Previous article:
When the NPD demonization problem starts to be shared, the next thing that happens is “denial”
As we have seen so far, the misuse of the terms NPD and “narcissist” is no longer just a simple problem statement; it is becoming a concern that is already widely shared in overseas research, clinical practice, and specialist media. The overgeneralization of the concept, the casual labeling, and the stigma reinforcement that follows have already gone beyond the stage where they can be dismissed as accidental slips of the tongue.
However, once things reach this stage, what tends to happen next is not necessarily straightforward correction. More often than not, what happens is denial by those who have been reproducing stigma all along.
“That wasn’t what I meant.”
“I’m just stating facts.”
“The people pointing out the problem are overreacting.”
Although this reaction may look like nothing more than a difference of opinion, in reality it can function as a defensive reaction that preserves the structure of stigma. Research on mental health stigma repeatedly points out that public stigma, professional stigma, and structural stigma reinforce one another, undermining access to support and understanding for the people concerned.
“Those who have been reproducing stigma” is the most appropriate expression
When explaining this stage, the most appropriate expression is “those who have been reproducing stigma.”
The reason is that the NPD demonization problem was not created intentionally by a single specific person; rather, it has spread repeatedly through media, social media, explanations by non-experts, everyday conversation, and sometimes even professional attitudes. In stigma research, such phenomena are understood not as individual malice alone, but as a combination of socially circulated labels, stereotypes, discriminatory expectations, and institutional responses.
Therefore, if we are describing this issue,
“those who have been stigmatizing” would also work, but
the more precise expression is
“those who have been reproducing prejudice and demonization toward NPD”
.
This expression avoids reducing the issue to personal attacks, while also working both as a structural description and as a question of responsibility.
Why does denial occur? Because they do not want to acknowledge their own complicity
So why does this kind of denial happen?
One reason is that it is psychologically very burdensome to admit the possibility that they themselves have been complicit in reproducing prejudice and stigma.
If they admit that they have used words like “narcissist” or “NPD” carelessly, condemnatorily, or as moral labels, then what they have been doing may no longer be just a warning, but possibly the spread of prejudice. At that point, an uncomfortable internal contradiction arises: they want to remain “the righteous side” exposing harm, while also realizing they may have been the side demonizing others with labels.
What often happens in order to manage this contradiction is denial, minimization, and blame-shifting.
It moves in the direction of:
“It’s not that serious.”
“There are people who really suffer, so it’s fine.”
“The problem is NPD, not us.”
In stigma research, it has been discussed that stigmatizers themselves may be complicit in stigma out of motives such as rule enforcement, moral judgment, threat perception, and boundary maintenance. In other words, the people spreading prejudice do not necessarily see themselves as prejudiced. In fact, it is not uncommon for them to strengthen stigma while still feeling that they are “doing the right thing.”
That denial can be experienced by affected people as “gaslighting-like invalidation”
What is important here is that this kind of denial can function, for affected people and for those raising concerns about prejudice surrounding NPD, not as mere rebuttal but as gaslighting-like invalidation.
In recent reviews, gaslighting is treated as a concept that includes dismissal, minimization, and invalidation in ways that shake a person’s trust in their own experience and judgment. In medical contexts, responses that fail to properly consider a complaint, downplay it, and lead the person to think, “Maybe the way I feel is wrong,” are referred to as “medical gaslighting.”
If we apply this framework directly to social discourse, then when someone responds to a person raising the issue of NPD demonization with:
- “You’re overthinking it.”
- “Are you trying to silence victims?”
- “That problem never existed in the first place.”
- “The people making the complaint are the weird ones.”
this often functions as invalidating the experience.
That is not necessarily identical to classic interpersonal gaslighting. But at the very least, it can have a gaslighting-like structure—that is, it can work to destabilize the other person’s understanding of reality.
Of course, by “gaslighting-like structure” here, I do not mean that society as a whole is literally controlling and manipulating the people who have demonized NPD in the classic sense. Rather, I mean that the very act of pushing back against the problem of NPD demonization with “that doesn’t exist” or “you’re making a big deal out of nothing” can end up undermining the complainant’s understanding of reality and their legitimacy.
In other words, when the side denying the NPD demonization problem claims that “we are the ones being gaslit socially,” if that claim goes beyond simple self-defense and instead works to invalidate the reality perception of the people who raised the issue, then the response itself takes on a gaslighting-like structure. Put differently, by loudly saying “this is gaslighting,” they end up shaking and obscuring the other side’s problem statement.
Why is this invalidation dangerous?
This invalidation is dangerous because it makes the NPD demonization problem itself invisible.
What was originally the issue was:
- overgeneralizing NPD into “bad people”
- using “narcissist” as a condemnation label rather than a diagnosis
- and as a result, increasing prejudice and avoidance of support
.
But when denial arises in response to criticism of stigma reproduction, the discussion gets shifted.
The original point of contention is whether there is misuse and demonization, and what that harms. But before long, it is turned into questions like:
“Aren’t the critics denying harm?”
“Aren’t the people bringing up this issue the ones being harmful?”
This is a classic distraction, and at the same time it weakens the credibility of the people raising the issue. In that sense, it is more accurate to see it not as mere backlash, but as a mechanism of invalidation.
The more expert consensus spreads overseas, the more likely this backlash becomes
Ironically, the broader the expert consensus becomes, the more strongly this backlash can emerge, at least temporarily.
The reason is that society is being forced to correct itself.
The fact that the misuse of NPD and “narcissist” is a problem, that personality disorders are subject to strong stigma, and that professionals themselves can contribute to its reproduction has already been confirmed in multiple studies and specialist reviews.
So at the next stage, it would not be surprising to see a reaction like
“I don’t want to hear that.”
That is often a defense against revisiting past discourse and behavior.
In other words, the more visible the NPD demonization problem becomes, the more denial appears from the side that has treated it as normal and spread it as such. One could say this is precisely the kind of reaction that appears when the problem has begun to strike at the core.
What Japan needs next is not just pointing out misuse, but making the structure of denial visible
What Japan will need from here on is not simply to say:
“The misuse of NPD and narcissist is bad.”
That alone is not enough.
What is needed next is to articulate, as a structure,
why those who have been misusing the terms refuse to acknowledge it and instead try to deny the very act of raising the issue.
If we do not put that into words, it will remain an endless back-and-forth of
“There is misuse.”
“No, there isn’t.”
What we really need to see is the chain behind it:
- self-justification
- avoidance of responsibility
- label dependence
- invalidation of affected people’s complaints
.
Once this chain becomes visible, only then can the NPD demonization problem begin to be understood not merely as a matter of terminology, but as a problem of mental health stigma and epistemic injustice.
Conclusion
As the NPD demonization problem spreads overseas as a shared expert concern, the next likely reaction is denial from those who have been circulating prejudice and demonization all along.
The most appropriate expression to use in that case is “those who have been reproducing stigma.”
And that denial often functions as gaslighting-like invalidation toward affected people and those raising the issue.
There is no need to claim that everything is gaslighting. But the structure of responding with “there is no problem” or “you’re just overreacting,” while shaking the other side’s sense of reality, is clearly something close to it.
So what is needed at the next stage is not only pointing out misuse.
We also need to make visible why the side that does not want to admit the misuse responds with denial, minimization, and invalidation.
Only when we reach that point will this issue truly begin to be understood socially.
Gentle Next Step
読み終えた余韻の先で、 次の一歩を静かにつなぐ。
お問い合わせ、サービス案内、資料請求、無料相談など、記事の流れを崩さず自然に次の行動へつなげるためのCTAです。画像・文言・色はテーマ設定から自由に変更できます。
Related Articles
Conversation
Be the First Voice
この場所に、最初の感想や気づきをそっと残せます。