http://www.dungeonservitus.com/

Also, the previous article got a bit of attention on the Skinny site, which I tried to respond to there, but for some reason I couldn't work out how to post comments.

Anyway, first off, Jiz Lee sent a lovely comment in answer to the question 'where are the voices of transwomen in porn?'.

There are many trans performers in the queer, mostly "dyke" pornography of Pink & White Productions, directed by Shine Louise Houston. One talented performer is featured on the company's online pornsite, crashpadseries.com, and that same scene is also on DVD "Crash Pad Series Volume 2: Unlocked" along with 4 other scenes from the website's 2nd season of episodes. Her name is Julie and she's a stunning goth transwomyn. She is post-op which is a rarity in porn, particularly for MtF performers. Also, this was her very first sex scene, and she was paired with alt star Michelle Aston. You can join CrashPadSeries.com to find Julie, or buy the DVD. More info at PinkWhite.biz. Rock On Queer Porn Revolution!

xo
Jiz
JizLee.com

And, yes, the stuff they're doing over at Pink & White is *exactly* the kind of thing I was wishing for in the article. Be sure to go check out The Crash Pad's site. Major kudos to them, and thank you so much for the comment and letting me know about it Jiz!

Secondly, from the creative director of the Skinny, Matthew MacLeod, I get this.

"ciswomen" - I hope this is a joke.

Matthew, did you see me laughing about it? Before you go making such a crass comment on one of the pieces in your very own magazine, something I applaud with a hearty slow handclap, maybe you'd like to do a bit of basic google research on the subject? Then, if you still don't agree with the method of distinguishing between, say, women who are trans* and women who are not, then at least you can provide a comment that would give me a jolly good brainchew while I try and tackle your, at this point nebulous, viewpoint. Instead, I'm left thinking that you're a bit of a prat and that you have communication skills of a sheltered eight year old.

And, no, that's not a joke either.

Love xx

It is the fate of Hollywood to forever serve up lessons from history with carefully rounded edges so that no-one can hurt themselves.  So back in 1983 they gave us The Big Chill and we all talked about how it was that that sixties rebellion had turned into eighties consumerism, and felt thoughtful.  Lawrence Kasdan made a quid by fixing his gaze on that little quirk and teasing it out into a movie and the industry made a fortune by recognising the value of retro soundtracks.

Pop was built on this type of thing.  Since 1955 people have been declaring themselves as rebels and deviants.  They have picked up their guitars and hit that open E chord and said that they didn’t care how much that doggie in the window cost or that they wouldn’t get fooled again or that they were the antichrist, only to find that they had to get a better accountant to deal with the green.

There’s a derivative problem.  What do you do when you’ve been keeping it real for so long that no-one can ignore the fact that you are now a major business concern and have to pick up that same guitar for contractual (and lifestyle) obligations when you could be eligible for a bus pass or reduced premium insurance?  You can, of course, rely on the industry spin that now casts your rebellious three minute compositions as classic rock and hope that you’re never called on it.  The segue from rebel to icon isn’t that hard to manage when you have the resources of a multi-billion dollar corporation behind you.  But you have to be careful because those little bits of film that recorded your ascent and artistic maturation, such an important income stream in themselves, can give you away when you’re not paying attention.

Two examples, one rocker:  Take Keith Richards, father of some of the niftiest riffs in rock, a ruined septum and Captain Jack Sparrow.  How did Keith’s fans feel when they saw Taylor Hackford’s 1987 film about Chuck Berry, Hail! Hail! Rock’n’Roll?  There’s a moment when Chuck and Keith and the guys are rehearsing for Chuck’s birthday gig and Chuck comments of Keith’s guitar playing along the lines of nice stuff, Mr. Richards, why aren’t you playing jazz?  And Keith replies, with the pantomime of a well-worn gag line, ‘Because there’s no money in it.’  And that’s true.  And he can’t be blamed for playing for the money.  And if there’s anything that the world doesn’t need, it’s another jazz guitarist.  So the fans can take comfort in Keith’s realism.

But how did those same fans feel when they saw the more recent concert footage of Keith in Martin Scorsese’s 2008 documentary, Shine A Light?  The riffs were there, the attitude was there, but when he got down on one leg with the other splayed out to give us some of that machine gun, off-the-hip guitar work, he looked like he was torturing himself.  His poor knees must have been calling out for a quiet afternoon reading Gibbon and a nice cup of tea.  To be fair, Jagger looked like an Olympic gymnast with his eyes set on gold.  But Keith’s knees?  Poor Keith’s knees.

A lot of people stay at work too long.  Retirement can be daunting.  But they are not the only concern here.  Music criticism has also taken up the mantle.  It has become a standard refrain to construct the disenchanted youth that feed the pop machine as having something about them that the pop music industry takes, reworks, repackages and resells in a malevolent act of profit making.  Is it an intelligent critical position that takes the self-publicity of nascent pop stars as grounds for critical enquiry?

The industry has grown ever larger over the past fifty plus years by maintaining the myth of presenting the self-proclaimed deviants to a broad-based audience of record, CD and download consumers.  It should be clear by now that deviance is part of the standard operating practice of the industry.  It isn’t even the only industry that works that way.  Hollywood has already been mentioned.  Have a look at the art market.  How many first novelists turn their rebellious but insightful eye and abrasive manner into a three book deal with options on the long career?  Not as many as would like to would appear to be the answer.

If entertainment industries market deviance as a first step to classic status, then what are the implications of this for the way in which we either make or respond to music in general?  It hasn’t always been the case that the new was deviant.  It probably will not always be the case either but it is characteristic of last fifty plus years of pop.  It would be nice to know more about it.

AM

TWO men sit at a dining room table eating an exotic meal prepared by the one man. The meal of choice: the other man's penis.

No, this is not a horror movie! But is the last meal this 'victim' will consume before his willing death.

Online communities offer a number of people support, advice and help, but there are also communities which use this platform as a medium of deviance.

Two computer nerds show the extent to which an online platform aided in one man's untimely death.

I've never trusted computer nerds

A German computer technician, Armin Meiwes is one of the most famous online cannibals, after he filmed himself killing and cutting up the corpse of computer engineer, Bernd Brandes. He found his 'volunteer' after advertising on Internet chatrooms  for "men for slaughter".

Meiwes is serving a life sentence after butchering and eating over 20kg's of his "willing victim's" flesh.

Meiwes confessed after his trial that he had always wanted a younger brother. Someone who was a part of him and "someone he could keep forever".  

Anyone up for a bite?

Meiwes claims that he had four other 'volunteers' that were willing to be eaten, however, they did not live up to his ideals.

One man even chickened out at the last moment when Meiwes had already tied him up and was planning where to stab him.  Surprisingly, Meiwes let him go when he got cold feet.

He eventually found his 'manly meal' in Brandes, who was equally interested in been eaten.

Meiwes used a pseudonym, Franky in his internet advertisements, one of which read: "I search for a boy, if i can real kill him and butchering him. I am a cannibal, a real cannibal. If you are between 18 and 25 Y/O, you are my Boy. Franky from Germany" (sic) (dated 18 April 2002).

Another post dated 30 December 2001, reads: "I am Franky from Germany and i search for a young Boy, between 18 and 25 y/o. Have you a normal build Body and will you di, than come to me, i butchering you and eat your horny flesh".(sic)

German hospitality

Brandes, was apparently a willing 'victim' who agreed to be eaten in front of a running video camera. Brandes answered Meiwes advert and went voluntarily to his home. There he agreed to let Meiwes cut off his penis and together they ate it. 

A disturbing fact is that a number of people responded to Meiwes Internet advert, but experts advise that a large proportion of these people are sexual fantasy fetishists and would indulge in the thought or fantasy but not the actual 'fatal finale'.

Meiwes was only apprehended after an Austrian student spotted another online advert searching for individuals willing to be consumed.

Delicious deviance

There are a great deal of Internet message boards and chatrooms where people use these platforms for devious intentions, such as cannibalistic/murderous urges, but most people laugh them off as jokes or hoaxes.

Killing is big business. And whether people like it or not, murder is a lucrative commodity. People are interested in murders and this demonstrated the large number of articles, books, newspaper reports, DVD's, documentaries, movies and television programmes devoted to this very subject.

American television programmes, such as the very popular CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, influence the way  killers are perceived but these shows' popularity prove the extent to which society's fascination with violence, crime and murder extends.

Silent sinners

Dr Hannibal Lecter, in Thomas Harris's "The Silence of the Lambs" first appeared in book version and then in movie version This character was very popular and another serial killer character in the book and movie; "Buffalo Bill," was loosely based on the real-life serial killers, Gary Heidnik and Ed Gein.

This demonstrates how fact is transformed into fiction in the hope of entertaining an audience and making money.

Society separates themselves from the killers by embellishing the gruesome and morbid details of the murder's deeds.

A killer is constructed as possessing an unwavering sub-human darkness of human nature. The killer's dark side is believed to either be primordial, animalistic, instinctual or evil. By doing this society seems to be denying the fact that they too are capable of evil or that they possess a dark side themselves.

Sautéed strangeness

This case is strange because we as consumers, (media and murder observers), like to assume that the murderer is all-evil and monstrous.

This case obscures boundaries as the victim was a willing participant, his mental state may have been questionable, but these two computer 'nerds', who are socially defined as boring and geeky,(not monstrous) broke stereotypes and with it, the rules were thrown out.

Not only are people not meant to agree to be murdered, but to sit and dine off your own 'bits' with the man who is planning to kill you, disturbs one's versions of the expected and the notions of normalcy.

One thing is for sure, I'm never dating a computer nerd, I'm going to be more aware of people named Franky in chatrooms and when someone asks, "let's go for a bite"... I'm going to run very very fast!

Of course, this caused no end to problems in relationships.  Viewing sex as an unpleasant but necessary part of maintaining a relationship, I would engage in it only when it would start to become a problem.  This meant I would avoid it as long as possible, often actively avoiding my girlfriend when I knew she wanted sex. When she wanted that, I would suddenly be too busy to be around.  Then, when it could no longer be avoided, I would do it grudgingly, wanting it done so that we could get back to our regular relationship.  Many times this led to girls seeking sex elsewhere, but that didn't bother me.  As long as they were getting it somewhere else, I didn't have to do it and provided they were still coming home to me, I didn't care.  What I wanted was companionship, someone to spend my time with, someone to socialize with, someone to do everything with, just not that.

My attitude toward sex often generated arguments.  Occasionally, it would be overtly about sex.  I would be accused of getting it somewhere else (usually this happened because she was getting it somewhere else and was feeling guilty), or I would be accused of finding her unattractive, or flawed in some other way.  But more often, the argument would be about something else with sex being the subtext.  Over time, several relationships ended because of this.  Either they found someone else, or they decided the frustration was too much to handle.

Despite the problems it caused, I never wanted to change.  In my mind, the problem was not with me.  Having no sex drive myself, it was difficult to understand why sex was such a big deal to everyone.  My view was that it was a lot like drugs; a lot of people do it because they're not supposed to be doing it.  It was an act that was for procreation, and, while an orgasm certainly felt good, it simply wasn't good enough to justify the seeming obsession most people had with it.

It wasn't until recently that this changed for me.

When I first met my fiancee, one of the things I told her was that I wasn't much interested in sex.  I wanted to make it clear from the beginning that it was something she shouldn't expect often.  But, since I've been with her, things have changed a bit.  Maybe it's that I trust her as I trust myself.  Maybe it's that she never made me feel like it was a big deal.  Maybe it's that I can be completely open and honest with her like I've never been able to be with anyone else.  I can't say exactly what it is that's brought about the change in me, but I absolutely love sex with her and I think about it much more than I have in the past.  Though, I think I think about it in a way that is different from a lot of men.  Rather than being something that I want with anyone who will give it, I want it only with her.  It is the intimacy, the closeness, the sense of being connected, being one with her that makes it enjoyable, not simply the orgasm.

At times, this change strikes me as being very strange.  It's weird liking something that I actively avoided for so long.  However, despite this strangeness, I'm happy to have a relationship where sex is not a source of problems.  Rather, for the first time, I feel like we have a relationship that is whole.  I don't know how I got here, but as long as I'm with her I have no intention of going back.

Later, as a teenager, the enjoyment that I received from that activity became sexualized.  I would lay in bed with the covers pulled tightly around me, pinned neatly under my naked body, the warm, dizzy, suffocating sensation giving me an erection that, with my hands pinned beneath me, I could do nothing about.  For as long as I could bear, I would lay there, my cocoon growing warmer and warmer until finally I was drenched in sweat.  With the old, familiar panic beginning to creep up, I would free myself and find some release.

During my early adulthood, I gave this up, but would often find myself fantasizing about being wrapped in plastic.  It was something that never went beyond being a simple fantasy.  Sometimes I would try to work out the logistics of doing this to myself, but no matter how well I thought it out, I was never sure about being able to free myself once the deed was done, so I never took action.  Occasionally, I would entertain the idea of asking someone to wrap me up, but being from a conservative Texas town, such "deviant" behavior is not something that would have been welcomed by any of the girls I dated.  Nor, would I have trusted any of them enough to place myself in such a vulnerable position.  Instead, I decided to forget about it and place it on the list of things that would be great to do but would never actually happen.

A few weeks ago, however, I told my fiancee that I wanted her to wrap me in plastic.  After all, I trust her as I trust myself and, not being from that flat spot in Texas, she has no automatic bias against such behavior.  Unsurprisingly, and to my elation, she said she would.  So, last week, she took a roll of cling wrap and slowly wrapped my naked body in several layers of plastic.

The whole experience was better than had I ever hoped.  As she slowly rolled out the layers, leaving me immobilized, she seemed to be genuinely enjoying herself.  With each pass, she was smiling more and gaining excitement.  By the time the entire roll was encasing me, we were both a bit giddy.  Then came time for me to move to a horizontal position.  This required some careful maneuvering for both of us.  While I could move my feet slightly, there was the very real possibility that I would fall during the move and there would be no choice to cut me free to get me up off the floor.  Slowly, I inched my way to the bed and she helped me onto my back.  Once I was there, she laid against me, her body heat causing me to sweat and stick to the inside of my casing.  This was surprisingly relaxing with the only discomfort coming from my erection being restricted by my wrappings.

After pressing against me and talking for awhile, she decided to cut my erection free.  Having no ability to move on my own, she was free to do with me as she pleased; and, with each action she took, I became sweatier and less able to move.  The pleasure mixed with the frustration of being trapped was one of the best feelings I've ever experienced.  Eventually, though, the feeling of panic and anxiety began to creep in and I had to ask her to cut me free before I started to hyperventilate.

This, like so many others with her, was one of the best sexual experiences of my life.  Certainly, we will be doing it again.  But, even greater than the experience itself, is having someone that I can trust to do this with.  I love being vulnerable with her and I love being able to be free with her.  That's something I've never experienced with anyone.  And, that's one of the many, many reasons I'm making her my wife.

Prise en charge possible dans le cadre de la formation professionnelle.
Contact : Association TranSFaire
Tel : 01 53 69 08 80 / Fax : 01 53 69 09 99

Dans le cadre de l'Année Européenne du Dialogue Interculturel, le Parc de la Villette organise un grand colloque international portant sur la santé mentale en Europe. A partir de l'oeuvre de Michel Foucault, d'éminentes personnalités du monde psychiatrique, judiciaire et philosophique, s'interrogent sur les notions de responsabilité pénale et de dangerosité dans la société contemporaine.

Ce colloque sera ponctué d'interventions théâtrales mises en scène par Laurence Février qui s'appuiera sur des interviews d'usagers et de personnel de la santé faites dans des hôpitaux psychiatriques.Avec Robert Badinter, Elisabeth Roudinesco, Colin Gordon, Frédéric Gros, Anneke Bolle, Claude Finkelstein, Frédéric Chavaud, Daniel Zagury, Thierry Levy, Denis Salas, Juge E. Ormston, Alain Boulay, Françoise Digneffe, Mario Colucci, Claude-Olivier Doron, Jean-Olivier Viout et le soutien de la Commission européenne, dans le cadre de « 2008 - Année Européenne du Dialogue Interculturel »

Colloque international

Culture psychiatrique et culture judiciaire : relire Michel Foucault

15-16 septembre 2008

avec Robert Badinter, Elisabeth Roudinesco, Colin Gordon, Frédéric Gros, Anneke Bolle, Claude Finkelstein, Frédéric Chavaud, Daniel Zagury, Thierry Levy, Denis Salas, Juge E. Ormston, Alain Boulay, Françoise Digneffe, Mario Colucci, Claude-Olivier Doron, Jean-Olivier Viout.

Programme/Program

Lundi 15 septembre

 Foucault et la folie / Foucault and Madness L’expertise psychiatrique / The Psychiatric Examination

Mardi 16 septembre

 La responsabilité pénale des malades mentaux / Criminal Responsibility of Mentally Disabled People La « dangerosité » : surveiller et soigner / Dangerosity : Discipline and Cure

 Culture psychiatrique et culture judiciaire : Pourquoi relire Foucault aujourd’hui ?

Depuis le 19ème siècle, par le détour de l’expertise psychiatrique, la psychologie de l’inculpé se retrouve au cœur des débats judiciaires. La justice examine à la fois des actes dont le caractère délictueux doit être établi, et des sujets dont la responsabilité doit être évaluée. Aujourd’hui, la prise en compte accrue du ressenti des victimes et des peurs de la société réinterroge les rapports entre le domaine pénal et le domaine médical. De ces rapports toujours instables et conflictuels, Michel Foucault a fait l’histoire ; une histoire qui vise à déranger nos partages trop évidents, nos certitudes prétendument immémoriales. Si le code pénal a évolué, les questions posées par le philosophe à cette entrée du savoir psychiatrique dans le pouvoir judiciaire restent d’actualité : à quelle légitimité prétend l’expertise psychiatrique ? Jusqu’où la justice doit-elle se préoccuper de la psychologie des individus ? A quelles stratégies répond le suivi socio-judiciaire des malades jugés « dangereux » ? Ces trois questions seront abordées au cours d’un colloque qui ne se propose pas tant de commenter Foucault, que d’utiliser certaines de ses grilles de lecture pour analyser l’inquiétude actuelle des professionnels et des usagers. A l’heure où la santé mentale devient un enjeu de la politique commune européenne, ce colloque se veut international. Mais pourquoi revenir aujourd’hui à une pensée qui a accompagné les combats d’hier, liés à un contexte médical différent, comme ceux de l’antipsychiatrie ? Publié en 1961, L’Histoire de la folie est devenu un ouvrage classique, au risque d’être classé, comme un monument. Sa thèse principale semble aussi connue que contestée. L’actualité éditoriale internationale nous invite cependant à souffler la poussière accumulée. Dans les pays de langue anglaise, ce n’est que l’an dernier que le grand public a pu accéder à la première traduction intégrale de L’Histoire de la folie. A travers le monde, la publication des cours au Collège de France, entamée en France en 1997, a profondément renouvelé notre approche de l’oeuvre foucaldienne. Au sein de ce corpus foisonnant, les deux cours consacrés à la psychiatrie (1973-1974 : Le pouvoir psychiatrique et 1974-1975 : Les anormaux) opèrent des déplacements importants par rapport au travail inaugural de 1961. Pour une jeune génération de chercheurs, relire Foucault a d’abord été synonyme de l’entendre pour la première fois. Par ailleurs, le philosophe français a été particulièrement sensible à la dramaturgie de la folie qui a habité notre culture, de Calderon à Artaud. Le lieu même de La Villette nous invite à honorer cet aspect, en offrant la possibilité, conjointement au colloque, de découvrir les oeuvres réalisées par Yayoi Kusama et d’entendre les paroles collectées par Laurence Fevrier, comédienne et metteur en scène.

Comité scientifique

• Philippe Artières, Historien, chargé de recherche LAHIC-CNRS
• Daniel Defert, Sociologue, maître de conférences à  l'université Paris VIII
• Claude Finkelstein, Présidente de la Fédération Nationale des Associations de Patients et ex-patients en Psychiatrie
• François Gibault, Avocat à  la Cour d'appel de Paris
• Tim Greacen, Psychologue, directeur du laboratoire de recherche de l'EPS Maison Blanche
• Frédéric Gros, Philosophe, professeur à  l'université Paris XII
• Jean-Louis Senon, Psychiatre, professeur à  la Faculté de Médecine, Université de Poitiers

Programme provisoire - sous réserve de modificationLundi 15 septembre :

1.Foucault et la folie

• 09h30 Lecture de la préface à  L'Histoire de la folie (1961) (Laurence Février)
• 09h45 Mme Elisabeth Roudinesco. « Michel Foucault à  l'heure des nouvelles pratiques psychiatriques » »
• 10h30 DUO : M. Colin Gordon (GB) et M. Frédéric Gros. « L'Histoire de la folie : un livre en débat. »
• 11h15 Lecture d'un texte de Michel Foucault. (Laurence Février)
• 11h30 Maître Robert Badinter. « Justice et psychiatrie à  l'aube du XXIème siècle. »
• 12h00 Débat
• 12h30 Pause

2.L'expertise psychiatrique en questions

• 14h00 « Culture psychiatrique et culture judiciaire : inquiétudes en Europe » - Table ronde avec quatre représentants d'associations européennes d'usagers de la psychiatrie : Mme Anneke Bolle (Pays-Bas), Pologne, Portugal, France. - Animation : Mme Claude Finkelstein (France) - intervention des acteurs de Laurence Février
• 15h00 M. Frédéric Chauvaud. L'expertise psychiatrique chez Michel Foucault.
• 15h30 Questions du public
• 15h45 Pause
• 16h00 Dr. Daniel Zagury. Pratiques et risques de l'expertise.
• 16h45 Maître Thierry Levy. Droits de la défense et savoir du crime.
• 17h15 Table ronde finale ' questions du public
• 18h00 Fin

Mardi 16 septembre :

3.La responsabilité pénale des malades mentaux

• 09h30 Ouverture
• 09h45 M. Denis Salas. « Juger ou ne pas juger : réflexions sur le non lieu et le biopouvoir »
• 10h15 Juge E. Ormston (Canada). « Toronto's exemplary Court of Mental Health »
• 10h45 Intervention des acteurs de Laurence Février
• 11h00 DUO : parole des usagers de la psychiatrie / parole des victimes de crimes Mme Claude Finkelstein et M. Alain Boulay
• 11h45 Table ronde générale ' questions du public
• 12h30 Pause

4.La dangerosité : surveiller et soigner

• 14h00 Mme Françoise Digneffe (Belgique). « Généalogie du concept de dangerosité »
• 14h30 Intervention des acteurs de Laurence Février
• 14h45 Dr. Mario Colucci (Italie). « La dangerosité en psychiatrie : la réponse italienne »
• 15h15 Questions du public
• 15h30 Pause
• 15h45 M. Claude-Olivier Doron. « Délinquance sexuelle et dispositifs de sécurité ».
• 16h30 M. Jean-Olivier Viout. « Moyens et ambiguïtés du suivi socio-judiciaire »
• 17h00 Table ronde finale ' questions du public
• 18h00 Fin.

http://funnydominatrix.blip.tv/#1202154

By Tamara K. Nopper

August 15, 2008

I have become increasingly interested in and troubled by transgender politics. I first learned what the term transgender meant when, almost a decade ago, I worked with a person who self-identified as trans. She no longer (or perhaps never did) identified with the physical body in which she inhabited. Eventually, she asked us to begin identifying her with male pronouns, altered her name slightly to drop a letter at the end that identified the name as female, and engaged in a series of behaviors that were, to put it mildly, masculine (and at times downright dudish), which, presumably, was to remind us that she was now a transgender man.

I was not yet familiar with the term transgender, something that my co-worker assumed I should have been since I was, at the time, enrolled in a Ph.D. program. According to my co-worker, I should have “known better.” While revealing his bourgeois belief that political enlightenment is actually encouraged in the U.S. academy, I was more intrigued with his assumption that I should politically care about his need to be accepted as another gender than what he had been assigned. I had never really thought of having another gender as a political option. I had only considered how men and women were exotified and disciplined, in a variety of ways, for not having bodies that were deemed appropriate. And given that my own Asian body, what many label as “thick,” was often treated as an illicit spectacle by a multiracial group of observers, I was already aware that a fixation on bodies is very much shaped by racial ideologies about what is viewed as appropriate physiology for one’s race. And I also knew that no one had an appropriate body unless the body was white.

Over the years I learned more about how transgender politics is an effort to challenge what people label the gender binary. This binary assumes that there exist only two genders, male and female. Sociologists often refer to sex as the biological distinctions between men and women and gender as the “socially constructed” division between the sexes. More nuanced work, such as that by Anne Fausto-Sterling, has addressed this false dichotomization between sex and gender. Fausto-Sterling points out that sex is also a socially defined category and that medical institutions play a major role in labeling physiology as either male or female, even when individuals may have sexual organs that are medically ambiguous or hermaphroditic. This labeling of physiology, regardless of non-ambiguity, is of course social and political in that sex assignment serves as a road map for how a person should be perceived by society, who the person should desire (within compulsory heterosexuality), and how the person perceives and presents oneself along norms considered appropriate for men or women.

This gender binary is part and parcel of modernist discourse. Drawing from and fortifying the history of eugenics and U.S. empire, this discourse assumes that nations and racial groups associated with them are on a continuum from primate to most civilized, i.e., modernized within a western, capitalist paradigm. As pointed out by both E. Frances White in her book Dark Continent of our Bodies: Black Feminism and the Politics of Respectability and Louise Newman in her book White Women’s Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States, it is assumed that the stricter the gender roles between men and women, the more modern a society. The gender-role continuum is raced in that it was (and still is) assumed that white Americans and Europeans were the most developed in terms of national origins, physiologies, and gender divisions and roles. Thus, different racial and national groups (particularly Africans, Asians, and Native Americans) were depicted as having social and familial norms that were not appropriately hetero-normative. This heterosexist conclusion was informed by medical diagnoses that determined that non-white people, particularly Blacks, had either excessive or diminutive physiologies. For example, as Siobhan B. Somerville describes in Queering the Colorline: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture, the assumption of excessive genitalia among African Americans, particularly Black women, was of particular fixation among the medical and eugenicist communities and also contributed to the homophobic and white supremacist idea that homosexuality was determined by and indicative of racial/bodily deviance. Physiologies associated with deviation from the white “normal” body, were also associated with “deviant” gender and sexual identities, sexual desires, and inappropriate partner choices (from animals to other races to the same sex). In other words, a fixation on bodies, particularly genitalia, is part of a white supremacist agenda.

Unfortunately, many of the people I have met who promote transgender politics appear to miss this point. While sometimes drawing attention to the experiences of trans people of color, the transgender individuals I know or have met nevertheless tend to operate with a strict division between gender and race as two different types of categories. Many will accept the notion that race is a “social construction” but then claim that there is a true gender (or alternative gender not aligned with their assignments) existing within them that needs to be able to express itself publicly. While this expression generally, and perhaps ironically, relies on stereotypical performances of masculinity and femininity to be coherent, I am more interested in exploring the belief that non-transgender people should provide political space to trans individuals.

When I have asked friends why we should politically care about transgender politics, I am often told that we should support people’s ability to transition or express oneself as trans–and have political and legal protection for these transitions/expressions as well as financial resources to facilitate medical processes if need be–because this is who the person “really is.” I interpret this defense of trans politics as suggesting that gender (even if not the gender one was assigned) is “real,” and race is a “construction.” As such, transgender people are supposed to get our progressive support for being able to express who they “really are” and to have their bodies and bodily expressions align with the “true” (gendered) person existing inside.

This assumption has been widely accepted, although not debated, among progressives, particularly women (and by women, I am including white women). Indeed, it is not uncommon to have transgender people, particularly transgender men (people who identify as men) getting resources, podiums, and awards from what were previously women only and/or people of color only spaces. While political debate among women only and/or people of color only spaces is much needed, it is noteworthy that transgender men tend to confront women (and particularly women of color, who are at the bottom of the woman hierarchy) and (often queer) men of color for these resources more than they do white non-trans/straight men much in the same way that white anti-racists tend to confront people of color more than they do whites. What is also noteworthy is that progressive people of color who are not trans tend to shy away from real serious debate about transgender politics. While some of this is certainly due to the fact that some simply don’t want to deal with gender and sexuality issues beyond their own comfort, I suspect that some simply are quick to share resources out of fear of being labeled transphobic rather than out of some developed political commitment to the issue.

While transphobia certainly exists in both subtle and overt ways, this lack of debate has contributed to an assumption that the political elements that are at the heart of transphobia do not affect men and women of color who are not trans-identified and who may even be transphobic. It seems that some transgender proponents assume that it is only the trans body that is under scrutiny or fails to live up to appropriate (read white) norms of gender and sexuality. It is true that there is a particular fixation to determine the genitalia of people whose gender expression is not easily “readable” and that such a fixation is bound to a desire to sexually interrogate and physically and socially discipline the trans body. Yet this fixation with genitalia and with the sexual “nature” of the body and the violence associated with such preoccupations are not limited to trans bodies. They affect anyone whose body is not white, regardless of the person’s gender, sexuality, or politics regarding either. While many of us, as women of color who identify as women, will be identified by the state and individuals as women, we need to confront the fact that the non-white body is never fully free from serving as gendered and sexualized spectacle. That is, all of our bodies are subject to scrutiny, exotification, appraisal, intrusion, and violence. The same goes for men of color who identify as men, regardless of how much they want to ignore how vulnerable they are to gendered and sexualized violence perpetrated by men and women. In other words, simply being non-white in the world means that our bodies are subject to a violent white gaze (which non-whites may adopt) that determines how our bodies are ranked, interacted with, taken in, or punished.

The possibility of transgender politics, then, is not simply to reaffirm the “real” gender existing within the body. Such a reaffirmation neglects the reality that all non-white bodies, to varying degrees, are struggling to define what makes our bodies and our internal sense of self “real” in a world in which whiteness serves as the ultimate standard for gender and sexual normalcy and blackness as deviance. This struggle often leads to a variety of problematic behaviors among non-whites, including attempts to secure physical whiteness (and move away from being associated with physical blackness) through bodily alteration, appeals to patriarchy, masculinity, and homophobia in an effort to “reform” or “rehabilitate” bodies from being perceived as deviant, or, in the case of some trans people, the use of tropes of blackness to show they are “fucking with gender” (and in turn, reaffirming the idea of blackness as deviance). Rather the possibility of transgender politics lies in its potential critique of bodily fixation, gender divisions, heterosexuality, and modernist aspirations that informs our lived experiences with and activist challenges to white supremacy and anti-blackness. Such an approach would serve a less solipsistic agenda and rather work to push vital and urgent conversations about racialized gender and sexual violence that happens to, and between non-whites, trans and non-trans.

© Copyright Tamara K. Nopper 2008

Why does the narcissist conjure up another Self? Why not simply transform his True Self into a False one?

Answer:

We often marvel at the discrepancy between the private and public lives of our idols: celebrities, statesmen, stars, writers, and other accomplished figures. It is as though they have two personalities, two selves: the "true" one which they reserve for their nearest and dearest and the "fake" or "false" or "concocted" one which they flaunt in public.

In contrast, the narcissist has no private life, no true self, no domain reserved exclusively for his nearest and dearest. His life is a spectacle, with free access to all, constantly on display, garnering narcissistic supply from his audience. In the theatre that is the narcissist's life, the actor is irrelevant. Only the show goes on.

Once formed and functioning, the False Self stifles the growth of the True Self and paralyses it. Henceforth, the True Self is virtually non-existent and plays no role (active or passive) in the conscious life of the narcissist. It is difficult to "resuscitate" it, even with psychotherapy.

This substitution is not only a question of alienation, as Horney observed. She said that because the Idealised (=False) Self sets impossible goals to the narcissist, the results are frustration and self hate which grow with every setback or failure. But the constant sadistic judgement, the self-berating, the suicidal ideation emanate from the narcissist's idealised, sadistic, Superego regardless of the existence or functioning of a False Self.

There is no conflict between the True Self and the False Self.

First, the True Self is much too weak to do battle with the overbearing False. Second, the False Self is adaptive (though maladaptive). It helps the True Self to cope with the world. Without the False Self, the True Self would be subjected to so much hurt that it will disintegrate. This happens to narcissists who go through a life crisis: their False Ego becomes dysfunctional and they experience a harrowing feeling of annulment.

The False Self has many functions. The two most important are:

1. It serves as a decoy, it "attracts the fire". It is a proxy for the True Self. It is tough as nails and can absorb any amount of pain, hurt and negative emotions. By inventing it, the child develops immunity to the indifference, manipulation, sadism, smothering, or exploitation – in short: to the abuse – inflicted on him by his parents (or by other Primary Objects in his life). It is a cloak, protecting him, rendering him invisible and omnipotent at the same time.

1. The False Self is misrepresented by the narcissist as his True Self. The narcissist is saying, in effect: "I am not who you think I am. I am someone else. I am this (False) Self. Therefore, I deserve a better, painless, more considerate treatment." The False Self, thus, is a contraption intended to alter other people's behaviour and attitude towards the narcissist.

These roles are crucial to survival and to the proper psychological functioning of the narcissist. The False Self is by far more important to the narcissist than his dilapidated, dysfunctional, True Self.

The two Selves are not part of a continuum, as the neo-Freudians postulated. Healthy people do not have a False Self which differs from its pathological equivalent in that it is more realistic and closer to the True Self.

It is true that even healthy people have a mask [Guffman], or a persona [Jung] which they consciously present to the world. But these are a far cry from the False Self, which is mostly subconscious, depends on outside feedback, and is compulsive.

The False Self is an adaptive reaction to pathological circumstances. But its dynamics make it predominate, devour the psyche and prey upon both the True Self. Thus, it prevents the efficient, flexible functioning of the personality as a whole.

That the narcissist possesses a prominent False Self as well as a suppressed and dilapidated True Self is common knowledge. Yet, how intertwined and inseparable are these two? Do they interact? How do they influence each other? And what behaviours can be attributed squarely to one or the other of these protagonists? Moreover, does the False Self assume traits and attributes of the True Self in order to deceive the world?

Let's start by referring to an oft-occurring question:

Why are narcissists not prone to suicide?

The simple answer is that they died a long time ago. Narcissists are the true zombies of the world.

Many scholars and therapists tried to grapple with the void at the core of the narcissist. The common view is that the remnants of the True Self are so ossified, shredded, cowed into submission and repressed – that, for all practical purposes, the True Self is dysfunctional and useless. In treating the narcissist, the therapist often tries to construct and nurture a completely new healthy self, rather than build upon the distorted wreckage strewn across the narcissist's psyche.

But what of the rare glimpses of True Self oft reported by those who interact with the narcissist?

Pathological narcissism is frequently comorbid with other disorders. The narcissistic spectrum is made up of gradations and shades of narcissism. Narcissistic traits or style or even personality (overlay) often attach to other disorders (co-morbidity). A person may well appear to be a full-fledged narcissist – may well appear to be suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) - but is not, in the strict, psychiatric, sense of the word. In such people, the True Self is still there and is sometimes observable.

In a full-fledged narcissist, the False Self imitates the True Self.

To do so artfully, it deploys two mechanisms:

Re-Interpretation

It causes the narcissist to re-interpret certain emotions and reactions in a flattering, socially acceptable, light. The narcissist may, for instance, interpret fear as compassion. If the narcissist hurts someone he fears (e.g., an authority figure), he may feel bad afterwards and interpret his discomfort as empathy and compassion. To be afraid is humiliating – to be compassionate is commendable and earns the narcissist social commendation and understanding (narcissistic supply).

Emulation

The narcissist is possessed of an uncanny ability to psychologically penetrate others. Often, this gift is abused and put at the service of the narcissist's control freakery and sadism. The narcissist uses it liberally to annihilate the natural defences of his victims by faking empathy.

This capacity is coupled with the narcissist's eerie ability to imitate emotions and their attendant behaviours (affect). The narcissist possesses "emotional resonance tables". He keeps records of every action and reaction, every utterance and consequence, every datum provided by others regarding their state of mind and emotional make-up. From these, he then constructs a set of formulas, which often result in impeccably accurate renditions of emotional behaviour. This can be enormously deceiving.

Also Read

 The Stripped Ego

The Split Off Ego

Narcissists are driven by the need to uphold and maintain a false self - a concocted, grandiose, and demanding psychological construct typical of the narcissistic personality disorder. The false self is projected to the world in order to garner "narcissistic supply" - adulation, admiration, or even notoriety and infamy. Any kind of attention is usually deemed by narcissists to be preferable to obscurity.

The false self is suffused with fantasies of perfection, grandeur, brilliance, infallibility, immunity, significance, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. To be a narcissist is to be convinced of a great, inevitable personal destiny. The narcissist is preoccupied with ideal love, the construction of brilliant, revolutionary scientific theories, the composition or authoring or painting of the greatest work of art, the founding of a new school of thought, the attainment of fabulous wealth, the reshaping of a nation or a conglomerate, and so on. The narcissist never sets realistic goals to himself. He is forever preoccupied with fantasies of uniqueness, record breaking, or breathtaking achievements. His verbosity reflects this propensity.

Reality is, naturally, quite different and this gives rise to a "grandiosity gap". The demands of the false self are never satisfied by the narcissist's accomplishments, standing, wealth, clout, sexual prowess, or knowledge. The narcissist's grandiosity and sense of entitlement are equally incommensurate with his achievements.

To bridge the grandiosity gap, the malignant (pathological) narcissist resorts to shortcuts. These very often lead to fraud.

The narcissist cares only about appearances. What matters to him are the facade of wealth and its attendant social status and narcissistic supply. Witness the travestied extravagance of Tyco's Denis Kozlowski. Media attention only exacerbates the narcissist's addiction and makes it incumbent on him to go to ever-wilder extremes to secure uninterrupted supply from this source.

The narcissist lacks empathy - the ability to put himself in other people's shoes. He does not recognize boundaries - personal, corporate, or legal. Everything and everyone are to him mere instruments, extensions, objects unconditionally and uncomplainingly available in his pursuit of narcissistic gratification.

This makes the narcissist perniciously exploitative. He uses, abuses, devalues, and discards even his nearest and dearest in the most chilling manner. The narcissist is utility- driven, obsessed with his overwhelming need to reduce his anxiety and regulate his labile sense of self-worth by securing a constant supply of his drug - attention. American executives acted without compunction when they raided their employees' pension funds - as did Robert Maxwell a generation earlier in Britain.

The narcissist is convinced of his superiority - cerebral or physical. To his mind, he is a Gulliver hamstrung by a horde of narrow-minded and envious Lilliputians. The dotcom "new economy" was infested with "visionaries" with a contemptuous attitude towards the mundane: profits, business cycles, conservative economists, doubtful journalists, and cautious analysts.

Yet, deep inside, the narcissist is painfully aware of his addiction to others - their attention, admiration, applause, and affirmation. He despises himself for being thus dependent. He hates people the same way a drug addict hates his pusher. He wishes to "put them in their place", humiliate them, demonstrate to them how inadequate and imperfect they are in comparison to his regal self and how little he craves or needs them.

The narcissist regards himself as one would an expensive present, a gift to his company, to his family, to his neighbours, to his colleagues, to his country. This firm conviction of his inflated importance makes him feel entitled to special treatment, special favors, special outcomes, concessions, subservience, immediate gratification, obsequiousness, and lenience. It also makes him feel immune to mortal laws and somehow divinely protected and insulated from the inevitable consequences of his deeds and misdeeds.

The self-destructive narcissist plays the role of the "bad guy" (or "bad girl"). But even this is within the traditional social roles cartoonishly exaggerated by the narcissist to attract attention. Men are likely to emphasise intellect, power, aggression, money, or social status. Narcissistic women are likely to emphasise body, looks, charm, sexuality, feminine "traits", homemaking, children and childrearing.

Punishing the wayward narcissist is a veritable catch-22.

A jail term is useless as a deterrent if it only serves to focus attention on the narcissist. Being infamous is second best to being famous - and far preferable to being ignored. The only way to effectively punish a narcissist is to withhold narcissistic supply from him and thus to prevent him from becoming a notorious celebrity.

Given a sufficient amount of media exposure, book contracts, talk shows, lectures, and public attention - the narcissist may even consider the whole grisly affair to be emotionally rewarding. To the narcissist, freedom, wealth, social status, family, vocation - are all means to an end. And the end is attention. If he can secure attention by being the big bad wolf - the narcissist unhesitatingly transforms himself into one. Lord Archer, for instance, seems to be positively basking in the media circus provoked by his prison diaries.

The narcissist does not victimise, plunder, terrorise and abuse others in a cold, calculating manner. He does so offhandedly, as a manifestation of his genuine character. To be truly "guilty" one needs to intend, to deliberate, to contemplate one's choices and then to choose one's acts. The narcissist does none of these.

Thus, punishment breeds in him surprise, hurt and seething anger. The narcissist is stunned by society's insistence that he should be held accountable for his deeds and penalized accordingly. He feels wronged, baffled, injured, the victim of bias, discrimination and injustice. He rebels and rages.

Depending upon the pervasiveness of his magical thinking, the narcissist may feel besieged by overwhelming powers, forces cosmic and intrinsically ominous. He may develop compulsive rites to fend off this "bad", unwarranted, persecutory influences.

The narcissist, very much the infantile outcome of stunted personal development, engages in magical thinking. He feels omnipotent, that there is nothing he couldn't do or achieve if only he sets his mind to it. He feels omniscient - he rarely admits to ignorance and regards his intuitions and intellect as founts of objective data.

Thus, narcissists are haughtily convinced that introspection is a more important and more efficient (not to mention easier to accomplish) method of obtaining knowledge than the systematic study of outside sources of information in accordance with strict and tedious curricula. Narcissists are "inspired" and they despise hamstrung technocrats.

To some extent, they feel omnipresent because they are either famous or about to become famous or because their product is selling or is being manufactured globally. Deeply immersed in their delusions of grandeur, they firmly believe that their acts have - or will have - a great influence not only on their firm, but on their country, or even on Mankind. Having mastered the manipulation of their human environment - they are convinced that they will always "get away with it". They develop hubris and a false sense of immunity.

Narcissistic immunity is the (erroneous) feeling, harboured by the narcissist, that he is impervious to the consequences of his actions, that he will never be effected by the results of his own decisions, opinions, beliefs, deeds and misdeeds, acts, inaction, or membership of certain groups, that he is above reproach and punishment, that, magically, he is protected and will miraculously be saved at the last moment. Hence the audacity, simplicity, and transparency of some of the fraud and corporate looting in the 1990's. Narcissists rarely bother to cover their traces, so great is their disdain and conviction that they are above mortal laws and wherewithal.

What are the sources of this unrealistic appraisal of situations and events?

The false self is a childish response to abuse and trauma. Abuse is not limited to sexual molestation or beatings. Smothering, doting, pampering, over-indulgence, treating the child as an extension of the parent, not respecting the child's boundaries, and burdening the child with excessive expectations are also forms of abuse.

The child reacts by constructing false self that is possessed of everything it needs in order to prevail: unlimited and instantaneously available Harry Potter-like powers and wisdom. The false self, this Superman, is indifferent to abuse and punishment. This way, the child's true self is shielded from the toddler's harsh reality.

This artificial, maladaptive separation between a vulnerable (but not punishable) true self and a punishable (but invulnerable) false self is an effective mechanism. It isolates the child from the unjust, capricious, emotionally dangerous world that he occupies. But, at the same time, it fosters in him a false sense of "nothing can happen to me, because I am not here, I am not available to be punished, hence I am immune to punishment".

The comfort of false immunity is also yielded by the narcissist's sense of entitlement. In his grandiose delusions, the narcissist is sui generis, a gift to humanity, a precious, fragile, object. Moreover, the narcissist is convinced both that this uniqueness is immediately discernible - and that it gives him special rights. The narcissist feels that he is protected by some cosmological law pertaining to "endangered species".

He is convinced that his future contribution to others - his firm, his country, humanity - should and does exempt him from the mundane: daily chores, boring jobs, recurrent tasks, personal exertion, orderly investment of resources and efforts, laws and regulations, social conventions, and so on.

The narcissist is entitled to a "special treatment": high living standards, constant and immediate catering to his needs, the eradication of any friction with the humdrum and the routine, an all-engulfing absolution of his sins, fast track privileges (to higher education, or in his encounters with bureaucracies, for instance). Punishment, trusts the narcissist, is for ordinary people, where no great loss to humanity is involved.

Narcissists are possessed of inordinate abilities to charm, to convince, to seduce, and to persuade. Many of them are gifted orators and intellectually endowed. Many of them work in in politics, the media, fashion, show business, the arts, medicine, or business, and serve as religious leaders.

By virtue of their standing in the community, their charisma, or their ability to find the willing scapegoats, they do get exempted many times. Having recurrently "got away with it" - they develop a theory of personal immunity, founded upon some kind of societal and even cosmic "order" in which certain people are above punishment.

But there is a fourth, simpler, explanation. The narcissist lacks self-awareness. Divorced from his true self, unable to empathise (to understand what it is like to be someone else), unwilling to constrain his actions to cater to the feelings and needs of others - the narcissist is in a constant dreamlike state.

To the narcissist, his life is unreal, like watching an autonomously unfolding movie. The narcissist is a mere spectator, mildly interested, greatly entertained at times. He does not "own" his actions. He, therefore, cannot understand why he should be punished and when he is, he feels grossly wronged.

So convinced is the narcissist that he is destined to great things - that he refuses to accept setbacks, failures and punishments. He regards them as temporary, as the outcomes of someone else's errors, as part of the future mythology of his rise to power/brilliance/wealth/ideal love, etc. Being punished is a diversion of his precious energy and resources from the all-important task of fulfilling his mission in life.

The narcissist is pathologically envious of people and believes that they are equally envious of him. He is paranoid, on guard, ready to fend off an imminent attack. A punishment to the narcissist is a major surprise and a nuisance but it also validates his suspicion that he is being persecuted. It proves to him that strong forces are arrayed against him.

He tells himself that people, envious of his achievements and humiliated by them, are out to get him. He constitutes a threat to the accepted order. When required to pay for his misdeeds, the narcissist is always disdainful and bitter and feels misunderstood by his inferiors.

Cooked books, corporate fraud, bending the (GAAP or other) rules, sweeping problems under the carpet, over-promising, making grandiose claims (the "vision thing") - are hallmarks of a narcissist in action. When social cues and norms encourage such behaviour rather than inhibit it - in other words, when such behaviour elicits abundant narcissistic supply - the pattern is reinforced and become entrenched and rigid. Even when circumstances change, the narcissist finds it difficult to adapt, shed his routines, and replace them with new ones. He is trapped in his past success. He becomes a swindler.

But pathological narcissism is not an isolated phenomenon. It is embedded in our contemporary culture. The West's is a narcissistic civilization. It upholds narcissistic values and penalizes alternative value-systems. From an early age, children are taught to avoid self-criticism, to deceive themselves regarding their capacities and attainments, to feel entitled, and to exploit others.

As Lilian Katz observed in her important paper, "Distinctions between Self-Esteem and Narcissism: Implications for Practice", published by the Educational Resources Information Center, the line between enhancing self-esteem and fostering narcissism is often blurred by educators and parents.

Both Christopher Lasch in "The Culture of Narcissism" and Theodore Millon in his books about personality disorders, singled out American society as narcissistic. Litigiousness may be the flip side of an inane sense of entitlement. Consumerism is built on this common and communal lie of "I can do anything I want and possess everything I desire if I only apply myself to it" and on the pathological envy it fosters.

Not surprisingly, narcissistic disorders are more common among men than among women. This may be because narcissism conforms to masculine social mores and to the prevailing ethos of capitalism. Ambition, achievements, hierarchy, ruthlessness, drive - are both social values and narcissistic male traits. Social thinkers like the aforementioned Lasch speculated that modern American culture - a self-centred one - increases the rate of incidence of the narcissistic personality disorder.

Otto Kernberg, a notable scholar of personality disorders, confirmed Lasch's intuition: "Society can make serious psychological abnormalities, which already exist in some percentage of the population, seem to be at least superficially appropriate."

In their book "Personality Disorders in Modern Life", Theodore Millon and Roger Davis state, as a matter of fact, that pathological narcissism was once the preserve of "the royal and the wealthy" and that it "seems to have gained prominence only in the late twentieth century". Narcissism, according to them, may be associated with "higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs ... Individuals in less advantaged nations .. are too busy trying (to survive) ... to be arrogant and grandiose".

They - like Lasch before them - attribute pathological narcissism to "a society that stresses individualism and self-gratification at the expense of community, namely the United States." They assert that the disorder is more prevalent among certain professions with "star power" or respect. "In an individualistic culture, the narcissist is 'God's gift to the world'. In a collectivist society, the narcissist is 'God's gift to the collective."

Millon quotes Warren and Caponi's "The Role of Culture in the Development of Narcissistic Personality Disorders in America, Japan and Denmark":

"Individualistic narcissistic structures of self-regard (in individualistic societies) ... are rather self-contained and independent ... (In collectivist cultures) narcissistic configurations of the we-self ... denote self-esteem derived from strong identification with the reputation and honor of the family, groups, and others in hierarchical relationships."

Still, there are malignant narcissists among subsistence farmers in Africa, nomads in the Sinai desert, day laborers in east Europe, and intellectuals and socialites in Manhattan. Malignant narcissism is all-pervasive and independent of culture and society. It is true, though, that the way pathological narcissism manifests and is experienced is dependent on the particulars of societies and cultures.

In some cultures, it is encouraged, in others suppressed. In some societies it is channeled against minorities - in others it is tainted with paranoia. In collectivist societies, it may be projected onto the collective, in individualistic societies, it is an individual's trait.

Yet, can families, organizations, ethnic groups, churches, and even whole nations be safely described as "narcissistic" or "pathologically self-absorbed"? Can we talk about a "corporate culture of narcissism"?

Human collectives - states, firms, households, institutions, political parties, cliques, bands - acquire a life and a character all their own. The longer the association or affiliation of the members, the more cohesive and conformist the inner dynamics of the group, the more persecutory or numerous its enemies, competitors, or adversaries, the more intensive the physical and emotional experiences of the individuals it is comprised of, the stronger the bonds of locale, language, and history - the more rigorous might an assertion of a common pathology be.

Such an all-pervasive and extensive pathology manifests itself in the behavior of each and every member. It is a defining - though often implicit or underlying - mental structure. It has explanatory and predictive powers. It is recurrent and invariable - a pattern of conduct melding distorted cognition and stunted emotions. And it is often vehemently denied.

Also Read

National Post Interview

The Labours of the Narcissist

The Narcissist in the Workplace

The Professions of the Narcissist

Narcissists in Positions of Authority

Narcissists in the Workplace Chat Transcript

Bully at Work - Interview with Tim Field

Open Site Workplace Violence

Narcissistic Leaders

The Psychology of Corporations and Corporate Officers

Pathological Narcissism - A Dysfunction or a Blessing?

The Narcissist's Confabulated Life

The Entitlement of Routine

Interviews and Articles in the Media

Narcissistic Confinement

Psychopaths in Suits

Workplace Bullying

New Narc City

Bully Online

Question: What is workplace bullying?

Answer: Workplace bullying is persistent, unwelcome, intrusive behaviour of one or more individuals whose actions prevent others from fulfilling their duties.

Question: How is it different to adopting disciplinarian measures, maintaining strict supervision, or oversight?

Answer: The purpose of bullying is to hide the inadequacy of the bully and has nothing to do with "management" or the achievement of tasks. Bullies project their inadequacies onto others to distract and divert attention away from the inadequacies. In most cases of workplace bullying reported to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line, the bully is a serial bully who has a history of conflict with staff. The bullying that one sees is often also the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing which may include misappropriation of budgets, harassment, discrimination, as well as breaches of rules, regulations, professional codes of conduct and health and safety practices.

Question: Should it be distinguished from harassment (including sexual harassment), or stalking?

Answer: Bullying is, I believe, the underlying behavior and thus the common denominator of harassment, discrimination, stalking and abuse. What varies is the focus for expression of the behavior. For instance, a harasser or discriminator focuses on race or gender or disability.

Bullies focus on competence and popularity which at present are not covered by employment legislation.

Bullies seethe with resentment and anger and the conduits for release of this inner anger are jealousy and envy which explains why bullies pick on employees who are good at their job and popular with people. Being emotionally immature, bullies crave attention and become resentful when others get more attention for their competence and achievements than themselves.

Question: What is the profile of the typical bully?

Answer: Over 90% of the cases reported to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line involve a serial bully who can be recognised by their behaviour profile which includes compulsive lying, a Jekyll and Hyde nature, an unusually high verbal facility, charm and a considerable capacity to deceive, an arrested level of emotional development, and a compulsive need to control. The serial bully rarely commits a physical assault or an arrestable offence, preferring instead to remain within the realms of psychological violence and non-arrestable offences.

Question: What are bullying's typical outcomes?

Answer: In the majority of cases, the target of bullying is eliminated through forced resignation, unfair dismissal, or early or ill- health retirement whilst the bully is promoted. After a short interval of between 2-14 days, the bully selects another target and the cycle restarts. Sometimes another target is selected before the current target is eliminated.

Question: Can you provide us with some statistics? How often does bullying occur? How many people are affected?

Answer: Surveys of bullying in the UK indicate that between 12-50% of the workforce experience bullying. Statistics from the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line reveal that around 20% of cases are from the education sector, 12% are from healthcare, 10% are from social services, and around 6% from the voluntary / charity / not-for-profit sector.

After that, calls come from all sectors both public and private, with finance, media, police, postal workers and other government employees featuring prominently. Enquiries from outside the UK (notably USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland) show similar patterns with the caring professions topping the list of bullied workers.

Question: Could you estimate the economic effects of workplace bullying - costs to employers (firms), employees, law enforcement agencies, the courts, the government, etc.?

Answer: Bullying is one of the major causes of stress, and the cost of stress to UK plc is thought to be between £5-12 billion (US$7-17 billion). When all the direct, indirect and consequential costs of bullying are taken into account, the cost to UK plc (taxpayers and shareholders) could be in excess of £30 billion (US$44 billion), equivalent to around £1,000 hidden tax per working adult per year. Employers do not account for the cost of bullying and its consequences, therefore the figures never appear on balance sheets.

Employees have to work twice as hard to overcome the serial bully's inefficiency and dysfunction which can spread through an organisation like a cancer.

Because of its subtle nature, bullying can be difficult to recognise, but the consequences are easy to spot: excessive workloads, lack of support, a climate of fear, and high levels of insecurity.

The effects on health include, amongst other things, chronic fatigue, damage to the immune system, reactive depression, and suicide.

The indirect costs of bullying include higher-than average staff turnover and sickness absence. Each of these incur consequential costs of staff cover, administration, loss of production and reduced productivity which are rarely recognised and even more rarely attributed to their cause. Absenteeism alone costs UK plc over £10 billion a year and stress is now officially the number one cause of sickness absence having taken over from the common cold. However, surveys suggest that at least 20% of employers still do not regard stress as a health and safety issue, instead preferring to see it as skiving and malingering.

The Bristol Stress and Health at Work Study published by the HSE in June 2000 revealed that 1 in 5 UK workers (around 5.5m) reported feeling extremely stressed at work. The main stress factors were having too much work and not being supported by managers. In November 2001 a study by Proudfoot Consulting revealed the cost of bad management, low employee morale and poorly-trained staff to British business at 117 lost working days a year. At 65%, bad management (often a euphemism for bullying) accounted for the biggest slice of unproductive days with low morale accounting for 17%. The study also suggested that in the UK 52% of all working time is spent unproductively compared to the European average of 43%.

The results of a three-year survey of British workers by the Gallup Organization published in October 2001 revealed that many employers are not getting the best from their employees. The most common response to questions such as "how engaged are your employees?" and "how effective is your leadership and management style?" and "how well are you capitalising on the talents, skills and knowledge of your people?" was an overwhelming "not very much". The survey also found that the longer an employee stayed, the less engaged they became. The cost to UK plc of lost work days due to lack of engagement was estimated to be between £39-48 billion a year.

Question: What can be done to reduce workplace bullying? Are firms, the government, law enforcement agencies, the courts - aware of the problem and its magnitude? Are educational campaign effective? Did anti-bullying laws prove effective?

Answer: Most bullying is hierarchical and can be traced to the top or near the top. As bullying is often the visible tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing, denial is the most common strategy employed by toxic managements. Only Sweden has a law which specifically addresses bullying. Where no law exists, bullies feel free to bully. Whilst the law is not a solution, the presence of a law is an indication that society has made a judgement that the behaviour is no longer acceptable.

Awareness of bullying, and especially its seriousness, is still low throughout society. Bullying is not just "something children do in the playground", it's a lifetime behaviour on the same level as domestic violence, sexual harassment, and rape.

Bullying is a form of psychological and emotional rape because of its intrusive and violational nature.

Also Read

Narcissism in the Boardroom

The Labours of the Narcissist

The Narcissist in the Workplace

The Professions of the Narcissist

Narcissists in Positions of Authority

Narcissists in the Workplace Chat Transcript

Open Site Workplace Violence

Narcissistic Leaders

The Psychology of Corporations and Corporate Officers

Pathological Narcissism - A Dysfunction or a Blessing?

The Narcissist's Confabulated Life

The Entitlement of Routine

Interviews and Articles in the Media

Narcissistic Confinement

Psychopaths in Suits

Workplace Bullying

New Narc City

Bully Online

Frontière mexicaine, côté San-Diego, Californie, USA. Photo : Daniel Mermet - mars 2008

 Colloque international

  18, 19 et 20 septembre 2008

EHESS, 105 boulevard Raspail 75006 Paris

Colloque organisé par le Programme Asiles

« Corps des victimes, espaces du sujet.

Réfugiés, sinistrés et clandestins, de l’expérience au témoignage »

ACI « Terrains, Techniques, Théories »,

Ministère de la Recherche et Agence Nationale de la Recherche 2004-2008

Partenaires :

–        Centre d’Études Africaines(CEAf-UMR 194 EHESS/IRD)  http://ceaf. ehess.fr/

–        Institut de recherche sur les enjeux sociaux(IRIS-UMR  8156-723 EHESS / CNRS / INSERM / Université Paris 13) http://iris. ehess.fr/

–        Travaux Études et Recherches sur les Réfugiés et l’Asile (Réseau scientifique TERRA) http://terra. rezo.net/ article694. html

Comité scientifique du Colloque : Michel Agier, Rémy Bazenguissa- Ganga, Marc Bernardot, Didier Fassin, Richard Rechtman, Jérôme Valluy.

Secrétariat du colloque : Alice Corbet, Centre d’études africaines, 96 boulevard Raspail, 75006 Paris. Tel 01 53 63 56 50

Présentation

Les déplacements de personnes et/ou de populations en situation précaire sur les plans physique ou juridique, économique ou social, constituent un fait majeur des sociétés contemporaines. Que ces déplacements soient contraints par des persécutions ou par des guerres, des catastrophes ou la misère, ils concernent plusieurs dizaines de millions d’individus dans le monde. Intégrant le clivage global entre Nord et Sud, l’exil se fait d’abord au sein même des pays d’Afrique, d’Asie, du Proche-Orient ou d’Amérique latine, puis entre les pays d’un même continent, enfin en se déplaçant vers un autre continent, et notamment vers l’Europe au sein de laquelle les parcours peuvent se poursuivre.. .

Réfugiés, déplacés, sinistrés, demandeurs d’asile, retenus, maintenus, tolérés, déboutés, refoulés, retournés, reconduits… à ces catégories institutionnelles de classement, d’identification et de gestion des personnes en déplacement, « en instance » ou mises à l’écart, sont associés trois grands registres de pratiques et représentations, qui formeront les trois thèmes majeurs du Colloque – les corps, les espaces et les politiques.

Les représentations du corps et de la personne seront examinées autour notamm