Pfeffer 1

Grace Pfeffer

POL1101-C

November 24th, 2020

Critical Essay: The Narcissism of Minor Difference

In March of 1993, Michael Ignatieff visited the Croatian village of Mirkovci, which had

been cut into two as a result of the Serb-Croat War. Before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and

ensuing wars, the various ethnic groups in the area co-existed and shared a neighbourly

relationship, “they had been to the same schools, worked in the same garage, went with the same

girls” (Ignatieff 27). Nearby villages had “ethnic intermarriage as high as 30 percent” (27) and

“nearly a quarter of the population claimed their nationality as Yugoslav [as opposed to Serbian

or Croatian]” (27). In just a few short years, these exact same men would come to regard each

other as their adversaries with all previous similarities siphoned away. The community of peace

and cohabitation had morphed into one of fear and antagonism, with ethnic nationalism being the

guiding ideology on both sides. This abrupt and puzzling metamorphosis is one Ignatieff

witnessed several times before, including in “Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Northern Ireland” (28).

In “The Narcissism of Minor Differences”, Ignatieff seeks to answer a specific question – “how

neighbors are turned into enemies, how people who once had a lot in common end up having

nothing in common but war” (28).

Ignatieff’s answer to why communities of camaraderie devolve into communities of fear

comes in three parts. The first is that the community must be gripped by some sort of social,

political, and/or economic crisis which is then capitalized on by the media and politicians who

use the anxiety and discontentment of the populace to drum up support for nationalistic regimes

or leadership. These nationalistic movements result in the creation of stark divides when none
Pfeffer 2

previously existed. The second is that in order to be successful, nationalism must be narcissistic

where members see their own identity as glorious and all-important, casting others away as

inferior or even evil. This sense of self-importance and grandiose is extremely powerful,

influencing every aspect of how an individual understands themselves and people with differing

identities or viewpoints. The last is a specific type of narcissism, which Sigmund Freud coined as

the “narcissism of minor differences” (41). Essentially, differences between groups that were

once relatively minor become all-encompassing and “the basis for oppression” (43). Groups

must feel like there is some meaningful distinction between “us and them”, differences which

both justify and perpetrate the cycle of ethnic nationalism and conflict. From these three

processes, communities are radically altered, with violent confrontations eventually providing

each group with legitimate reasons to despise each other. In specific regards to Mirkovci,

Ignatieff’s analysis is accurate, and the first two steps (emergence, general narcissism) are

applicable to almost every conceivable instance of ethnic nationalism movements. However, I

believe that Ignatieff overstates the importance of the narcissism of minor differences, which

seems to occur mostly in fragmented societies with competing ethnic groups, both with influence

and power in their own right, fighting for control. The psychological phenomena cannot be so

easily extended to all, or even most, transformations of communities. This, coupled with the

conflation of general feelings of superiority with the narcissism of minor differences, means that

despite excellent insights, Ignatieff’s conclusion leaves something to be desired should he want

to generalize the situation in Mirkovci to other ethnic conflicts.

In times of prosperity, “people center their identities on their individuality, rather than on

their ethnicity” (45). But when a society experiences challenges, nationalist sentiments often gain

popularity. Ignatieff hypothesizes that nationalism is not a random or inevitable condition, but
Pfeffer 3

one that requires specific preconditions for it to thrive. The most fertile grounds are fragmented

societies experiencing considerable economic or social turmoil, particularly ones with several

ethnic groups. Such a description fits Ignatieff’s case study of the area that was Yugoslavia

during the limbo following Tito’s death. Serbians were burdened with a “deepening economic

crisis” (36) and the collapse of Yugoslavia, a federation that successfully unified several Slavic

states and was considered the most democratic and liberal government in Eastern Europe (34). It

is almost cliché at this point to mention that nationalistic sentiments gain traction in the times of

crises and upheaval, such as the aforementioned environment in Serbia. For perhaps the most

famous example, the Nazi Party gained popularity in Germany during a time of economic

turmoil where the country was suffocated by reparations from the First World War and a global

financial depression (“Adolf Hitler”). During tumultuous periods, the population is feeling great

anxiety and self-pity, making nationalism’s “politics of fantasy” (36) a tempting diversion.

Political disintegration leads to nationalist sentiments among common people, often espousing a

contempt for “the interethnic accommodation that made it [disintegration] possible” (38).

Ignatieff is particularly focused on this fear that emerges during a crisis, where the question

“who will protect me now?” (38) is answered by “my own people” (38). At this point,

opportunistic politicians and media outlets harness the pre-existing negative emotions of the

populace to direct towards a common evil, often an ethnic group. This provides value to both the

citizens and the leaders. People need something to cling onto and believe in during challenging

times, and a national identity is as good as any. They are comforted by nationalism’s warm

embrace, and the downtrodden are energized by pride and feelings of superiority. On the other

hand, the leaders now have a zealously patriotic crowd that is willing to go to any extreme in the

name of the nation. Slobodan Milosevic saw the potential in this arrangement and was able to
Pfeffer 4

“tap into deep reservoirs of Serb self-pity […] and frustrated dreams of historical grandeur” (35-

36). In Serbia and other places undergoing a nationalist movement, “a glorious past is gilded and

refurbished for public consumption, and a people who might not have thought of themselves as a

people at all suddenly begin to dream themselves a nation” (45). A fearful population

experiencing turmoil is prone to retreat back into their mythic past, and savvy politicians and

pundits have an instrumental role in fortifying the narrative. Going back to Serbia, we now have

irate Serbians, a leader that plays into the rage, and media in both Croatia and Serbia “readying

their population to think of the other side as vermin, insects, dogs, and other noisome creatures”

(49). The stage is set for an ethnic conflict, and a small village in Eastern Croatia that once

shared a united culture and values is seeing polarization and animosity that would not be thought

possible years earlier.

The previous paragraph outlines why nationalism emerges and communities are

transformed, but how is it maintained and internally justified? Such an inquiry leads invariably to

psychology, which is likely why Ignatieff went to great lengths to explore this dimension.

Narcissism is a psychological component of nationalism, as it is a “distorting mirror in which

believers see their simple ethnic, religious, or territorial attributes transformed into glorious

attributes and qualities” (45). Ignatieff is borrowing a very infamous psychological term, which

was an inspired choice. In human psychology, it refers to “a mental condition in which people

have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and

admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others” (“Narcissistic personality

disorder”). It is desirable and healthy to have self-confidence and focus on your wellbeing, but it

becomes detrimental and narcissistic when this ego swells to a point where the person cannot

empathize with others or function without constant attention. Similarly, there is nothing
Pfeffer 5

intrinsically wrong with taking casual pride in one’s national or ethnic heritage, such as

participating in national holidays or cheering them on during the Olympics. But it becomes

problematic, even dangerous, when one’s national ego is inflated to the point where they see that

identity as their most foundational one, taking precedent above the individual. Not only is it the

most important, it is also the ‘best’ in whichever vague way that implies. With this unearned

superiority, any criticism of the government amounts to a personal, offensive affront because the

identity of the individual is inextricably linked to the country. If an extreme nationalistic party

takes power, it is almost a certainty that dissenting opinions will be met with hostility and the

public discourse will be greatly coarsened. It also justifies the “us versus them” dichotomy,

where the only allies that can relied on are fellow countryman, with the rest of world being

untrustworthy. That is why nationalist paranoia seemingly inevitably leads to the dehumanization

and villainizing of “outsiders” within the country’s borders, whether it be on an ethnic, religious,

linguistical, or political basis.

While narcissism is an important component, Ignatieff focuses on a specific type of

narcissism to explain why communities can so rapidly become exclusionary and hostile. Ignatieff

proposes that this transition occurs and is maintained due to the “narcissism of minor

differences” (41). He borrows this term from Sigmund Freud, who explains, “it is precisely the

minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of strangeness

and hostility between them” (41). In settings where ethnic nationalism is beginning to thrive, this

sort of narcissism causes groups (in this case, national identities) to grossly exaggerate

characteristics that separate one group from another, therefore further justifying their mutual

revulsion and opposition. It actualizes the fears of each group, making their differences seem like

“impassable frontiers” (52) and resists all attempt to humanize anyone who does not share the
Pfeffer 6

same identity. As “less and less distinguishes you from anybody else, the more important it

becomes to wear the differentiating mask” (50). In the Serb-Croat conflict, one of the only

characteristics that separated the two groups before it began was religion. However, Ignatieff

rejects that theological differences, in of themselves, were even remotely responsible for the

conflict. Under a united communist regime, Yugoslavia underwent secularization and neither the

Orthodox Serbians nor the Catholic Croatians were particularly religious in any significant way.

Even so, “ethnic paramilitaries went to war wearing either Orthodox or Catholic crosses as

personal jewelry” and “gunners on each side made a particular point of targeting churches,

minarets, mosques, and burial grounds on the other sides” (48). Ignatieff argues that religion did

not trigger deep feelings, but “triggered inauthentic ones, [and] that it helped to unleash such a

tumult of violent self-righteousness” (48). A Serbian who “hadn’t been to an Orthodox service

since his own christening” now remembers “‘we’ are Orthodox; ‘they’ are Catholic” (37). In this

way, the narcissism of minor differences is able to rationalize stripping the individuality from

people and seeing them as a monolith, which makes dehumanization considerably less

challenging.

Though I find the use of Freud’s term as a political theory fascinating, I hesitate to apply

it to very many contexts outside of the very specific one he’s analyzing. The narcissism of minor

differences is a solid hypothesis as to why the Serbians and Croatians harbour such resentment

towards each other and seems applicable to situations where people who once co-existed or

belonged to the same state understand their identity after a schism. However, this scenario is not

terribly prevalent. Ignatieff also conflates narcissism in general with the narcissism of minor

differences, muddying his points. He uses Nazi Germany as an example of the narcissism of

minor differences, when what is explained can be much better comprehended as simple
Pfeffer 7

narcissism and de-humanization. The Nazi example also points to an adjacent inconsistency. The

Serb-Croat conflict included two groups of comparable power fighting for control of a particular

region. However, the Jews were an ethnic minority in Germany who already experienced

centuries of overt anti-Semitism in Europe. The Germans did not persecute the Jews because

their similarities caused anxiety, they did so because they made convenient scapegoats in an area

that was already hostile towards them (“Anti-Semitism”). Both these hatreds involve a great deal

of nationalist paranoia and narcissism, but there is not sufficient evidence to suggest the

narcissism of minor differences was a major consideration in Nazi Germany.

In conclusion, Michael Ignatieff’s examination of Mirkovci's transformation provides

important insights into how ethnic nationalism can grow and fester, and what psychological

mechanisms are inadvertently performed in response to the discomfort that occurs after

committing atrocities. Humans are relatively similar, with no characteristic being of crucial

importance inherently. Ethnic nationalism, and any movement based on inalienable

characteristics, mobilizes these differences in service of something greater. Whether these

movements can be productive or helpful is another question entirely, but it is imperative to know

“no human difference matters much until it becomes a privilege, until it becomes the basis of

oppression” (43).
Pfeffer 8

Works Cited

“Adolf Hitler.” History.com, 30 Aug. 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-

hitler-1. Accessed 20 Nov. 2020.

“Anti-Semitism - Definition, Meaning & Reasons For.” History.com, 10 Jun. 2019,

https://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/anti-semitism. Accessed 20 Nov. 2020.

Ignatieff, Michael. “The Narcissism of Minor Difference.” The Warrior’s Honour, Ethnic War

and the Modern Conscience, edited by Editor Name, Penguin Books, 2006, pp. 26-65.

“Narcissistic personality disorder.” Mayo Clinic, 18 Nov. 2017,

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-

disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662. Accessed 20 Nov. 2020.