The fundamental change that underpins all of this is the increasing opportunity to live our lives independant of others.
Once upon a time we had to live as part of a group and we had to partner as a means of support. Living alone wasn’t really an option. Though our DNA screams for us to be hyper selective of others and simultaneously to preen ourselves to be selected, these behaviors were balanced by a reality that forced moderation and compromise with ourselves and others. Through commitment, because there was no alternative, deep bonds could be developed even in the most unpromising circumstances. I’m not saying these were happier times – they weren’t – but strong bonds with others were a neccesity.
By analogy, our DNA also screams eat sugar! but sugar wasn’t readily available. There was an evolutionary balance with nature that meant this instinctive urge was moderated. Fast forward to the 20th century and suddenly we could have all the sugar we wanted. And we got fat.
Likewise, our selective instincts are overwhelmed by what is available without the pressure to form relationships. Meanwhile, our preening instinct is no longer confined to clothes and make up. We can feed, clothe, entertain and pleasure ourselves without having to build bonds with anyone. In consequence we may never get close to others because we are never forced to compromise with ourselves.
Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, this is how we are hardwired and this is the technologically abundant century in which we live. Whilst we might follow the author’s naive advice to make a virtue out of training ourselves to behave differently, we would be wrestling with 250,000 years of evolutionary pressure so deviation from virtue is guaranteed.
I suspect the author might also be an advocate for a return to a (poorer, hungrier) pre-industrial age to escape the modern world. A return to simpler times has been appealing to humans for 249,999 years. However, for our children, today will be the simpler times they yearn for in their middle age. Today will be their normal whilst for us it is a confused mess.
“the increasing opportunity to live our lives independant of others.” Is this really true, though? I agree with a lot of what you say, but we begin our lives among others, and as we go through the early years we interact with others. Everything is already there. We are hard wired to live as part of a group. We are not forced to, we want to. That’s how we got here. I don’t see how that would change just because of technology. Can it really be possible that we would chose to turn away from that, to succumb to something from outside of ourselves so easily? My feeling about articles like this is that they muddy the waters. Sam mentioned being raised on the problem, but what exactly is the problem? Is it narcissism? More than previous generations? Can a phone create this heightened narcissism?
An interesting and thoughtful response to the issue(s) at stake. We’re all living a life through technological change which impacts upon our sense of ourselves, and the basic evolutionary pressures haven’t changed but become both exaggerated and more internalised as – for the first time – we see ourselves reflected back through the mirror of online culture.
Those of us who can easily recall how things were before the internet will feel this in a different way to those who’re online ‘natives’. I’m far from sure it’s even possible to describe to the younger generations how things were different back then. What’s at stake is the very meaning of the self and personality.
I’m certainly not suggesting pre-internet was some kind of Golden Age, far from it; it was just different, just as our great-grandparents must have experienced something similar as they crowded into smoke-filled towns during the Industrial Revolution, with time becoming literally clockwork rather than the overhead passage of the sun. With train travel, they could suddenly meet a partner from outside their immediate environment. Thus, today we can connect across continents via a smartphone, and the evolutionary pressures ramp up with the extension of choice.
So who, or what, are we? I think the simple answer might be that we no longer know, but there’s an almost unfathomable complexity at work. I don’t think calls upon authors / self-appointed gurus to provide “answers” are fair, or realistic. There’s value in raising awareness, and in this, i feel the author has succeeded.
“So who, or what, are we? I think the simple answer might be that we no longer know,” I’m beginning to think that we’re told we no longer know. I’m also beginning to think we’re told we have these “problems” we must deal with. The author of this piece is not any kind of scientist. She has studied sociology. She’s created a story by having an idea, then wrapping various facts and quotes around it to give it substance. Which is why I asked Sam Wilson if he, at his age, actually experiences the “problem” developed in the writing. Do his friends experience this problem? Coming up with a story about a man who lengthens his bones to make himself taller is an extreme example of the narcissism the writer talks about. It hardly represents the larger population. It seems to be another example of people, in their own self interest, piling on the problems and scaring the horses. It’s very possible we are not as sick as we’re told we are.
Valuable thoughts. I have a “yes, and…” I find it interesting that so many societies in the past have voluntarily adopted constraints — usually imposed through social pressure — to limit our urges which are maladaptive. Even non-/pre-agricultural societies have wielded the power to go beyond the ‘hard’ constraints imposed coevolutionarily by their environments, and have come up with norms to maintain balance. It’s almost like an instinct, but one that embeds itself in our social DNA rather than physical DNA.
To that end, as much as I love his other observations, I’m unsatisified by Fromm’s conclusion that love is not ‘natural’. I think it’s very natural to impose unnatural things on ourselves that elevate our better selves. Dancing, for instance, requires discipline, restraint, and regular investment, but pretty much every culture loves doing it — partly for those very reasons. There’s hope for us yet.
Last edited 1 year ago by Paul d'Aoust
J Bryant
1 year ago
Perhaps my comment is unfair, but I was disappointed by this article mainly because of the identity of the author.
The author chose to write about modern narcissism especially as it relates to body image, how we’ve lost sight of true beauty, and how the internet exacerbates these problems. It was a well written article but, for me, the author was reheating arguments and ideas that have already been written about extensively.
The author’s short bio reveals she’s an environmentalist who founded an organization called the Rizoma Field School. I googled that organization when I read the author’s first publication on Unherd. It’s an interesting (in my opinion) experiment in sustainable living. The author believes, like so many people, that we’re living beyond the planet’s capacity to sustain us and she has created an experiment in an alternative lifestyle that might have lessons for all of us. Why not write about that?
So many journalists/columnists endlessly complain about the problems of the world but, unlike the author, so few offer practical solutions. How is the author’s Rizoma school working out? Has she encountered unexpected challenges or even benefits? Her experiment is potentially important and deserves to be discussed and analyzed, imo. Leave rehashing pop psychology to people who have nothing better to write about.
Yes, I read this piece trying to find some new perspective and analysis, but it’s just a cut-and-paste job that reveals nothing. Unless there’s something meaningful or enlightening in its content then it just comes across as narcissism lite.
A fair response, but I think this article is important regardless. Certainly more than pop-psych at least. Teenage boys and girls like myself, raised on the problems the author criticized, need to first be alerted to the problem before they can work out what to do about it.
Really, you can’t work it out for yourself? What other problems do you have to be alerted to?
Edit: let me rephrase that. You’ll learn nothing from this sort of pop-psychology.
“In other words, both are evidence of the fact that we have fundamentally lost our ability to see real beauty.
An intuitive sense of beauty should transcend trends.”
Explain.
Whoah! Sam made a valid point. Not everyone is anywhere near up to speed on the issue raised. If the problem is being missed by many, anything that might open eyes is helpful. Not sure your response had much value.
Why are they not? Don’t parents advise, warn, attempt to educate their children nowadays? Or is the issue that Schools actively undermine many a parental role?
I wonder if your relative youth compared to other Unherd commenters is likely to lead to patronising responses. But in my view its good to get some insight from a young generation perspective that I seldom come across.
I thought the article was interesting, though one amongst many that rail against narcissism, but it provided a few references to theory that I wasn’t aware of and it posits how we could change our behaviours – so it’s well worthy of Unherd.
Don’t worry about the above comment. And no, it’s not a problem for me, but it is for many of my peers. The difference, I suspect, is that I avoid social media altogether.
Ah so you’re not typical of your generation! We need social media addicts on here maybe.
My 11 year old granddaughter has a ridiculous pouting and serious photo on her social media profile – it makes me cringe every time I see it. But I don’t say anything about it – I’m waiting until she’s older and wiser when I’ll mock her endlessly for being such a poseur!
There are many more beautiful people than there are good looking people. Beauty is what we see in people we spend time with, interact with, get to know, come to appreciate. It includes grace, patience, wit, care and attention to others, none of which are apparent in still images or remote media clips.
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
What is new here other than the fact instead of ‘artificial accessories’ to beauty, the individual actually alters their body so much more invasively than prior times, thanks to the progress of medical science? Regency period replaced teeth for cosmetic reasons wasn’t unheard of. One of the gory details of a horrible history that I don’t think has much awareness is that the battle of Waterloo provide a surfeit of ‘cosmetic’ new, real false teeth. Wigs, rouge, bustles and brass, padded shoulders on coats for men. None of this is ‘new’ in terms of narcissism or a desire for a form of beauty that is the current perception. (Which by the way changes and has changed always!)
It isn’t just the West either, bound feet in China and possibly Korea and Japan, bound breasts in Korea, Japan. There is a reason that Narcissism takes its name from an mythical figure from antiquity – it isn’t new!
Ironically, breaking bones for one’s appearance also isn’t new. Though possibly the bigger irony was the consequence for the one who did it. Ignatius of Loyola – leg broken in a battle set crooked, so he had it re-broken to be set straight and improve his appearance. Then during his convalescence he found God and Christ and eventually started the Jesuit Order.
Perhaps if the expected ‘return to the dark ages’ the likes of Extinction Rebellion (is the Author a supporter?) seem intent on bringing about in the next decade, happens, all the current narcissistic individuals may form religious orders as their internet dreams vanish?
Finally, given the number of articles on Unherd that seem to think everything is new under the sun, I do wonder at the dearth of reading that may lead to such ignorance. The only thing new here would seem to be the internet and the ability to push your image to so many people despite one’s circumstances being relative obscurity. In decades past you needed to be an actress, actor, extremely wealthy or a mistress to someone so, to be admired as the epitome of fashion and beauty.
K Joynes
1 year ago
> Fromm argues that “the principle underlying capitalistic society and the principle underlying love are incompatible”.
I wonder if he had “You cannot serve God and mammon” in mind when he wrote that.
You mean a book thousands of year’s old has some gems of wisdom for living included in it?
Here’s another one, apt for our current times, when anyone who has is expected to give it to those who haven’t, regardless of the history of either.
The story of the wise and foolish virgins.
Warren Trees
1 year ago
As with many things today, one can chose to create their own culture and ignore what is being “sold” online. It doesn’t matter if the “in” thing is a 75 lb. girl, who looks like a boy, the morbidly obese, or even the transgendered 6′ 7″ 335 lb. “woman”.
The new wisdom should read, “With all thy getting, get offline!”
AC Harper
1 year ago
This oscillation is the sign of a culture that has lost touch with the eternal.
The oscillation happens, but there is no eternal. Currently societies are battling between the lure of individualism and the comfort of collectivism. Beauty, changeable as it is, is just one of the battlegrounds. It does lend itself to the battle though.
Well said. It could be added there’s a division between those who believe there is an ‘eternal’ (whether religious or otherwise) and those who don’t.
In terms of “the battle”, this could seen as being played out via art. One of the most ancient artefacts is a figurine of a female who by more recent standards might be regarded as grossly overweight. Back then, when perhaps sources of food were scarce, being seen to have enjoyed a plentiful supply could have been ‘beautiful’. Many of the females in Renaissance art, and especially in the movements that followed were quite voluptuous, those portrayed by Rubens for example. Before the photograph and the selfie, that’s how women would’ve wanted to be ‘seen’. That process involving art continues, and always will do in one form or another, as long as humans have an interest in procreation. Maybe that’s as close as we all get to our idea of what the eternal might be, if it existed. There’s certainly a yearning towards it, and it’s at the very core of our sexuality.
“Before the photograph and the selfie, that’s how women would’ve wanted to be ‘seen’”
I suspect they didn’t have much say in the matter. It’s difficult to know how exactly women want to be seen. Assuming we’re talking “western” here, it varies greatly. From age to age or sub culture to sub culture. Which is why I’m dubious about this article, that this so-called prevalent narcissism is a construct of the author. As most have noted, narcissism is not new. I think there would have to be a powerful homogenous look, maybe Victorian for instance, to cause the break down of human relationships that the author suggests. The fact that someone writes about it doesn’t mean the idea is prevalent in society. Could our relationships based on appearance be any worse now than it was in Victorian times? Her article is not evidence of this.
Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brendan Ross
1 year ago
Training ourselves to see the transcendent beauty of virtue
Well, but that’s the problem. Nobody agrees as to the meaning of the words “transcendent”, “beauty”, or “virtue”, as this article itself attests.
The “ancien regime” enforced “virtue” by means of fear — fear of punishment in an afterlife that was longer (eternal, even) than what was billed in the telling as the “fleeting” benefits of “winning” in this life. If you take away that fear factor, most people (not all, of course, but most, such that it shapes the culture) will chase what “winning” looks like in terms of their own human lives. That means different things to different people, but it generally includes some combination of riches, pleasure, power, fame, etc. People will chase this, generally speaking, rather than “virtue” unless there is a powerful stick that punishes them for behaving in a way that is not virtuous. That can either be the “eternal” stick of the most recent ancien regime — a stick which is unlikely to return to popular belief soon for various reasons — or it can be the “temporal” stick enforced by a society that has a clear sense of what its own conception of “virtue” is (like, say, Rome did for a time), and the will to enforce that to some degree by means of access to status, power and so on.
The current “show runners” of our society are trying hard to create the second kind of thing, but at every turn they are faced with a tremendous lack of consensus on all issues — what does virtue mean, is what they are proposing as virtue really virtuous, is promotion of virtuous behavior merely another “mask for power”, etc., etc., etc., from all sides, left and right alike. It isn’t particularly likely, therefore, that we will see any kind of consensus emerging on anything like “the transcendent beauty of virtue” any time soon, if ever, given our riotous pluralism and all that implies.
So in the end, the punch-line of this article is an exercise in wish thinking. It’s empty. Pure aspiration divorced from any kind of feasibility.
Excellent analyses except maybe the last sentence. All kinds of life skills traning has become common in antenatal care, social work, at school etc that wasn’t present a generation ago. So not totally unfeasible that some sort of traning in “sensual praxis” / “ocular askesis” may become widespread a decade or so down the line, if the need for it becomes clearer. I admit said “riotous pluralism” (love that phrase) may add challenge to agreeing on specifics.
Bdjdj Je he jem
1 year ago
One day the human heart will have a Macdonalds logo on it
Bdjdj Je he jem
1 year ago
One day the human heart will have a Macdonalds logo on it
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago
A most interesting article. Agree with the author’s points, but would also say we lack the data to confident about such things. There are many studies finding adverse consequences possibly caused by social media and the rapid rise in smartphone popularity that occurred around 2010, Jean Twenge’s work being the best known. But also dozens of studies finding possible positive consequences on happiness & well being, especially outside of the west.
Looking specifically at Narcicism, that does indeed seem to have been getting worse according to pretty much all credible studies. But it had been worsening sharply well before digital became much of a thing. One study found the percentage of American adolescents endorsing the statement “I am an important person” rocketed from 12% in 1963 to ~ 80% in 1992!. It may be a close to unavoidable side effect of economic development, allowing less sociable folk exercise their preference to be more self focussed & less group dependent, in line with Nell Clover’s comment. It’s interesting to consider that the ‘rat utopia’ experiments famously gave rise to a class of preening, narcistic, “beautiful” rats.
The increased exposure to seeing images of ourselves on the screen has to be contributing to narcissism of course. I wonder if the advance from 2D screens > Virtual Reality might help here? Certainly there are many ultra bright and well motivated folk working at the tech giants who are trying to create more positive social outcomes. I’m sceptical, but certainly for some social groups most -vely affected by recent social trends, e.g. incels, VR & other tech can be a great boon, at least for some individuals.
As for “sensual praxis” / “ocular askesis” I’d agree that would be the ideal solution to the issues described in the article. To a limited extent, perhaps Unherd subscribers might being doing better than most on average, seem to recall several mentioning they are not on social media &/or limit their kids screen time. There’s much more to ocular askesis than that, but I’d suspect things may have to get a lot worse before society starts practicing it at any scale.
The fundamental change that underpins all of this is the increasing opportunity to live our lives independant of others.
Once upon a time we had to live as part of a group and we had to partner as a means of support. Living alone wasn’t really an option. Though our DNA screams for us to be hyper selective of others and simultaneously to preen ourselves to be selected, these behaviors were balanced by a reality that forced moderation and compromise with ourselves and others. Through commitment, because there was no alternative, deep bonds could be developed even in the most unpromising circumstances. I’m not saying these were happier times – they weren’t – but strong bonds with others were a neccesity.
By analogy, our DNA also screams eat sugar! but sugar wasn’t readily available. There was an evolutionary balance with nature that meant this instinctive urge was moderated. Fast forward to the 20th century and suddenly we could have all the sugar we wanted. And we got fat.
Likewise, our selective instincts are overwhelmed by what is available without the pressure to form relationships. Meanwhile, our preening instinct is no longer confined to clothes and make up. We can feed, clothe, entertain and pleasure ourselves without having to build bonds with anyone. In consequence we may never get close to others because we are never forced to compromise with ourselves.
Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, this is how we are hardwired and this is the technologically abundant century in which we live. Whilst we might follow the author’s naive advice to make a virtue out of training ourselves to behave differently, we would be wrestling with 250,000 years of evolutionary pressure so deviation from virtue is guaranteed.
I suspect the author might also be an advocate for a return to a (poorer, hungrier) pre-industrial age to escape the modern world. A return to simpler times has been appealing to humans for 249,999 years. However, for our children, today will be the simpler times they yearn for in their middle age. Today will be their normal whilst for us it is a confused mess.
“the increasing opportunity to live our lives independant of others.”
Is this really true, though? I agree with a lot of what you say, but we begin our lives among others, and as we go through the early years we interact with others. Everything is already there. We are hard wired to live as part of a group. We are not forced to, we want to. That’s how we got here. I don’t see how that would change just because of technology. Can it really be possible that we would chose to turn away from that, to succumb to something from outside of ourselves so easily?
My feeling about articles like this is that they muddy the waters. Sam mentioned being raised on the problem, but what exactly is the problem? Is it narcissism? More than previous generations? Can a phone create this heightened narcissism?
An interesting and thoughtful response to the issue(s) at stake. We’re all living a life through technological change which impacts upon our sense of ourselves, and the basic evolutionary pressures haven’t changed but become both exaggerated and more internalised as – for the first time – we see ourselves reflected back through the mirror of online culture.
Those of us who can easily recall how things were before the internet will feel this in a different way to those who’re online ‘natives’. I’m far from sure it’s even possible to describe to the younger generations how things were different back then. What’s at stake is the very meaning of the self and personality.
I’m certainly not suggesting pre-internet was some kind of Golden Age, far from it; it was just different, just as our great-grandparents must have experienced something similar as they crowded into smoke-filled towns during the Industrial Revolution, with time becoming literally clockwork rather than the overhead passage of the sun. With train travel, they could suddenly meet a partner from outside their immediate environment. Thus, today we can connect across continents via a smartphone, and the evolutionary pressures ramp up with the extension of choice.
So who, or what, are we? I think the simple answer might be that we no longer know, but there’s an almost unfathomable complexity at work. I don’t think calls upon authors / self-appointed gurus to provide “answers” are fair, or realistic. There’s value in raising awareness, and in this, i feel the author has succeeded.
“So who, or what, are we? I think the simple answer might be that we no longer know,”
I’m beginning to think that we’re told we no longer know. I’m also beginning to think we’re told we have these “problems” we must deal with. The author of this piece is not any kind of scientist. She has studied sociology. She’s created a story by having an idea, then wrapping various facts and quotes around it to give it substance. Which is why I asked Sam Wilson if he, at his age, actually experiences the “problem” developed in the writing. Do his friends experience this problem? Coming up with a story about a man who lengthens his bones to make himself taller is an extreme example of the narcissism the writer talks about. It hardly represents the larger population. It seems to be another example of people, in their own self interest, piling on the problems and scaring the horses. It’s very possible we are not as sick as we’re told we are.
In posing the questions, i’m not seeking answers from someone who thinks it’s a good idea to disrespect a teenager before backtracking. Thanks.
When you post here you don’t necessarily get answers, you get another point of view.
Valuable thoughts. I have a “yes, and…” I find it interesting that so many societies in the past have voluntarily adopted constraints — usually imposed through social pressure — to limit our urges which are maladaptive. Even non-/pre-agricultural societies have wielded the power to go beyond the ‘hard’ constraints imposed coevolutionarily by their environments, and have come up with norms to maintain balance. It’s almost like an instinct, but one that embeds itself in our social DNA rather than physical DNA.
To that end, as much as I love his other observations, I’m unsatisified by Fromm’s conclusion that love is not ‘natural’. I think it’s very natural to impose unnatural things on ourselves that elevate our better selves. Dancing, for instance, requires discipline, restraint, and regular investment, but pretty much every culture loves doing it — partly for those very reasons. There’s hope for us yet.
Perhaps my comment is unfair, but I was disappointed by this article mainly because of the identity of the author.
The author chose to write about modern narcissism especially as it relates to body image, how we’ve lost sight of true beauty, and how the internet exacerbates these problems. It was a well written article but, for me, the author was reheating arguments and ideas that have already been written about extensively.
The author’s short bio reveals she’s an environmentalist who founded an organization called the Rizoma Field School. I googled that organization when I read the author’s first publication on Unherd. It’s an interesting (in my opinion) experiment in sustainable living. The author believes, like so many people, that we’re living beyond the planet’s capacity to sustain us and she has created an experiment in an alternative lifestyle that might have lessons for all of us. Why not write about that?
So many journalists/columnists endlessly complain about the problems of the world but, unlike the author, so few offer practical solutions. How is the author’s Rizoma school working out? Has she encountered unexpected challenges or even benefits? Her experiment is potentially important and deserves to be discussed and analyzed, imo. Leave rehashing pop psychology to people who have nothing better to write about.
Yes, I read this piece trying to find some new perspective and analysis, but it’s just a cut-and-paste job that reveals nothing. Unless there’s something meaningful or enlightening in its content then it just comes across as narcissism lite.
A fair response, but I think this article is important regardless. Certainly more than pop-psych at least. Teenage boys and girls like myself, raised on the problems the author criticized, need to first be alerted to the problem before they can work out what to do about it.
Really, you can’t work it out for yourself? What other problems do you have to be alerted to?
Edit: let me rephrase that. You’ll learn nothing from this sort of pop-psychology.
“In other words, both are evidence of the fact that we have fundamentally lost our ability to see real beauty.
An intuitive sense of beauty should transcend trends.”
Explain.
Whoah! Sam made a valid point. Not everyone is anywhere near up to speed on the issue raised. If the problem is being missed by many, anything that might open eyes is helpful. Not sure your response had much value.
I did rephrase it. And this article doesn’t bring anyone up to speed.
Why are they not? Don’t parents advise, warn, attempt to educate their children nowadays? Or is the issue that Schools actively undermine many a parental role?
I wonder if your relative youth compared to other Unherd commenters is likely to lead to patronising responses. But in my view its good to get some insight from a young generation perspective that I seldom come across.
I thought the article was interesting, though one amongst many that rail against narcissism, but it provided a few references to theory that I wasn’t aware of and it posits how we could change our behaviours – so it’s well worthy of Unherd.
Sorry Sam, I may have jumped a bit harshly. Ignore my first comment and focus on what I put down after.
Something else I would like to ask; is the subject of this story actually a problem for you?
Don’t worry about the above comment. And no, it’s not a problem for me, but it is for many of my peers. The difference, I suspect, is that I avoid social media altogether.
On your own reasoning, or reasoning aided by the advice of parents?
Their restrictions, at first, but now having been exposed to it by my friends and classmates it is as much my preference as theirs.
Ah so you’re not typical of your generation! We need social media addicts on here maybe.
My 11 year old granddaughter has a ridiculous pouting and serious photo on her social media profile – it makes me cringe every time I see it. But I don’t say anything about it – I’m waiting until she’s older and wiser when I’ll mock her endlessly for being such a poseur!
A valuable perspective. Thank you.
There are many more beautiful people than there are good looking people. Beauty is what we see in people we spend time with, interact with, get to know, come to appreciate. It includes grace, patience, wit, care and attention to others, none of which are apparent in still images or remote media clips.
What is new here other than the fact instead of ‘artificial accessories’ to beauty, the individual actually alters their body so much more invasively than prior times, thanks to the progress of medical science? Regency period replaced teeth for cosmetic reasons wasn’t unheard of. One of the gory details of a horrible history that I don’t think has much awareness is that the battle of Waterloo provide a surfeit of ‘cosmetic’ new, real false teeth. Wigs, rouge, bustles and brass, padded shoulders on coats for men. None of this is ‘new’ in terms of narcissism or a desire for a form of beauty that is the current perception. (Which by the way changes and has changed always!)
It isn’t just the West either, bound feet in China and possibly Korea and Japan, bound breasts in Korea, Japan. There is a reason that Narcissism takes its name from an mythical figure from antiquity – it isn’t new!
Ironically, breaking bones for one’s appearance also isn’t new. Though possibly the bigger irony was the consequence for the one who did it. Ignatius of Loyola – leg broken in a battle set crooked, so he had it re-broken to be set straight and improve his appearance. Then during his convalescence he found God and Christ and eventually started the Jesuit Order.
Perhaps if the expected ‘return to the dark ages’ the likes of Extinction Rebellion (is the Author a supporter?) seem intent on bringing about in the next decade, happens, all the current narcissistic individuals may form religious orders as their internet dreams vanish?
Finally, given the number of articles on Unherd that seem to think everything is new under the sun, I do wonder at the dearth of reading that may lead to such ignorance. The only thing new here would seem to be the internet and the ability to push your image to so many people despite one’s circumstances being relative obscurity. In decades past you needed to be an actress, actor, extremely wealthy or a mistress to someone so, to be admired as the epitome of fashion and beauty.
> Fromm argues that “the principle underlying capitalistic society and the principle underlying love are incompatible”.
I wonder if he had “You cannot serve God and mammon” in mind when he wrote that.
You mean a book thousands of year’s old has some gems of wisdom for living included in it?
Here’s another one, apt for our current times, when anyone who has is expected to give it to those who haven’t, regardless of the history of either.
The story of the wise and foolish virgins.
As with many things today, one can chose to create their own culture and ignore what is being “sold” online. It doesn’t matter if the “in” thing is a 75 lb. girl, who looks like a boy, the morbidly obese, or even the transgendered 6′ 7″ 335 lb. “woman”.
The new wisdom should read, “With all thy getting, get offline!”
The oscillation happens, but there is no eternal. Currently societies are battling between the lure of individualism and the comfort of collectivism. Beauty, changeable as it is, is just one of the battlegrounds. It does lend itself to the battle though.
Well said. It could be added there’s a division between those who believe there is an ‘eternal’ (whether religious or otherwise) and those who don’t.
In terms of “the battle”, this could seen as being played out via art. One of the most ancient artefacts is a figurine of a female who by more recent standards might be regarded as grossly overweight. Back then, when perhaps sources of food were scarce, being seen to have enjoyed a plentiful supply could have been ‘beautiful’. Many of the females in Renaissance art, and especially in the movements that followed were quite voluptuous, those portrayed by Rubens for example. Before the photograph and the selfie, that’s how women would’ve wanted to be ‘seen’. That process involving art continues, and always will do in one form or another, as long as humans have an interest in procreation. Maybe that’s as close as we all get to our idea of what the eternal might be, if it existed. There’s certainly a yearning towards it, and it’s at the very core of our sexuality.
“Before the photograph and the selfie, that’s how women would’ve wanted to be ‘seen’”
I suspect they didn’t have much say in the matter. It’s difficult to know how exactly women want to be seen. Assuming we’re talking “western” here, it varies greatly. From age to age or sub culture to sub culture. Which is why I’m dubious about this article, that this so-called prevalent narcissism is a construct of the author. As most have noted, narcissism is not new. I think there would have to be a powerful homogenous look, maybe Victorian for instance, to cause the break down of human relationships that the author suggests. The fact that someone writes about it doesn’t mean the idea is prevalent in society. Could our relationships based on appearance be any worse now than it was in Victorian times? Her article is not evidence of this.
Well, but that’s the problem. Nobody agrees as to the meaning of the words “transcendent”, “beauty”, or “virtue”, as this article itself attests.
The “ancien regime” enforced “virtue” by means of fear — fear of punishment in an afterlife that was longer (eternal, even) than what was billed in the telling as the “fleeting” benefits of “winning” in this life. If you take away that fear factor, most people (not all, of course, but most, such that it shapes the culture) will chase what “winning” looks like in terms of their own human lives. That means different things to different people, but it generally includes some combination of riches, pleasure, power, fame, etc. People will chase this, generally speaking, rather than “virtue” unless there is a powerful stick that punishes them for behaving in a way that is not virtuous. That can either be the “eternal” stick of the most recent ancien regime — a stick which is unlikely to return to popular belief soon for various reasons — or it can be the “temporal” stick enforced by a society that has a clear sense of what its own conception of “virtue” is (like, say, Rome did for a time), and the will to enforce that to some degree by means of access to status, power and so on.
The current “show runners” of our society are trying hard to create the second kind of thing, but at every turn they are faced with a tremendous lack of consensus on all issues — what does virtue mean, is what they are proposing as virtue really virtuous, is promotion of virtuous behavior merely another “mask for power”, etc., etc., etc., from all sides, left and right alike. It isn’t particularly likely, therefore, that we will see any kind of consensus emerging on anything like “the transcendent beauty of virtue” any time soon, if ever, given our riotous pluralism and all that implies.
So in the end, the punch-line of this article is an exercise in wish thinking. It’s empty. Pure aspiration divorced from any kind of feasibility.
Excellent analyses except maybe the last sentence. All kinds of life skills traning has become common in antenatal care, social work, at school etc that wasn’t present a generation ago. So not totally unfeasible that some sort of traning in “sensual praxis” / “ocular askesis” may become widespread a decade or so down the line, if the need for it becomes clearer. I admit said “riotous pluralism” (love that phrase) may add challenge to agreeing on specifics.
One day the human heart will have a Macdonalds logo on it
One day the human heart will have a Macdonalds logo on it
A most interesting article. Agree with the author’s points, but would also say we lack the data to confident about such things. There are many studies finding adverse consequences possibly caused by social media and the rapid rise in smartphone popularity that occurred around 2010, Jean Twenge’s work being the best known. But also dozens of studies finding possible positive consequences on happiness & well being, especially outside of the west.
Looking specifically at Narcicism, that does indeed seem to have been getting worse according to pretty much all credible studies. But it had been worsening sharply well before digital became much of a thing. One study found the percentage of American adolescents endorsing the statement “I am an important person” rocketed from 12% in 1963 to ~ 80% in 1992!. It may be a close to unavoidable side effect of economic development, allowing less sociable folk exercise their preference to be more self focussed & less group dependent, in line with Nell Clover’s comment. It’s interesting to consider that the ‘rat utopia’ experiments famously gave rise to a class of preening, narcistic, “beautiful” rats.
The increased exposure to seeing images of ourselves on the screen has to be contributing to narcissism of course. I wonder if the advance from 2D screens > Virtual Reality might help here? Certainly there are many ultra bright and well motivated folk working at the tech giants who are trying to create more positive social outcomes. I’m sceptical, but certainly for some social groups most -vely affected by recent social trends, e.g. incels, VR & other tech can be a great boon, at least for some individuals.
As for “sensual praxis” / “ocular askesis” I’d agree that would be the ideal solution to the issues described in the article. To a limited extent, perhaps Unherd subscribers might being doing better than most on average, seem to recall several mentioning they are not on social media &/or limit their kids screen time. There’s much more to ocular askesis than that, but I’d suspect things may have to get a lot worse before society starts practicing it at any scale.