Violence, at its root, is based on a “need” that isn’t being met. This doesn’t mean that a “need” is justified e.g., a person who doesn’t deserve our respect may believe that we’re required to give it to them and so threaten us, a person who is in a rush and frustrated at being stuck in slow-moving traffic may see us as the problem and engage in an incident of road-rage etc. A need may also be tangible, e.g., a person engaging in a street robbery needs money to pay the rent and/or continue their partying lifestyle etc. This idea of a relationship between violence and need can sometimes be better understood when it is looked at from the opposite direction; if a person has all their needs met then why would they act violently? This doesn’t mean that individuals who appear to have everything don’t engage in violent acts. Sometimes, they do simply because all they have doesn’t meet their needs e.g., they might be motivated to act violently due to boredom and a need for excitement etc. However, there are times when a group, rather than an individual, experiences and recognizes a shared/collective need, and this underlying “need” can raise emotions and cause people to react to things they see as threats that are actually benign.

                Colloquially, a person is sometimes referred to as a narcissist, if they are self-centered and entitled etc., and although the clinical definition is somewhat more complex, regardless of the standard you use to define it, those who manifest it often engage in such behaviors e.g., they act in an entitled and self-centered manner etc. However, the reason they do so is because they believe they are unique, special and better than everyone else. Ironically, when you deal with narcissists you find that far from them being “unique” and “individual” they all follow the same predictable script(s), and whilst they often start an interaction by trying to hide their true intent (charm, compliments and niceness) and probably compliment themselves on the genius of this approach, they soon revert to type. In 2009, Agnieszka Golec de Zavala (and colleagues) published an article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, that made the argument for a type of narcissism that could be applied to a group rather than an individual, terming it, “Collective Narcissism”. Essentially this is a belief that your group is exceptional, combined with a sense that others don’t give it the recognition it deserves. Its defining feature (like that of an individual narcissist) is that the group’s greatness depends on outside validation, meaning that it is always under threat.

                Collective Narcissism can be applied to any group, whether the group is defined by ethnicity, religion or politics etc., and it can be rated by degree, using the Collective Narcissism Scale. This looks to measure views/opinions, such as “My group deserves special treatment(s)”, “Nobody understands how important my group is”, and “The world would be better if my group had more influence” etc. Those who exhibit Collective Narcissism become angry when their “group” doesn’t get the respect they believe it is due and/or when it is subject to enquiry or criticism etc. Golec de Zavala distinguishes Collective Narcissism from what she calls in-group satisfaction i.e., a secure, positive sense of belonging to a group. This means it is different to having “pride” in belonging to a group. The problem occurs when that pride requires others to notice the “exceptional” nature of the group, and the group lacks the ability to be introspective e.g., someone can be proud of their country, without demanding that those from other countries have to recognize that they are “inferior” and need to explicitly pay homage to them etc. There is overlap between “pride” and “Collective Narcissism” but research has shown that secure in-group satisfaction predicts less hostility to outsiders than Collective Narcissism does.

                Research by Aleksandra Cichocka et al., suggests that Collective Narcissism can be compensatory i.e., people who feel a low sense of personal control, or whose personal needs for recognition and self-worth go unmet, are more drawn to it. That is, when individual self-esteem is fragile and unmet, an inflated group identity can fill this gap. This can be better understood by considering Kruglanski’s “Significance Quest Theory”. The theory proposes that everyone has a fundamental need for significance i.e., they need to matter, to be respected, and to feel that their life has meaning and worth etc. Most of the time this need is met in ordinary ways e.g., through work, family, relationships and community belonging etc. However, people can experience a loss of significance, such as losing their job, an intimate relationship etc., and so look for other settings in which they can become significant. Whilst Kruglanski was primarily looking at why people joined radical terrorist organizations, the theory is a general one and can be used to engage in Collective Narcissism e.g., your personal experiences may not support the idea that you are exceptional or significant, but by joining and belonging to a group that you can argue is, you by default become significant and exceptional.

                A key mechanism in the theory is that when the need for significance becomes overwhelming, it crowds out other goals that normally restrain behaviour, such as safety, family, comfort and even self-preservation etc. Kruglanski refers to this as “motivational imbalance,” and he makes the argument that it’s what “extremism” is, if put in psychological terms i.e., the person becomes willing to sacrifice things most people would never give up. When the focus of identity becomes that of the group rather than the individual, as is the case with Collective Narcissism, an individual may act and behave in ways that are contrary to their own self-interest, in order to support and maintain the identity of the group. This includes acting aggressively and violently to those who critique the group, or who are seen as outsiders to it.