The Prodigy as Narcissistic Injury
The prodigy - the precocious "genius" - feels entitled to
special treatment. Yet, he rarely gets it. This frustrates him
and renders him even more aggressive, driven, and overachieving
than he is by nature.
As Horney pointed out, the child-prodigy is dehumanized and
instrumentalized. His parents love him not for what he really is
- but for what they wish and imagine him to be: the fulfilment
of their dreams and frustrated wishes. The child becomes the
vessel of his parents' discontented lives, a tool, the magic
brush with which they can transform their failures into
successes, their humiliation into victory, their frustrations
into happiness.
The child is taught to ignore reality and to occupy the parental
fantastic space. Such an unfortunate child feels omnipotent and
omniscient, perfect and brilliant, worthy of adoration and
entitled to special treatment. The faculties that are honed by
constantly brushing against bruising reality - empathy,
compassion, a realistic assessment of one's abilities and
limitations, realistic expectations of oneself and of others,
personal boundaries, team work, social skills, perseverance and
goal-orientation, not to mention the ability to postpone
gratification and to work hard to achieve it - are all lacking
or missing altogether.
The child turned adult sees no reason to invest in his skills
and education, convinced that his inherent genius should
suffice. He feels entitled for merely being, rather than for
actually doing (rather as the nobility in days gone by felt
entitled not by virtue of its merit but as the inevitable,
foreordained outcome of its birth right). In other words, he is
not meritocratic - but aristocratic. In short: a narcissist is
born.
Not all precocious prodigies end up under-accomplished and
petulant. Many of them go on to attain great stature in their
communities and great standing in their professions. But, even
then, the gap between the kind of treatment they believe that
they deserve and the one they are getting is unbridgeable.
This is because narcissistic prodigies often misjudge the extent
and importance of their accomplishments and, as a result,
erroneously consider themselves to be indispensable and worthy
of special rights, perks, and privileges. When they find out
otherwise, they are devastated and furious.
Moreover, people are envious of the prodigy. The genius serves
as a constant reminder to others of their mediocrity, lack of
creativity, and mundane existence. Naturally, they try to "bring
him down to their level" and "cut him down to size". The gifted
person's haughtiness and high-handedness only exacerbate his
strained relationships.
In a way, merely by existing, the prodigy inflicts constant and
repeated narcissistic injuries on the less endowed and the
pedestrian. This creates a vicious cycle. People try to hurt and
harm the overweening and arrogant genius and he becomes
defensive, aggressive, and aloof. This renders him even more
obnoxious than before and others resent him more deeply and more
thoroughly. Hurt and wounded, he retreats into fantasies of
grandeur and revenge. And the cycle re-commences.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Mistreating Celebrities - An Interview
Granted to Superinteressante Magazine in Brazil March 2005
Q. Fame and TV shows about celebrities usually have a huge
audience. This is understandable: people like to see other
successful people. But why people like to see celebrities being
humiliated?
A. As far as their fans are concerned, celebrities fulfil two
emotional functions: they provide a mythical narrative (a story
that the fan can follow and identify with) and they function as
blank screens onto which the fans project their dreams, hopes,
fears, plans, values, and desires (wish fulfilment). The
slightest deviation from these prescribed roles provokes
enormous rage and makes us want to punish (humiliate) the
"deviant" celebrities.
But why?
When the human foibles, vulnerabilities, and frailties of a
celebrity are revealed, the fan feels humiliated, "cheated",
hopeless, and "empty". To reassert his self-worth, the fan must
establish his or her moral superiority over the erring and
"sinful" celebrity. The fan must "teach the celebrity a lesson"
and show the celebrity "who's boss". It is a primitive defense
mechanism - narcissistic grandiosity. It puts the fan on equal
footing with the exposed and "naked" celebrity.
Q. This taste for watching a person being humiliated has
something to do with the attraction to catastrophes and
tragedies?
A. There is always a sadistic pleasure and a morbid fascination
in vicarious suffering. Being spared the pains and tribulations
others go through makes the observer feel "chosen", secure, and
virtuous. The higher celebrities rise, the harder they fall.
There is something gratifying in hubris defied and punished.
Q. Do you believe the audience put themselves in the place of
the reporter (when he asks something embarrassing to a
celebrity) and become in some way revenged?
A. The reporter "represents" the "bloodthirsty" public.
Belittling celebrities or watching their comeuppance is the
modern equivalent of the gladiator rink. Gossip used to fulfil
the same function and now the mass media broadcast live the
slaughtering of fallen gods. There is no question of revenge
here - just Schadenfreude, the guilty joy of witnessing your
superiors penalized and "cut down to size".
Q. In your country, who are the celebrities people love to hate?
A. Israelis like to watch politicians and wealthy businessmen
reduced, demeaned, and slighted. In Macedonia, where I live, all
famous people, regardless of their vocation, are subject to
intense, proactive, and destructive envy. This love-hate
relationship with their idols, this ambivalence, is attributed
by psychodynamic theories of personal development to the child's
emotions towards his parents. Indeed, we transfer and displace
many negative emotions we harbor onto celebrities.
Q. I would never dare asking some questions the reporters from
Panico ask the celebrities. What are the characteristics of
people like these reporters?
A. Sadistic, ambitious, narcissistic, lacking empathy,
self-righteous, pathologically and destructively envious, with a
fluctuating sense of self-worth (possibly an inferiority
complex).
6. Do you believe the actors and reporters want themselves to be
as famous as the celebrities they tease? Because I think this is
almost happening...
A. The line is very thin. Newsmakers and newsmen and women are
celebrities merely because they are public figures and
regardless of their true accomplishments. A celebrity is famous
for being famous. Of course, such journalists will likely to
fall prey to up and coming colleagues in an endless and
self-perpetuating food chain...
7. I think that the fan-celebrity relationship gratifies both
sides. What are the advantages the fans get and what are the
advantages the celebrities get?
A. There is an implicit contract between a celebrity and his
fans. The celebrity is obliged to "act the part", to fulfil the
expectations of his admirers, not to deviate from the roles that
they impose and he or she accepts. In return the fans shower the
celebrity with adulation. They idolize him or her and make him
or her feel omnipotent, immortal, "larger than life",
omniscient, superior, and sui generis (unique).
What are the fans getting for their trouble?
Above all, the ability to vicariously share the celebrity's
fabulous (and, usually, partly confabulated) existence. The
celebrity becomes their "representative" in fantasyland, their
extension and proxy, the reification and embodiment of their
deepest desires and most secret and guilty dreams. Many
celebrities are also role models or father/mother figures.
Celebrities are proof that there is more to life than drab and
routine. That beautiful - nay, perfect - people do exist and
that they do lead charmed lives. There's hope yet - this is the
celebrity's message to his fans.
The celebrity's inevitable downfall and corruption is the
modern-day equivalent of the medieval morality play. This
trajectory - from rags to riches and fame and back to rags or
worse - proves that order and justice do prevail, that hubris
invariably gets punished, and that the celebrity is no better,
neither is he superior, to his fans.
8. Why are celebrities narcissists? How is this disorder born?
No one knows if pathological narcissism is the outcome of
inherited traits, the sad result of abusive and traumatizing
upbringing, or the confluence of both. Often, in the same
family, with the same set of parents and an identical emotional
environment - some siblings grow to be malignant narcissists,
while others are perfectly "normal". Surely, this indicates a
genetic predisposition of some people to develop narcissism.
It would seem reasonable to assume - though, at this stage,
there is not a shred of proof - that the narcissist is born with
a propensity to develop narcissistic defenses. These are
triggered by abuse or trauma during the formative years in
infancy or during early adolescence. By "abuse" I am referring
to a spectrum of behaviors which objectify the child and treat
it as an extension of the caregiver (parent) or as a mere
instrument of gratification. Dotting and smothering are as
abusive as beating and starving. And abuse can be dished out by
peers as well as by parents, or by adult role models.
Not all celebrities are narcissists. Still, some of them surely
are.
We all search for positive cues from people around us. These
cues reinforce in us certain behaviour patterns. There is
nothing special in the fact that the narcissist-celebrity does
the same. However there are two major differences between the
narcissistic and the normal personality.
The first is quantitative. The normal person is likely to
welcome a moderate amount of attention