Tag Archives: self-worth

Practicing the Golden Rule and Its Variants

General and Miscellaneous, , ,

We are all familiar with the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Variations of this guideline appear throughout various cultures and religious traditions. Most of us probably endorse it, whether we follow it or not. Yet this adage focuses only on how we treat others. How we treat ourselves, though, is also worthy of attention. We shall consider two variants which mirror and complement the standard Golden Rule. The first proclaims, “Do unto ourselves as we would do unto others.” The other version advises, “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Then, we will address the roles of experience and action – being compassionate and doing generous acts – in this endeavor. But first, we need to consider the focus and assumptions of these sayings.

Golden Rule  Variants for Self-care

All three versions presented here address our treatment of ourselves and others. Of course, this advice would hardly be necessary if we all demonstrated abundant caring and generosity.  Similarly, these sayings would be virtually meaningless if we already showed similar concern for all involved, ourselves included. However, by encouraging us to treat ourselves and others comparably, these adages all assume a disparity in caring. Whereas the Golden Rule encourages us to treat others better, our two variants urge better self-care. And while the standard adage relates to self-absorbed individuals, our two variants apply to those who habitually put others first.

Selfish and Selfless

Thus, the traditional Golden Rule and our two variants address two contrasting groups. Together, they represent polar opposites along a continuum ranging from selfish to selfless. Generally, we judge the former critically while praising the latter. Most of us recognize the shortcomings of being self-centered, with its tendency to alienate others. (I explore this orientation in more detail in my post, Narcissists’ Self-Promotions Trump Cooperation.) In contrast, we tend to disregard the downside for the selfless givers, who consistently put others first.

Being Generous to a Fault

Unbridled generosity often has adverse consequences for the giver. When we are constantly giving, without replenishing our emotional supplies, we become depleted. Our recipients come to take us for granted, such that they show little appreciation. We might then become resentful, which only builds over time. That sabotages our spirit of generosity, which we have been cultivating through our self-sacrifice. (I address these drawbacks in my post, Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue.)

Fostering Entitlement

Our pervasive giving frequently has dire consequences for the receiver, as well. With the support of their benefactors never in question, the recipients often take it for granted. This feeds into their sense of privilege, which cultivates unrealistic expectations of others. As such, they feel more deserving, such that they disregard others’ wants and needs.  In fact, the term “afluenza” has been coined and used to describe the unhealthy entitlement of teens spoiled by their doting parents.

“Killing with Kindness”

In some instances, excessive generosity can foster dependency, rather than or in addition to entitlement. This is especially true when givers offer services which their recipients can provide for themselves, though not without some effort. These donors further “enable” dependency by implicitly defining their recipients as incapable of fending for themselves. Particularly when coupled with critics’ harsh judgment, the enablers’ good intentions transform their recipients into victims of low expectations. While not literally killing their charges with kindness, they often deaden their spirit. (I delve into this topic further in my post, Escaping the Victim Role.)

Thus, the recipients’ feeling bad about needing help often mirrors the givers’ feeling good about providing the needing support. After all, who wants to be considered a charity case?  Yet committed caretakers often overlook this connection, as their core identity is so tied into being helpful to others. Without it, they can feel disoriented and lost, without a sense of purpose.

Striking a Balance between Polar Opposites

The Golden Rule and our two variants all propose solutions to our self-care and concern for others being out-of-balance. Selfish people need to treat others better, while selfless ones need to take better care of themselves. When taken together, the Golden Rule and our two variants suggest a balance between these two extremes. This is but one instance in which choosing a middle path works out better than operating at either opposing pole. (In Muddling down a Middle Path, I note various other polarities for which this advice applies. These include freedom vs. order, security vs. adventure, and belonging vs. individuality.)

The Two  Inverse Variants of the Golden Rule

With all the preceding concerns, it may seem like I’m saying that generosity is bad. That’s certainly not my intent. Rather, I am asserting that an excessive commitment to serving others can be bad for all involved. Furthermore, I am affirming the helpfulness of balancing generosity with a healthy dose of self-interest. Now, we can consider how our two inverse variants of the Golden Rule address this imbalance. While one version explores how we treat ourselves, the other focuses on how we encourage others to treat us.

“Do unto Ourselves as We Do unto Others”

Perhaps we best demonstrate the meaning of treating ourselves as we treat others when we don’t follow this guideline. What does it mean when we take better care of others than we do of ourselves? Are we not implying that others are more deserving than us? Or that they are needier? If so, others may take us up on this attitude by expecting our support while disregarding our needs. Or are we suggesting that our service makes us better than others? Then others may resent our condescending attitude and perhaps feel bad about receiving our support. Whichever message we send – whether of being undeserving, less needy, or morally superior – it undermines healthy relations.

By contrast, treating ourselves as we treat others puts us on more even footing with them. We attain our identity and self-worth from both our advocacy for ourselves and our generosity toward others. On the one hand, we proclaim our self-worth through our self-assertion. On the other hand, we feel good about ourselves when we give to others. This balanced approach does not lay claim to any special treatment or entitlement. Taken together, these two sources of self-esteem support our being “just as good as,” but not necessarily “better than.” Furthermore, these ways of establishing our self-worth are less likely to convey a “holier than thou” attitude. Thus, it puts us more on par with others.

 “Allow Others to Do for Us as We Would Do for Them”

Our second variant of the Golden Rule focuses on letting others help us. “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Just as we feel good about ourselves for helping others, so can they feel good about themselves for helping us – yet only if we let them! Research studies have shown that generosity has a positive impact for the giver as well as for the receiver, and sometimes even more for the giver. So, do we really want to be selfish in hoarding those warm, fuzzy feelings for ourselves? Or are we willing to allow others those feel-good opportunities by accepting and appreciating their support?

Reluctance to Accepting Support

When such occasions arise, we may resist accepting support. We might be unwilling to giving up what we consider the moral high ground. (“’Tis nobler to give than to receive.”) Or we might balk at relinquishing the control of being in charge. Still yet, we might hesitate because receiving help implies that we are needy and therefore deficient. Whatever the cause, such staunch independence deprives others of the opportunity for feeling good about extending themselves.

Receiving Compliments

This hesitancy to receive support even extends to fielding compliments, which have very little cost for the giver. We have all witnessed occasions when someone receiving a compliment has minimized, qualified, or refuted it.  Perhaps we can even recall instances when we have done so ourselves. While we might justify this response in the name of humility, we are also questioning our admirers’ judgment. Is that really how we want to reward someone’s graciousness? Just how hard would it be to show appreciation for their admiration?

Motivation Matters

Thus far, we’ve been focusing on the act of giving. We should recognize, though, that the intentions behind the support matter. We might offer support in response to social pressure, or to boost our reputation. Or we might give out of a sense of obligation. Recipients are less likely to respond favorably to these intentions than to giving out of  caring. They might well feel beholding or obligated to us in return. Or they might even resent being used to bolster our status. Still yet, they may feel inadequate for needing help. In contrast, giving out of caring is more likely to engender gratitude. Motivation matters. Thus, effective charity involves being as well as doing – being compassionate while doing the giving. We might even propose yet another variant of the Golden Rule: “Be for others as we would be for ourselves.”

The Golden Rule Applied to Conflict

Thus far, discussion of the Golden Rule and its variants has focused on support, whether for others or for ourselves. But what if we are in conflict with others? We might well find ourselves  disapproving of others, rather than accepting. Does the Golden Rule apply here? Well, it does state “do unto” others, not “do for” them. We’re probably not feeling so charitable in such cases – nor should we be. Offering acceptance or support implies condoning, if not actually enabling, those actions of which we disapprove. So how does the Golden Rule – and our variants of it, for that matter – apply in those cases?

Exercising Accountability

We all have the right to challenge others’ actions that affect us — as they do with us. For exercising accountability, a qualified version of “Love the sinner, hate the sin” appears in order. Our reservation centers on the blame involved in our labeling an action a “sin” and the doer a “sinner.” We should recognize that it is not our place to pass judgment. We can reduce this judgmentalism by regarding the offending action as a transgression against ourselves or others, rather than as a moral defect.

A general rule of thumb is to demand accountability for actions, rather than passing judgment on the person. Here, the distinction between doing and being comes into play. We challenge the doing of the action, while still showing respect for who the person is. Indeed, failure to call out the transgression conveys our low expectations for the transgressor. That hardly expresses respect. Thus, holding others accountable appears quite compatible with the standard Golden Rule – provided that we welcome constructive input ourselves. We address our readiness to receive challenging feedback in an upcoming section, “Being Called Out by Others.”

One particular insight helps us to cope with others’ transgressions against us. It is the realization that each transgression gives us the opportunity to advocate for ourselves, thus affirming our self-worth. Without such conflicts, we would have little need to take such action.

Calling Out Ourselves

Exercising accountability for ourselves involves taking stock of ourselves. This can be particularly problematic for those of us who are our own worst critics. My story of The Man with a Monkey on his Back dramatizes such struggles. And indeed, a “searching and fearless moral inventory” is often the most challenging of the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.) Here, the distinction between being and doing applies. Focusing on the kind of person we see ourselves being likely evokes shame. This feeling often immobilizes us, thus interfering with our efforts to change what we do.

Holding Ourselves Accountable for our Actions

Identifying how our “doings” transgress against others, or even against ourselves, however, likely causes guilt. This feeling calls our attention to our actions, which we can work at changing. Changing what we do is generally easier than changing who we are. With sufficient work at changing our behaviors, we might notice ourselves developing positive traits. And when we acquire enough healthy traits, we develop our character, or who we are. While this might be a “fake it till you make it” approach, it usually works better than an attempt at a “total makeover.” We might identify this variant of the Golden Rule as, “Hold ourselves accountable, as we would do with others.”

Being Called Out by Others

It would be great if we were able to recognize our transgressions toward others consistently. Unfortunately, that is often not the case, as we all have our “blind spots.” As a result, others often recognize our shortcomings before we do.” When they point these flaws out to us (or to others in our presence), we often experience shame and humiliation. This one-two punch usually involves our feeling judged, even if others are attempting constructive feedback. If this be the case, another variant of the Golden Rule applies: “Allow others to call us out, as we would want to call them out.”

Receiving Constructive Feedback

In accepting criticism from others, we recognize that they can help us with our personal growth – even if that’s not their intent. We also appreciate that our adversaries might more readily point out our shortcomings than would our friends. Furthermore, they are more likely to offer perspectives different than our own. Thus, we can often learn more about ourselves from our adversaries than from our allies. Again, this applies only if we listen! Of course, we may need to filter out their toxic judgment or blame to hear their constructive feedback.

Constructive Feedback, or Judgment and Blame?

How can we best respond to feedback, whether constructive or judgmental? I would suggest that we respond to each in the same way – with due consideration and gratitude. For input intended as helpful, this would obviously be an appropriate response. But what about for accusatory feedback? Yes, the same approach for that, as well. For one thing, we can learn valuable lessons, even if we don’t particularly care for how they are packaged. Furthermore, our adversaries would likely be unprepared for such a receptive response, thus catching them off-guard. Additionally, our not following their script for an “us versus them” confrontation can knock them off-balance. This often flushes out their agenda to shame and humiliate us. Thus, this strategy can prove effective for exposing and deflecting their verbal sneak attacks.

This approach warrants caution and skill, though. If we are too deferential, our adversaries might attempt to dominate us, particularly if there is an audience. In exercising due consideration, we can inquire into the assumptions behind their criticism. First, this exploration can help us to understand their outlook, such that we adapt valid aspects to our purposes. Second, this inquiry serves as a strategy for challenging their perspectives. Our questioning might just reveal some unwarranted assumptions or logical inconsistencies which they had not considered. And third, we can command respect through our discerning inquiry and poise. Even if they deny us their respect, they cannot take away our self-respect – that is, unless we let them.

Summary and Recommendations

Hopefully, our exploration of the Golden Rule and our proposed variants of it has expanded and deepened our understanding of fair treatment. In particular, we have noted how these concerns apply both to others and to ourselves. This is best achieved when our self-interest and our concern for others are fairly comparable. This balance both validates our self-worth and strengthens our emotional bonds with one another. Furthermore, the support works best when involving both experience and action – being compassionate and doing good works. This is equally true and relevant for our treatment of others and ourselves. When we alternate between the roles of giving and receiving, these guidelines help to foster greater understanding and cooperation.

I should note that I am not advocating a limit to the amount of compassion and generosity. Generally, more is better. In practice, though, judgmentalism is often the limiting factor: more judgment generally means less compassion. Instead, I am espousing that caring and giving be fairly evenly distributed between ourselves and others. When others claim more than their fair share, we should be ready to call them out. And by the same token, we should accept others calling us out. In this way, we can maintain our balance of self-interest and care for others. And when we all practice this balancing act and alternate between giving and receiving, we transcend independence and dependence. Instead, we foster healthy interdependence, and that works best for all.

Melania Trump’s “Be Best” Campaign

General and Miscellaneous, Political Applications, Self-esteem,

What Does It Mean?

On first glance, our First Lady’s “Be Best” campaign appears straightforward and noncontroversial, even if grammatically awkward. My critique, though, is not so much one of grammar, as of meaning. A single word could clear this up. Does she call upon us to “be our best” or to “be the best”? Though a subtle distinction, the implications can be major. Whereas both appeal to our sense of self-worth, the former promotes intrinsic self-esteem, while the latter supports conditional self-esteem. Since these terms are likely unfamiliar to many, this calls for further explanation.

Intrinsic Self-Esteem

Intrinsic self-esteem is based on the notion that we all have basic self-worth, regardless of our status in life or achievements. Our Declaration of Independence affirms this in stating that “all men are created equal,” as long as we interpret “all men” as “all people.” Colloquially, it is expressed in the bumper-sticker slogan, “God don’t make no junk.” The call to “be our best” means living up to our potential, whatever that may be.

Conditional Self-Esteem

In contrast, conditional self-esteem refers to feeling good about ourselves based upon our attributes and achievements. Here, the standards are relative, based upon how we compare with others. That comparison might be in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, dominance, achievement, or some other criteria. This version of self-worth is rather transient. As salesmen say, “You’re only as good as your last sale.” In its extreme, winning becomes everything. Unfortunately, for every winner, there is at least one loser, if not more. To “be the best” means to be better than all the rest. For example, each year only one team is Superbowl champion, versus 31 teams who lost along the way. When self-esteem is primarily conditional, “loser” is a loaded term: even achieving your personal best is not good enough.

In Praise of Intrinsic Self-Esteem

Thus, I am endorsing intrinsic self-esteem as the better foundation for achieving our sense of value. First, it is a more stable source of self-worth, less susceptible to disappointment and loss. Second, when firmly established, it depends somewhat less on the ongoing support of others. Relying on our own self-assessment reduces our vulnerability to critics, naysayers and bullies. Even so, the encouragement of our supporters can be quite helpful. This addresses the central concern of our First Lady’s initiative against bullying. Third, when we fall short, we can still console ourselves with the notion that we gave it our best shot. This view is reinforced when we commit ourselves to learning from our mistakes. And fourth, practicing intrinsic self-esteem encourages cooperation over competition, allowing us to tap into the power of teamwork.

Putting Conditional Self-Esteem in Perspective

In making the above argument, though, I am not saying that conditional self-esteem is all bad. In fact, with a basic foundation in intrinsic self-esteem, conditional self-esteem augments our motivation to achieve our goals. The call to be our best means living up to our potential, whatever that may be. When runners compete by this standard, they are just as interested in achieving their personal best as in winning.

Summary

Hopefully, I have presented a persuasive argument supporting intrinsic self-esteem. Conditional self-worth and competition still have their place and can motivate us for achievement, yet require a basic foundation in intrinsic self-worth to function effectively. Otherwise, the struggle will be all about winning and losing, and the particular issues at stake in the conflict will get lost in the shuffle. And when each side effectively blocks the other side from winning, both sides lose.

Recommendations

With the above considerations about self-worth, I recommend a subtle modification to the “Be Best” campaign: “Be Our Best.” (I had initially supported “Be Your Best,” but later decided that this is more of a team project.) I would encourage our First Lady to modify her slogan to clarify her meaning. I could be wrong, but I assume that her intended meaning is closer to “be our best” than to “be the best.”

Benefits of Updating the Slogan

By revising the motto our First Lady would be modeling healthy self-assertion, provided she remains true to her convictions. That might involve calling me out on my unsolicited feedback, should she find it impudent or disagree with it. Or she might challenge her husband on his excessive emphasis on winning. She could point out how it defines others as losers and divides our country. Her tactfulness in doing so would demonstrate that assertion does not imply disrespect or bullying of others. Furthermore, the modification would convey the message that the pursuit of our ideals is an ongoing challenge, one achieved through successive approximations. It might even help revitalize her campaign by enlisting more support, as the project has been rather silent lately.

A Caveat

I temper my presumptuous suggestion by acknowledging that I have no inside scoop on Melania Trump’s situation as First Lady. Her “Be Best” slogan might be the best she can achieve, given the current political climate. Since we can only do our best, by definition that is good enough. Of course, we can always work at enhancing our best through understanding and practice. In any event, it has presented a springboard for me to promote my views on self-worth, hopefully without disrespecting our First Lady in the process.

Narcissists’ Self-Promotions Trump Cooperation

Interpersonal Roles, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Political Applications, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships, , , , , ,

The issue of narcissism has been in the news a lot lately, though not necessarily identified as such. Its current prominence in the Republican primary race has turned “politics as usual” on its head. Narcissism has become the “elephant in the room” which candidates have been reluctant to acknowledge, largely out of fear of being trumpled [sic]. Politicos have been scrambling about trying to figure out how to deal with it, as it has become a HUGE problem for them.

In order to deal effectively with the problem, we must first understand what it is and how it operates. Reacting instinctively or by knee-jerk reflex often only feeds into the problem. For this reason, it is important to recognize the social context of this issue and how we can unwittingly get drawn into its force field. Only by recognizing our vulnerabilities can we avoid this trap. This is where the application of my vicious cycle model can offer some valuable insight.

Narcissists and Self-Esteem

Perhaps the hallmark of the Narcissist is the excessive need for approval and admiration. The status seeking only demonstrates how much the self-esteem of the Narcissist requires the continuing affirmation of others to remain intact. For the Narcissist, self-esteem is conditional in nature, which means that it is based on the person having particular valued qualities upon which the self-esteem rests. This value is typically determined relative to other people, such that the Narcissist needs to be better than others, whether that be wealthier, smarter, stronger, more confident, more stylish, more elegant, more discerning, more attractive, etc. Conditional self-worth requires continuing reinforcement, with the Narcissist being like the salesman who is “only as good as his last sale.” The standards for excellence tend to be rather exorbitant, such that Narcissists never feel they are quite good enough. Second place just won’t cut it. In her classic book, The Drama of the Gifted Child, Alice Miller addressed the roots of this condition in childhood, wherein children have learned that they must be perfect to earn the approval of their parents or other caretakers, with this legacy continuing on into adulthood (hence, the alternate title, Prisoners of Childhood).

Even with the adulation of others, Narcissists often feel like imposters, not actually deserving of the affirmation they receive, although they would never admit this. Thus, they fear being exposed and have difficulty acknowledging any shortcomings that might tarnish their self-image. That famous line from The Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain,” applies to them. Any exposure of that “little man” may foster defensiveness, denial and retribution.

The Narcissist’s excessive reliance on conditional self-esteem is likely due to poverty in intrinsic self-esteem – our core conviction in our basic self-worth, just the way we are. This acceptance usually applies equally well to others as to oneself, with the folksy saying, “God don’t make no junk,” expressing this outlook in rather down-to-earth terms. The value that “all men [and women] are created equal” expressed in our Declaration of Independence refers to our intrinsic self-worth, in contrast to the “better than” criterion upon which conditional self-esteem rests. The irony of the Narcissists is that while their expressed self-confidence suggests a rock solid foundation, their self-esteem rests on the loose sands of conditional self-worth.

Narcissism and the Paradox of Individuality and Belonging

The distinction between conditional and intrinsic self-esteem has profound implications for how we resolve the paradox of individuality and belonging, which I have addressed in Muddling down the Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life, and for which I have referred to Calvin and Hobbes for dramatization of the “flake vs. drip” dilemma. Those relying upon conditional self-esteem usually emphasize individuality, claiming credit for being self-made men and women, perhaps giving only lip service to others in acknowledging their contributions to the Narcissists’ successes. Narcissists can easily adopt the mantra, “I did it my way” from Paul Anka’s song popularized by Frank Sinatra, with a footnote that regrets have been “too few to mention.” William Ernest Henley’s poem, “Invictus” provides another apt motto: “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”

In contrast to the Narcissist’s emphasis on individuality, those with a healthy dose of intrinsic self-worth gravitate more toward the middle of the individuality—belonging spectrum. This stance recognizes that one’s achievements have not occurred in a vacuum, but rest upon the previous and current contributions of others. With identity so interwoven with the fabric of the environment, the idea of a distinct individual identity might be considered an illusion (as suggested by the Buddhist concept of “interbeing” developed by Thich Nhat Hanh). Such a perspective should not be taken as favoring belonging over individuality, as those with intrinsic self-worth are usually quite willing and able to express their individuality by declaring their own positions on issues of consequence when in conflict with others.

Narcissism and Relating to Others

The Narcissists’ emphasis on conditional self-esteem leads them to relate to others competitively, as their self-esteem hinges on their perceived superiority to others. This often escalates to an “us versus them” mentality, with this conflict providing the drama with which to draw further attention to the Narcissists. When they form alliances, these tend to be transient. Narcissists are not to be trusted, as they will break these alliances when no longer self-serving, either going their own way or forming new alliances. For the Narcissists, competition invariably trumps cooperation, even when it may not appear so on the surface.

In contrast to the Narcissists, those embodying intrinsic self-esteem typically extend the same respect to others that they have for themselves. Since they are comfortable with themselves as they are, they do not feel threatened by others who demonstrate qualities comparable or even superior to their own. Since they are comfortable with their own outlooks on life, they do not feel threatened by positions other than their own – in fact, they usually welcome diversity with the understanding that it broadens their horizons and enriches their understanding of themselves and the world around them. Thus, their sense of belonging, even with others different from themselves, allows them to relate to others cooperatively. Still, their confidence in their values and convictions allows them to disagree with others, respecting them as worthy adversaries, not inferior people.

The Vicious Cycle Patterns Involving Narcissists

Narcissism does not operate in a vacuum, but depends upon a social context for its existence and expression. There are relatively stable interaction patterns which serve to maintain its expression, even though the results are frequently rather dysfunctional for all involved. These qualities fit the pattern of vicious cycles, which I have explored in depth in my page, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0. Of particular relevance is the Critic – Victim/Rebel – Rescuer cycle, derived from Steven Karpman’s Drama Triangle, described in Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. At different times the Narcissist may play out the roles of the Critic and the Rescuer, while at other times the Narcissist role is a variant of the Victim/Rebel role. In this latter scenario, the supporting cast includes an Entourage of Admirers (a variant of the Rescuer role), as well as Critics.

critic-narcissist-entourage-cycle2

The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Adversaries

Since the Narcissist role is oriented toward enhancing conditional self-worth, it requires either a quest to surmount or others to best: in competition, there can’t be winners without losers, and for the winner, the more losers the better. Competitors may find themselves the Victims of Narcissists when they are seeking the same objective for which there can be only one winner. And whether the challenge is a project or a contest, Narcissists need someone to hold responsible for the inevitable setbacks, mistakes, and failures. Here, the Narcissists shift into the Critic mode to blame their designated scapegoats: the buck stops there. The scapegoats fit into the Victim role when they are subordinates or the disenfranchised who lack the authority or skills to challenge the blame assigned to them, and thus pose little threat to the Narcissists. Other frequent targets of the Narcissists are their detractors, who generally fall into the Critic role. Narcissists often seek to neutralize the negative feedback through a counterattack aimed at discrediting their Critics. They may use various logical fallacies and emotionally-charged distortions to keep these adversaries off balance. With their penchant for the competitive mode of interaction, they are often quite practiced and skillful at these verbal skills, such that they hold a distinct advantage over those whose nature is more collaborative.

The Narcissist Role in Relation to Its Supporters

Narcissists are also rather practiced in playing to their supporters, who represent a variation of the Rescuer role described in the earlier webpage on vicious cycles. With their intense need for affirmation, Narcissists require a whole Entourage of allies, sidekicks, posses, and loyal fans who profess unconditional loyalty to their leaders. Narcissists may acquire trophy wives or boy toys who enhance their status while accepting their own subordinate positions. Their fans not only accept the Narcissists’ projection of blame onto others for their own shortcomings, but often admire the panache with which this feat is accomplished. In return, Narcissists provide their fans with an opportunity to live vicariously through their successes and conquests.

Predisposing Vulnerabilities for Vicious Cycle Interactions

There are certain qualities and shortcomings that predispose individuals toward assuming vicious cycle roles with Narcissists, whether or not they seek out this interaction. Those lacking in both intrinsic and conditional self-esteem are susceptible to the gravitational pulls of either the Critic role or the Admirer role in the Narcissists’ Entourage. Narcissists have a knack for pulling vulnerable individuals into their orbit, whether that be in opposition or in affirmation. Imbalances along the Individuality – Belonging continuum also increases susceptibility to the roles complementary to the Narcissist. Critics tend to occupy positions toward the individuality pole, whereas the Entourage of Admirers is generally situated toward the belonging pole.

The Pull of the Critic Role

The Critic role compensates for a lack of intrinsic self-worth by fostering conditional self-worth, as their pointing out the negative qualities of others allows them to feel superior by comparison. Like the Narcissist, the Critic role emphasizes individuality and self-righteous superiority in passing judgment on others different from oneself. Yet because Critics often lacks the Narcissists’ conditional self-worth (or at least not to the same grandiose level), they are often reluctant to express their own individuality by advocating for their own causes or positions – such actions would risk the censure of others, thus jeopardizing their tenuous sense of self-worth. Individuals who value order and predictability for their sense of security and well-being often gravitate toward the Critic role in relation to Narcissists, who tend to play by their own set of rules. Constrained by their own sense of propriety, Critics may harbor resentment or even envy for the Narcissists’ blatant disregard for basic civility (which is sometimes disparaged as political correctness). These negative feelings only serve to intensify the force field drawing them into adversarial engagement.

The Pull of the Entourage Roles

Individuals lacking in both intrinsic and conditional self-worth may find themselves drawn into orbit around the Narcissist in a supportive rather than a critical manner. The various roles within the Narcissists’ Entourage (e.g., sidekicks, posses, and the fans) compensate for their deficits in intrinsic self-worth, though in a manner quite different from the Critic role: individuals derive a vicarious identity and sense of self-worth through their association with their idol. These individuals tend toward the belonging end of the individuality – belonging continuum: they prefer to fit in rather than stand out, which lends itself to conformity. Like many Critics, they are reluctant to express their own individuality and risk censure. When they do express criticism, it usually involves parroting the Narcissists’ complaints about their Critics. These features predispose these individuals to be attracted to dynamic personalities who express out loud but they harbor in silence. They function like planets captured in orbit by the gravitational pull of the sun, with their visibility provided only by their reflecting the light emanating from the sun. This Entourage of Admirers is highly protective and supportive of their sun god, particularly since their own sense of self-worth is inextricably tied to the reputation of the Narcissist around whom they circle. Expressing their misgivings or reservations about their idol can be rather risky, as it could provoke the idol to eject them from their orbit, although it is rather doubtful that the Narcissist would even notice them.

Resisting the Force Field of Narcissists

Now that we have some understanding of the dynamic processes involved in narcissism, particularly in the social context of vicious cycle patterns, we can now work at putting this insight into practice. Through our exploration of the vicious cycle patterns, we come to the realization that all parties involved lose out where it really counts – in terms of their own personal well-being. This includes the Narcissists, who must constantly feed their insatiable conditional self-worth with the adulation of their followers and buffer it from the scathing reviews of their critics. When we come to realize that ultimately everyone loses in such interactions, we are less likely to lose our perspective and get pulled into the fray. To paraphrase a proverb from the Tao Te Ching, those who understand how the system works can have compassion for each participant in it. Such compassion can serve as an antidote to the anger, envy, resentment, and hurt which fuels the melodramatic force field surrounding Narcissists.

Another aspect to address is that deficits in self-esteem increase the susceptibility to being drawn into the vicious cycle patterns, regardless of the particular roles to which we gravitate. As addressed throughout this article, intrinsic self-esteem is the more important one to address. This quality runs much deeper than verbal attitudes, such that affirmations will only take us so far. Counseling and psychotherapy can be of significant benefit.  My article, “How Can I Like Myself Better?”: An Inquiry into Self-Esteem, explores this topic in more detail and provides more suggestions for this work.

Escaping the Particular Dysfunctional Roles

When members of the Entourage discover the “little man behind the curtain” projecting the larger-than-life image of their hero, they can begin to recognize the humanity of their idols, the shortcomings as well as the strengths. They can then reclaim for themselves the power that they had signed over to their heroes. This challenges them to define their own positions rather than swallow “hook, line, and sinker” the messages of their leaders. Then they face the challenge of taking a standing for their own convictions, which brings with it the risk of being shot down by others who favor the Critic role.

Those cast in the Victim role by Narcissists often face strong messages assaulting their self-worth, both conditional and intrinsic. By recognizing how projecting such badness or inadequacy onto others is used to shield the Narcissists’ vulnerable ego, the targets of these attacks can gain some consolation by considering the source. When victims understand that those caustic remarks say much more about the shaky foundation of the Narcissists’ self-worth than they say about their intended targets, they can come to realize that they do not need to take those messages so personally. This frees up their attention for other important matters, such as the self-empowerment that comes from defining their own qualities and values and finding their own voices in expressing them.

Individuals who find themselves in competition with Narcissists often experience strong pulls drawing them into the Victim and Critic roles. With Narcissists’ heavy reliance on conditional self-esteem for their self-worth, competition creates an intense force field around them that attracts or repels even individuals who are not normally predisposed to the Critic, Victim, or Entourage roles. Of course, such pulls could be avoided by electing not to compete with Narcissists. Yet when the competition taps into one’s strong convictions, throwing in the cards is tantamount to letting the Narcissist win by default. Staying in the game requires both interpersonal skills and strategies to outmaneuver the Narcissist and internal skills for managing the intense feelings that the Narcissist is so adept at evoking. One particular challenge is to stand one’s ground while not demonizing are or disparaging the Narcissists personally, as this invites them to play the victim card. Calling out their behavior generally works better than assailing their character. The competition can be particularly challenging for individuals who are more accustomed to cooperative or collaborative interactions, in which case the Narcissist had home court advantage. A healthy dose of intrinsic self-esteem can go a long way toward neutralizing the charged accusations which the Narcissist is prone to lob at adversaries.

When Narcissists come to recognize the tyrannical demands of their conditional self-esteem and its detrimental impact on their relationships, they can begin the work of liberating themselves from this bondage. Unfortunately, such insight usually hits home only after major blows to the ego when their houses of cards collapse. They tend to be fixated on conquest and are likely to view a more collaborative style as a sign of weakness. For that reason, they are likely to be rather critical of the concept of intrinsic self-esteem.  In their driven quest for ultimate success, they are prone to self-destruction, like Icarus, who came crashing down to earth after flying too close to the sun. Only then might they question their lifestyles and consider other ways of being. This is likely to be an uphill battle, as their sense of humiliation is likely to trump the humility required for cultivating healthy intrinsic self-worth. Redemption is possible, though, and would likely also require a shift to the center on the continuum of individuality versus belonging.

Know Thyself

Perhaps the most important lesson from this exploration is what we might learn about ourselves, which poses a greater challenge than what we might learn about others. Here we can refer to the biblical passage in which Jesus states that seeing the mote or splinter in another’s eye comes much easier than recognizing the beam in our own. In taking our own inventory of how we might enact these various vicious cycle roles, we can seek candid feedback from our trusted friends. We might also realize that those qualities that we despise in others are often ones we possess, yet deny, in ourselves. When we recognize this, we might even experience gratitude for the lessons our adversaries can teach us, but this requires humility. In the service of this self-exploration, we can work at cultivating our intrinsic self-worth by accepting ourselves for where we’re currently at, with humility being helpful on this front, as well. At the same time, we can work at extending this acceptance to others as they are.

Note that these practices in acceptance of self and others do not imply complacency or prevent our work at achieving personal growth. Another proverb from the Tao Te Ching, that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” teaches us to begin with where we are. We can work on goals such as cultivating compassion for ourselves and others, countering judgmentalism toward ourselves and others, taking the risk of opening up to others to allow their compassion for us (even if this means risking rejection), standing our ground with others who threaten our boundaries or attempt to impose their will and perspective on us, and learning to tolerate the inevitable disappointments and losses in life. This touches upon the paradox of being and becoming, which recognizes that personal change come easier when we accept ourselves for the way we are now.