“How can love be given when one’s own self must be frantically held together?” (Kealy & Ogrodniczuk, 2014, p. 115)

I.	Conceptualizations and Theories of Narcissism

As described in the DSM 5, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a mode of suffering
comprising a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by the presence of at least 5 of the following 9 criteria: a grandiose sense of self-importance; a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; a belief that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions; a need for excessive admiration; a sense of entitlement; interpersonally exploitive behavior; a lack of empathy; envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her; a demonstration of arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes. (Ambardar, 2015).
Skodol, Bender, & Morey (2013) have noted the paucity of this description and aggregate of symptoms, arguing that the DSM fails to take into account, among other things, the significance of the experience of vulnerability as co-existent with the phenomenon of grandiosity (p. 1), which I also believe to be an important yet often overlooked variable in the equation of NPD.
	Using theorists ranging from Melanie Klein, Harry Stack Sullivan, W.R.D. Fairbairn, D.W. Winnicott, Heinz Kohut, Erich Fromm, and more, Kealy and Ogrodniczuk (2014) explore the terrain, both internal and external, related to the development and experience of narcissism. The authors state that psychodynamic theories of narcissism tend to address the narcissist position of having a faulty, distorted view of oneself, leading to impediments in capacity for love, both of self and other. They recognize, on the one hand, as elaborated by theorists such as Robert Stolorow, that some amount of narcissism refers merely to a healthy level of self-investment—necessary for basic psychosocial functioning (p. 103). Where this appears to cross a boundary into pathology, however, is in the markers of health related to severity and duration. Where the “normal, functioning” person invests in his or herself to a degree which also allows for significant, intimate, and realistic meetings with others, the narcissist is overwhelmed by these basic self-image distortions and incapacities for self-love; they are obsessed with themselves in an effort to save themselves, which has the cruelly ironic effect of creating seemingly impenetrable boundaries between self and other, as there is little room left in the phenomenal world of the narcissist for a true other. As Kealy and Ogrodniczuk note, this aligns with Freud’s description of the limited economy of libidinal energy, and specifically secondary narcissism (p. 104); the narcissist devotes a large amount of psychic energy to maintaining a positive self-image (through avenues which are often tragically maladaptive in terms of producing meaningful relationship with self and others).
	One of the most significant external effects is that narcissism entails great difficulty with interpersonal relations related to “dependence”—a dangerous prospect, given the common experience of insecure caregiver attachment in the lives of those suffering from narcissism. In order to escape this traumatic and unworkable situation, narcissists project themselves into grandiose phenomenological-existential territories where dependence or even interdependence is unnecessary (p. 107). This ends up being untenable and points to the tragic paradox of the narcissistic situation, because despite the conjuration of overwrought beliefs to the contrary, interdependence is a fundamental facet of human existence. Furthermore, Kealy and Ogrodniczuk draw on Sullivan to suggest that the “bi-polar” nature of narcissism, the taut relationship between vulnerability and grandiosity, is a compensatory mechanism to deal with feelings of being a “bad me” (perhaps because of conflictual social feedback from inconsistent caregiver attachment patterns)–grandiosity can be a “reliance on illusions” (p. 109) meant to cover over and protect against the underlying feelings of inadequacy and a dejected sense of self (whatever the exact social-material conditions which account for its emergence).
	The etiology of narcissism, as mentioned, often relates to insecure attachment issues. A relationship has been discovered between narcissistic grandiosity and fear of abandonment in personal relationships (p. 113). They argue that a corresponding effect of these poor attachment styles, which those suffering from narcissism often encounter, is an ineffectual ability for “mentalization,” or differentiating between one’s own thoughts and mental spaces, and those belonging to an other. It is claimed that this capacity for differentiation is developed within secure attachment relationships (p. 112). This may begin to explain how those suffering from narcissistic tendencies can experience their thoughts as concrete and externally valid, rather than as personal experience—a mode of self-awareness which could defuse some of the tension of the problems resulting from narcissism: when expectations of the world do not meet with the “reality” of the situation, and the resulting frustration. This may also begin to explain the “retreat” of the narcissistic individual into oneself, because the world is seen and experienced as unjust, unfair, and even incorrect when measured against personal expectations…a chasm is formed between self and world as a coping mechanism for an inconsistent and hurtful world.
	From a broader social and interdisciplinary perspective, Paris (2014) argues that narcissism is biopsychosocial. He shows that narcissistic traits have a significant degree of heritability, while also remaining largely open to environmental activation, pointing to elements of both biological diatheses and life stressors for the etiology of the disorder (p. 221). Ultimately, he suggests that narcissism may be strongly affected by generational cohort effects, as sociocultural trends result in different styles of parenting. Research shows that permissive parenting has a role in the development of the more grandiose forms of narcissism, while “cold overcontrol” parenting styles can contribute to the vulnerable forms (p. 222). Paris further describes how the rise of individualism over collectivism, specifically how communal and societal structures have decayed over time, has impacted the rise of narcissistic traits in personality. He quotes political philosopher Amitzai Etzioni as saying that “modern society [is] atomizing the individual and ignoring the universal human need for social networks and connections,” and also brings to the fore political scientist Robert Putnam, who argues that modernity has actively reduced our “social capital”–that modernity is “making people turn to self rather than to community” (p. 223).***
	These theories of narcissism—intrapsychic, interpersonal, and sociocultural—may be seen as complementary angles and resolutions from which to examine the issue in a holistic manner, rather than as oppositional perspectives.

II.	The Lived Experience of Elliot Rodger

	After reading the manifesto (2014) of Elliot Rodger, who in May of 2014 murdered six people in Isla Vista, California, there appear to be certain essential characteristics of his lived, phenomenal experience, which can be mapped and further elaborated. The first constellation of experience I will demonstrate relates to his feelings of being inadequate, inferior, powerless, and victimized. The second constellation relates to his feelings of being perfectly (maybe even inhumanly) adequate, superior, powerful, and heroic.
	Elliot takes up skateboarding while in middle school. He reportedly practices a significant amount, getting friends involved and visiting skate parks: “skateboarding wasn’t just a sport I was doing to copy the cool kids. I was truly interested” (p. 21). Although he invests time and energy, before long he becomes disillusioned with his level of progress relative to his peers:
I had been trying very hard to get better at skateboarding, but when I saw that there were boys a lot younger than me who could do more tricks, I realized that I sucked. I was never good at sports or any physical activity, and when I discovered skateboarding, I thought that finally here was a sport that I could excel in and even became a professional at. It crushed me a little inside to see that I was a failure at skateboarding after more than a year of practicing it. I could never master the kickflip or heelflip. All I could do was the ollie jump and ride down a few ramps. I saw eight-year-old boys at the skatepark who could do a kickflip with ease, and it made me so angry. Why did I fail at everything I tried? I asked myself. My dreams of becoming a professional skateboarder were over. I felt so defeated. (p. 26).
This is a recurring theme throughout the manifesto, as he tries his hand at different activities, such as socializing with and attracting the attention of women:
I looked good enough, didn’t I? Or did I not look good enough? Such thoughts flew through my head in frantic waves. For dinner, I always walked over to the healthy restaurant called Silvergreen’s. There were always hot girls there, but none of them deigned to even look at me. On every one of those nights, I walked home alone, with my head down in defeat. (p. 88).
Or, as another example, playing the video game World of Warcraft:
I also knew that I would beat James, Steve, and Mark to the next high level cap. I supposed it would provide a small sense of competitive satisfaction. Getting a character to the highest level the fastest was the only part of the game that I was truly good at, but I suppose that was due to the massive amounts of free time I had at my disposal. (p. 74).
When he does discover something he is able to succeed at, he posits an external rather than internal cause, maintaining the sense of inadequacy. The failure to succeed is a recurring frustration, as well as the resulting reinforcing beliefs about his (in)abilities: “deep down, I’ve always known that I had no talents, and I’ve always tried not to think about it” (p. 69).
Elliot continually talks about how the world is unfair to him; there is a strong sense of being victimized, of being subject to the control of a reality that abuses him, disabusing him of any sense of empowerment:
It was at this time that I was just beginning to realize, with a lot of clarity, how truly unfair my life is. I compared myself to other teenagers and became very angry that they were able to experience all of the things I’ve desired, while I was left out of it. […] There was nothing I could really do about my unfair life situation. I felt completely powerless. (p. 54).
He uses this kind of defeated language throughout this manifesto. On the other hand, he appears at times to be convinced of his possessing almost superhuman traits and capacities:
It was a bright, sunny day as I as ascended the familiar steps up to the beautiful college campus of SBCC. I immediately went to the restroom to look at myself in the mirror a few times, just so that I can feel more assured of myself. Yes, I thought. I am the image of beauty and supremacy. I kept saying it over and over again, as if it was a mantra. When I crossed the renowned bridge that connected the two halves of the campus, I felt as if everyone was admiring me. As I passed by groups of girls, I pretended to imagine that they secretly adored and wanted me. After all, that was how it was meant to be.
(p. 99).
Later in the manifesto, he begins to conceive of himself as a kind of heroic figure reacting to and even seemingly empowered by the “cruel injustice” of the world: “I was now armed with weapons, possessed great intelligence and philosophical insight, with the willpower to exact the most catastrophic act of vengeance the world will ever see” (p. 124), and even earlier:
I spent more time studying the world, seeing the world for the horrible, unfair place it is. I then had the revelation that just because I was condemned to suffer a life of loneliness and rejection, doesn’t mean I am insignificant. I have an exceptionally high level of intelligence. I see the world differently than anyone else. Because of all of the injustices I went through and the worldview I developed because of them, I must be destined for greatness. I must be destined to change the world, to shape it into an image that suits me! (p. 56).

III.	Bridges and Chasms – Theory and Lived Experience

There are strong parallels between many elements of the theory on narcissism and the lived world of Elliot Rodger. It is clear from his own descriptions of his experience that Elliot battled with feelings of intense vulnerability and also “projected” himself into grandiose existential territories (the word “cry” appears twenty times throughout the text, in addition to his vivid expressions of helplessness and sensitivity to criticism). Furthermore, it is clear that his attempts to right the wrongs of the world relate strongly with his need to restore balance to his own self-dignity, as discussed earlier in terms of providing a comforting illusion of a powerful self, and as Kealy and Ogrodniczuk (2014) argue, citing Kohut, is the case for those with NPD:
Although grandiosity can cover over a sense of defect, this veneer may be pierced through by an insult or interpersonal letdown. For some, the ensuing fragmentation can lead to narcissistic rage, an aggression borne out of utter helplessness and deployed to restore a damaged self (Kohut, 1972). (p. 115).
Additionally, they describe how, through the lack of a potential for mentalization, concrete actions must be taken to rid the internal self of this humiliation:
An insistent entitlement and dominance, for example, may reflect a difficulty in understanding corresponding mental states such as desire or vulnerability. Instead, such attitudes may be experienced as based completely on external, veridical fact. One’s demands for admiration, for example, might be perceived as legitimately deserved, rather than merely wished for, and thus requiring of action. An insult to the self may be experienced as a deliberate, humiliating attack, rather than associated with any other motivation. Likewise, retaliation is felt to be concretely required: only physical action can rid the self of the intolerable sense of defeat (Fonagy et al., 2002). (p. 113).
Rather than something which can be solved internally, problems existing within the self (or within both self and world), for Elliot, the problem is located strictly in the world, and as such, only a solution dealing directly with the world will suffice for restoring balance to his injured self-image.
	Perhaps to Elliot’s credit, he does make many attempts to form a connection with the outside world, to rearrange his relationship with self and others. He goes on long walks day after day, hoping for someone to reach out to him. He attends multiple colleges in an effort to put himself out there and meet people. He sees multiple different people in helping professions for aid—therapists, psychiatrists, life coaches. This may point to the sociocultural critique—although he has a desire to connect, he lacks (or believes himself to lack) the resources, and his culture has little to offer in the way of support; his enculturation has failed him, in some sense, although it is certainly easy to argue that the failure rests both in his own internal temperament and (lack of) resources, as well as the external culture’s ability to provide assistance and self/world-understanding. It may be argued that his culture even reinforces much of his angst. He becomes involved in “pickup-artist” (PUA) culture as he gets older, adopting narratives and terminology related to being a powerful “alpha male,” because in PUA culture, the “alpha male” is able to attract women. It certainly seems as though immersion in this culture had a negative effect on his already-frustrated worldview and perceptual lens, particularly in his attitudes, beliefs, and expectations toward women (Marcotte, 2014).
	The issue of attachment is difficult to speak to, because Elliot does not go into expansive detail about his family life. There may be some reason to think that his parents were distant, since they hired a lot of different nurses to take care of Elliot as a child and his father seemed to have a busy life in different kinds of media production: “he would go away a lot to direct commercials for prestigious companies” (Rodger, 2014, p. 8). His mother appears fairly supportive throughout, though perhaps bordering on permissiveness, such as allowing him to spend extended stretches of time playing video games. His step-mother could qualify for the “cold overcontrolling” style of parenting; he frequently complains about her forcing him to limit his computer time, do extra chores, and more (p. 50)—although who’s to say whether this is “overcontrolling” or merely authoritative. All of this is uncomfortably speculative, given the lack of fleshed out descriptions, the problems with self-reported experiences of being parented, and issues concerning reader interpretation.
	I found many parallels between the literature on narcissism and Elliot Rodger’s self-described experience. The DSM category clearly fails to adequately address the “underside” of Elliot’s narcissism—his sensitivity, vulnerability, and traumatization; focusing only on the traits and attitudes related to grandiosity—but the research at large appears to be consistent with this case study of Elliot Rodger’s ground-level phenomenological description. What does this say about the DSM—even the latest edition—that it is so a-synchronous with the larger body of research and literature, as well as phenomenological accounts of the disorder?
	What has become clear to me during the process of preparing for the presentation and writing this paper on Elliot Rodger, as well as my time within Psychopathology & Health, is the necessity of understanding experience and its relationship to perception and behavior. As I mentioned in class, there is a clear context for Elliot’s behavior; a vivid picture emerges from his descriptions, of someone who suffered immensely and never found a sense of belonging or worth in the world. Putting aside, for the moment, questions of blame for his “condition,” and the morality of his actions, we can begin to see a person in the midst of this angst, myopia, delusionality, and eventual murder spree. This is not in any way a rationalization or justification for his actions, but an attempt to get beneath the behavior in order to understand, put into context, bring to light, the why behind the what, which I believe is essential to seeing human beings as persons rather than victims or monsters.

References
Ambardar, Sheenie. "Narcissistic Personality Disorder." Medscape. Ed. David Bienenfeld. 10
Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1519417-overview>.
Kealy, D., & Ogrodniczuk, J. S. (2014, March). Pathological narcissism and the obstruction of
love. Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 42(1), 101-120. doi:10.1521/pdps.2014.42.1.101
Marcotte, Amanda. "How 'Pick-Up Artist' Philosophy and Its More Misogynist Backlash Shaped
Mind of Alleged Killer Elliot Rodger." The American Prospect. 25 May 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <https://prospect.org/article/how-pick-artist-philosophy-and-its-more-misogynist-backlash-shaped-mind-alleged-killer>.shaped-mind-alleged-killer>
Paris, J. (2014, April). Modernity and narcissistic personality disorder. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(2), 220-226. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028580
Rodger, E. (2014). My Twisted World - The Story of Elliot Rodger. Retrieved April 19, 2015,
from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173808-elliot-rodger-manifesto.html
Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., & Morey, L. C. (2013, July 8). Narcissistic Personality Disorder in
DSM-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1037/per0000023