Manipulation via Shaming and Guilt-Tripping: Using the Conscience of the Neurotic against Them
Neurotics try hard not only to project a positive image, but also to do the right thing. Disordered characters know this very well. So, when the person with a disturbed character wants to manipulate a good neurotic, all they have to do is somehow convince them that they’ve done wrong or behaved in a manner they should feel ashamed of.
This article is the third in a series of posts on the habitual behaviors or “tactics” commonly seen in persons with disturbed characters. These behaviors interfere with the process of developing a sense of accountability and responsibility. They also serve to manipulate others into exceeding to demands as well as to manipulate the kinds of impressions others might form of their character.
In prior posts, I’ve written about how problematic the issue of character disturbance has become and how persons with disordered characters differ on many dimensions from those individuals best described as “neurotic” to some degree. (See “Disturbances of Character”.). One of the main differences between “neurotic” individuals and those with disturbed characters is their level of conscience development — especially their capacities to experience shame and guilt. (See “Shame, Guilt and Character Development”.)
A most ironic fact is that almost no one is as expert on the topic of neurosis as is the disturbed character. Individuals with disordered characters know full well that those with well-developed consciences tend to feel guilty easily if they think they’ve done something wrong. Such individuals also have a big sense of shame when they think they’ve behaved in a manner that reflects negatively on their character. Neurotics try hard not only to project a positive image, but also to do the right thing. Disordered characters know this very well. So, when the person with a disturbed character wants to manipulate a good neurotic, all they have to do is somehow convince them that they’ve done wrong or behaved in a manner they should feel ashamed of.
Shaming and guilt-tripping are without question the favorite tactics disturbed characters use to manipulate people with consciences that are more developed than theirs. In my book, In Sheep’s Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK], I give several examples of how shaming and guilt-tripping tactics were used by individuals with disturbed characters to manipulate and control persons with whom they had relationships. In one case, a child whose bad behavior was appropriately pointed out by her mother complained, “You never have anything good to say about me,” thus inviting her mother to feel guilty for saying anything. In another case, a philandering husband whose wife had had enough of his behavior pointedly tried to convince her that she had not been sufficiently attentive to him, inviting her to feel ashamed of her performance as a wife.
After a lifetime of work with disturbed characters and their partners, I could literally cite thousands of similar examples. But a most important point to remember is that neither the tactic of guilt-tripping nor the tactic of shaming would have a prayer of being effective as a manipulation tool if it weren’t for the fact that neurotic individuals have such active consciences that prompt them to feel guilty or shameful when they think they’ve fallen short. Just try using the tactics of shaming or guilt-tripping a disordered character. Their undeveloped or sometimes even absent conscience makes it possible for them to hear your complaints without being even in the slightest bit affected. The fact that these tactics are effective manipulation tools for one group of characters and not for the other testifies to some of the core differences between neurotic individuals and those with disturbed characters.
Another important thing to recognize is that because disturbed characters use these tactics and understand why they work, they must necessarily understand completely the kinds of behaviors others frequently take issue with and why they take issue with them. They are very aware of the kinds of things that most people regard as things to feel guilty or shameful about. The problem is that when they do such things, they feel neither shameful nor guilty. In fact, they persist in their behavior, actively resisting any submission to the standards with which they try to brow-beat others. Traditional perspectives have always tried to explain this by suggesting that the disturbed characters are blinded from insight into their hypocrisy by “denial” and the tendency to “project” (both of which are purported to be unconscious defenses against emotional pain). The reality is that the disordered character is not blind but rather very aware. He also knows full well what behaviors most people regard as wrong and shameful, and he wants others to tow the line. The reason he doesn’t play by the same rules is because if he is a narcissistic character, he feels entitled to do otherwise. (See “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Self-Image Issues”.) And if he’s one of the aggressive characters, he simply fights to do as he pleases in defiance of the wishes of society. (See “Understanding the Aggressive Personalities”.)
Other articles by Dr George Simon, PhD
This article was last reviewed by Dr Greg Mulhauser, Managing Editor on Tuesday, 24th February 2009. You can leave a reply below.
The URL of this page is:
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/02/24/shame-guilt-neurotic-manipulation/
3rd March 2009
I don’t know how I missed this article! I continue to be reinforced by your words. They DO know exactly how to play a neurotic. I always thought so but then convinced myself otherwise, not trusting my own intuition. They can spot someone who will buy their nonsense a mile away, by body language and even the most superficial conversations. And then they move in for the kill. Once hooked, a neurotic will hang on forever in many cases.
Thirty-seven years of buying into the shaming and guilt-tripping was a long time for me. It is so liberating to be free of it and your articles are one of many sources of knowledge, inspiration and empowerment.
Thank you!
24th March 2009
I have a question regarding emotional abusers and manipulators.
Are all emotional abusers and manipulators disturbed characters (meaning by this that they have mental health problems) or are there abusers and manipulators who are just plain “mean” or “evil”?
My question arises from the fact that there are “correctional centers” and “mental health institutions”, so where do you draw the line between someone who is disturbed or not… or evil people are all disturbed, etc.?
(I guess, some psychiatrist as well as court judges, might find it difficult to tell sometimes how to classify some criminals.)
31st March 2009
My father is a minister and I was raised with a deep-seated, hypersenstive dose of self-examination mixed with guilt. I am a full-grown woman, but can grow bright red when something goes missing and can’t be found. It’s as if I am always waiting to be accused of something and deserving of being found at fault. How do I fix this? I end up being the giver in relationships and become disappointed that others are not reciprocative. How do I fix this?
31st March 2009
Good question, Elizabeth.
The eminent dynamic psychologist Alfred Adler once said that “guilt is a poor substitute for legitimate suffering.” I used to think this was a ridiculous statement. But over the years, I’ve come to recognize the wisdom of it.
When something goes wrong, or when we or someone else has done something wrong, we face a choice. We can either work to repair the damage, or let it go. Righting a wrong takes time and energy. It’s work. Doing wrong and then doing nothing to fix it but instead punishing yourself with bad feelings (i.e. feeling guilty) is in a way a cop-out. Because most people don’t like to feel bad, using guilt as a means of coercing people to do right has been around for a long time. The healthiest position to take is to face misstep we make squarely and make a free decision to either excuse it and let it go, or accept the burden of repairing the damage we might have done. Guilt need not be the motivation to make amends, only the desire to foster better relationships and to foster our own character development.
2nd July 2009
You say the narcissist feels entitled to not play by the rules. I have read this assertion often. But isn’t this sense of entitlement simply a deliberately built defense mechanism. In other words its not the core reason. Rather, the core motivation is that they want something for nothing, they simply want to steal.
3rd July 2009
Hi, Ken. A “defense mechanism” is an UNCONSCIOUS automatic protection of the ego from otherwise overwhelming anxiety and emotional pain. Such terms do a fair job of describing neurotics. There are a few narcissistic personalities who lie toward the neurotic end of the spectrum. MOST narcissists, however, are very character-disordered. As such, they way they appear is the way they are. So, when they act like they’re entitled, it’s because they really believe they’re special and deserve special favor. The wanting something for nothing phenomenon is another characteristic of disordered characters. That thinking error goes hand in hand with a sense of entitlement. There are many erroneous thinking patterns that cluster together in the disturbed character. I have several posts dealing with these issues.
Thanks for the comment and question.
3rd July 2009
Dr Simon ,
Thank you for your reply. I think I expressed my point of view poorly. Karen Horney in her book Neurosis and Human Growth gives the example of a person who wants to commit a crime but is afraid of being caught and punished. The “solution ” to the problem is the neurotic claim (exception from reality) to a moral blank check. That is, they consider it a entitlement that no one passes moral judgment on their criminal behavior. Likewise a person who wants something for nothing, experiences dissonance since not stealing is hard-wired into the human brain. So again the “solution” to removing the dissonance is another neurotic claim. This time its the sense of entitlement you mention. Hence according to my reasoning, wanting something for nothing, and a sense of entitlement are not separate characteristics as your answer implies. Rather one flows from the other.
3rd July 2009
Hi, Ken. Actually, you expressed yourself quite well. And you demonstrate a deep and correct understanding of Horney, who is one of the more eloquent teachers on the phenomenon of neurosis. My point is that it is becoming increasingly inappropriate to over-generalize what we know about neurotic behavior to explain the behavior of everyone – especially narcissists. Many of your comments are right on the money with regard to what types of thinking contributes to the development of attitudes of entitlement. My point was that the longstanding presumption that some kind of neurotic conflict that creates the need for “defenses” or the “dissonance” you describe is itself a flawed explanation for the behavior of many. Such presumptions apply to neurosis, which in our modern age is really the “affliction” of moral majority who make society function as as opposed to the over-wrought anxious wrecks the early proponents of neurosis theory encountered and based their theories on. Today we have a bigger problem with character disturbance than we do with neurosis and MOST narcissists are character disturbed, not neurotic. So, the underlying reasons for their behaviors are different than the theory of neurosis proposes. Despite the almost poetic explanations neurosis theorist bring to the understanding of the human psyche, their basic tenets have not been validated – especially when it comes to understanding the behavior of individuals best described as character disturbed. I have several earlier posts on this site addressing the issue of the shortcomings of the theory of neurosis in our modern age and the key differences between neurosis and character disturbance.
In short, Ken, I think you’re right on when you speak of the kinds of problematic attitudes narcissists have and the various other problematic beliefs that stem from them. I would just ask you to do some exploration into the shortcomings of neurotic theory-based explanations for these things because the Victorian era is long past, there hasn’t been a case of “hysterical blindness” (the kind of extraordinary manifestation of neurosis that spawned all the theories of neurosis) reported in advanced cultures in over 50 years, and because ours is truly the age of character disturbance. Even though neurosis theories remain eloquent, they have rightfully been superseded by theories that more adequately explain the psychological phenomena of our age. : )
7th October 2009
Dr. Simon, thanks for this excellent article and for your responses to the comments.
You said, “He also knows full well what behaviors most people regard as wrong and shameful, and he wants others to tow the line.”
An example of this is my brother-in-law who was a police officer and is now in homeland security. He has often stated that the law does not apply to him. He said, “the law was made to keep the sheep in line so us wolves can get around them.” He never obeys laws, knowing that other police officers will show deference when he flashes identification.
So I agree that it is a well thought out sense of entitlement, but the question remains, where does it come from? He shows many signs of narcissism, his personality calls to mind a petulant child with ADD most of the time. So if he is emotionally retarded, how did this happen?
7th October 2009
Thanks for the comments, Skylar. A great question about where such a sense of entitlement comes from. Traditional theories typically cited early trauma as the reason for just about every dysfunctional behavior. Now, we know better. Sometimes it’s not what people learn, but what they fail to learn that’s the problem. Add to that some of their innate predispositions and a reinforcing climate in the culture, and before you know it you have people who failed to develop a decent moral compass. I address this briefly in “In Sheep’s Clothing” but delve into it more in “Disturbances of Character.”