Narcissists and their Ideal Standards

In the next two chapters of Whistleblowers, I read a part in one chapter that I found really interesting to me and that really made me think. It was when the author talks about Narcissism. He says that the “narcissist wants to be whole, good, pure and perfect,” (page 63). He says that there are two ways for people to do this. The first way is that “one lowers one’s standards of wholeness, goodness, purity and perfection until they correspond to one’s miserable self,” and the second way is that “one raises one’s miserable self as high as one possibly can so that one comes a little closer to these ideal standards,” (page 63). I found this really interesting to read. To me the two ways that narcissists try to live up to their ideal standards means that they don’t want to set high standards for themselves until they get in touch with what makes them miserable or that they already know why they are miserable and they do what they can to reach those high standards they have for themselves to make themselves less miserable. People who are narcissistic in my opinion want to be perfect, do the right thing and have perfection around them and people doing the right thing as they do but not everyone is like that. We are people with flaws and I think that the narcissistic person’s number one flaws are to put pressure on themselves to be perfect and right all the time just because of their fears and insecurities. I don’t really know how to relate this to my service learning at St. Vincent de Paul but I would think that there are people on the streets that think they are right and perfect in some respect. I have never encountered anyone through my service learning like this. I’ve seen prideful people but I don’t know if that means that they think they are right, know what they are doing and are perfect. Overall, I think that if people extremely narcissistic they really need to get a reality check if possible.

Prompts for Whistleblower week 2

Here are the notes that you can use to help you focus your discussion--notice that point 3 might provide you a good link to service, but please work in additional ideas from the text as well.

“Narcissism Moralized” A very simplistic breakdown of Alford’s concept: Primary narcissism is Freud’s description of the pre-egoic state in which the infant doesn’t differentiate him/herself from anything else in the world. This is a boundary-less experience of self-hood—the infant experiences him/herself as everything else. Freud also describes this as the “oceanic feeling” which is also associated with mystic experience—a sense of being merged with all reality. This experience of interconnection can then be seen as helping to form the ego ideal. The ego ideal is the perfect self to which the ego “should” strive to become. So, Alford is suggesting that a whistleblower’s conception of the perfect self is one that reflects the experience of primary narcissism in which one’s sense of self can’t be separated out from the larger reality. Thus, self-love, or the defense and the protection of this self is about protecting this greater whole with which one’s identity and selfhood is inextricably intertwined. The whistleblower is motivated to act out of desire to preserve the self, which is embedded/merged with the collective good. (See Alford, 76.)

Starting with the phenomenon: Like Arendt, Alford is starting with “appearances” or what the whistleblower does so that we may “reconsider what constitutes an ethical motive in light of ethical behavior” (65). Read this passage carefully as he is challenging the position of those who would say that narcissism in so a valid ethical motive. What follows will be his illustration of why he is proposing that narcissism moralized may be a new “ethical category” or source for moral behavior. Alford adds later on, “Why people act ethically is afar richer category and more mysterious phenomenon than we know, and our first category should be wonder, not judgment” (79). How does idea this fit with other readings?

Imagination/Empathy as a Bridge to the Other: Our imagination is not just about lightness and joy, but also about, as Alford cites Arendt, “the ability to take others into account” (67). How do you see this concept manifested in your service? Are you able to use your own moral imagination as a "bridge"?

What else stands out for you in Alford’s description of the five types of whistleblower stories? Please find quotes in each of these sections that encapsulate Alford’s meaning. Why is each “story” important to our own understanding of ethics?

Whistleblowers 83-138

Chapt. 5

Embodiment: “The difference between loyalty to universal principles (impartialism) and loyalty to ideal selves who embody these principles. . . The principles obtain value only as they are embodied in oneself” (84). As you know, from the course description, this course is trying to transmit philosophy not just as ideas about how we live, but HOW we live those ideas, “the principle become the self” 86). What is Alford saying about whistleblowers’ ethics in relation to other established theories? (pgs. 84-94). Find the significant phrases that help you to understand what Alford is saying about whistleblower ethics in comparison to each theory that he outlines. There are many notable points—go forth and find them yourself!

Sacrifice: “What is difficult is acting on this basis [empathy and concern for others] when the self must pay a terrible price . . . To risk this takes something more than empathy. It takes narcissism” (95). What if the whistleblower could choose? (Much of Alford’s theory about whistleblower motives implies that they either don’t see this as a choice or they don’t foresee consequences of the sort that actually occur. In the whistleblowers ideal, everyone else would share and act on these same principles—thus the whistleblower is also self-exiled from a world that doesn’t match his/her ideals). What would the whistleblower be left with if he/she didn’t blow the whistle and what do you think may be the biggest sacrifice? What does this choice remind you of? (I’m thinking of Arendt).

Scapegoats

The metaphor of the scapegoat is essential in helping to understand the role of whistleblowers because it shows what part they tend to play in society. By taking on the role of the scapegoat, the whistleblowers takes on a huge responsibility. In the metaphor the scapegoat takes all the problems and troubles of the people he represents. The funny thing about the scapegoat, is that he does not choose to be a scapegoat. The scapegoat is bestowed with this responsibility of being the scapegoat. He is chosen and forced to carry all the problems that have been put on his head. Whether the whistleblower chooses this life or is forced into it is where morality comes in. Whistleblowers may not have exactly chosen to be whistleblowers, but when faced with the final decision they chose to follow their moral beliefs instead of continuing to conform with the company. The whistleblower takes on the problems and responsibilities that people see every day but no one says anything. Does this make them a hero? It should. The thing that messes up everything, is the concept of "should". We all know what we "should" do, but who actually does it? And "should" we really risk everything we have for morality if that endangers our entire lives and families?

When people choose to not say anything in some cases it is just as bad as agreeing with the the thing they are not refuting. People will conform to an action out of the fear of being rejected or persecuted. We look at it as bold for people to stand up for what they believe in, but we also tend to shun those who do not align with the flow of a community. People are afraid of change, and this inhibits advances. Alford states, "it tells us about the forces that hold society together and their consequences: the willingness of most people to do anything not to be sent space-walking" (5). People are social creatures and this means that we will try to fit in with society in order to live. When someone goes against the grain they are either going to be idolized for their actions or persecuted. Chances of being idolized are so slim nowadays that it isn't surprising that there are not countless whistleblowers.

Scapegoats and whistleblowers may be forced into this position either by society or by moral issues, but what about the kids at county who seem to have to deal with countless problems? Are they considered scapegoats of a different kind? Many of these kids do not want to be at MCCS. I had a 17 year old boy tell me about his plans for the future. He told me how he either wanted to go to SFSU or Santa Rosa JC. He also explained that he hated being at MCCS because it was impossible to learn anything. I asked him how he ended up there, and he told me that it was because he didn't attend his normal high school regularly. So he was there because of truancy. He continued to say that County made him wish he had never skipped a single class. When he told me this all I could think of was how a scapegoat is led to the person who will lay all the problems on its head and send it off into the forest. This kid didn't know what he was going to have to deal with if he missed classes, but he's already been pushed into the forest carrying burdens he didn't know he would have to deal with. I think there are different levels to being a scapegoat. But all the levels start with the fact that when the goat starts its life, or at a school, or at a new company, he or she doesn't know that he or she will end up being a scapegoat.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Upon first picking up Whistleblowers, I was pretty intrigued on what this book contained. Not being much of a book person (or a reader, at that), I tend to let the cover page of a book tell me its synopsis. We all know that good saying about the judging a book, so I won't repeat it. Needless to say, I still do it.

Until this point, I had no clue what a whistleblower was, though in the introduction, he describes just what a whistleblower is. But just because I do not know what it is, doesn't mean that I didn't see or hear about it. Even though most of the time I hear about them have some sort of negative connotation (mostly everything we watch in television will have this), their actions were not unheard of by me. What set this book apart for me from the introduction is this quote:

"...I have never been a whistleblower, and yet I've felt like one all my life...no one ever spoke the truth, so I thought I must (2-3)"

This quote, something that all whistleblowers must have thought of before they blew their whistles, makes me question what their motives are based on. Is it for the better of the community, themselves? I think of how many times there was an error in my definition of truth, yet chose to do nothing about it. What impresses me about these people is that though they work for a rather prestigious company, have job and life security, family, etc. they choose to do the "right" thing, knowing the consequences of their action. Though most of the stories I have read so far fit within this mold, I imagine how many whistleblowers were not given attention, simply kicked off by society, such as Winston Smith.

So what gives? Alford himself makes the statement that whistleblowers tick because if they held the truth any longer, then they would go insane.

In my opinion, whistleblowers, such as the ones mentioned in this book tell their stories because they want to be set free. They don't want retaliation or the notoriety of exposing an exposé, but to inform the world that this situation is happening, and if something doesn't change, then all hell could potentially break loose.

Ignorance is bliss

Ignorance is bliss
By Justin Salter
What the scapegoat knows. Why is this metaphor significant in helping to understand the role of the whistleblower in our society? Why is this “knowledge like a mortal illness” for the whistleblower (5)? What other whistleblower characteristics does Alford delineate? Make sure that you outline the different related points for yourself.
The metaphor of the scapegoat is significant in helping to understand the role of the whistleblower in our society because the whistleblower knows about all of the wrongdoings of the organization. “They do not just know the sins of the tribe. They are afflicted with them.” (pg 5) Unlike the scapegoat however, whistleblowers can act on the knowledge presented to them which is both a blessing and a curse.
Knowledge is like a mortal illness because it can affect you negatively in many ways. Knowing something and not doing anything can morally tare a person apart. By not acting on knowledge of something wrong, it is almost as if that person has become part of the problem. Knowing something and acting on it can have many consequences. “To run up against the organization is to risk obliteration.” (pg4) A person can risk losing their job, home, family, friends, and even can become an outcast in the eyes of everyone around them. This really gives meaning to the expression that ignorance is bliss.
I feel that all this is very true and very sad. If I had the knowledge of something that was morally wrong, I would realize that it would be morally right to do something. After that point though the problem for me would occur. I can honestly say that I don’t know if I would be willing to risk the consequences. I have worked so hard to be where I am today, and I don’t think I would be willing to throw that all away for a moral issue. I know it would be to help the greater good, but it would definitely depend on how important the issue at hand was to me.

Whistle blowing for?

Author C. Fred Alford in his findings, discover's many important reoccuring themes in the whistleblower stories that he shares with us in his book. The first theme is this idea that the stories told be the whistleblowers are mellow in nature, that is to say they are not very dramatic in nature. There is drama to be found in the chaos of everyday organizational life. Secondly, the the victim is usually not immediately fired from position held; They are slowly demoralized, piece by piece from their office, so the agency/organization doesnt look as though they are responding in a form of retaliating against the whistleblower. This form of demoralizing leds to the act of private disobedience and psychological trauma. Next, another reoccuring theme is that almost all whistleblowers neglect to use the media as a tool for voicing their cause until they were fired. Lastly, most of the whistleblowers held positions in the governmental branches, and private sectors. In both these organizational structures, the issues of termination is key. These are the themes that seem haunt whistleblowers alike. I find it rather intriguing that almost all whistleblowers know they are doing the right thing, but when asked if they would do it again, they say they wouldn't. As many whistleblowers stress," Do it to save lives or dont do it"(34), so is this the under rule of thumb to use/code of ethics for doing what is right? How does one know the outcome of the circumstance? Are life's even at stake? How many lives will be saved by blowing the whistle? These are questions that maybe dont have immediate answers, or are even answerable. It all comes down, to doing what you feel is right, I think, even if it may casue oneself hardship unthinkable. In sum, you go with your gut feeling, in decision making sometimes.

Prompts for Whistleblower reflection

We will do a reflection in class to relate Whistleblowers to service-learning--so unless something is shouting at you about your SL, use this reflection to try to unpack some of the ideas presented in the reading. I have pasted in the reading points to help you focus, as there are many complex ideas presented in this reading!

What is Alford’s stated goal (6) in writing this book on this subject? What is his methodology? (Also see pages 32-33, 35)

What the scapegoat knows. Why is this metaphor significant in helping to understand the role of the whistleblower in our society? Why is this “knowledge like a mortal illness” for the whistleblower (5)? What other whistleblower characteristics does Alford delineate? Make sure that you outline the different related points for yourself.

Consequences and Costs: Power, Politics, and Who Pays? Or What Happens When Ethical Discourse Becomes Impossible” (36). Who benefits when ethics is separated from politics? What is Alford’s point? You should be happy to see that you already have some foundation here as you have just read Arendt (10-13). Connect these ideas to Alford’s point at the end of Chap. 2.

Chap. 2

How does Alford define whistleblowing? Note difference between “theory” and “practice” (18).

How/Why Organizations “Sacrifice” Whistleblowers: “The best way to disrupt moral behavior is not to discuss it and not to discuss not discussing it” (21). Make sure that you understand what Alford means by this (pay close attention to other crucial sentence s on page 22) and notice how he illustrates through whistleblower stories. You may want to reread after you read the themes section.

Themes in Whistleblower Stories (31-32): Alford lays these out for you. Make sure that grapple with these points.—you may want to reread the stories. (These are brief glimpses, he will go deeper in the next chapter)

Workplace Values: “Organizations are not just undemocratic. Organizations are the enemy of individual morality” (35).

Chap. 3.

The Significance of Narrative (shared vs. shattered meaning): What is Alford telling us about the way that we usually make sense of our own lives and those of others? Why is this cohesion lacking from the whistleblowers story (and reality)? Look for multiple points about this throughout chapter. These observations are important and fascinating on many levels, not just in relation the whistleblower.

Narrative Themes in Whistleblower Stories: Choiceless choice, stuck in static time, paranoid themes, “living in the position of the dead” (39). Throughout this chapter, Alford illustrates these themes. Make sure that you find a few crucial quotes in each section that help you to understand Alford’s characterizations.

The Failure of Common Narrative or The Story that Can’t Be Heard and How the Organization “Disciplines” the Ethical Individual: Alford will go into more detail on these points in future chapters. Anything here that you can relate to something in your own experience or in relationship to your service-learning?