Background

Are all Parents Selfish Narcissists?

Uploaded 6/14/2011, approx. 12 minute read

My name is Sam Vaknin, and I am the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.

The advent of cloning, surrogate motherhood, and the donation of gametes and sperm have shaken the traditional biological definition of parenthood to its foundations.

The social roles of parents have similarly been recast by the decline of the nuclear family and the surge in alternative household formats.

So why do people become parents in the first place? Do we have a moral obligation to humanity at large, to ourselves, to our unborn children?

Hardly so. Raising children comprises equal measures of satisfaction and frustration.

Parents often employ a psychological defense mechanism known as cognitive dissonance to suppress the negative aspects of parenting and to deny the unpalatable truth and fact that raising children is time-consuming, exhausting, and strains otherwise pleasurable, tranquil and functional relationships to their limits.

This is not to mention the fact that the gestational mother experiences, and I am quoting, considerable discomfort, effort and risk in the course of pregnancy and childbirth.

No, this is not a sentence I have written. This was written by Narayan and Bhatkovyak in 1999 in their seminal work, Having and Raising Children, published by the Pennsylvania State University Press.


So parenting is possibly an irrational vocation, yet humanity keeps breeding and procreating.

This may well be the call of nature, as many people think. All living species reproduce and most of them are re-entrant.

His maternity and paternity prove that beneath the ephemeral veneer of civilization, we are still merely kind of an animal, least, subject to the impulses and hardwired behavior that permeate the rest of the animal kingdom.

In his important book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins suggested that we copulate in order to preserve our genetic material by embedding it in a future gene pool.

Survival itself, whether in the form of DNA or on a higher level as a species, determines our parenting instincts. Breeding and nurturing the young are mere safe-contact mechanisms, handing the precious cargo of genetics down generations of organic containers known as children.

Yet surely to ignore the epistemological and emotional realities of parenthood is misleadingly reductionist.

Moreover, Dawkins commits a scientific faux pas of teleology. Nature itself has no purpose in mind because it has no mind. Things simply are in nature, period. There is no goal, no plan, no master plan. The genes end up being forwarded in time does not entail that nature or for that matter a god planned it this way.

Arguments from design have long and convincingly been refuted by countless philosophers.

Still, human beings, as opposed to nature, do act intentionally.

And so we are back to square one.

Why bring children to the world and burden ourselves with decades of commitment to perfect strangers?

Well, here's a hypothesis for you. Offspring allows us to delay death, to postpone, to procrastinate.

Our progeny are the medium through which our genetic material is propagated and immortalized.

Additionally, by remembering us, our children keep us alive after physical death.

And these, of course, are self-delusional, self-serving illusions.

Our genetic material gets diluted with time. While it constitutes 50% of the first generation, it amounts to a measly 6% three generations later.

If the everlastingness of one's unadulterated DNA was the paramount concern, incest would have been the norm, not outbreeding.

As for one's enduring memory via the generations, let's go through a simple exercise.

Do you remember or can you name your maternal or paternal great-great-great-grandfather?

Of course you can't. And that means that our memory vanishes within three to four generations.

Intellectual feats or architectural monuments are far more potent mementos of our existence than children.

Still, we have been so well indoctrinated that this misconception that children equal immortality yields a baby boom in each post-war period.

Having been existentially threatened, people multiply and procreate in the vain belief that they thus best protect their genetic heritage and their memory as persons.

So let's study another, more rational and grounded explanation.

The utilitarian view is that one's offspring are an asset, kind of a pension plan and insurance policy rolled into one. Children are still treated as a yielding property in many parts of the world.

They plow fields. They do menial jobs, very effectively. People hedge their bets by bringing multiple copies of themselves to the world.

Indeed, as infant mortality plunges in the better-educated, higher-income parts of the world, so does fecundity. The richer we are, more educated we are, the more wealthy we are, the fewer children we have.

In the Western world, though, children have long ceased to be a profitable proposition. At present, they are more of an economic drag and a liability.

Many continue to live with their parents into their thirties and consume the family's savings in college tuition, sumptuous weddings, expensive divorces, parasitic habits.

Alternatively, increasing mobility breaks families apart at an early stage. Either way, children are no longer the founts of emotional sustenance and monetary support.

They allegedly used to be in previous generations.

This explanation falls by the rule.


How about this third attempt?

Procreation serves to preserve the cohesiveness of the family nucleus. It further bonds father to mother, strengthens the ties between siblings.

Or is it the other way around? A cohesive and warm family is conductive or conducive to reproduction. Either way, they seem to be connected, functional families and reproduction.

But of course, both statements are false. Stable and functional families sport far fewer children than abnormal or dysfunctional families.

Between one-third and one-half of all children are born in single-parent or in other non-traditional, non-nuclear, or undereducated households. Such families' children are mostly born unwanted and unwelcome.

The said outcomes of accidents and mishaps, ignorance, wrong fertility planning, lust, gun, awry, and misguided turns of ignorance. The more sexually active people are, the less safe their deserious exploits, the more they are likely to end up with a bundle of joy, the American saccharine expression for a newborn.

Many children are the result of sexual ignorance, bed timing, and a vigorous and undisciplined sexual drive among teenagers, the poor, the less educated, the mentally ill, and the dysfunctional.

Still, there is no denying that most people want their kids and love them. They are attached to the kids, to their children, and they experience grief and bereavement when these children die, depart, or are sick.

Most parents find parenthood emotionally fulfilling, happiness-inducing, and highly satisfying. This pertains even to unplanned and initially unwanted new arrivals.

Could this be the missing link? Do fatherhood and motherhood revolve around self-gratification? Does it all boil down to the pleasure principle?

Child rearing may indeed be habit-forming. Nine months of pregnancy and a host of social positive reinforcement expectations can condition the parents to do the job.

Still, a living pot is nothing like the abstract concept. Babies cry. They soil themselves and their environment. They stink. They severely disrupt the lives of their parents. There's nothing too enticing in an infant, objectively speaking.

One spawns are a risky venture. So many things can and do go wrong. So few expectations, wishes, and dreams are realized. So much pain is inflicted on the parents. And then child runs off, and his procreators are left to face the emptiness.

The emotional returns on a child are rarely commensurate with the magnitude of the investment.

If you eliminate the impossible, say Sherlock Holmes, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. People multiply because it provides them with narcissistic supply.

A narcissist is a person who projects a false image onto others and uses the interest this projection generates to regulate a labile and grandiose sense of self-worth.

The reactions garnered by the narcissist, tension, unconditional acceptance, adulation, admiration, and affirmation, all these are collectively known as narcissistic supply.

The narcissist objectifies people and treats them as mere instruments of gratification to be idealized, used, abused, and discarded.

Infants go through a phase of unbridled fantasy, tyrannical behavior, and perceived omnipotence.

An adult narcissist, in other words, is still stuck in his terrible tools and is possessed with the emotional maturity of a toddler.

To some degree we are all narcissists.

Yet as we grow, we learn to empathize and to love ourselves and others. We grow out of our primary narcissism.

We do not develop what Freud called secondary malignant pathological narcissism, but narcissists do.

They are stuck in a time world. They have never grown up. This edifice of maturity is severely tested by new-found parenthood.

Babies evoke in the parent the most primordial drives, protective, animalistic instincts, the desire to merge with the newborn, and the sense of terror generated by such a desire.

It's a fear of vanishing and of being assimilated and assimilating.

Neonates engender in their parents an emotional regression. The parents find themselves revisiting their own childhoods through and via the infant, even as they are caring for the newborn.

The crumbling of decades and layers of personal growth is accompanied by a resurgence of the aforementioned early infantile narcissistic defenses.

Parents, especially new ones, are gradually transformed into narcissists by this encounter with the newborn.

They find in their children the perfect sources of narcissistic supply, euphemistically known as love.

So parenthood, child rearing, caring for children, caregiving, these really are all forms of symbolic co-dependence of both parties. The child provides narcissistic supply. The parent consumes it.

Even the most balanced, most mature, most psychodynamically stable of parents find such a flood of narcissistic supply emanating from the child irresistible and addictive. Such supply enhances the parent's self-confidence, buttresses his or her self-esteem, regulates the sense of self-worth, and projects a complementary image of the parent onto himself or herself.

And so this interaction is so addictive that it fast becomes indispensable, especially in the emotionally vulnerable position in which your parents finds herself, with the reawakening and repetition of all the unresolved conflicts that she had with her own parents.


Well if this theory of parenthood as narcissism is true, if breeding is merely about securing prime quality narcissistic supply, then the higher the self-confidence, the self-esteem, the more abundant his other sources of narcissistic supply, the fewer children such a parent will have.

And these predictions are borne out by reality.

Educated, high income, high self-esteem, self-confident people have few or no children.

And so the higher the education and the income of adults, consequently the firmer their sense of self-worth, the fewer children they have.

That's statistical law.

Children are perceived as counterproductive by these people. Not only is their output narcissistic supply redundant, they hinder the parent's professional and pecuniary progress and the parent's liberty and freedom.

The more children people can economically afford, the fewer they have. This gives the lie to the selfish gene hypothesis.

The more educated people are, the more they know about the world and about themselves, the less they seek to procreate. The more advanced the civilization, the more efforts it invests in preventing the birth of children.

In Western civilization, we spend billions of dollars in preventing pregnancy or aborting fetuses. Contraceptives, family planning and abortions are typical of affluent, well-informed society, not poor ones.

The more plentiful the narcissistic supply afforded by other sources, the lesser the emphasis on breeding.

Freud described the mechanism of sublimation. The sex drive, what he called the Eros, limiter, can be converted, sublimated into other types of activities. All the sublimatory channels, politics and art, for instance, are narcissistic. All of them yield narcissistic supply. They render children unnecessary, superfluous. Creative people have fewer children than the average, or none at all.

This is because they are narcissistically self-sufficient. They know how to generate their own narcissistic supply. They don't need children to give them narcissistic supply. They have enough.

The key to our determination to have children seems to be our wish to experience the same unconditional love that we had received or were supposed to have received from our mothers.

This intoxicating brew and feeling of being adored without caveats and without conditions for what we are with no limits, reservations or calculations. This kind of love, this kind of laser-focused attention, it's the most powerful, crystallized form of narcissistic supply.

A child's love nourishes our self-love, our self-worth, our self-confidence. It infuses us with feelings of omnipotence and omniscience.

In these and other respects, parenthood is a return to infancy. It is a type of narcissistic defense mechanism.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

Narcissist Trust Your Gut Feeling 4 Rules To Avoid Bad Relationships ( Intuition Explained)

Four keys to a successful long-term relationship include trusting your instincts, recognizing when effort feels excessive, understanding that if something seems too good to be true, it likely is, and verifying everything in today's world. People tend to lie frequently, and it's essential to be aware of this tendency to avoid being misled. Intuition plays a critical role in navigating relationships, particularly when dealing with narcissists or psychopaths, as it helps identify discrepancies and emotional dissonance. Philosophers have long discussed the nature of intuition, emphasizing its importance in understanding oneself and others, and it should be utilized alongside intellect and empathy in relationships.


20 Reasons to NOT Have Kids

There is a global trend of declining birth rates, with many people choosing not to have children due to various factors, including health, financial burdens, and environmental concerns. Research indicates that parenting can negatively impact physical and mental health, romantic relationships, and social lives, often leading to increased stress and dissatisfaction. The financial costs of raising children are substantial, with estimates suggesting that parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars from birth to adulthood, which can hinder their earning potential and overall quality of life. Additionally, children contribute significantly to environmental degradation, making the decision to forgo parenthood increasingly appealing for many individuals.


Abortion: Murder - or Human Right?

The debate surrounding abortion encompasses complex ethical, legal, and philosophical dimensions, particularly regarding the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus. The concept of consent plays a crucial role, as voluntary actions leading to pregnancy can be seen as a contract between the mother and society, which represents the fetus. The fetus's rights are often debated in terms of potentiality versus actuality, raising questions about when life and personhood begin, and whether a fetus can be considered a rights holder. Ultimately, the discussion reveals that the moral implications of abortion cannot be easily categorized as murder, as the fetus lacks consciousness and the ability to enter into a contract, complicating the ethical landscape of the issue.


Insecure Attachment Styles In Cluster B Personalities ( YOU, The Dead Mother)

Attachment styles and disorders significantly influence interpersonal relationships, particularly in individuals with personality disorders such as narcissism, psychopathy, and borderline traits. Early experiences with caregivers, especially those characterized by emotional unavailability or dysfunction, shape a child's internal working model, which persists into adulthood and affects their ability to form healthy attachments. The concept of the "dead mother" illustrates how children may internalize a painful attachment model, leading to a cycle of seeking out similar dysfunctional relationships in adulthood. Additionally, the introduction of a fifth attachment style, termed "flat attachment," highlights individuals who are incapable of forming meaningful bonds, further complicating the dynamics of attachment and emotional investment in relationships. Understanding these patterns is crucial for addressing the emotional and psychological challenges faced by individuals with complex trauma and attachment disorders.


Fascism is Political Malignant Narcissism (Brussels Morning)

The discussion centers on the characterization of Donald Trump as a fascist, drawing parallels between his rhetoric and historical fascist ideologies. Key points include the examination of fascism's inherent contradictions, such as the tension between individualism and collectivism, and the exclusionary nature of its progress narrative, which often targets specific groups as undesirable. The lecture argues that Trump's political style embodies these fascist traits, aligning him with a broader trend of populist leaders who exploit democratic systems to gain power. Ultimately, the conclusion is that Trump exemplifies fascism rather than merely being a proto-fascist.


From Insecure to Flat Attachment: Narcissists, Psychopaths Never Bond (Compilation)

Attachment styles play a crucial role in shaping interpersonal relationships, with some individuals exhibiting what is termed "flat attachment," characterized by an inability to bond or relate to others. Flat attachers view people as interchangeable objects, moving seamlessly from one relationship to another without mourning the loss of previous connections. This detachment is often seen in narcissists and psychopaths, who lack the capacity for genuine intimacy and instead engage in superficial interactions. In contrast, individuals with secure or insecure attachment styles experience emotional complexities that influence their relationships, often leading to patterns of idealization and devaluation. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics is essential for navigating the challenges of intimacy and connection in human relationships.


FIREWALL YOUR Relationships, Yourself: Boundaries vs. Borders

Borders in relationships are interpersonal and consensual, allowing selective communication and requiring protocols, while boundaries are individual, declared rules of conduct that protect personal dignity and rights. Borders introduce structure and order within a relationship, whereas boundaries are firm limits that must be communicated clearly and enforced consistently. Intimacy involves a delicate balance between vulnerability and maintaining personal autonomy, making it a paradoxical endeavor. Individuals with personality disorders often struggle with both borders and boundaries, leading to difficulties in establishing secure and healthy relationships.


Understanding Your Past and Future Relationships

Sam Vaknin discusses the importance of understanding the components of romantic relationships, including mate selection, relationship models, and termination triggers. He suggests that individuals should prioritize their expectations of relationships, including love, desire, stability, personal growth, and sexual compatibility. Additionally, he recommends identifying commitment triggers and predictors, building trust, and defining roles and responsibilities. By understanding these factors and establishing communication protocols with partners, individuals can increase the longevity of their relationships.


Narcissistic and Psychopathic Politicians and Leaders

Narcissistic and psychopathic leaders embody the cultural and societal traits of their time, often rising to power in environments that reflect their pathologies. Their leadership creates a feedback loop of admiration and idealization between them and their followers, who find hope in the leader's grandiosity and delusions. As these leaders face criticism or a shift in public sentiment, they react with aggression and devaluation, often justifying violence against their own people as a means of self-preservation. Ultimately, the aftermath of their reign leaves their followers in a state of disillusionment and trauma, struggling to rebuild trust and recover from the manipulation and exploitation they endured.


Interrogate Your Partner: Their Past is Your Future

When considering a potential intimate partner, it is essential to thoroughly understand their past, as it can significantly influence your future together. Full disclosure about personal and sexual history is crucial for making informed decisions, and withholding information should be seen as a red flag. People generally do not change fundamentally, so past behaviors are strong indicators of future actions, making it vital to ask detailed questions about their history. Ultimately, while you should not judge your partner for their past, you have the right to know the truth to protect yourself from potential negative outcomes in the relationship.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2024, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy