What an absolute gem of a truth you have written, Joyce. Thank you for the excellent essay that spreads important truths about what makes our shared lives so important relative to individual freedoms.
I was confused at first by the use of ‘communitarian’ here — since in mainstream philosophy it usually means enforced obligations. After checking, I saw the Spencer Heath/MacCallum lineage, which reframes it as voluntary community. That shift in meaning is fascinating, and it connects with some of the patterns I’ve been writing about on my Substack. Would be glad to hear how others see it.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are right that "mainstream philosophy" has co-opted a word that used to be about community into another word for collectivism. It is only in the last 40 or 50 years that the narcissistic state (thanks for that useful term) has turned "liberalism" and "individualism" into something that would be unrecognizable to the liberals of the early 20th century. You and I are seeing some of the same problems through different lenses; what I analyze structurally, you analyze psychologically. Both approaches show the manipulated distortion of language to serve political power that is fundamentally changing the culture of the western world.
Joyce, thanks for your comment and I appreciate that observation about our parallel perspectives. Quick clarification though: the framework is actually structural/praxeological at its core, not psychological. I use psychological terminology (gaslighting, manufactured dependency, etc.) because these terms make the mechanisms immediately recognizable to people experiencing them. But the analysis traces incentive structures, role assignments, and institutional dynamics—not individual mental states.
When I say "narcissistic State," I'm describing observable behavioral patterns in how systems maintain themselves: reality distortion about alternatives, disproportionate rage at boundary-setting, intermittent reinforcement to maintain engagement. These are structural mechanisms that persist regardless of any individual's psychology.
The psychological language is tactical—it helps exit practitioners recognize manipulation patterns they face from others and preserve energy. But you're right that we're both doing structural analysis. I'm just using psychology's pattern vocabulary because it's precise about the mechanisms, even though the framework itself explains them through roles, incentives, and system maintenance rather than individual pathology.
The convergence you're seeing isn't coincidental. Different analytical tools revealing the same underlying power dynamics.
I have written the complete framework at https://thenarcissiststate.net and I would much appreciate your opinion as to it's potential for assisting in our shared objective of understanding the issues and constructive change ...
Love this, Joyce!
What an absolute gem of a truth you have written, Joyce. Thank you for the excellent essay that spreads important truths about what makes our shared lives so important relative to individual freedoms.
I was confused at first by the use of ‘communitarian’ here — since in mainstream philosophy it usually means enforced obligations. After checking, I saw the Spencer Heath/MacCallum lineage, which reframes it as voluntary community. That shift in meaning is fascinating, and it connects with some of the patterns I’ve been writing about on my Substack. Would be glad to hear how others see it.
https://pbodeswell.substack.com/s/the-narcissist-state
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are right that "mainstream philosophy" has co-opted a word that used to be about community into another word for collectivism. It is only in the last 40 or 50 years that the narcissistic state (thanks for that useful term) has turned "liberalism" and "individualism" into something that would be unrecognizable to the liberals of the early 20th century. You and I are seeing some of the same problems through different lenses; what I analyze structurally, you analyze psychologically. Both approaches show the manipulated distortion of language to serve political power that is fundamentally changing the culture of the western world.
Joyce, thanks for your comment and I appreciate that observation about our parallel perspectives. Quick clarification though: the framework is actually structural/praxeological at its core, not psychological. I use psychological terminology (gaslighting, manufactured dependency, etc.) because these terms make the mechanisms immediately recognizable to people experiencing them. But the analysis traces incentive structures, role assignments, and institutional dynamics—not individual mental states.
When I say "narcissistic State," I'm describing observable behavioral patterns in how systems maintain themselves: reality distortion about alternatives, disproportionate rage at boundary-setting, intermittent reinforcement to maintain engagement. These are structural mechanisms that persist regardless of any individual's psychology.
The psychological language is tactical—it helps exit practitioners recognize manipulation patterns they face from others and preserve energy. But you're right that we're both doing structural analysis. I'm just using psychology's pattern vocabulary because it's precise about the mechanisms, even though the framework itself explains them through roles, incentives, and system maintenance rather than individual pathology.
The convergence you're seeing isn't coincidental. Different analytical tools revealing the same underlying power dynamics.
I have written the complete framework at https://thenarcissiststate.net and I would much appreciate your opinion as to it's potential for assisting in our shared objective of understanding the issues and constructive change ...
Joyce, you present an essential distinction very clearly. Thank you.
Well Said!!