does every narcissistic circus need a scapegoat?
Most groups foster belonging, but in some, a dogmatic and narcissistic preoccupation forms. Can we be in community, reach toward purpose, but avoid compromising our own realness?
There seems to be a new tide rolling in, in the sea of the culture wars. I don’t know if you’ve detected it, but of late, I’ve heard more recognition of the shadow of social activism. “X (institution/individual) has been captured by Y (movement/ideology). Or “X movement tends to shut down all debate”.
Of course, sometimes these arguments are mere deflections, made in an attempt to shut down a movement toward human betterment, often as an attempt to maintain a grasp on status-quo power, or simply out of ignorance. But other times, there’s some truth in the recognition. After all, any of us can get caught up in a dogma. Usually to the exclusion of deeper understanding, and alongside that, a deeper recognition of our shared humanity.
I find it to be quite an expansive idea that groups operate like a psyche. In this sense, a group might represent a family system, made of parts that in Donald Kalsched’s language, form a kind of democratic (or not) power sharing arrangement. In both the family or government metaphors, the group might contain a leader, or even a tyrant, perhaps some subservient parts, a truth teller, and when the seas get choppy, a scapegoat. I’ll come back to that idea later, but the pressing thought in my mind, relates to our own belonging in groups. Be they families, institutions, movements, political parties or academic peer groups. Given that such groups generally require some sacrifice of individuality in order to belong, we might well ask some clarifying questions to quantify that sacrifice. Can there be belonging, without adhering to dogma which limits free thought? Can we participate in a shared goal, while maintaining, or even nurturing, our individual realness? And can that realness be taken onboard, toward a more expansive whole? Perhaps most scintillatingly, when might a group become a narcissistic circus and why on earth would it need a scapegoat?
Let’s start by looking at how to recognise a circus. I soon run out of the fingers on one hand when I count the times in the last year I’ve realised I’m in a situation which might fall into some of these categories. My list isn’t exhaustive, and its no doubt flawed, but I hope provides some space for thinking.
Challenge isn’t allowed. In such a group there’s often an overt shutting down of any challenge which might impact structural power. But sometimes, the shutting down is unconscious, enforced by a powerful feeling tone that makes it feel as if pointed questions can’t be asked. Put another way, the inner or outer authority never peels back the invisible cloak of what is unspeakable or worse, the leader shrouds the group’s authentic functioning with a reinforcement of that cloak. This one really gets me - mostly because such silencing often unduly affects minorities - including epistemic minorities. Most hurtfully, when minorities include cultural or archetypal dimensions such as is the case around race, sex, gender, spirituality, sexuality and social class, the unconscious forces can be tremendous and painful.
Group-think pervades. I often see this on social media, when a “normal” person asks an “influencer” a strange question: “hey, what do we think about X”. Asked in this way, the inference of the “we” is that there’s an automatic and unthinking subservience to group belief. In institutions, you see individuals unable to make their own mind and inevitably, undue power amasses with the (thought) leader. Through this submission, the individuals capacity to think is not nourished or encouraged. Indeed, individuation is side-lined, in favour of infantilisation.
External influence is discouraged. Flawed systems such as these rely on leaders for big picture thinking, and as such, limit external sources of thought to those that don’t threaten group ideology. In effect the external is shut out, usually to protect against flaws being revealed. And let’s face it, every value system has flaws.
Certain individuals are idealised. When groups rely heavily on the leader, or a particular group of those deemed the “inner circle”, those in “lesser” positions need to idealise the leader(s) in order to maintain a very specific group dynamic. The idealisation might be based on something sound: perhaps the academic leader is well read or published, the organisational spokesperson has a much needed charisma, or the spiritual leader has a palpable energetic rawness; but these positive qualities are not the problem. The problem is when the idealisation of goodness prevents seeing shadow of various kinds; from the inevitable badness which we all possess, to flaws in the groups way of thinking or functioning.
Certain individuals are scapegoated. Each circus needs a sacrificial lamb (or two). But let’s not confuse our metaphorical bovidae. According to the myth, the purpose of the scapegoat is to exorcise the group from a deistic debt. In groups like these, the scapegoat plays a similar role: carrying some quality the group can’t contain. I was in a seminar recently where a very valid (but challenging) question was asked and the leader immediately invalidated the question with a hyperbolic slur. It was quite astounding, but the unthinking and unseeing in the crowd erupted with glee. The scapegoat had been banished and the narcissistic circus could go along with its business.
The last two points are quite important when we think about “realness”, (note I’m not using the word “authentic” here, it’s too loaded). If we don’t make these dynamics conscious, we can make the inordinate sacrifice of our own “realness”, as we might end up chasing the idealisation of the group, to avoid being scapegoated.
These “negative” attributes of groups must be balanced alongside what might be a normative range of group functioning. To illuminate, let’s consider the much maligned concept of individual narcissism. Our culture has “cancelled” narcissism, framing it as toxic and pathological. Yet narcissistic traits are a part of the ego functioning which allows us to be in the world, to assert our needs and make a difference. No entrepreneurial venture (no business, no blog), could succeed without some narcissistic impulse. It becomes damaging when the narcissistic tendency overrules logic, risk assessment, care for relationships, or an eye toward a greater good. Similarly when a narcissistic pursuit is compensating for an unconscious injury, then it's likely to end up quite the circus. Applying this back to groups, it's necessary to form a group belonging, to have shared values and understanding, even to create hierarchies, for the group to have a life. The question becomes: is this group functioning for itself, or for a greater purpose? Is the group purpose in touch with an ethical, grounded reality, or has the lack of external challenge left it, disconnected, blissfully living out its end days. And finally, are group members, or the group itself, using a grandiosity to defend against an unbearable injury within the group, or themselves?
What is called for in such circumstances is a kind of group maturation. One where the errors of a distancing from reality can be encountered. Where internal dogma's can be adjusted, willingly reflecting on shortcomings and mistakes. And where discourse can be invited, such that grounded and robust values and directions can be found. In this way, the need for idealisation and scapegoating fades, and instead an inner democracy might be established which invites inclusivity. No doubt dynamics would continue to exist, but they could be contained and worked through. And what’s more, the individual’s individuation needn’t be corrupted, by a group which cannot see value in difference.
A utopia, maybe. But a circus, surely not.
Thank you Jared. Such a good read . Thoughtful, deeply true of the complexity and difficulty of living, working (existing) within a group, constituting multiple groups, in order to function, belong and indeed, survive. Supporting the individual in us, listening to our voices, the heartbeats that drive us, with acceptance and love must truly be the best way forward, well worth the ongoing energies required, if we are to evolve into a considered and desirable humanity.