The Need for Fame

The desire to be seen/valued was the biggest perceived appeal of fame, followed by the desire for status, followed by a prosocial motivation. Interestingly, the motivations were associated with different fundamental human needs. While narcissism and the need to belong were associated with multiple motivations, the need to relate to others was only associated with the prosocial motivation. [..] 

Those scoring high in relatedness tended to score lower in narcissism and only showed an interest in prosocial fame. Therefore, it seems it’s important to distinguish between the need to belong– to feel positively and consistently connected to others– and the need to relate. Research shows that people with a high need for relatedness are not anxious about social exclusion, have a greater sense of security with their immediate social network, and are more confident that they are valued by others. In turn, they tend to report a positive mood, vitality, and well-being. [...]

Regardless, the current research certainly is fascinating, and suggests that the appeal of fame is rooted in basic human needs, and differences in the desire for fame are associated with the extent to which such needs are satisfied.

Source: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/09/04/why-do-you-want-to-be-famous/

The article presents an interesting, growing desire among the younger generations, namely, the desire to be famous. The root psychological motivations, the studies report, are basically either narcissistic or altruistic. Those whose motivation is altruistic experience positive emotions, well-being, etc. The desire itself is ultimately linked to the basic dimension of humanity, the social, as well as acceptance and love.

Nevertheless, altruistic motivation cannot be simply accepted at face value. Why? Because there are unconscious motivations to everything we do. Even consciously narcissistic motivations don't tell us much--for one thing, they do not tell us why such motivations even exist. How could an altruistic motivation actually be narcissistic? Simple: the person unconsciously desires to have a sense of usefulness, of power, of purpose and direction. Altruistic acts may contribute to obtaining these qualities, these statuses. Still, the self is the center. 

How do we discern the unconscious motivation? It's tough work. It requires developing psychological and spiritual self-scrutiny, which is ultimately a grace from God. St. John of the Cross wrote, "For it is impossible to perceive one’s darknesses without the divine light focusing on them."[1] For one thing, we can pray for the grace.

The second thing that the studies suggest or at least point to is the fact that there are better and worse ways of obtaining well-being, ways that are either more in tuned with human nature or less in tuned. Altruistic motivation feeds us, even if done for unconsciously selfish reasons. Narcissism, individualism, social atomism, or solipsism hurt us. We are oriented towards the Other naturally. 

But fame cannot satisfy us as St. Thomas Aquinas proved (Summa Th., 1a2æ.2.3; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm#article3). God alone satisfies. The accusation is often made that it is really a selfish and cold thing to treat others well because we see God in them, but I think this accusation is simple atheism. Why? Because ultimately all good is a participation in God's goodness, and all things exist for God's glory. The service of man in love is conducted in its truest sense precisely when we, in a certain sense, don't do things out of love of the other person themselves. We see that by ourselves we are nothing, but in God we are so valuable that God shed His Infinitely-Precious Blood for us. It's when we do things out of love for God that we simultaneously do things out of love for neighbor, but "love for neighbor" as neighbor without any reference to God is susceptible to that unconscious narcissism. It is only the love of God that can protect us from that narcissism, even if this "love" appears quite cold and distant when explained to others. But instead, let our actions speak for themselves. 

But the second objection arises: doesn't such a view suggest that humans don't have intrinsic dignity or value? I respond that it depends on what is meant by intrinsic. If intrinsic means without any reference whatsoever to some kind of participation in God from which we receive our goodness, then the answer to the question is, "Yes, such a view suggests that humans don't have that kind of intrinsic dignity. We do not exist unto ourselves as atoms." If intrinsic means with reference to God but nevertheless that God respects our decisions, our self-determinations, and even startlingly desires us for Himself, then the answer is, "No, such a view does not suggest that humans have no intrinsic dignity." We derive it all from God, and that cannot create a dichotomy with inherent goodness. We have inherent goodness because it is received freely.

---

Notes:

1. St. John of the Cross, The Living Flame of Love, in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, trans. K. Kavanaugh and O. Rodriguez (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1991), 1.22, 650.