Many of you have heard of pro-social or communal narcissists. These are narcissists whose locus of grandiosity is in their ostentatious morality.
These kinds of narcissists go around saying, I'm the most honest person ever. I'm a just person. I'm all for justice. I'm moral. I'm ethical. I'm altruistic. I'm charitable. I'm magnanimous. And in short, I'm amazing.
So these narcissists leverage their ethics, their moral behavior, their communal contributions, they leverage them in order to garner narcissistic supply.
Everything they do is in the public eye. Everything is publicized. Everything is conspicuous. Everything is ostentatious. Everything is in your face. Look at me. What a wonderful person I am. Committed to justice, to morality, to ethics, to social causes, to political causes. Look at me. I'm an activist. look at me, I'm all for equality and equity and so.
So the locus of grandiosity of these narcissists is in their ability to conform to social expectations and do good.
These narcissists actually contribute to society. Many of them become pillars of the community. Many of them engage in altruistic charitable acts.
And so they are not, unlike typical narcissists, unlike run of the mill, pedestrian common narcissists, this particular sub-variant or subspecies of narcissists is actually beneficial to other people and or to himself or herself. It's a good kind of narcissist.
But what is the motivation behind all this? What drives these actions? This sharing, this caring, this compassion, this empathy, this pronounced morality. What is behind all this?
Some people might say, who cares? Who cares what's the motivation? As long as these narcissists go around, contributing to society, making things better, helping people, support, provide affording, support and succor and advice and help? Who cares why they are doing it?
And I fully agree, by the way. I think motivation is much less important than choices and decisions and actions.
Moreover, I think motivation is not transparent. In other words, people rarely know why they do what they do, let alone observers. Observers are absolutely at a loss as to what motivates people and what drives them. There are serious problems with what we call mentalization or theory of mind, the ability to grasp the inner mechanics and inner processes and inner dynamics of people, the ability to understand what makes them tick.
So normally and generally, I don't care what motivates a prosocial or communal narcissist to act the way they do.
However, in this particular video, I would like to make a distinction between two types of do-gooders.
The do-gooder who places an emphasis on actually the benefits or the contributions to society and the do-gooder who places an emphasis on his or her self-image.
So there's a do-gooder who uses good acts and contributions to manage impressions. It's a form of impression management.
And there's a good doer who actually does good because it sustains his internal perception of himself or herself.
And this is the distinction between Deontic do-gooders and Eretaiq do-gooders.
The topic of today's video, the narcissist of appearances versus the narcissist of substance.
And I propose narcissist of appearances.
My name is Sam Vaknin. I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited. And that is the first book to have ever dealt with narcissistic abuse. I'm also a professor of clinical psychology.
And we dive right into the topic of prosocial narcissists, Eretaiq, not Deontic.
Deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do. These are known as Deontic theories.
In other words, there's a whole branch of ethics, which in itself is a branch of philosophy. There's a whole branch of ethics which deals with a question, whatwe do? How ought we to act the shoulds and the oughts, the prescriptions to a life which is essentially life of morality and ethics.
So, deontic theories deal with the question, what is the life of morality and ethics.
So, deontic theories deal with the question, what is the appropriate behavior? What is the right thing to do? How should we behave? How we ought to behave? And how we should be penalized if we don't behave this way.
There's another type of theories, another group of theories, known as aretaic theories, or virtue theories.
These theories deal with the question of what kind of person acts morally. What kind of person is virtuous?
In other words, deontic theories place emphasis on actions and choices and decisions.
Deontic theories tell us what is right to do and what is wrong to do.
Deontic theories are closely allied with what we call conscience, or what Freud called, the superego.
Aretic theories deal with the question, what kind of person behaves appropriately? What kind of person is charitable, altruistic, prosocial, communal? What kind of person is virtuous?
So the first group of theories, the Deontic theories, place emphasis on actions and morality and choices.
And the second group of theories, aretaic theories, place emphasis on the individual who is virtuous, who is ethical, who is moralistic.
Naturally, all narcissists, all prosocial and communal narcissists are aretaic. They are not deontic.
Prosocial and communal narcissists couldn't care less what is the right thing to do. They care about their self-image. They care about their appearances.
Narcissists are about appearances and looks, not about substance.
So the narcissist couldn't care less whether his actions or choices or decisions are moral, ethical, charitable, altruistic. He couldn't care less about any of this. He couldn't care less about the right thing to do, what he should do, what he ought to do.
But he cares a lot about how he or she is perceived by others. He cares a lot about the aretaic aspect.
What would a charitable person do? What would a virtuous person do? What kind of choices and decisions are typical of a moralist, moral agent of an ethical person?
And then the narcissists simply imitates this. He simulates the behavior of an ethical or moral or virtuous or altruistic or charitable person.
His emphasis is on how he is perceived by others, not on whether his actions and choices are the right ones.
Narcissists are not deontic. They are aretaic. They are concerned with the question, what kind of person am I, or more precisely, what kind of person I'm perceived to be? How am I observed and perceived from the outside?
The more I act morally, the more I act justly, the more I decide and make choices which are virtuous, the more grandiose I am, the more godlike I am, the more perfect I am.
So narcissists leverage morality and ethics and virtue in order to garner narcissistic supply and sustain their inflated, fantastic, counterfactual, unrealistic, self-concept or self-image.
Narcissists would make use of anything in order to sustain their grandiosity, and morality and ethics are no exception.
So many of the gurus you see online, many of the great charitable people, many of them are actually narcissists.
Virtue ethics or aretaic theories, it's one of three major approaches to normative ethics.
So, Aretic theories emphasize the virtues or the moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules, which is more typical of the deontic.
Narcissists don't do rules. The narcissist is above the law. The narcissist is a law unto himself. He never obeys strictures, edicts, and expectations. He never complies with norms and mores. He is his own judge and jury.
And so the narcissist can never be deontic. He can never obey some kind of deontology because a deontology is prescriptive. Deontology tells you what you should do what you ought to do and narcissists would never ever obey anyone or anything so deontology is out of the window.
What remains is virtue theory, aretaic theory.
How should I act in order to be perceived as a benevolent, amazingly good person?
And so the emphasis is on this, on behavior. Behavior that is observable, that is ostentatious, that is documented, and that is admired and fawned upon, rather than simply being a good person, for the sake of being a good person.
And so the emphasis is on the consequences of actions, but not on the consequences themselves, but on how people perceive the consequences.
So it's not actually what we call in philosophy consequentialism. It is something, it's a hybrid that has no name in philosophy. And I would suggest to call it ostentatious consequentialism.
It is obvious that someone in need should be helped. It is obvious that someone in trouble should be supported, given advice, and afforded succor.
A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of acting this way will maximize well-being.
So the utilitarian will tell you, if you help people, one day they will help you. And if you help people, you're increasing the overall good, the general good.
A consequentialist will tell you that there are consequences to actions. And when you do good, the consequences are good.
A deontologist would point to the fact that in helping people, the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral code, with a moral rule.
For example, the rule, do unto others as you would be done by. That's a rule. So following the rule you should help other people because you want to be helped in a similar situation. You should treat people charitably because if you were in this situation or you would be in the future in this situation, you would like to benefit from other people's charity, altruism, compassion and empathy. It's a kind of investment in an empathy bank or a compassion bank.
But a virtue ethicist, an aretaic philosopher, let's say. So the aretaic philosopher would tell you that helping the person would make you look charitable and benevolent.
And that's where aretaic theories fit well with narcissism.
What distinguishes virtue ethics, the aretaic theories, from consequentialism or deontology, is the centrality of virtue within the theory.
I refer you to works by Watson and Kowal and others. It is the virtue that matters.
But how can we judge virtue?
The only way to judge virtue is by forging a social consensus.
In other words, virtue is always the consequence of multiple observations, by peers, by society, by a reference group, and in-group. Virtue is a social construct, not an individual element. Virtue is what society kind of decides is commendable.
So virtue is closely associated with admiration, with adulation, with approbation, with affirmation.
When you're virtuous, everyone admires you. When you are virtuous, you gain the approval of other people. There's no virtue outside the social context.
And that's why narcissists are aretaic.
In other words, they put emphasis on how they are seen, how they're perceived by people.
They're virtuous because it pays. They're virtuous because it's an easy way to obtain supply.
Think Mother Theresa, for example.
Consequentialists define virtues as traits that yield good consequences. Deontologists define virtues as traits possessed by those who reliably fulfill their duties.
Virtue ethicists, which are essentially narcissists, resist the attempt to define virtue in terms of some other concept that is taken to be more fundamental.
Rather, they say that virtues and vices are foundational for virtue ethical theories and other normative motions are grounded in them.
In other words, what aretaic theories say, virtues are the outcomes of social consensus and approbation and acclimation. Virtues are social acts.
If you are isolated on an island like Robinson Crusoe without even Friday, then there's no point in being virtuous.
And so this fits the narcissistic mindset to perfection.
And now, have a look at something I've done, I've recorded much earlier, about 10 or 15 years ago, about the men of substance versus the men of appearance.
My name is Sam Vaknin. I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.
Why do some narcissists end up being overachievers, pillars of their communities, and accomplished professionals, while their brethren, other narcissists, fade into obscurity, having done little of note in their lives?
Well, there seems to be two types of narcissists.
Those who derive ample narcissistic supply from mere appearances, and those whose narcissistic supply consists of doing substantial deeds, of acting as change agents, of making a difference, and of creating and producing things of value.
The former type of narcissist, the narcissist that is content with appearances, make-believe, facades, and so on, they aim for celebrity, defined as being famous for being famous.
The latter type of narcissists, the substantial narcissist, the narcissist who is interested in doing real things and having really impact, they aim for careers in the limelight, but still careers.
The celebrity narcissist has a short attention span. He repeatedly cycles between the idealization and evaluation of subjects, ideas, ventures, places, people, hobbies, professions, vocations and avocations.
This rapid cycling renders the narcissist unfit for teamwork and for developing a long-term career path.
Though energetic and manic, this type of narcissist is indolent. He prefers the path of least resistance and adheres to shoddy standards of production and shady deals.
His lack of work ethic can be partly attributed to his overpowering sense of entitlement and to his magical thinking. Both these give rise to unrealistic expectations of effortless outcomes.
The life of the celebrity narcissists, the narcissist who is interested in appearances, is very chaotic and characterized by inconsistency and by a dire lack of long-term planning and commitment.
This kind of narcissist is not really interested in people or immersed in their lives, except in their roles as instruments of instant gratification, the sources of narcissistic supply.
For him, people are two-dimensional cardboard cutouts, fulfilling certain functions in his life.
His learning and affected erudition are designed solely to impress and are therefore shallow and anecdotal.
Such narcissists usually completely forget what they have learned a few years or months after their learning or knowledge has lost its appeal to others.
The celebrity narcissist actions are not geared towards creating works of lasting value, towards affecting change or making a difference.
All he cares about is attention, provoking, in garnering it in copious quantities.
The celebrity narcissistic is therefore not above, confabulating, plagiarizing, and otherwise using shortcuts to obtain his daily fix narcissistic supply.
Well, this is massively different to the other type of narcissists.
The other strain of narcissists, the career narcissist, or substantial narcissist, is very concerned with leaving his mark and stamp of the world, with his legacy.
He feels a calling, often of cosmic significance.
He is busy reforming his environment, transforming his milieu, making a difference, and producing and creating an oeuvre of standing value.
This kind of narcissist has a grandiose idea fix which he cathects, invests with emotional energy.
To scale these lofty, self-imputed peaks, and to realize his goals, the career substantial narcissist acts with unswerving passion and commitment.
He plans and inexorably and ruthlessly implements his schemes and strategists, a workaholic in pursuit of glory and fame.
The career substantial narcissists does not recoil from cutting the odd corner, preferring the occasional confabulation, or absconding with the fruits of someone else's labour.
But while these amount to the entire arsenal and the exclusive modus operandi of the celebrity narcissist, they are merely auxiliary as far as the career substantial narcissist is concerned.
The career narcissist's main weapon is hard toil. He is not indolent or lazy, on the contrary.
The career narcissist is a natural-born leader as well. When he is not a guru at the center of a cult, he operates the first among equals in a team.
This is where the differences between the celebrity narcissists and the career narcissist are most pronounced.
The relationships maintained by the celebrity narcissist are ephemeral, manipulative, exploitative.
The career narcissist, a substantial narcissist by comparison, he is willing and able to negotiate, compromise. He is well aware and well accustomed to give and take. He motivates others. He induces loyalty. He forges alliances and coalitions. And he benefits from these in the long term.
It is this capacity to network that guarantees the career substantial narcissist a place in common memory and an abiding reputation among his peers.
The celebrity narcissist, the ephemeral narcissist, simply vanishes off the stage, never to be remembered again.