A More Personal and Direct View of Narcissism/NPD

I do not need convincing that narcissism/NPD exists.  I have seen it, both personally and professionally.  The mental health community was once divided on whether personality disorders exist and it is obvious why.  All of us have unique personalities, with infinitely differing responses to infinitely variable people and environments and, therefore, to diagnose a personality as “disordered”, is only possible through the degree to which it differs from a non-existent “norm”.  It is analogous to alcohol-everyone drinks it, at different times in different amounts, so proving alcohol dependency is more difficult than, say, schizophrenia where we do not all experience auditory hallucinations.

But in any issue of mental health, it is critical to look at the impact of the personality because, after all, the diagnosis of NPD is simply for treatment purposes.  It is also a useful calibration tool when listening to clients who accuse the other side of narcissism, to remember that the old name for narcissism was “moral insanity”.  That characterisation means that if there is a “relevant” degree of narcissism, it is not difficult upon simple questioning to find out which side of the line the possible sufferer may be existing on.  Narcissists have a habit of performing in completely insane ways and implementing their insane thoughts through further layers of behavioural insanity, just like peeling an onion.

They also “project”, so diagnosing the narcissist can be “reverse engineered”, in the sense that because they lack empathy, they think everyone is like them.  That is the bridge between the narcissist acting abusively whilst, also, perceiving themselves as the abused-a very important concept to understand.  For example, the lack of empathy and, therefore, disconnection with other people means that they also think that their partner is cheating.  Invading their partner’s privacy, such as via text messages, emails, the GPS of cars et cetera is to seek to confirm their worldview that everyone cheats, as they do.  They do because they need the narcissistic supply i.e. validation and attention which, from extensive reading and personal knowledge, is the only common denominator in their motivation.  After all, according to Greek mythology, Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection (the “perfect” false persona that they spend a lifetime manipulating others to invest in), not himself (the damaged true persona).

These practical behaviours of a narcissist enable a preliminary view to be formed in order to assist a client in their litigation strategy.  The diagnostic criterion for narcissism contain very practical and, commonly occurring, human characteristics e.g. envy, lack of empathy and grandiosity.  Like every other “test”, it is the extent to which these characteristics manifest in satisfying the diagnostic criterion.  For example, everyone experiences envy but the difficulty/narcissistic abuse arises because the narcissist feels envy regarding the relationships the victim has with friends and family, hence narcissistic abuse, in the form of isolating their victims. 

It is these types of practical applications of the diagnostic criterion which are, in my view, the most important.  Asking a potential client whether their partner lacked empathy, accountability and insight (further diagnostic criterion for NPD), in the middle of a family breakdown caused, as they always are, by the culmination of insurmountable conflict between them is of limited value.  Consequently, those clients who claim that their partner only began showing characteristics of narcissism in the last year or so, prior to the end of the relationship, are more likely to be referring to conflict.  After all, a bad case of conflict can look like mental health-principally a lack of empathy, self-absorption, paranoia and psychosis.  By way of illustration, if you and I were to begin to argue ferociously and continuously as would occur in the final phase of a marriage or relationship, with a reduction in trust and positive regard for one another, it would not be long before we were failing to listen to one another, acting in very defensive ways, arguing about completely unconnected points as if they mattered, and were negatively labelling each other and, perhaps, even being cruel and abusive.  Whilst not attractive to witness, it is the understandable product of conflict where the positive regard between the partners has been replaced by contempt.

A common retort from clients, after I have explained the dynamics of conflict resolution and how they can be improved (expertise available through my working with the firm’s consultant therapist and conflict resolution expert, Gavin Emerson), is that they have tried to write reasonably and respectfully to the other side.  When I see their emails, my suspicions are confirmed.  They are polite, reasonable and respectful but omit any ability to resolve the underlying dispute or knowledge of how to improve communication e.g. by reassurance, and validation. They fail to realise that, however, reasonable their emails, without these qualities, they are telling an upset man or woman what to do.  Never a good thing.

So if it is completely ridiculous to be purporting, as many lawyers do, without any mental health or conflict resolution experience, that they know “how to divorce narcissist” because the clue is on the tin i.e. there is a disorder and, therefore, disordered thinking is neither logical or predictable, what is the purpose of focusing upon narcissism in litigation and how do you prove it? 

• Diagnosing or treating the other side as a narcissist does not come without a price. Blaming others to the point of feeling abused, is not the answer to feeling better. Often, it will terrify the client more believing they have a narcissist on their hands.  Counsellors and therapists who express such opinions about those who they have not met, have much to answer for.

• If a client feels they are the victim of narcissistic abuse (when they are not), it makes it very difficult for them to move on emotionally, particularly when litigation is happening. Further, their levels of distress will impact them and their litigation unless managed very carefully. Perhaps paradoxically, the secret to moving on and recovery is accountability (which is different from blame).  The accountability may be as simple as not realising at all or soon enough that these people exist, through a lack of education or even not consulting this firm early enough to begin that process of understanding! 

• The default position of the family justice system is to minimise or ignore narcissism. It does not understand mental health and, unless the case has been built, the client will be one of many thousands that the court, Cafcass, social workers and court-appointed experts would have encountered, who claim the other side is narcissistic. Their more likely response is that the person alleging narcissism is weaponising blame or seeking to manipulate them.  After all, these professionals do not know how to resolve the problem so, naturally, they are going to minimise it.  It will be quite rare for the alleged sufferer to have had a formal diagnosis of NPD and even if they have, it is for treatment purposes only and mental health fluctuates over time.  Further, based on personality, there is a degree of subconscious control in the sense that the narcissist may be the most damaging and scary individual that the client has encountered and yet have sufficient self restraint or awareness to hide that when speaking to a court-appointed mental health professional or Cafcass for a short period of time.

• The blame that comes with narcissism and personality disorders is extremely damaging to a client’s case. An objective mental health professional would take the view that the narcissist is the victim of a pernicious illness that can be recovered from, albeit with great difficulty, through psychotherapy et cetera. Therefore, seeking to demonise the sufferer, in order to be believed, often creates a projection of the narcissistic qualities onto them e.g. control, lack of empathy, emotional dysregulation.  Without objectivity and strategy, this appearance of blame by a person, who is simply seeking to bring the issue of narcissism to the attention of professionals, becomes very damaging to their case. 

Of course, there are no statistics for those who claim narcissism in litigation compared to those who can prove it.  From my own experience of working with clients and potential clients, I would hazard a guess that the ratio is probably one genuine case of narcissism for every 30 or 40+ cases, where it is alleged but is more likely to be conflict.

If there is a prior diagnosis, then the chances are there will be a court-appointed expert instructed in the current proceedings.  Even that is not without risk because mental health fluctuates over time, the narcissist may be able to mask their difficulties in the meeting with the court-appointed expert (already defective in the sense that narcissism can only be diagnosed over a series of meetings), and there is no historic diagnosis, nor any baseline behaviour to draw from.  Further, the existence of the litigation conflict can completely mask any diagnosis-conflict being a skill set which a clinical mental health professional is not trained in.

Whether a client is successful in proving a diagnosis of narcissism and, more importantly, its impact on the family and any children, will depend on whether your solicitor can prove its existence prior to litigation starting or in the early stages of the proceedings, prior to FHDRA, when directions are made by the court.  Due to the multidisciplinary skill set we have, involving law, mental health and conflict resolution, we can build a case very quickly so that appropriate directions can be obtained at the FHDRA.

The importance of this combined skill set cannot be overstated in family litigation.  We have the clinical, therapeutic, conflict resolution and practical knowledge to understand whether narcissism exists, how to prove it, how to best explain the impact of it and, most importantly, protecting the client when that diagnosis has to be communicated to others, who have to be managed as part of the message getting through.

For further information please call or email Richard Gregorian.