Mason, L. (2018) | References | Narcissus and the Child

What This Research Found

Lilliana Mason's Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity represents one of the most important contributions to understanding why contemporary politics has become so bitter, hostile, and seemingly impervious to reason. Her central insight challenges common assumptions: the intense partisan hatred Americans display toward each other isn't primarily about policy disagreement. It's about identity.

The paradox of rising hostility amid modest disagreement: Mason begins with a puzzle that has frustrated pundits and scholars alike. Americans increasingly despise the opposing party. They don't want their children to marry across party lines. They question the intelligence and morality of political opponents. They view the other party as a genuine threat to the nation. Yet when researchers examine actual policy positions, the gap between Democrats and Republicans, while real, doesn't remotely justify this level of animosity. On many specific issues---healthcare, immigration, economic policy---there is substantial overlap and often greater disagreement within parties than between them.

If Americans don't actually disagree that much on policy, why do they hate each other so intensely? Mason's answer is that partisan identity has become fused with a cluster of other identities---racial, religious, regional, cultural---creating what she calls a "mega-identity" that makes political conflict feel existential.

Social sorting and identity alignment: Mason documents a decades-long process she terms "social sorting." In mid-twentieth-century America, both parties contained diverse coalitions. Democrats included Southern segregationists and Northern civil rights advocates; Republicans ranged from Northeastern moderates to Midwestern conservatives. Racial, religious, and cultural identities cross-cut partisan ones, creating connections across party lines. Your political opponent might share your religion, your region, your ethnic background.

Over subsequent decades, these identities aligned. The parties became more homogeneous: Republicans increasingly white, Christian, rural, and traditional; Democrats increasingly diverse, secular, urban, and progressive. By the twenty-first century, knowing someone's partisanship predicted their racial identity, religious affiliation, geographic location, and cultural values. The party coalitions had sorted into distinct identity clusters.

This alignment transforms the meaning of political conflict. When parties were diverse coalitions united by policy agreements, political opponents were simply people who disagreed about governance. When parties become identity clusters, political opponents become people who differ in race, religion, region, and values---alien tribes rather than fellow citizens with different views.

Identity threat and emotional intensity: Mason's experimental research demonstrates that when political identity is threatened, people react with anger and hostility that far exceeds what policy stakes alone would predict. In laboratory studies, she showed that participants with strongly aligned identities (where partisan, racial, religious, and cultural identities all pointed the same direction) responded to political provocations with significantly more emotional intensity than those with cross-cutting identities, even when their actual policy positions were identical.

This reveals the psychological mechanism driving contemporary polarisation. A political loss isn't just a policy setback; it's an attack on one's identity. When someone criticises your party, they're criticising your race, your religion, your way of life, your very sense of who you are. The rage this produces is not a miscalculation or an overreaction in some technical sense---it's the predictable response to identity threat.

The disconnect between emotion and policy: One of Mason's most striking findings is that emotional polarisation operates almost independently of policy opinions. Experiments showed that people could change their policy positions to match their party's with minimal discomfort, but they couldn't change their feelings about the other party. Someone might flip from opposing to supporting a policy when told their party now endorses it, yet maintain intense hostility toward opponents who hold the position they themselves held yesterday.

This disconnect helps explain why factual corrections and policy arguments so rarely change minds. The conflict isn't about the facts or the policy; those are proxies for deeper identity stakes. Proving that an opponent's policy works or that your own party's policy has flaws threatens identity, which the brain processes as existential danger. The emotional commitment to the group comes first; the policy positions follow.

Winners, losers, and democratic governance: Mason examines the implications of identity-based polarisation for democratic governance. Democracy requires accepting losses: your side loses elections, your preferred policies fail, courts rule against you. When this is merely about policy, losing is unpleasant but tolerable---you work to win next time. But when losing threatens identity, it becomes unbearable. The psychological mechanisms that evolved to protect group membership against threats are activated against fellow citizens.

This creates pressure to abandon democratic norms. If the other side winning means losing everything that matters---your identity, your community, your sense of self---then using any means to prevent their victory seems justified. The norms of mutual toleration (treating opponents as legitimate) and institutional forbearance (not exploiting every legal power to maximum advantage) become impossible to maintain when opponents feel like existential enemies. Mason's research thus helps explain the erosion of democratic norms that other scholars like Levitsky and Ziblatt have documented.

The asymmetry of identity politics: While both parties have become more sorted, Mason notes asymmetries in the process. The Republican coalition has become more homogeneous faster, with partisan, racial, religious, and cultural identities aligning more completely. This means that for many Republicans, political identity carries more identity weight---and therefore political threats trigger more intense reactions. The Democratic coalition, while more diverse, has also undergone sorting, particularly as white working-class voters have shifted rightward and college-educated professionals have moved left. Neither party is immune to the dynamics Mason describes.

How This Research Is Used in the Book

Mason's research appears in Narcissus and the Child as crucial evidence for how narcissistic dynamics operate at political scale. In Chapter 12: Historical Narcissus, her work illuminates the specific mechanism by which narcissistic leaders capture polarised populations:

"Extreme polarisation creates conditions where supporters overlook leader pathology because he is on their side. When politics becomes tribal warfare rather than policy debate, having a narcissistic leader feels like advantage, his shamelessness and cruelty become virtues when directed at the hated out-group."

This passage directly applies Mason's framework: when identity is at stake, leader evaluation becomes group loyalty test rather than competence assessment. The narcissistic leader's pathological traits---the grandiosity, the inability to admit error, the lack of empathy, the cruelty---become assets rather than liabilities when directed at identity enemies. What would disqualify a leader in policy-focused politics becomes qualification in identity-based politics.

The book extends Mason's analysis to explain how narcissistic leadership and polarisation reinforce each other:

"This explains how educated, moral people can support obviously narcissistic leaders. They are not deceived about the pathology; they believe the pathology serves their in-group's interest. The narcissist's lack of empathy, willingness to violate norms, and capacity for cruelty become assets when fighting perceived enemies."

Mason's research provides the empirical foundation for this claim. Her experiments demonstrate that strongly sorted partisans prioritise group victory over policy substance, consistent values, or even personal interest. The narcissistic leader who channels group hostility while violating every norm captures this dynamic perfectly.

In Chapter 14: The Bankrupt Society, Mason's framework illuminates how polarisation corrodes democratic governance:

"Affective polarisation corrodes democratic governance through multiple mechanisms... American politics increasingly abandons both norms."

Here the book connects Mason's findings on affective polarisation to the broader analysis of democratic dysfunction. The visceral hatred for opponents that Mason documents makes the mutual toleration and institutional forbearance that sustain democracy psychologically impossible.

Why This Matters for Survivors

For those who experienced narcissistic abuse, particularly in family systems, Mason's research offers recognition that can feel almost uncanny---because the dynamics she documents at political scale operated in your family.

The family as identity system. Narcissistic families function as identity systems that mirror the political dynamics Mason describes. Being a "good" family member isn't merely about behaviour but about identity: adopting the right beliefs, maintaining the right loyalties, presenting the right image. Family identity becomes fused with other identities (religion, values, status) until family membership carries existential weight. Questioning anything becomes questioning everything. Disagreement on any issue triggers the narcissistic rage that Mason documents in political contexts, because it threatens the identity structure the narcissist has constructed.

Disproportionate reactions to minor issues. If you experienced raging conflicts over seemingly trivial matters---being screamed at for minor household infractions, relationships shattered over small disagreements, years of silence over forgotten birthdays---Mason's research explains the mechanism. The substantive issue was never really the point. The issue was identity threat: the minor disagreement implied disloyalty, which threatened the identity structure, which triggered defensive rage. Understanding this can help survivors stop blaming themselves for "not explaining well enough" or "pushing the wrong buttons." The button wasn't the issue; the identity threat was.

The splitting parallel. Mason's description of partisan hostility maps directly onto the splitting that characterises narcissistic psychology. In both contexts, people are sorted into all-good and all-bad categories. Those who provide identity validation are idealised; those who threaten identity are demonised. The complexity that characterises real people---the ability to hold that someone can be both wrong about something and still decent, that you can disagree with someone and still respect them---becomes impossible when identity is at stake. Polarised politics and narcissistic families both eliminate nuance because nuance threatens the identity structure.

The scapegoat function. Mason's research on out-group hostility illuminates the scapegoat role in narcissistic families. Just as political polarisation requires enemies to channel identity-based hostility, narcissistic family systems require designated targets for the aggression that identity threat produces. The scapegoat absorbs the negative feelings that would otherwise threaten family cohesion. Understanding that this is a structural role---not a reflection of the scapegoat's actual failures---can help survivors release unearned shame.

Your vulnerability is specific. Survivors of narcissistic abuse may be particularly vulnerable to identity-based political appeals precisely because they learned that identity is existentially important. Having experienced the consequences of identity violation in family systems (rejection, rage, exile), survivors may be hypervigilant about identity threats and hyperattuned to identity appeals. Recognising this vulnerability is protective: when a political movement offers belonging, purpose, and enemies to despise, survivors can recognise the familiar pattern and choose more carefully.

Clinical Implications

For mental health professionals working with clients affected by both narcissistic abuse and political distress, Mason's research provides essential context.

Political distress may reflect trauma activation. Clients who report intense distress about political events---difficulty functioning, intrusive thoughts, relationship conflicts---may be experiencing trauma activation rather than simply strong political opinions. When political dynamics mirror their abuse history (identity threats, in-group/out-group splitting, demands for absolute loyalty), the political content can trigger trauma responses. Assessment should explore whether political distress connects to personal trauma history, particularly experiences of narcissistic abuse.

Identity work is relevant. Mason's research suggests that identity flexibility---the ability to hold multiple, sometimes conflicting identities without feeling threatened---protects against both political and interpersonal manipulation. Therapeutic work that helps clients develop diverse sources of identity (not solely defined by family role, political affiliation, or any single dimension) can reduce vulnerability to identity-based manipulation.

Address splitting across domains. Clients with narcissistic abuse histories may apply the all-or-nothing thinking they learned in abusive systems to political analysis, viewing one side as entirely good and the other as entirely evil. While their pattern recognition about manipulation may be accurate, the inability to tolerate complexity can increase distress and impair relationships. Therapeutic work can help clients recognise manipulation patterns while maintaining the nuanced thinking that splitting destroys.

Family-of-origin work has political implications. Processing narcissistic family dynamics may spontaneously surface political material---clients may recognise their parent in political figures, or see national events as family drama at scale. This connection can be therapeutically productive, providing distance on family material while illuminating why political events feel so personally threatening.

Boundary skills transfer. The same skills that help survivors establish boundaries with narcissistic family members---limiting engagement, not accepting identity threats as valid, protecting one's own perception---can help manage political distress. Clinicians can help clients recognise when political engagement has crossed from citizenship into identity threat territory and apply familiar protective strategies.

Broader Implications

Mason's research extends beyond individual psychology to illuminate patterns across families, organisations, and societies where identity fusion creates dysfunctional conflict.

Narcissistic Families as Identity Systems

Families operate as identity systems. In healthy families, identity is important but not totalising: family members can disagree, develop separately, hold different values, and still remain family. In narcissistic families, identity becomes fused: being a "good" family member requires total alignment with the narcissist's worldview. This creates the same dynamics Mason documents at political scale: disagreement becomes betrayal, outsiders become enemies, complexity becomes threatening. Children raised in such systems learn that identity is existentially fragile and difference is dangerous---precisely the lessons that make them vulnerable to political manipulation through identity appeals.

Organisational Parallels

Mason's framework applies to organisations---corporations, religious institutions, movements---where identity fusion creates dysfunction. When organisational membership becomes fused with personal identity (when one's job, church, or cause becomes core to one's sense of self), the dynamics she describes appear: internal critics are treated as traitors; competition with other organisations becomes warfare; leaders who embody group identity are protected from accountability. Organisations with narcissistic cultures display miniature versions of political polarisation, with the same disproportionate hostility and inability to tolerate dissent.

Social Media and Identity Intensification

Mason's research helps explain social media's polarising effects. Platforms that sort users into ideologically homogeneous communities intensify identity alignment, reducing cross-cutting exposure that might moderate hostility. The constant presentation of political identity to in-group audiences increases its salience and stakes. The visible approval (likes, shares) of identity-confirming content and disapproval of identity-threatening content creates continuous identity reinforcement. Understanding these dynamics helps explain why polarisation has intensified as social media has grown.

Implications for Democratic Reform

Mason's research suggests that democratic reform efforts focused on policy---finding common ground, presenting facts, correcting misinformation---may be insufficient because the conflict isn't fundamentally about policy. More promising approaches might include: creating cross-cutting experiences where partisans share identity with opponents; reducing the identity stakes of political engagement; strengthening non-political sources of belonging and meaning; and reforming institutions (primaries, media, social platforms) that currently intensify identity sorting. Democratic resilience may require psychological intervention as much as institutional reform.

Intergenerational Trauma and Political Vulnerability

Communities with histories of traumatic identity threat---discrimination, persecution, displacement---may be particularly vulnerable to identity-based political appeals because identity defence mechanisms are already activated. Narcissistic family patterns may also transmit vulnerability: children raised in identity-fused family systems learn patterns that political manipulation can exploit. Understanding these transmission mechanisms suggests that family-level intervention may have political implications, breaking cycles of identity vulnerability that manifest at both personal and collective scales.

Limitations and Considerations

While Mason's analysis is foundational, several limitations should inform its application.

American specificity. Mason's research focuses on American politics, where particular historical processes (racial realignment, religious sorting, geographic polarisation) have produced specific patterns. Whether similar dynamics operate in other democracies, or whether American polarisation is exceptional, remains debated. Her framework requires adaptation for other national contexts.

Causation complexity. While Mason documents the correlation between identity sorting and affective polarisation, the causal mechanisms are complex. Did identity alignment cause hostility, or did pre-existing hostility drive sorting? Did media fragmentation cause polarisation, or did polarisation create demand for partisan media? These questions remain partially unresolved, and the likely answer is that multiple factors reinforce each other.

Asymmetry debates. Mason's documentation of asymmetric sorting between parties has been contested. Some scholars argue that both parties display equivalent identity dynamics; others that her characterisation underestimates Democratic sorting. These debates matter for how to apply her framework to specific political contexts.

Remediation difficulty. Mason's analysis is stronger on diagnosis than prescription. How exactly to reverse identity sorting, reduce affective polarisation, or restore cross-cutting identities remains unclear. The forces driving sorting (geographic mobility, media fragmentation, demographic change) are difficult to reverse, and deliberate de-sorting efforts might face psychological resistance.

The parallel has limits. While the dynamics Mason describes parallel narcissistic family systems, the scale differs dramatically. Political polarisation affects millions; family abuse affects individuals. Political conflict rarely produces the intimate, daily trauma of narcissistic parenting. The parallel illuminates mechanisms; it should not be taken to equate experiences.

Historical Context

Uncivil Agreement was published in 2018, synthesising research Mason had conducted across the previous decade. By the time of publication, the phenomena she documented---visceral partisan hatred, inability to acknowledge any virtue in opponents, willingness to abandon norms to defeat the other side---had become impossible to ignore.

Mason's work built on a tradition of social identity research in political science, but pushed it further by demonstrating the multi-layered nature of contemporary identity alignment. Previous work had examined partisan identity; Mason showed how partisan identity had fused with racial, religious, and cultural identities to create identity clusters that made political conflict feel existential.

The book appeared at a moment of acute concern about democratic stability in the United States. Mason's framework helped explain what many observers found puzzling: why seemingly irrational behaviour made psychological sense, why facts didn't change minds, why hostility seemed to precede and exceed specific grievances. Her analysis offered diagnosis if not cure: understanding that the conflict was about identity, not policy, at least explained the intensity even if it didn't resolve it.

Mason's subsequent work has continued to explore these themes. Her research on the emotional dimensions of partisanship, on how identity shapes political perception, and on the conditions that might reduce polarisation continues to influence both scholarly debate and public understanding. Whether American democracy will find ways to de-sort, reduce identity stakes, or restore norms of mutual toleration remains uncertain---but Mason's work has made understanding the challenge possible.

The Survivor's Perspective

For those who experienced narcissistic abuse, reading Lilliana Mason often produces recognition more usually associated with clinical literature. The identity fusion she documents at political scale---where disagreement becomes betrayal, where opponents become enemies, where the intensity of conflict far exceeds any substantive stakes---is the narcissistic family made political.

In narcissistic families, identity is existentially important. Being the "right" kind of family member requires total alignment: adopting correct beliefs, maintaining correct loyalties, presenting correct appearances. The family develops rigid in-group/out-group boundaries, with outsiders viewed with suspicion or contempt. Disagreement triggers narcissistic rage disproportionate to any substantive issue because identity, not the issue, is at stake. Family members who question any aspect of the system are treated as traitors, not as relatives who merely disagree.

Mason documents identical dynamics at political scale. Her research validates what survivors have felt: that the hostility exceeds the issues, that the rage reflects something deeper than disagreement, that the system's response to questioning is designed to maintain identity rather than solve problems. Understanding that these patterns have been documented, studied, and shown to follow predictable psychological mechanisms can be profoundly validating for those who experienced them in families that insisted nothing was wrong.

This understanding also suggests parallels for recovery. Mason's research implies that reducing polarisation requires reducing identity stakes---creating cross-cutting identities, alternative sources of belonging, psychological space to tolerate disagreement without feeling threatened. Parallel processes apply to recovery from narcissistic abuse: developing identity independent of family role, building relationships that tolerate difference, learning that disagreement needn't threaten everything. In both political and personal contexts, healing requires defusing identity---making it possible to be wrong about something, to change one's mind, to disagree with people one loves, without feeling that the self is under attack.

Mason ends Uncivil Agreement with concern about where identity-based polarisation leads---and cautious hope that understanding the mechanism might enable intervention. For survivors of narcissistic abuse, parallel hope applies: understanding how identity was weaponised in your family can help you recognise the pattern, resist its repetition, and build relationships where identity is important but not totalising. Both tasks require the same fundamental shift: from identity as fortress to identity as flexible capacity, able to tolerate difference, acknowledge error, and remain connected to people who don't perfectly mirror who you are.

Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity

APA Citation