In this chapter, I’d like to build on my comment (in Chap. 22) that our greatest challenge today is to create societies governed by shared responsibility and reciprocity. In 1887, the sociologist and philosopher Ferdinand Tönnies published Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Community and Society), in which he drew a distinction between the two societal forms.1 In Gemeinschaft —community—social ties are defined on the basis of personalized social relationships, and the roles, values, and beliefs associated with these interactions. Gesellschaft —society—is more impersonal and rational, characterized by indirect interactions, formal roles, and generalized values and beliefs. Gemeinschaft is applied to peasant communities (families, tribes, or villages) within which human relationships are prized, the welfare of the group takes precedence over the individual, traditional bonds of family, kinship and religion prevail, and personal relationships are defined by traditional social rules. In contrast, Gesellschaft is representative of a more urban, cosmopolitan society with an individualistic outlook, where social ties are more instrumental and superficial. In short, self-interest prevails, and efficiency and other economic and political considerations have pride of place.
It is my opinion, reflecting on Tönnies’ ideas, that in the best of all worlds, a society should embody both qualities. The challenge is to create a balance, however, between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft —to ensure that both individual and societal needs are accommodated.
Collectivism Versus Individualism
People who live in a Gemeinschaft tend to have a more collective orientation, have solid bonds with the people they interact with, and define themselves in terms of their interdependency—the group has priority over the individual. The collective “good” plays a central role, as opposed to the good of the single person. As people have common goals and values, the aims of the individual will be aligned with those of the group to which they belong. People are willing to sacrifice their own values and goals for the “greater good”—as used to happen in agricultural communities where personal relationships, discipline, and solidarity are vital for survival.
In contrast, individual interests have pride of place if a society has Gesellschaft characteristics. People will put their own ambitions before those of the group, pursue their personal values, act on their own judgment, and give preference to their own aspirations and desires over the interests of others. Predictably, these societies lack deep, meaningful connections.
The Transition Toward Gesellschaft
During the last century , a transition from Gemeinschaft toward Gesellschaft has taken place, a process that has accelerated in recent decades. This implies that the focus on what’s best for the community and the family has changed to “what’s best for me.” In a post-industrial, digital world, there has been a switch toward Gesellschaft and the kind of individualistic behavior patterns found in more complex, technologically advanced societies, where a “survival of the fittest” mindset prevails.
There a darker side to this transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. It has transformed the “we” society to an “I” society, social entities where self-promotion and individuality have taken pride of place, and where self-realization is pursued at all costs. The “I” society is oriented toward personal success—as defined by wealth, power, and status. This kind of society is less interested in making meaningful contributions to the greater good. The transformation from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft is reflected in a shift in values from collectivism to individualism, and from civic responsibility to self-gratification. With the rise of individualism and decline of social norms and structures, I fear that the family and community no longer provide the same level of support as they did in the past.
It is paradoxical—and counter-intuitive—that in our hyper-connected digital age, collectivism appears to be on the wane. Strange as it seems, social networking and collectivism diverge. Despite social media mantras about making the world more interconnected, we should not mistake connectivity for collectivism. Social media connectivity tends to be very superficial. Frequently, it simply accentuates feelings of detachment—it makes people aware of their lack of real connections.
The transition to Gesellschaft has been detrimental for many people. The breakdown of social ties leaves many of us with feelings of emptiness, a paucity of social meaning, and a sense of disconnection. Moreover, it accentuates a number of potentially dysfunctional personality traits. A high achievement orientation often goes hand-in-hand with personal arrogance and self-involvement. My fear is that this focus on individualism has created the building blocks of a culture of narcissism—and the indifference, egotism, disrespect, and lack of consideration of others that come with it.2 Social media (as I mentioned before) sow discord through identity politics, populism, paranoia, fake news, hatred of the press, and xenophobia. I view the increasingly polarized and vitriolic tone of the current body politic as a manifestation of this development. I can make the same observation about the increase in hate crimes. What’s more, unethical corporate behavior has fanned these flames. In the “I” society, qualities that make for social connection—respect, compassion, empathy, tolerance, humility, and selflessness—seem to have fled.
The Self-esteem Movement
Changes in parenting styles are driving this transition. In a Gesellschaft society, parents put greater value on their youngsters’ individual achievements than their civic duties. This particular Weltanschauung is driven by studies suggesting a correlation between high self-esteem and being successful in life.3
Advocates of the self-esteem movement have a point: we all have an innate need for self-assurance. We want a secure sense of self because it affects the mental, spiritual, social, and physical aspects of our lives. Helping children acquire a solid sense of self-esteem is essential for their development. It becomes a problem, however, when parents go too far, when it leads to extreme individualism. We need to realize that there is a fine line between being a “good enough” and a dysfunctional parent.
Some parents have gone overboard trying to build self-confidence into their children, telling them how special and unique they are, showering them with praise, and even creating situations where it is impossible for children to fail or be exposed to criticism or adverse consequences. These “helicopter” parents fight their children’s battles, not realizing that by over-protecting them, nobody wins. They simply insulate them from the difficult experiences needed to facilitate their growth and resilience—and also, at the same time, send them the subliminal message that they will not be able to cope on their own.
Advocates of the self-esteem movement fail to realize that self-esteem is neither conferred nor a gift—it is acquired, through hard work, by overcoming adversity, and by taking risks. Self-esteem cannot be built on a shallow foundation of physical beauty, imagined superiority, feelings of entitlement, and unearned rewards. Confidence comes from competence. When we give our children the opportunity to stretch themselves, they expand their sense of their own capabilities, which makes them feel confident to tackle the next challenge. Authentic life experiences promote independent thinking, enterprise, resilience, and adaptability, enabling a growth mindset. Only when our children are praised for real accomplishments are the foundations for genuine self-esteem laid.
The Culture of Narcissism
I believe that these two converging societal shifts—Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft and the self-esteem movement—have had a dramatic impact. As both movements encourage a stronger focus on the self, narcissistic behavior and the incidence of narcissistic personality disorders have increased dramatically.4
The handbook for psychiatrists, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), describes narcissistic personality disorder as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy that begins by early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts.”5 Some of the patterns of this personality type are a grandiose sense of self-importance, a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. Narcissists believe that they are special, have a need for excessive admiration, possess a sense of entitlement, are interpersonally exploitative, lack empathy, and are envious of others. They are arrogant, believing themselves exceptionally talented, remarkable, and successful. They are highly skilled at exhibiting or “posturing” high self-esteem. But behind the bravado, they are in fact insecure. Indeed, it is likely that their feelings of insecurity are what drive these people to constantly prove themselves in the first place.
This “cult” of the self is quite worrisome. Not only does it exemplify all the characteristics of the narcissistic personality, like grandiosity and self-importance, but it also has touches of psychopathy. These include the use of superficial charm, a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception, and manipulation, and the incapacity to feel guilt and remorse.
Social Media
Social networking sites are an ideal breeding ground for narcissistic behavior patterns, helping to expand the “I” society. As narcissists prefer superficial connections with other people, social networks are a godsend—the ideal medium to validate a person’s existence. Digital platforms enhance self-expression, providing tools for budding narcissists to show the world how great they are. Social media have become a crutch to help people deal with personal insecurities. And like a drug, they can become addictive.
The Millennials and beyond (Generation Z)—the “Generation Me”—seem to be especially talented in using social media. However, their attachment to these social platforms makes them vulnerable, as it can create a very insular existence. Constantly on their cells and tablets, they spend hours on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, or Twitter to advertise their “brand” and to boost their sense of self-esteem. Given the addictive nature of these activities, it is not surprising that many spend more time on social media than “normal” social endeavors, such as eating, drinking, and socializing. I would go so far as to say that social networking sites provide the same kinds of highs as gambling, drinking, drugs, or sex.
The trouble with social networking is that nearly everyone presents an unrealistic picture of themselves—I see this for myself in the messages I receive from my children and grandchildren. All these glorious pictures, enjoyable as they may be, do not exactly reflect the real world. They are a way of showing us at our best. The downside of this kind of exhibitionism is that the recipients of these images and messages often compare themselves negatively to others—overestimating the fun others have and underestimating their own experiences. As a result, they constantly think they are missing out on something. They don’t realize that what they are getting is a sanitized version of a generally “messy” human experience. So, rather than feeling good, they start to feel bad about themselves. No wonder that many social network users feel lonely, frustrated, or angry after spending much time on the web—they feel inadequate compared to their “friends.”
In terms of developing self-esteem, it doesn’t help that Millennials (and beyond) are constantly influenced and pressured by their peers. This is very different from past patterns of learning, where much education and information was transmitted by the older generation. In the socially networked world, people form superficial connections with others, rather than forming rich, community-based, or family interactions. Since they spend so much time looking at screens—as opposed to engaging in face-to-face interactions—they don’t develop the communication and empathic skills to understand and connect with others.
Looking Ahead
What steps need to be taken from an individual, organizational, and societal perspective to create a better balance between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft ? How can societies further economic and political development whilst preserving the qualities that make for a livable, cohesive, self-critical community? Does the rise in individualism (the move to Gesellschaft ) mean that the community and family no longer provide as much social support as they did in the past, and has this created fertile ground for narcissism? Are social media turning into incubators for the creation of self-absorbed, insecure narcissists?
A priority should be to neutralize some of the premises of the self-esteem movement. True enough, as parents we need to instill in our children a solid dose of self-esteem, but praise needs to be tied directly to appropriate, identifiable behaviors and successes—preferably offline. Given the perils of becoming a social media addict, taking a break and having more face-to-face encounters will be beneficial. Parents and educators should make a strenuous effort to increase the amount of actual human (i.e., face-to-face) interaction that children have, to provide the experiences needed to develop essential social skills such as empathy, compassion, and consideration for others. If these are successfully internalized, it will make them more civic-minded and more politically committed than is currently the case.
In organizational life, the challenge is how to make business “a force for good,” given the duplicity that’s all too frequently taking place. Again, ways need to be found to prevent the “I” society gaining the upper hand, for example, not allowing overly narcissistic individuals to become CEOs or to occupy senior roles within the management team. Too often, under narcissistic leadership, subordinates simply tell these leaders what they want to hear—so that leaders live in an echo chamber, making for behavior patterns and decisions that can have dire organizational consequences, including fraudulent activities. When dealing with such people, we should keep in mind that they may profess company loyalty but, deep down, are committed only to their own agenda; most decisions are determined by self-interest rather than the interests of the organization, its various stakeholders, or society.
To me, the real challenge as an organizational designer and leadership educator, is to create humane organizations—places where people have voice, learning opportunities to express their creative capabilities, and enjoy a coaching culture where leadership is a “team sport,” not the bailiwick of the few—and not “Darwinian soups” (i.e., places of work where everyone is out for themselves). These kinds of organizations do not have “shareholder value”—an invitation to long-term disaster—as their exclusive rallying cry. They realize that they have many stakeholders; they take a long-term perspective, focus on sustainability, and seek to be part of a sustainable world.
Although all of us need a dose of narcissism for reasons of wholesome self-esteem, being at the high end of the narcissistic spectrum is a different matter. In more than one way, excessive narcissism is the dark side of individualism. It advocates freedom without responsibility, relationships without personal sacrifice, and a positive self-view that is far from grounded in reality. When it permeates a society, we create an “I” world, characterized by vanity, materialism, entitlement, and fame-seeking. It becomes a society without values or empathy, where superficial, exploitative behavior, greed, materialism, and an excessive consumer culture reign.
The pursuit of unrestrained self-interest—the belief that acting in our own self-interest will create better outcomes for all—is illusionary. “I” societies can bring out the worst in people. They make for a toxic social, economic, and political environment. Indeed, the most recent global financial crises were created in part by the overly narcissistic behavior of investment bankers—rather unscrupulous financial engineers. Many of these “masters of the universe” were driven by narcissistic overconfidence, with dire consequences for society. The same comment can be made about the way many countries have dealt with coronavirus pandemic, largely everyone for themselves with very little cooperation when it was direly needed.
Ironically, when you look at the history of Homo sapiens, the way we survived the harsh savannas of Africa—the way we were able to overcome the much stronger predators—was through cooperation. Given our evolutionary history, we are hardwired for cooperation and prepared to engage in altruistic acts. But although Homo sapiens has a history of altruism, ironically, the leaders we often choose—in light of our dependency needs—seem to suffer from narcissistic or even psychopathic personality disorders. It appears that, as Homo sapiens, there is constant tension on the cooperation-coercion axis. In many instances, these highly seductive people—who offer miraculous cures for whatever ills trouble society—“trump” cooperative processes.
With this kind of leadership, it shouldn’t come as a great surprise that the racial and ideological tensions and extreme political partisanship present in many countries today have come about due to a culture of narcissism. Too many policymakers, even though they may make high-minded propositions, are deep down self-focused, interested in short-term gain, and lack the empathy to reassess the world from other perspectives. But these “I” oriented people don’t seem to realize that a society driven by selfishness is a lonely place and does significant damage to the people living in it. It is a potential powder keg that can have catastrophic consequences, with the potential to destroy our planet. The coronavirus pandemic has illustrated the extent to which the world we live in is highly interrelated. Just pursuing narrow self-interests is not going to be the answer. And the pandemic has shown that many of our leaders did not have what it takes to deal with this crisis effectively.
I believe that it is high time to restore the balance between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft , so that we are able to live within communities in which social ties and interactions are guided by a sense of responsibility and civic duty, while simultaneously navigating a complex post-industrial and increasingly virtual society. The language of community needs to be restored but there will be no sense of community without a sense of caring. As individuals, our ambitions must be broad enough to include the needs of others, for their sake and our own. At the same time, we should not be seduced by those who seem high-minded but in reality, have only their own interests at heart. We should be cognizant that behind their lofty statements, what they are really trying to do is to transform Gemeinschaft into cult-like movements.