to the decomposition of society and culture.nBeset by a fear of death, the narcissistnseeks, above all, individual survival,nto which any other ideals must bensacrificed. “People no longer dream ofnovercoming difficulties,” Lasch writes,n”but merely of surviving them.” Tonthat it might be added that an excessivenpreoccupation with survival often resultsnin destruction. As Lasch himselfncomments in discussing the Marquis denSade, “pure individualism . . . issued innthe most radical repudiation of individuality.”nThe key to that seeminglynparadoxical transformation lies in thenextreme character of the preoccupation:n”individualism” within reasonable limitsnis valuable and necessary, but unlimited,nor “pure” individualism results in disaster.nLimitations there must be, fornthose very limitations provide societynwith its structure. Without them, itnbecomes chaotic and formless.nThe narcissistic individual will seeknto dissolve his links with others in thenpresent, and also in the past and future.nHe will avoid commitments to causesnor ideals beyond himself. Instead, henwill either retreat into loneliness, or—nas is more common in our society—resortnto social or sexual promiscuity, innwhich he has contacts with so manynothers that he cannot form an emotionalncommitment to any of them. When suchnan attitude is widespread in a society,nthe traditional family—which is dependentnupon long-term, intimate commitments—startsnto dissolve. Withnsexual relations divorced from reproductivennecessity, young adults either feelnno responsibility at all to raise children,nor else content themselves with “singleparentnfamilies,” where there are relativelynfew day-to-day adjustments andncompromises to be made. Lasch devotesnone of his best chapters (“The Socializationnof Reproduction and the Collapsenof Authority”) to the decline of thenfamily, which distresses him. Indeed,nat one point he speaks very positivelynof the families of the “old propertiednelite” because they provide their childrennwith a “sense of generationaln10nChronicles of Culturencontinuity.’nIhe generational discontinuitynwhich plagues American culturenemerges with great force in its treatmentnof its aging population. Families leavenparents to be cared for by society atnlarge, by the specialists and “professionals”nupon whom Lasch unleashesngreat scorn. Our culture values thosenthings which youth can do, Laschnargues, and thus rejects the strengths ofnthe elderly. One of their chief strengths,nin Lasch’s eyes, is the wisdom which derivesnfrom historical experience. “Ournsociety,” he writes, “holds an instrumentalnview of knowledge, accordingnto which technological change constantlynrenders knowledge obsolete andntherefore nontransferable.” Since thenyounger generation believes the olderngeneration has nothing of worth tonoffer, the latter is best placed out ofnsight and out of mind until such timenas death removes it from the scene.nThe “instrumental view of knowledge”nhas also played a crucial role innsevering our society’s cultural roots,nand Lasch, as an historian, is deeplyntroubled by this phenomenon. He writesnof the “fashionable sneer that now automaticallyngreets every loving recollectionnof the past,” and notes, quitencorrectly, that “people today resent anyonenwho . . . attempts to use the pastnas a standard by which to judge thenpresent.” His dedication to the past,nhis concern over the fact that in recentndecades “enormous stretches of then’Judaeo-Christian tradition’ . . . havenpassed into oblivion,” moved Lasch toncompose an excellent chapter on thendecay of American education from anhistorical perspective. He realizes thatnintellectual discipline has weakened andnwe have largely lost our cultural heritagenbecause the schools have deliberatelyntransformed themselves intonsomething they should never have become.nHe believes in intellectual standards,nand thinks it “reactionary” not tondemand of even underprivileged childrennthat they seek to satisfy thosennnstandards. He is so dedicated to excellencenas to risk laying himself open tona charge of elitism: the rejection of ancommitment to intellectual excellencenin our schools, he says, “not only guaranteesnthe monopolization of educationalnadvantages by the few; it lowersnthe quality of elite education itself andnthreatens to bring about a reign ofnuniversal ignorance.”nA commitment to excellence impliesnthe desirability of competition, andncompetition (along with elitism) liesnunder one of the most powerful taboosnof liberal contemporary culture. In anchapter on athletics, “The Degradationnof Sport,” Lasch defends both the notionnof play as something desirable innitself (“People of all nations . . . ,” hensays, “know that games remain gloriouslynpointless”) and the idea of healthyncompetition. Indeed it may be thatnthe narcissist’s dislike of competition—nin which he must measure himself objectivelynagainst others—accounts fornanother facet of contemporary Americannlife which Lasch castigates fervently:nbureaucracy, and the bureaucratizationnof the spirit. For when individualsncooperate in a bureaucratic mode, withoutnthe discipline of the commercialnbalance sheet or the athletic scorecard,nit is often difficult to tell which of themnhave “won” and which have “lost.” Asnour society shifts further and furthernfrom the production of material commoditiesntoward the provision of services,nthe accurate assessment of excellencenbecomes even more difficult. Perhapsnthe dislike of competition also hasnsomething to do with the retreat fromnpolitics which Lasch also criticizes innAmerican life, for in an electoral contestnthere is always a winner, and losersntoo. The spirit of competition is stillnalive in sports and politics.nL-asch’s critique of American culturenin The Culture of Narcissism isnpresented as though based upon twongreat philosophical systems, those ofnMarx and Freud. The text is dotted withnFreudian interpretations of various cul-n