(3 minute read)
Few words provoke as much discussion in therapy as the word narcissist.
For some survivors, hearing the term for the first time is profoundly validating. It can explain years of confusion, self-doubt, circular arguments, shifting goalposts, and the exhausting feeling of never quite being able to get the relationship back on track.
For others, the label can become a distraction. Time and energy that might otherwise be spent on recovery can become focused on proving, analysing, or debating whether another person meets the criteria for a diagnosis.
It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that therapists differ in their approach.
Some are comfortable naming narcissistic patterns when they see them. Others avoid the term altogether and focus instead on behaviours, relationship dynamics, and the impact on the client.
This raises an important question:
Why do some therapists name narcissism while others choose not to?
The answer is more complicated than it may first appear.
Why Naming It Can Help
For many survivors, the greatest damage is not the behaviour itself but the confusion that surrounds it.
Clients often arrive in therapy asking:
“Am I overreacting?”
“Did I imagine it?”
“Why do I keep ending up apologising?”
“Why can’t I explain this to other people?”
In these situations, learning about narcissistic traits or patterns can be enormously helpful.
A framework can provide language for experiences that previously felt impossible to describe.
The client begins to realise that the problem may not be a failure to communicate, explain, love, forgive, or understand enough.
For some, this can be the beginning of self-trust.
Why Therapists Sometimes Avoid the Label
At the same time, many therapists are cautious about applying labels to people they have never assessed.
A therapist is usually hearing one side of a story, often from a client who is distressed, confused, and trying to make sense of painful experiences.
Good therapy requires curiosity rather than certainty.
There is also a risk that the search for a diagnosis can become a search for proof.
The focus shifts from:
“What is happening to me?”
to:
“How do I prove what is happening to them?”
Recovery can become stalled while the client gathers evidence, revisits conversations, or tries to persuade friends, family members, professionals, or even the narcissistic individual themselves.
In practice, whether the label is correct may matter less than the pattern being described.
Naming the Person or Naming the Pattern?
This may be where the two positions begin to meet.
A therapist does not necessarily need to decide whether someone is a narcissist in order to recognise a pattern of entitlement, exploitation, lack of accountability, manipulation, coercive control, chronic blame-shifting, or emotional invalidation.
Likewise, a survivor does not need a formal diagnosis in order to justify protecting themselves.
The practical questions often remain the same:
- Is there reciprocity?
- Is there accountability?
- Are boundaries respected?
- Does repair occur after harm?
- Can concerns be discussed without retaliation?
- Is the relationship emotionally safe?
These questions tend to reveal more about the health of a relationship than any label alone.
The Middle Ground
Perhaps the most useful position lies somewhere between unquestioning acceptance and complete avoidance.
The label can be informative.
The pattern can be transformative.
Naming narcissism may help some people understand what happened.
Naming the pattern may help them decide what to do next.
Ultimately, therapy is not about winning an argument over diagnosis.
It is about helping people reconnect with reality, trust their own perceptions, and make decisions that support their wellbeing.
Whether we name the narcissist or simply name the pattern, the goal remains the same: greater clarity, greater safety, and greater freedom to move forward.
🌿