of work is replaced by the drudgery of holidays all too often, and satisfaction is elusive and fleeting if not infrequent.
However, since the payoff for cooperation in the PD is unsatisfactory, then one can only resort to the strategy that promises more if their goal is self-fulfillment. But the promise of ‘more’, and the keeping of this promise is completely absurd; only a person operating under an illusion would try to do anything when they know in advance that all choices in a social situation based on promising with a ‘governing state’ are actually void unless one ‘recognizes’ that their authority is based on higher principles than they themselves are aware. Voters are not political philosophers (and not am I), yet the choice they have is decisive. It is a ‘deal or no deal’ situation when it comes to the satisfaction of desires – one either is or is not satisfied by their desires- and so it is futile to deny others theirs just because one has none of their own fulfilled. But people tend to want to be in an ‘everybody happy’ world, in which they cannot see that conflict for the source of that happiness is within ones intimate consciousness, and not in the socius, where it is played out as represented by the PD payoff matrix. Our narcissism brings to us the belief that we can escape the PD, simply by refusing the attentions others, like Narcissus – and choosing oneself. However, one cannot know now that they have already ‘cast their vote’ in the form of their distant infantile choice, and that the present represents the outcome of it for them. It is not individual choice therefore that determines human eventualities, but ‘our narcissism’, which ensures that no persons individual choice can be of ultimate detriment to the rest of the participants in the interactive situation called society.
Chapter 4
Value and determination in social dilemmas:
Psychoanalytic constructs have been used by Glass to explicate the Hobbesian psychology, while C. Fred Alford has presented Narcissism as the basis of an intrinsic criterion of value, the telos for wholeness and unity which inheres in each person and is expressed in and by the society (however, the possibility of an intrinsic teleology is not considered on Alford’s account). With these precedents in mind I shall give an account of the relation between psychological and political phenomenon showing why they depend on a common root process of differentiation and choice which from time to time re-determines itself by creative fiat: Narcissism. I shall argue that at the basis of both rationality and desire is a dynamic process which purpose is to eliminate the bonds of interdependency and dependency and find freedom in the forms of autonomy, differentiation and choice. But this is achieved only in the imagination under a (necessarily false) feeling or illusion of a conceivable wholeness in which we exist as an agent with ultimate choice – hence ‘our Narcissism’.
As both Hobbes and Freud said, it is the nature of human being that a pleasure once experienced initiates an urge or desire for its repetition. Narcissus desires a copy of himself, but this is a desire for what is a mere appearance, the ‘real self’ hidden from his ‘view’, and so he does not experience the reality available to his conscious awareness because he is caught in the grip of a self fascination from which he cannot escape except through his own demise. Autoeroticism and sexuality are not disconnected in the experience of fulfilling desire, only in the scientist’s mind can they be held as separate (or the sociopath perhaps). According to one aspect of Freud’s notion of Narcissism the roots of every intention are in an experienced Perfection once known and never forgotten. This experience of perfection that drags us ever onward – ‘Our Narcissism’ – is the spur to our loftiest ambitions, passionate artistic expression, political ideology, but also our basest desires for aggression and vengeance. For one may perfect themselves as a murderer, actor, painter, or husband. That which makes perfect does not by that count make good.
Narcissism involves an illusion which is manifest as the perceived choice we have to determine our own values. But values are reflexively correlated by the competition to control and possess them, not necessarily to share them with others. To the extent that one does not share values with others they are alienated from the society they exist in. Society is based on the false presumption of shared values when the reality is that rational agents will defect when it suits them, confident that their selfishness or criminality will not be discovered, their reputation will be undamaged, and they can secretly enjoy the spoils of their success – perhaps gloating, and laughing at the stupidity or naivety of other persons, who mistakenly trusted them.
A disconnection – between the body we see ourselves as, and the body of another, who is an either an obstacle to be removed or avoided, or one to become entangled, entwined, incorporated with – assumes a prior connection. But this is a connection that as infants we did not choose, nor do we survive by ‘biting the hand that feeds.’ Narcissus would not allow Echo’s ‘encircling arms’ to surround him, his freedom existed somewhere else, and so was not restricted to the world of mere appearance and contingency. But ideas and images, beliefs and phantasies are not sustenance for the body unless through the interactive game par excellence called Society. Its function is to sustain the illusion that we can escape the Prisoners Dilemma, but this is itself dependent on the illusion that we determine value by own power of choice. PD describes the game, but not the players themselves except as rational or non-rational ‘agents.’ It cannot deal with the fact that mistake could lead to a dramatically misunderstood situation, and that could bring ‘unpredictable’ results. No moral lesson can be drawn from such mathematically rendered solutions. One must somehow solve the problem in their own life without the aid of mathematical philosophy.
But surely, if there was trust between people we would not need a contract to keep, since trust obviates the need for any contract. A man is not ‘as good as his word’ for his word is only as good as his reputation bespeaks, and reputation can be sullied and falsified. Keeping a ‘good reputation’ is not important to a transient criminal or nameless agent of terrorist acts, but it is for a politician. Ideally, the belligerent is not to be seen to prosper in a society that relies on promises to keep social contracts, because this would expose the sham that they are based on – even if their purposes are noble and good. The law and its systems of processing people are in place to detect, penalize and/or eliminate belligerents, and also act as a deterrent to others who would breach the contract that forces them to surrender their natural right to all things in exchange for a ‘protection’ which is rarely forthcoming, and certainly rarely untimely. We currently live in a situation where one is supposed to firstly ring the police if they are being assaulted, rather that defend oneself in that moment. Not being able to know how much of a threat the other is makes it impossible to know how much ‘equal force’ will be necessary to physically overcome them.
But the concept of Narcissism tells us that those who follow the laws also consider themselves an exemption to them. Since following is a sustained choice to do as others do, the choice may be rescinded. A monarch rules only by virtue of the trust invested in rulers by the people, who may also distrust whilst still keeping the social contract for pragmatic reasons. In point of biological and psychic fact, we are all single units of self determination who do not necessarily see the possibilities that promising and contracting have for them on a long term or a short term basis. Rather, one tends to attempt to satisfy fleeting and superficial desires which have no value beyond the value of one’s own private enthrallment or pleasure at the time. Our society has become like a ‘passing parade of lifeless packaging’ which signals something other than what it is.
The social compact that keeps society in relative stability is only valid as long as the individual believes in its efficacy. One reaps the rewards which cooperation can bring because they are irrational, since if they were rational they would know that the rewards they desire will not be forthcoming. The evidence for this is seen from the fact that social revolutions begin as a result of the unwinding of the belief structure which hitherto ‘held things together’ on the individual level. Without trust there can be no security, yet security measures presuppose there is none.
Distrust has the effect of demolishing any entente that may have held back the waves of human conflict that threaten to engulf the individuals. A population event is nothing but the will to self determined freedom returning its power to its natural, rightful place – within our own choice-dynamic, and that is the domain of ‘our Narcissism.’ Corruption relies on the silence and ignorance of the other. Corruption is something each of us is disposed to in some degree. (many have never been so needy, ‘tempted’ or put in an impossible situation, so cosseted by the illusions of self sufficiency which the logic of consumerism in the service of a flawed system of human government – democracy – simulates as education) is the consequence of individuals having an ultimate choice to abstain from cooperation or to actively do nothing to change anything. The negative impacts of ‘self choosing interests which become identified with ‘me’ – ‘our narcissism’ – is avoided only because the honour, respect, and moral value one is held in by others is seen as more beneficial to ones pleasure, survival, and social standing than anything that a breacher or belligerent can take or steal by breaching.
Perhaps the Good Samaritan has good reasons for ignoring the plight of others who stumbled by on that road while he was helping a man whom he altruistically believed was valued, and thus a priority. The higher ethico-moral ground is seen to be the pinnacle, or the ultimate aim of rational achievement on the individual level. So it is not just the immediate outcome dependant upon the player’s game-choice which is valuable to participants who would maximise their actions, but those other spectators and judges, whose opinion determines one’s social cache; the reward of cooperation comes from the respect and admiration of others, who see them as an exemplar. So our future finally rests with their influence or authority. Everyone dislikes a boastful winner, a vain egoist, an arrogant fool, and gloating produces undesirable emotions in others. Yet the passion to dominate, to be not just superior but to be in the enviable position, as Hampton puts it, takes all sorts of forms, with the methods of governing people the most far-reaching. However, an infant is in no position yet to decide upon their options, or the consequences of ‘keeping mum’ or ‘speaking out’ about their feelings, aims, desires and future prospects in life. Rather, they must infer the options, or imagine them.
Game theoretical modeling, like most Political and Logical philosophy, assumes a fully -formed rational subject who can calculate expected long and short-term benefits for themselves or others. It thus presumes that one has a choice in their response to an interactive situation which amounts only to defection or co-operation with others, who are further presumed to be in the urgent pursuit of scarce valuable resources or people, objects and/or money with which one is in constant competition with others for possession, control and employment of. A rational agent, it is supposed, acts only in self-interests; that is, one acts initially and always for the control, use or consumption of things that would promise to preserve ones life or the life of those others valued by the agent themselves. This means that we all are in competition for valued things with others in a ‘game of life’ in which we surely cannot ‘win’, but nor do want to ‘lose.’ And one who desires preservation does not by that count become open to the charge of selfishness if indeed this natural right always holds. But, clearly, attacks upon another’s character can only be by way of comparison with an ideal selflessness which is impossible as it is futile against reality itself – even if out of our physical or intellectual reach. Would an alien infer the ‘rules of the human moral code’ by observing the actions of a saint in their milieu? Upon what basis other than theoretical modeling of rational options could a contract with an alien species be?
According to Hobbes, it is the ‘natural right’ of every wo/man to all things that preserve his interests. But GT shows that acting rationally does not produce maximal long-term benefit. However, is it not possible that maximal benefit could still occur? Only in this case it would be seen as an ‘accident.’ Each encounter with another involves choice in stimulated response to them, but it is an opportunity to further ones ambitions for satisfaction and bring about the conditions that would tend to suit all – that is, if resources made it feasible. However, this chapter will argue that any and every attempt to ‘act rationally’ in order to control or influence the outcome to their own benefit firstly is essentially an action which bespeaks what Freud referred to, ambiguously, as ‘narcissism.’ But this term is to be understood in a particular way herein; it is ‘removed’ from the trappings of Freudian Metapsychology, which proceeds by way of the overarching metaphor of energetics[10] wherein capacity, current, resistance, and the transference of forces is along interpersonal, social, economical, rationalist, physical and biologic