Psyche, Science, and Society

The Hubris-Nemesis Complex

A reader of my recent article on Bush’s narcissism has called my attention to a 1994 RAND Monograph on the Hubris-Nemesis Complex [Beware the Hubris-Nemesis Complex: A Concept for Leadership Analysis by David Ronfeldt]. I have not had a chance to thoroughly read it yet, but it looks fascinating. The report was written for RAND’s National Security Research Division for the CIA. While discussing supposed enemies of the United States – such as Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic – it has an uncanny resonance in America today.

Here is the Summary:

“In the years ahead, the United States will assuredly find itself in new international crises involving nations or groups that have powerful leaders. In some cases, these leaders may have a special, dangerous mindset that is the result of a ‘hubris-nemesis complex.’

This complex involves a combination of hubris (a pretension toward an arrogant form of godliness) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary, especially one that can be accused of hubris). The combination has strange dynamics that may lead to destructive, high-risk behavior. Attempts to deter, compel, or negotiate with a leader who has a hubris-nemesis complex can be ineffectual or even disastrously counterproductive when those attempts are based on concepts better suited to dealing with more normal leaders.

This essay introduces and defines the concept of the hubris-nemesis complex, illustrates it by drawing upon both mythic characters and real personalities, relates it to other psychological phenomena that have been described well in the past, and discusses some challenges that may be faced in recognizing and dealing with the complex in the course of international relations. The essay argues that the complex is relatively common, but often unappreciated, and that we can see it at work in current-day figures such as Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic—leaders about whom the United States has made serious misjudgments over the years. Thus, while the essay is intended to be conceptual and scholarly, it may have direct significance for understanding and dealing with foreign leaders in future crises and conflicts.”

Add comment January 17th, 2006

Is it too late for the environment?

James Lovelock, author of the Gaia Hypothesis, was featured in an article in the Independent today [The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. It is a preview of his upcoming book: The Revenge of Gaia] in which he argued that global warming was beyond the point of no return:

“We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.
Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves….
[B] efore this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

In response, the Scotsman has solicited comments [Global warming: Is it too late to save our planet?] from a range of environmental scientists, most of whom believe we still have time to make the drastic changes necessary to avoid catastrophe, but only if we start now. The message is sobering and its is urgent. Either the human race stops its massive denial and acts, or nature will act for us.

Add comment January 17th, 2006