Conversational Narcissism

It's becoming more and more incorrect and misleading in my mind to view antisocial behavior or sociopathy as a psychological disorder. I mean, look around--it's everywhere. Maybe it's not a problem with the individual. Perhaps we live in a society where institutions and entities permit--nay, encourage--antisocial behaviors. Humans are a product of their environments. Maybe we're bred and imbued with these dispassionate characteristics from the get-go. Simply put, it seems likely to me that this outgrowth is predetermined. 

For just a few examples, people don't have a problem with cheating on tests or spouses, lying to their friends, or monopolizing the conversation and not listening at all. For more specificity, we can further examine infidelity: we have all seen circumstances in which people think nothing of cheating on their so-called loved ones, rationalizing and defending themselves to no end in support of their deplorable actions. "He made me do it, he hasn't been giving me enough attention", "she probably already cheated on me anyway", etc. Sometimes they outright deflect blame or try to turn it on the other person. We've all seen this.

I find one of those examples especially annoying and even more common: the domination of conversation. People love to talk about themselves and seem only interested in the conversation if it's about them. For the love of God, sometimes I feel lucky just to be asked how I'm doing. You can't even imagine how much I light up when I'm talking to someone and I realize they actually care. It's so rare that I cherish it. But you'll all be able to identify that one person, that conversational narcissist. Look for what are called 'shift responses'. You'll say something, and instead of providing further conversational material, the individual will say something that redirects the conversation towards themselves.

For example: 

Jane: I saw John the other day.

John: Oh, how's he doing?

This is a normal conversation. Jane initiated it and John has provided material that keeps the nature of the conversation uninterrupted.

Jane: I saw John the other day.

John: I haven't seen him in weeks. 

That's a shift response. John has replied in a fashion that redirects the conversation towards him but in the context of what Jane said. This provides Jane with a precarious set of options: she can acknowledge John's comment and continue talking along her train of thought, coming off as an egoist, or she can provide material for John's comment and solidify the new direction of the conversation. 

Look for it because you will see it everywhere. It reflects the vast narcissism and individual focus that has been encouraged with our particular culture and peer group. Just the other day, someone asked me how I was doing and as soon as I replied, she started unloading on me about her worries and her problems. 

One word comes to mind when attempting to describe the nature of conversation with what is sadly the majority of people these days: 'perfunctory'. Perfunctory is defined by the dictionary as:

1. performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial.
2. lacking interest, care, or enthusiasm; indifferent or apathetic.

I can't think of any other word that better denotes what we're talking about here. We all know someone who seems to go and on about themselves until no end. Given the slightest opportunity to talk about themselves, they'll gladly take the initiative, displaying little to no interest in what your take on things are, and in the off chance they do, it's very obviously just a faked effort for the sake of courtesy.

The type of person we're talking about here has some pretty easily identifiable characteristics. The ones I see most often are 1) they have an extremely unrealistic sense of self-importance; the world revolves around them and if so-and-so doesn't happen or get fixed for them, there will simply be no tomorrow. 2) They actively seek both admiration and validation from society or the peer group. 

I see the second characteristic most often on social media, let alone conversations with people. The constant selfies which are falsely taken to display the fun of the moment or a perfunctory smile when the real focus is unquestionably the subtle but undeniably present sex appeal; the barrage of selfies taken in the mirror to display the outfit an individual is wearing under the assumption that everyone on the site is desperately concerned with their wardrobe, the profuse amount of status updates detailing every little occurrence and future endeavor with an ever-present and annoying coat of self-excitement--the very compulsion of individuals to share everything in general: they're all manifestations, but none of this is innate. It has been conditioned.

And this brings me to my overall point.

Charles Derber, the Professor of Sociology who teaches at Boston College, is the man who brought this analysis into a sociological light. Derber observed that the social support system in America is relatively weak, and this leads people to compete mightily for attention. In social situations, they tend to steer the conversation away from others and toward themselves. "Conversational narcissism is the key manifestation of the dominant attention-getting psychology in America," he wrote. "It occurs in informal conversations among friends, family and coworkers. The profusion of popular literature about listening and the etiquette of managing those who talk constantly about themselves suggests its pervasiveness in everyday life."

What Derber describes as "conversational narcissism" often occurs subtly rather than overtly because these individuals know there's a chance of being judged an egotist. This is the very reason you need to usually look for it, and if you aren't looking for it, you might not see it.

Nonetheless, Derber argues that it's the social support system that has created the conditions for this rampant conversational narcissism. Perhaps we shouldn't question why, when social networks aren't all that social and cater much more to the displaying and promotion of individualistic characteristics.

In the world we live in, where nothing else really matters besides your personal and individual monetary and career pursuits, all which are a part of the capitalist machine, society simply doesn't have time to care about others. We are encouraged to be centered on ourselves and the very institutions which we are forced to be a part of don't have room for bonds and human connection anymore. As I opined in a previous post, 

Humans are social creatures and only recently have we experienced an adoption of individualism which leaves us isolated and alone, disconnected from ourselves and each other. We used to be parts of a greater whole, be it tribes or clans. But with the rise of agriculture and the state, material conditions rendered these bonds obsolete and as a result, we just shoulder the weight of life on our own, encouraged to keep quiet about it while continuing the same drudgery of labor to obtain whatever product we're being implored to purchase.

What we also fail to realize is that along with these material conditions creating further isolation, there is a reaction; there must be. Of course, when our very human essence is made off with and alienated into a commodity to be bought and sold¹, we are bound to react radically. And this, I would argue, manifests in the very conversational narcissism we hear about today. Society has no place for us. We feel alone. We feel like no one cares. So, in conversations, we boast and we center on ourselves, because we crave that feeling of being cared about, that someone is giving us attention.

This cycle of self-absorption can only be broken if we adopt for ourselves a society that encourages being parts of a greater whole. Super-capitalism in the 21st century has encouraged nothing but hyper-individualism. The only way to reduce the effects on our human psyche and collective consciousness is to eliminate the root problem. There can be no reforms or piecemeal changes that will bring this type of behavior to an end. It's just not that simple. If it was, it wouldn't be a problem. I think the answer is doing away with this system entirely and creating a system in which everyone can feel connected and human again instead of an isolated ego pitted against other egos who are supposed to be your friends, but will turn their backs on you if the price is right.

And the thing is, I won't speak with people in a perfunctory manner. If I simply don't care about what you're saying, I'll probably tell you. Loads of my friends can back me up on that. I don't know when it became such a travesty to be honest with people.

---

^{1. Marx's commodity fetishism is a theory which denotes the idea that humans are alienated from their labor since someone else (management/corporations/CEO's) controls both the means of production and the distribution of production, and that as a result, we have now come to view ourselves in the market as tools of labor and that our labor is something that can be bought and sold.↩}