As the IICSA continues its work we are hearing more and more about the way that church authorities have historically protected the institution above individual members. In a previous post I spoke about a special ‘gene’ which I speculated infected some bishops who could only think in this institution protective way. I have been thinking further about this apparent retreat away from pastoral instinct into institutional groupthink. This is what seems to possess a cohort of senior church leaders at this time.
A few years ago, I wrote an article on the question as to whether clergy are likely to be affected by narcissistic behaviour. I was responding to another article that had been written a few years earlier which resisted this notion. The earlier researcher had studied a cohort of theological students in the States and had concluded, buttressed by statistical analysis, that they were no more liable to this trait than other non-church contemporaries. I realised that there was a flaw in this argument. The weakness was in the fact that the author assumed narcissism is always a disorder that begins in childhood. Others dispute this and suggest that the disorder may develop during the course of a career. An American writer, Robert Millman around 2000, came up with the splendid expression ‘Acquired Situational Narcissism’ (ASN). This describes how certain callings like show business or politics lead some individuals into the kind of self-promoting behaviour that we associate with narcissism. As a theory, it has not received acceptance among experts in this field, but it does seem to make a lot of sense. It could account for the way that a shy, even humble, clergyman could grow to exhibit grandiosity and power-seeking behaviour over a period of time. It is not difficult to imagine how standing in a pulpit week by week telling people what to think and what to do could change someone. The job we do, the role we adopt through our career, can deeply affect the kind of people we become.
We need to be reminded at this point of the main characteristics of narcissistic behaviour as they might apply to clergy. It is interesting that some of the words that describe this behaviour have an almost religious feel. Words like grandiosity, messianic and being special appear in the descriptions of what it means to be a sufferer of this disorder. My own summary description of narcissistic behaviour is self-inflation. The other side of the disorder concerns the failure to deal with others well as the result of these larger than life egos. The typical narcissist, because he believes himself to be an exalted being, becomes detached and uncaring for the concerns of ordinary people – his perceived inferiors.
The historic behaviour on the part of several of the bishops in the Church of England towards survivors does seem to have many of the characteristics of narcissistic behaviour. It might be argued that some at least of these bishops have acquired a measure of narcissism precisely because their preferment has resulted in their feeling superior and all-powerful. In other words, some have succumbed to ASN. Their role as ‘princes of the Church’ has come to define their personality in an arguably unhealthy way. In suggesting this, I am reminded of a phenomenon which took place when I was at school. From time to time boys would become prefects. The moment this change of status took place, there would be a sudden change in their relationships and in their general demeanour. Some of this might have been necessary to function in their new status; part was taking on the trappings of new role which did nothing for the preservation of their old core personalities. I am wondering whether new bishops go through a similar process. The new role which is hedged about by ecclesiastical and institutional expectations starts to define them and their personality in an narrowing way. The situation in which they find themselves draws them into a new persona, a role which may be cramping and stifling because it buries their true personality. Some bishops no doubt will fight such a restriction of their style. But others, for reasons of narcissistic gratification, will revel in the power they have and the status that their role gives them. In short, some bishops become clones of the institution. They start to act and behave in accordance with a model that is defined by the institution and not according to their individual idiosyncrasies in interpreting the episcopal function.
As I write this I can think of several bishops I have known who have completely avoided narcissistic grandiosity and detachment from ordinary people. Equally I have met other bishops who seem to revel in the importance thrust upon them together with the titles and honours that they enjoy. The question that I keep asking is whether the insensitive treatment afforded to survivors by some of our bishops is the result of what we have referred to as Acquired Situational Narcissism. If this analysis is in any way correct, the way that narcissism creeps into church life needs to be understood far better. When it is in evidence, especially among the bishops, it has the potential for wreaking havoc to relationships within the church.
Looking at the Church of England as a whole I can see that both ends of the church are affected by the phenomenon we have called ASN. The ‘high church’ group are very keen to enhance the role of the ordained clergy for theological reasons. The conservative evangelical group also want the minister, as the preacher and teacher of the Word of God, to be similarly exalted. Both theologies push the church towards putting the clergy (and the bishops) on to a pedestal. Thus narcissism becomes very easily embedded in large areas of the church. Clergy from a variety of traditions then begin to exhibit narcissistic traits and behaviour. This for theological reasons often goes unchallenged.
As I have said many times before in this blog, we need to have a serious debate about power and how it is used within the church. We need a new sensitivity to oppressive systems. These often privilege strong personalities with authority over weaker individuals, especially women and children. Bishops, clergy and people are all being shown in this present Inquiry to be complicit in some thoroughly unhealthy power dynamics in every part of the church. We need to talk about the way these dynamics operate. We need to have a language with which to describe them. Narcissism in all its manifestations involves a manifestation of power dysfunction and the church needs to rid itself of this. Perhaps IICSA may help in its banishment, the expulsion of unhealthy and destructive power relationships from our national church.
I hadn’t heard of ASN before, but what you say reminds me of the old saying, ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Bishops don’t have absolute power, but many of them do have enough power to corrupt. The deference they are traditionally accorded, and too often seem to expect, is also a strong temptation to narcissistic behaviour. Perhaps some people are born with narcissistic tendencies, but struggle to suppress them? In these cases an elevated position in the hierarchy would certainly foster the narcissism.
John Lees (former national Clergy Appointments Adviser) commented years ago that competitive job interviews disadvantage people with strong pastoral skills, while working to the advantage of managerial types. Certainly the growing prevalence of such competitive interviews has coincided with the growing managerialism of the C of E. It has to be said, thought, clergy are now so busy, with so much expected of them, that good pastoral care becomes difficult. Especially when their ‘superiors’ don’t value it and don’t recognise the good work that is being done.
Competitive interviews and a managerial culture will also give self-confident and egotistical priests an advantage, since they will generally present well in that context. Like so many priests who have served the Church for a couple of decades or more, sometimes I hardly recognise the Church I joined in 1980. Some of the changes are good (abolition of the secret clergy blacklist, ordination of women), but some of them are for the worse.
My prayer is that the IICSA hearings and associated revelations will prove a healthy corrective and an impetus for reform.
All forms of terminology are helpful in aiding discussion. So I like the term ASN. The contrast Stephen presents between bishops he has known who do not demonstrate it and those who grow into ASN could be generalised: he mentions prefects at school, I should cite headmasters – note the sexist term! But I think it is more general. I had to learn as a head of department in a school that my role demanded more than just me – I had to wield the power/authority of the institution – and I had to grow and change. It is just there that the issue lies. It led me to use the rather crude characterisation of individuals as “up to the job” – or not. I meant by the term those who grow into a job without becoming a victim of it. They were the ones whose character was enhanced by the role they played, who did not let the role make them lose grip of their underlying moral sense of direction or humanity – indeed it was if anything enhanced by it. I had a second view of this set of phenomena when I became chair of governors in a school; rather to my surprise I discovered that I had a power and influence over events and over the outlook of the place; and I could see how that could be abused and I saw how it changed me. A selection process for jobs is needed which can mobilise those with potential to grow and develop in a wholesome way in such situations; sadly I have yet to encounter one which makes that realistic. In the case of the clergy the willingness to be dependent on the part of so many church individuals tends to feed the ASN tendency in those who turn out to be not “up to the job”.
Oh yes. Excellent post, Stephen, and fine comments. I’m sure that having an overblown idea of your own talents happens in all walks of life. And also that after a few years of being treated like this, it changes people. I’ve watched a number of my friends change when they are ordained! What usually happens is that they’re insufferable during their year as a deacon; ignoring you at get-togethers and so on. And then they get over themselves and go back to talking to you again! Being ordained is a big deal. It can’t do other than make people think. Or hopefully it does. But sometimes the person concerned finds being cock of the walk very much to their taste, and then you have a problem.