The Psychology of Narcissism | The Erich Fromm Channel

This video will be outlining the philosopher Eric Thumb's ideas on the subject of narcissism. As a practicing psychoanalyst, narcissism was one of many veins of psychology that interested him. Narcissism is something which is frequently spoken about and reflected upon. One reason might be the fact that many people have suffered in their relationships with other people: with partners, friends, parents, and even strangers. The damaging diagnosis is given: they are such a narcissist.

Fromm said that narcissism begins at birth. The only reality that exists for the infant is itself—its body, its physical sensations of cold and warmth, thirst, need for sleep, and bodily contact. It takes many months before the infant can even perceive objects outside as such, as part of the "not me." We might also say that the infant is not interested in the world outside. Fromm points to the Latin root of the word "interested," which comes from the Latin "interesse"—to be in, to be among, or to be over there, rather than to be shut in within oneself. By many blows to the child's narcissism—ever-increasing acquaintance with the outside world and its laws—the child develops. In normal development, this state of narcissism is slowly overcome by a growing awareness of reality outside and by a correspondingly growing sense of "I" as differentiated from "thou."

For the narcissistically involved person, there is only one reality: that of their own thought processes, feelings, and needs. The development of the individual can be defined as the evolution from absolute narcissism to a capacity for objective reasoning and love. However, it seems that in most people, one can find a narcissistic core which is not accessible and which defies any attempt at complete dissolution. [Music] [Music] Um, Fromm said that the analysis of the narcissistic experience has been mainly applied to early infancy and to psychosis, but its far-reaching importance lies precisely in its role for the so-called normal personality. Fromm said that narcissism is something we can all observe; it is easy to see in others, somewhat harder to see in ourselves.

A narcissistic person considers only those things real and important that directly affect them: my ideas, my body, my possessions, my opinions, my feelings—all those things are real, and what is not mine is pale stuff that hardly exists at all. The rest of the world is weightless or colorless. Everybody and everything that does not form part of the person or their needs is not interesting, not fully real; it's perceived only by intellectual recognition, while effectively without weight and color. Because of this, the narcissistic person shows severe defects in judgment and lacks the capacity for objectivity. Often, the narcissistic person achieves a sense of security in their own entirely subjective conviction of their perfection, their superiority over others, their extraordinary qualities. The most dangerous result of narcissistic attachment is the distortion of rational judgment. In people under the influence of alcohol, the distortion is usually obvious. What we see is someone who talks in a superficial and banal way, yet with the air and intonation of one voicing the most wonderful and interesting words. Subjectively, they have a euphoric, "on top of the world" feeling, while in reality they are in a state of self-inflation. All this does not mean that they'll necessarily be boring; if they are gifted or intelligent, they will produce interesting ideas.

There is one type that is easily recognized: that is the kind of person who shows all the signs of self-satisfaction. One can see that when they say some trivial words, they feel as if they have said something of great importance. They usually don't listen to what others say, nor are they really interested. However, if they are clever, they might try to hide this fact by asking questions and making it a point to seem interested. Fromm references The Joker, a writer meeting a friend and talking to them for a long time about himself. He then says, "I've talked so long about myself, let us now talk about you. How did you like my latest book?" This is typical of many who are preoccupied with themselves and who pay little attention to others except as echoes of themselves. The need to talk incessantly is perhaps the most obvious example of narcissism.

Fromm said as they've made their self-image the object of their narcissistic attachment, they do the same with everything connected with them: their ideas, knowledge, their possessions, but also people in their sphere of interest. The most frequent example is probably the narcissistic attachment to one's children. Many parents believe that their own children are the most beautiful, intelligent, and so on, in comparison with other children. It seems that the younger the children are, the more intense is the narcissistic bias. The parent's love is, to a considerable extent, love for the infant as an extension of oneself. Similarly, Fromm said that romantic love often has a narcissistic quality. A man who is in love with a woman may transfer his narcissism to her. Once she has become his, precisely because of her being a part of him, she becomes the bearer of extraordinary qualities.

A solution for narcissistic individuals consists in getting the consensus of one other person—a folie à deux. Both people remain in their narcissism, and they have no real deep interest in each other. They remain touchy and suspicious, and most likely each of them will be in need of a new person who can give them fresh narcissistic satisfaction. The partner is never a person in their own right or in their full reality; they exist only as a shadow of the partner's narcissistically inflated ego. Non-pathological love, on the other hand, is not based on mutual narcissism. It is a relationship between two people who experience themselves as separate entities, yet who can open themselves to and become one with each other. In order to experience love, one must experience separateness. Narcissism conflicts with reason and love. This statement hardly needs further elaboration.

One can also recognize the narcissistic person by their sensitivity to any kind of criticism. This sensitivity can be expressed by denying the validity of any criticism or by acting with anger or depression. The intensity of their anger can be fully understood only if one considers that the narcissistic person is unrelated to the world and, as a consequence, is alone and hence frightened. It is a sense of aloneness and fright which is compensated for by their narcissistic self-inflation. They tend to feel that criticism is a hostile attack, since they cannot imagine that it is just deserved. I think of a brilliant yet highly narcissistic man who, when confronted with the results of a raw shark test he had taken and which fell short of the ideal picture he had of himself, said, "I am very sorry for the psychologist who did this test; he must have been very paranoid." It is also not rare for a person to take their humility as the object of their self-admiration. Whatever the different manifestations of narcissism are, a lack of genuine interest in the outside world is common to all forms of narcissism. Fromm believed narcissism can also manifest in a person's facial expression. He said often we find a kind of glow or smile which gives the impression of smugness to some, of trusting childlikeness to others. Often, the narcissism in its most extreme forms manifests itself in a peculiar glitter in the eyes, taken by some as a symptom of half-saintliness, by others of half-craziness.

Fromm made the distinction between being paranoid versus being neurotic. He said the paranoid person is convinced that others are conspiring against them. This is precisely the difference to the neurotic person; the latter may be constantly afraid of being hated, persecuted, and so on, but they still know that this is what they fear. For the paranoid person, the fear has been transformed into a fact. This is captured in the joke: "What is the difference between a neurotic and a psychotic? The psychotic says two and two are five; the neurotic says two and two are four, but it worries me." Fromm also made a distinction between selfishness and narcissism. He said intense narcissism implies an inability to experience reality in its fullness. Intense selfishness implies to have little concern, love, or sympathy for others, but it does not necessarily imply blindness to objective reality. A person may have broken through the shell of their narcissism, have an adequate appreciation of reality outside themselves, not necessarily be in love with themselves; nevertheless, they want everything for themselves. They are lonely, unrelated, and their strength lies in what they have and the security of keeping it. They are a closed fortress, suspicious of others, eager to take and most reluctant to give. On the other hand, the very narcissistic person is by no means necessarily selfish, egocentric, or property-oriented; they can be generous, giving, and tender, although all these characteristics must be qualified by the fact that to them the other person is not fully experienced as real.

The term "narcissist" originates from the ancient Greek myth in Ovid's Metamorphoses, depicted here in John Waterhouse's 1903 painting "Echo and Narcissus." Fromm mentions this myth when describing the phenomenon of negative narcissism, which Fromm said was originally classified by Carl Abraham. Fromm said that Narcissus was a beautiful lad who rejected the love of the nymph Echo. Nemesis punished him by making him fall in love with the reflection of his own image in the water of the lake. He fell into the lake and died. The Greek legend clearly indicates that this is a curse and that in its extreme form it ends in self-destruction.

Fromm said, "Let us look at two phenomena which are apparently extremely different, and yet both of which are narcissistic." A woman spends many hours every day before the mirror to fix her hair and face. It is not simply that she is vain; she is obsessed with her body and her beauty, and her body is the only important reality she knows. She comes perhaps nearest to the Greek legend of Narcissus. Another woman suffers from hypochondria; she is constantly preoccupied with her body, although not in the sense of making it beautiful, but in fearing illness, being sick, or dying. This could also manifest as someone who is constantly preoccupied with guilt about things that they have done wrong, with sins they have committed. It is characterized by feelings of inadequacy, unreality, and self-accusation. Negative narcissism is less apparent as such to the untrained eye. Why the positive or the negative image is chosen has its reasons; however, we need not deal with these here. What matters is that behind both phenomena lies the same narcissistic preoccupation with oneself, with little interest left for the outside world.

In discussing the pathology of narcissism, it is important to distinguish between two forms of narcissism: one benign, the other malignant. In the benign form, the object of narcissism is the result of a person's effort. Thus, for instance, a person may have a narcissistic pride in their work as a carpenter, a scientist, or as a farmer. Inasmuch as the object of the narcissism is something which they have to work for, their exclusive interest in what is their work and their achievement is constantly balanced by their interest in the process of work itself and the material with which they are working. The dynamics of this benign narcissism thus are self-checking. This mechanism may explain why we find so many narcissistic people who are at the same time highly creative. In the case of malignant narcissism, the object of narcissism is not anything the person does or produces, but something they have: for instance, their body, looks, wealth, etc. The malignant nature of this type of narcissism lies in the fact that it lacks the corrective element that we find in the benign form. If I am great because of some quality that I have and not because of something that I achieve, I do not need to be related to anybody or anything. I need not make any effort in maintaining the picture of my greatness. I remove myself more and more from reality. Malignant narcissism thus is not self-limiting and, in consequence, it is crudely solipsistic as well as xenophobic. One who has learned to achieve cannot help acknowledging that others have achieved similar things in similar ways, even if their narcissism may persuade them that their own achievement is greater than that of others. One who has achieved nothing will find it difficult to appreciate the achievements of others and thus will be forced to isolate themselves increasingly in narcissistic splendor, which brings us to our next point: megalomania.

Fromm said that most people are not aware of their own narcissism. Usually, the person is convinced that there is no bias and that their judgment is subjective and realistic. If someone has achieved something that finds recognition in the field of art, science, sports, business, or politics, that narcissistic attitude appears not only to be realistic and rational, but it is also constantly fed by the admiration of others. In these cases, they can give full reign to their narcissism because it has been socially sanctioned and confirmed. There is a peculiar interconnectedness between the narcissism of the celebrity and the needs of the public. The latter wants to be in touch with famous people because the life of the average person is empty and boring. The mass media lives from selling fame, and thus everybody is satisfied: the narcissistic performer, the public, and the fame merchants. Among political leaders, a high degree of narcissism is very frequent. The narcissistic leader does not use their narcissistic charisma only as a means for political success; they need success and applause for the sake of their own mental equilibrium. The idea of their greatness is essentially based on their narcissistic grandiosity, not on their real achievements as a human being, and yet they cannot do without the narcissistic inflation because their human core—conviction, conscience, love, and faith—is not very developed. Extremely narcissistic people are often almost forced to become famous, since otherwise they might become depressed and insane. But it takes much talent and appropriate opportunities to influence others to such a degree that their applause validates such narcissistic dreams.

A particular instance of narcissism which lies on the borderline between sanity and insanity can be found in some people who have reached an extraordinary degree of power: the Egyptian pharaohs, the Roman Kaisers, the Borgia, Hitler, Stalin, Trujillo. They all show certain similar features. They have attained absolute power; their word is the ultimate judgment of everything, including life and death. There seems to be no limit to their capacity to do what they want; they are gods, limited only by illness, age, and death. They try to pretend that there is no limit to their lust and to their power, so they sleep with countless women, they kill numberless men, they build castles everywhere they want; they want the moon, they want the impossible. This is madness, even though it is an attempt to solve the problem of existence by pretending that one is not human. This "kaiserian" madness would be nothing but plain insanity were it not for one factor: by his power, the Kaiser has made reality conform to his narcissistic fantasies. They have forced everybody to agree that they are God, the most powerful; hence their own megalomania seems to be a reasonable feeling. On the other hand, many will hate them, try to overthrow and kill them; hence their pathological suspicions are also backed up by a nucleus of reality. As a result, they do not feel disconnected from reality; hence they can keep a modicum of sanity, even though in a precarious state. Such people must also try to destroy all critics, since they cannot tolerate the threat that the voice of sanity constitutes for them. It is paradoxically the element of insanity in such leaders which makes them so successful; it gives them that certainty and freedom from doubt which is so impressive to the average person. If the leader is convinced of their extraordinary gifts and of their mission, it will be easier to convince the large audiences who are attracted by people who appear to be absolutely certain. Needless to say, if political actions are based on narcissistic self-glorification, the lack of objectivity often leads to disastrous consequences. The half-insane leader is often the most successful one, until that lack of objective judgment, their rage reactions in consequence of any setback, their need to keep up the image of omnipotence may provoke them to make mistakes which lead to their destruction. But they were always gifted half-psychotics at hand to satisfy the demands of a narcissistic mass.

Fromm said that the absence of narcissism would be dangerous from the mundane standpoint of survival. Even in the average individual, there remains a narcissistic core which appears to be almost indestructible. Narcissism is a passion; the intensity of which in many individuals can only be compared with sexual desire and the desire to stay alive. In fact, many times it proves to be stronger than either. Nature had to endow us with a great amount of narcissism to enable us to do what is necessary for survival. For animals, their built-in instincts of nature take care of survival in such a way that the animal does not have to consider or decide whether or not it wants to make an effort. In humans, the instinctive apparatus has lost most of its efficacy; hence narcissism assumes a very important biological function. However, once we recognize that narcissism fills a very important biological function, we are confronted with another question: does extreme narcissism have the function of making us indifferent to others? Does not narcissism make us asocial, and in fact, when it reaches an extreme degree, insane? We arrive then, Fromm said, at the paradoxical result that narcissism is necessary for survival and at the same time it is a threat to survival. The solution of this paradox lies in two directions: one is that the biologically necessary degree of narcissism is reduced to the extent that is compatible with social cooperation; the other lies in the fact that individual narcissism is transformed into group narcissism—that the clan, nation, religion, race, and so on become the objects of narcissistic passion instead of the individuals themselves.

Fromm said that we have so far described the dynamics of individual narcissism. This description ought to enable us now to understand the phenomenon of social or group narcissism and the role it plays as a source of violence and war. We can start with an observation about the sociological function of group narcissism that parallels the biological function of individual narcissism. The survival of a group depends to some extent on the fact that its members believe in the righteousness or even superiority of their group as compared with others. Without narcissism, the energy necessary for serving the group or even making severe sacrifices for it would be greatly diminished. In the dynamics of group narcissism, we find phenomena similar to those of individual narcissism. Here too we can distinguish between benign and malignant forms of narcissism. If the object of group narcissism is an achievement, the very need to achieve something makes it necessary to leave the closed circle of group solipsism and to be interested in the object it wants to achieve. Inasmuch as the group, nation, state, or religion makes it an object of its narcissistic pride to achieve something valuable in the field of material, intellectual, or artistic production, the very process of work in such fields tends to lessen the narcissistic charge. If group narcissism has as its objects the group as it is, its splendor, its past achievements, the physique of its members, the narcissistic orientation and subsequent dangers will steadily increase. In reality, of course, both elements are often blended. Whilst group narcissism is still experienced individually, the object of narcissistic fixation is not the individual themselves, but the group to which they belong, and because of this the individual can be fully aware of it and express it without any restrictions. The assertion that "my country or nation or religion is the most wonderful, the most cultured, the most powerful, the most peace-loving, etc." does not sound crazy at all; on the contrary, it sounds like the expression of patriotism, faith, and loyalty. It also appears to be a realistic and rational value judgment because it is shared by many members of the same group. The consensus succeeds in transforming the fantasy into reality, since for most people reality is constituted by general consensus and not based on reason. Sometimes the consensus of a small group suffices to create reality; sometimes the group, as small as two people. Group narcissism is less easy to recognize than individual narcissism. Assuming a person tells others, "I and my family are the most admirable people in the world; all others are dirty, dishonest, and irresponsible," most people will think them crude, unbalanced, or even insane. If, however, a fanatical speaker addresses an audience similarly about their nation, race, religion, or political party, they will be praised and admired for their love of country, love of God, etc. Other nations and religions, however, will resent such a speech for the obvious reason that they are held in contempt. Just as individual narcissism instinctively enhances self-preservation, the same energy can be used in the interests of the survival of the group rather than for the survival of the individual. Group narcissism, therefore, has important functions. In the first place, it furthers the solidarity and cohesion of the group and makes manipulation easier by appealing to narcissistic prejudices. A society that lacks the means to provide adequately for the majority of its members can provide these members with a narcissistic satisfaction of the malignant type if it wants to prevent dissatisfaction among them. Narcissistic pride in belonging to the group might be the only and often a very effective source of satisfaction. Precisely because life is not interesting to them and does not offer them possibilities for developing real interests, they may develop an extreme form of narcissism: for example, "I am somebody important because I belong to the most admirable group in the world; I am Aryan." Those whose narcissism refers to their group are as sensitive as…

The individual narcissist and they react with rage to any wound, real or imaginary, inflicted upon their group. If anything, they react more intensely and certainly more consciously once their own group becomes a defender of human dignity, decency, morality, and right. Devilish qualities are ascribed to the group; it is treacherous, ruthless, cruel, and basically inhuman. The violation of one of the symbols of group narcissism, such as the flag or the president or an ambassador, is reacted to with such intense fury and aggression that they are even willing to support their leaders in a policy of war.

Concerning the pathology of group narcissism, the most obvious and frequent symptom, as in the case of individual narcissism, is a lack of objectivity and rational judgment. Little straws of truth are put together, but the whole form consists of falsehoods and fabrications. One example [from a source] gives is that many years before World War I, it was the official French strategic doctrine to claim that the French army did not need much heavy artillery or a large number of machine guns. The French soldier was supposed to be so endowed with the French virtues of courage and offensive spirit that he needed only his bayonet to defeat the enemy. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of French soldiers were mowed down by machine guns, and that only German strategic mistakes and later American help saved France from defeat.

[From a source] said that modern science is a human attitude; it is an attitude of accepting reality as it is, not as I want it to be. The scientific method requires objectivity and realism; it requires seeing the world as it is, not disturbed by our fears and desires. It requires being humble towards the facts of reality and renouncing all hopes of omnipotence and omniscience. Despite this, the vast majority of people in the West, although they have learned the scientific method in school or at university, never really have been touched by the method of scientific critical thinking. Even most of the professionals in the field of natural sciences have remained technicians and have not acquired a scientific attitude. Although it may be said that higher education has tended to soften and to modify personal and group narcissism to some extent, it is not prevented most of the quote-unquote educated people from joining enthusiastically in the national, racial, and political movements that are the expression of contemporary group narcissism. It seems that, on the contrary, science has created a new object for narcissism—technique. Our narcissistic pride in being the creator of a formerly undreamed-of world of things, the discoverer of atomic power, space travel, or even in being the potential destroyer of the entire globe, has given us a new object for narcissistic self-inflation. We have transferred our narcissism to other objects.

[From a source] said that the fight against the dollar tree, which is the central issue of prophetic teaching, is at the same time a fight against narcissism. The idea of God is the negation of narcissism because only God, not humans, is omniscient and omnipotent. But God soon became again an idol; people identified with God in a narcissistic manner, and thus religion became a manifestation of group narcissism. The history of the Roman Catholic Church is one of many examples of the mixture of narcissism and the counteracting forces within a large group. The elements counteracting narcissism within the Catholic Church are the concept of the universality of humankind and of a Catholic religion which is no longer the religion of one particular tribe or nation. The existence of God implies that no person can be God, that no individual can be omniscient or omnipotent. But at the same time, the Catholic Church has nourished an intense narcissism, believing that the church is the only chance of salvation and that the pope is the Vicar of Christ. Some of its members were able to develop an intense narcissism inasmuch as they were members of such an extraordinary institution.

[From a source] said that this ambiguity between a narcissistic or a non-narcissistic function has occurred in all the other great religions. I have mentioned the Catholic religion not only because it is a well-known example, but because the Roman Catholic religion was the basis for both humanism and for violence and fanatical religious narcissism during one and the same historical period, the 15th and 16th centuries. The humanists within the church and those outside spoke in the name of a humanism which was the fountainhead of Christianity. Nicholas of Cusa preached religious tolerance for all; Ficino taught that love is the fundamental force of all creation; Erasmus demanded mutual tolerance and a democratization of the church; Thomas More spoke and died for the principles of universalism and human solidarity; Vives spoke of world peace and unity; Zwingli spoke enthusiastically of human dignity, of our reason and virtue, and our capacity for self-perfection. These and many others spoke in the name of universality, dignity, reason; they fought for tolerance and peace. Against them stood the forces of fanaticism on both sides—that of Luther and that of the church. The humanists tried to avoid the catastrophe; eventually, the fanatics on both sides won. Religious persecution and war, culminating in the disastrous Thirty Years’ War, were a blow to humanist development from which Europe is still not recovered.

Looking back to the religious hatred of the 16th and 17th centuries, its irrationalities are clear. Both sides spoke in the name of God, of Christ, of love; they differed only in points which were of secondary importance; yet they hated each other, and each was passionately convinced that humanity ended at the frontiers of their own religious faith. Any criticism of one’s own doctrine is a vicious and unbreakable attack; criticism of the other’s position is a well-meant attempt to help them return to the truth.

From the Renaissance onwards, the two great contradictory forces—group narcissism and humanism—have each developed in its own way. Unfortunately, the development of group narcissism has vastly outstripped that of humanism. While it seemed possible in the late Middle Ages and at the time of the Renaissance that Europe was prepared for the emergence of a political and religious humanism, this promise failed to materialize. New forms of group narcissism emerged and dominated the following centuries. This group narcissism assumed manifold forms—religious, national, racial, political; Protestants against Catholics, French against Germans, Aryans against non-Aryans. Psychologically, we deal with the same narcissistic phenomenon and its resulting fanaticism and destructiveness.

While group narcissism grew, its counterpart, humanism, also developed. In the 18th and 19th centuries, from Spinoza, Leibniz, Rousseau, Herder, Kant to Goethe and Marx, the thought develops that humankind is one, that each individual carried within themselves all of humanity, that there must be no privileged groups claiming that their privileges are based on their intrinsic superiority. World War I was a severe blow to humanism and gave rise to an increasing orgy of group narcissism—national hysteria in all the belligerent countries of World War I, Hitler’s racialism, Stalin’s party idolization, Western anti-communist fanaticism. These various manifestations have brought the world to the abyss of total destruction.

The great achievement of the 20th century is that the belief in the natural or divine causes of human inequality, of the necessity or legitimacy of the exploitation of one person by another, has been defeated to the point of no return. Renaissance humanism, the bourgeois revolutions, the Russian, Chinese, and colonial revolutions—all are based on one common thought: the equality of humankind. Even if some of these revolutions have led to the violation of human equality within the systems concerned, the historical fact is that the equality of all people, hence of their freedom and dignity, has conquered the world, and it is unthinkable that humanity could return to the concepts which dominated civilized history until only a short time ago.

[From a source] discussed the phenomenon of narcissism, its pathology, and its biological and sociological function. As a result, we might come to the conclusion that narcissism is a necessary and valuable orientation provided it is benign and does not transcend a certain threshold. However, our picture is incomplete; humanity is not only concerned with biological and social survival; we are concerned with values, with the development of that by virtue of which we are human.

[From a source] said that the essential teachings of all the great humanist religions can be summarized in one sentence: it is the goal of humankind to overcome one’s narcissism. Perhaps the principle is nowhere expressed more radically than in Buddhism. The teaching of the Buddha amounts to saying that we can save ourselves from suffering only if we awaken from our illusions and become aware of our reality—the reality of sickness, old age, and death, and of the impossibility of ever attaining the aims of our greed. The awakened person of whom Buddhist teaching speaks is the person who has overcome their narcissism and who is therefore capable of being fully awake. Psychologically, this process of becoming fully awake is identical with the replacement of narcissism by relatedness to the world. The full maturity of a person is achieved by their complete emergence from narcissism, both individual and group narcissism. Since the two orientations—narcissism and selfishness—are rarely wholly differentiated, you must accept that for growth a double breakthrough is necessary. The first condition for overcoming one’s selfishness lies in the capacity of being aware of it; this is an easier task than the awareness of one’s narcissism because one’s judgment is much less distorted. The second step is gaining an awareness of the roots—such as one’s sense of powerlessness, one’s fear of life, one’s fear of the uncertain, one’s distrust of people, and the many other subtle roots that have grown together so thickly it is impossible to uproot them. This process must, must be accompanied by attempting to go out of oneself. One way of describing it is that our attention is drawn to others—to the world of nature, of our of ideas, of social and political events. We become interested in the world outside our ego, in the literal meaning of interest. This development of interest can be compared to a situation in which a person has seen and can describe a swimming pool; they have spoken about it from the outside; the description has been correct, yet without interest. But when they have jumped into the pool and when they have become wet and then speak about the pool, they speak as a different person about a different pool. Awareness, will, practice, tolerance, fearing of new experience—they are all necessary if transformation is to happen.

Addressing the problem of group narcissism [from a source], even without reducing narcissistic energy in each person, the object could be changed. If humankind, the entire human family, could become the object of group narcissism instead of one nation, one race, or of one political system being this object, much might be gained. If the educational systems of all countries stress the achievements of the human race instead of the achievements of an individual nation, a more convincing and moving case could be made for the pride in being human. For example, history textbooks should be rewritten as textbooks of world history in which the proportions of each nation’s life remain true to reality and are not distorted. Furthermore, films could be made which foster pride in the development of the human race, showing how humanity and its achievements are the final integration of many steps taken by various groups. The image of the human race and its achievements could create its own symbols, holidays, and festivals—not the national holiday, but the day of the people is the highest holiday of the year.

More broadly, we must shift our educational effort from teaching primarily a technical orientation to one that furthers critical thought, objectivity, and acceptance of reality, which is subject to no fiat and is valid for every conceivable group. Allowing for existing differences, there is a common humanist creed, even experience. The creed is that each individual carries all of humanity within themselves, that the human condition is one and the same for all people in spite of differences. The broadening of self-awareness will enable people to experience in themselves all of humanity; they will experience the fact that they are a sinner and a saint, a child and an adult, a sane and an insane person, a person of the past and one of the future—that they carry within themselves that which humanity has been and that which it will be.

By presenting all these thoughts, I do not mean to imply that teaching alone can be the decisive step for the realization of humanism, as the Renaissance humanists believed. Education will have an impact only if essential social, economic, and political conditions change—a change from bureaucratic industrialism to humanist industrialism, from centralization to decentralization, from organizing people to responsible and participating citizens, subordination of national sovereignty to the sovereignty of the human race, common efforts of the have nations in cooperation with the have-not nations to build up the economic systems of the latter, universal disarmament, and availability of the existing material resources for constructive tasks. Universal disarmament is also necessary for another reason: if one sector of humanity lives in fear of total destruction by another block, and the rest live in fear of destruction by both blocks, then indeed group narcissism cannot be diminished. People can be human only in a climate in which they can expect that they and their children will live to see the next year and many more years to come. However, such a development can occur only inasmuch as many and eventually all nations are willing to reduce their national sovereignty in favor of the sovereignty of humanity, not only in terms of political but also in terms of emotional realities. Or to put it another way, [from a source] also said that if people had the narcissistic attachment to humanity as they have to their own children, there would be no nuclear weapons today.

Common tasks for all people are at hand: the joint fight against disease, against hunger, the peaceful solution of group conflicts, the dissemination of knowledge and art through our means of communications among all the people of the world. The fact is that, in spite of all differences in political and religious ideology, there is no sector of humankind which can afford to exclude itself from these common tasks.

[Music] [Music] Thank you for watching another episode of the Eric Fromm Channel. If you enjoyed this video, then please like it, subscribe, share it with your friends. This is a re-recording and a re-edit of a previous video on narcissism. Stay tuned for more. Thank you. [Music]