“Narcissism Today”
by Kelvin H. Chin
Overview
I stay away from publicly commenting on current political beliefs and behavior. But I do not shy away from commenting on human behavior. So, the following is targeting the latter, not the former.
I hear from many of my clients worldwide who express concern about the current state of world behavior towards others. That is, how we are treating those whom we perceive as “not us.”
I think the increased treatment of others in inhumane and cruel ways is a sign of increased fear from within, and increased disconnection with who we are as individuals and as a world community of human beings. Said another way, fearing “not having enough” for oneself is seen as a threat to one’s own survival often leading one to hoard, to collect more than one needs – “just in case.”
This behavior gives rise to what in negotiation theory is called the “zero-sum game” approach. Basically, that means you take as much as you can for as long as you can and whatever is left over, the other person can have. One party’s gain is equal to the other party’s loss. But if you are a true devotee of “zero-sum game” negotiation, you are most significantly rewarded for “winning everything” and for leaving nothing for the other person – “winner takes all.” In American culture, we simply call it the “win-lose” approach.
This may work in sports. But it does not work in relationships. And living together in the world is a relationship – not a sport. And international relations is definitely not a “blood sport” like some countries are treating it.
This “splitting of the pie” approach to negotiation, where there is only one pie to go around for all involved, will only continue to take our race further down the road of conflict, “us against them,” famine and lack – unless we change our approach.
Where did this apparent culturally-accepted view that there is “only one pie to split up” come from? Arguably the “eat or be eaten” view has existed for as long as animals…and let’s be clear, humans are at their core animals…have been on Earth. We humans have simply put a nice euphemistic spin on it and just recently called it the zero-sum game.
But when did our social norms go “way off the rails” as they appear to have now? Let’s quickly look back just 75 years, so not that long in the million-year timeline of human history. How and why did things seem to unravel so fast – to where cruelty has seemingly become part of the acceptable cultural norm on so much of the Earth in 2025?
So, bear with me because if we really want to understand where we are now and how to pull ourselves out of the morass we are in, we need to understand where we came from – and potentially what mistakes we may have made along the way.
Our World History
After World War II ended in 1945, the world was a mess, to use a very non-academic term. Conservative estimates are that 70,000,000 people died worldwide during the 6 years of the war from 1939-1945 (for those of you who are not “good with numbers” that is 70 million). In today’s figures, that would translate to about 228,000,000 people dying worldwide in 6 years. Three percent of the entire population of humanity on Earth was obliterated in just 6 years, more than 30,000 people a day…every day.
Keep those numbers in mind when comparing today to then. We do not want to recreate that scenario.
Therefore, after World War II almost every country in the world needed rebuilding. Most countries in Europe and Russia, Japan, Southeast Asia and Australia literally needed to construct brand new buildings from the wartime rubble. Others in the world had retooled their industries to manufacture weapons, ammunition and armament. So those countries also were in need of rebuilding their manufacturing infrastructure to provide other goods and services. That rebuilding process worldwide gave rise to economic booms in many nations over the next 30 years.
Such was the post-war opportunity in the United States. Countries like the U.S. which had retooled its existing manufacturing sector during the war were especially well positioned to “jump start” the post-war boom. The 1950s are often called the “Golden Age of the American Middle Class.” The GI Bill (which provided free college education to 8 million World War II veterans), the interstate highway creation, the growth of suburbs, and powerful labor unions all contributed to moving more Americans quickly up the economic ladder.
In the U.S. in 1940 for example, nearly half of the households did not have indoor plumbing but by 1975, 100% of U.S. households had it. There were jobs aplenty for decades.
Then the disparity between the wealthy and the poor increased exponentially. In 1950 America, a CEO earned about 20 times more than the average company employee. Whereas today a CEO earns more than 500 times more than the typical employee in that U.S. company. CEOs used to live in the town or city where they worked, shopped in the supermarket and golfed at the local country club. Now they own and live on tropical islands with offshore bank accounts and $300 million yachts.
Without getting into the socioeconomics of how that huge disparity developed over the past 75 years, I will make some summary observations as a non-academic philosopher type.
Narcissism
I think policies and laws have been developed by both U.S. political parties, especially the rich people of both parties, that have resulted in ignoring the needs of the masses. And then the rich people of both parties have repeatedly taken advantage of the ignored masses and lied to them promising that they will take care of them. Then, instead, while the masses are not paying attention, do the opposite once they are in office. Both parties have been doing that for 50 years during our lifetime. Over and over.
Because the masses tend not to be critical thinkers, they are easily fooled and lied to. Moreover, the bad behavior of our relatively wealthy leaders then encourages other people who were not so narcissistic to become narcissistic. As a result, more of the masses I think are becoming narcissistic, only looking out for themselves. The “it’s all about me” mentality, devoid of empathy for others.
We have always been a country of “individual thinking,” “me first” types, but I think that it has taken on a different degree and coloration today. Now there seems to be a different level of aspiration and almost bizarre respect (dare I say, reverence) for narcissism which could explain the tolerance and acceptance in our culture now for such overt public daily displays of narcissistic behavior.
I think in the 1950s, 60s and 70s it was much more difficult to get an audience applauding for narcissism because people were prospering and growing so much among the masses during the heyday of the growing middle class. But now because there has been such a shrinking of the middle class, and a growing divide between the rich and the poor, I think it's much easier to sell narcissism as acceptable because the masses have associated it with wealth and power – things they do not have, yet aspire to have. And the irony is that the poor people have become as narcissistic as the rich people, living in their illusion that they think they can win the lottery and become like the rich narcissists by simply electing more wealthy narcissists who then, almost mockingly, enact more laws that benefit themselves, not the poor.
Baking Many Pies
On a positive note, I want to introduce an idea to counter the widespread display of narcissism we see today.
How about this?
How about looking at the reality that all our actions affect others around us, and their actions and behavior affect us. And that of course we each have the Free Will (personal choice) to decide however we want to act and behave. But why not act and behave in a way that not only helps us and serves our own inherent self-interest, but also act and behave in a way that helps and serves the interests of others?
Why? Because by helping them be happier, it makes my life easier – and therefore happier.
The age-old “pursuit of happiness.”
Instead of looking at life or relationships as only consisting of one pie to divide among everyone, see life and relationships as replete with the possibility of baking more pies to be divided up in many different ways. Instead of looking at your partner (husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend) as an adversary with whom you have to compete for a limited amount of time, energy and yes, affection, why not see them in the light of helping them meet their desires (mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually) which would inspire them to do the same for you?
And then, why not look at our international relationships through that same lens? The lens of Free Will (democracy) and mutually beneficial interest-based thinking.
Trusteeship
I also have a history of looking at leadership through the lens of being a trustee. What does being a “trustee” mean? In finance, a trustee has a legal, fiduciary duty to manage the trust’s assets on behalf of its beneficiaries (those who are benefited by the trust).
I have used that term in my previous leadership roles in a broader way. I am suggesting that future leaders view themselves in both the literal meaning and this broader manner.
How about we view ourselves as the trustee of every relationship we are in? In the way I am using it, this would acknowledge the Free Will of each individual involved, yet it places the responsibility on each of us to do our best to preserve, nurture and grow that relationship in a way that benefits all who are in it.
As an 18th century leader in Europe, I viewed myself as “trustee of the people.” I surrounded myself with advisors smarter than I who created national economic and banking structures to ensure the prosperity of the masses. Contrast this with many of today’s leaders who view themselves as having “won the lottery.” And now they see themselves as personally able to take as much financial advantage of their elected position as possible, even at the expense of the people who elected them.
The irony is that by continuing that behavior those leaders are guaranteed to create more and more suffering around them as they inevitably increase the disparity between themselves and the masses who elected them. But such is the behavior of insecure people who see life and relationships as “win-lose” propositions.
To counter this, we must educate ourselves to what causes such behavior. Namely, the lack of connection within oneself and the perceived solution of hoarding as much as possible from the world outside oneself, even at the expense of others.
Then we need to address the lack by encouraging people to “turn within” to develop self-confidence so that bullying does not become their go-to behavior (see my essays on “Transcending Cruelty”). And concurrently, create systems in our social and economic structures that are designed based on the “win-win” approach, not the “win-lose” alternative. So that all – whether rich, middle class or poor – are incentivized through self-interested mechanisms in the new systemic structure that also so happen to work for the good of the whole social group.
Not fight and divide what little is left afterwards…as is now being done worldwide.
