Shared Concern method is intended to contribute as a remedy of the narcissistic traits in the present Western culture in general. In my contribution I am departing from the inherent message in the antique myth of a young man, Narcissus, who fell in love with himself when regarding his own beautiful face mirrored in a pond.

Because of its complete lack of susceptibility for outside corrections Narcissus symbolizes an antipode for the philosophy of shared Concern. A narcissist is so pleased with himself that he also is sovereign to judge that his own actions are always correct. If his primitive self-realization meets hinders he is assertive. He even knows how to put the limits without any necessity to consider what the neighbors think. An as a finishing touch of the system: he cherishes the idea that from his appreciation of himself emerges his appreciation of others.

The last opinion is  the cornerstone of psychotherapists in a narcissistic culture who lubricate the ego of their clients as if it were the sufficient condition for obtaining mental health. In the contrary, I believe that the doctrine of the healthy self appreciation is the main cause of the failure of therapeutic rehabilitation of criminals.

Limiting narcissism through SCm
A narcissistic culture may, superficially, assent to the Shared Concern as a slogan but soon reveals its disinterest  in the know-how of it as a method. Two or more narcissists may keep speeches of humankind at congress without listening to the speeches of the others, often because the taxi to the airport is waiting to bring him to an other conference.

SCm is an opposite to all this. The first working hypothesis in encounters is that he probably is right but he is ready to test a counter hypothesis that the other is more right -- not through force but by facts ordered in the same logic and communicated in an understandable way including feedback.

My thesis is that therapists in vogue who write books and give weekend courses offering mental liberation by employing assertiveness as their favorite concept contribute to the maintenance of narcissism.

SCm means changing focus
I have to make it clear that my depreciation of assertiveness does not aim at restrictions exerted by a moral norm system or by some political power. It means that restrictions in encounters between two parties in conflict are induced by their discovery that their assertiveness would threaten their ultimate interest. In other words: the restrictions in their ego expansion is made by a shared necessity. They discovered shared concern first as a diverting device and later as a method that has long term effects  -- if the shared concern approach is made with an honesty that can be controlled by the antagonist.

If we would say that Shared Concern method "is something between assertiveness and self-restriction" we would end into a pacifying confusion. SCm introduces changing of focus from the competitive implications of a win-win goal of assertive parties. That means that assertiveness is outsmarted by changing of the focal point in the dialogue of the parties, mediated by a mediator,  I the parties and the mediator would like to verbalize what happened they would say that "we simply forgot our assertiveness because our shared concern absorbed us".

Certainly,  you may  call the outcome as win-win because in a shared solution both of the former antagonists have won over their ego expansion or over their assertiveness". I would say that "they have together reached a high level of self-realization".

But as said before, when the parties have equal strength two assertive individuals may also discover that peace pays -- agreements save resources compared with devastating fights. The question is now: is this an agreement current in a bonding group, in a bridging group or both?  SCm is not tried in a bonding group, probably it will work also there; SCm's validated field is asymmetric conflict relationship where the reasons for self-restrictions are taken from the needs beyond the bonding relationship.

It could be possible to improve the theory of assertiveness demarcating its distance to narcissism but then the adherents of the concept of assertiveness have to demonstrate how this sharedness with the other side is introduced in the therapy. So far, those who cherish the concept of assertiveness give to their customers an illusion that this would happen automatically as soon as the individual starts contemplating the ideals of assertiveness. The customers like it because they still have their own semantic connotations of being assertive and when the therapist says that good relationships to others emanate from this they buy it and pay for it.

An illustrating analysis of an adherent of assertiveness
Assertiveness  is  so well founded in the semantic space of the collective mind that attempts of the adherents of assertiveness to clean it from egoistic and narcissistic connotations are not credible. We shall illustrate an attempt to clean assertiveness by analyzing a passage  of a letter from a nice person employed as therapist to rehabilitate young criminals. His letter starts with appreciating the universal qualities of the SCm. Then he states his conception of assertiveness:
 

Well, I agree to this because, as said before,  distinguishing between "necessary" and "sufficient" creates a "division of labor". But then he says something about achieving this respectful state for oneself and others:
 

We have the same goals but the writer does not spend time on explaining how he elicits this desired assertiveness except by indicating I messages.  I guess that he starts by reinforcing the patient's reactions that indicate respect for oneself. Does he expect, like many other therapists, that this automatically leads to respect for others? If he is lucky this may happen. I guess further that he, like many other therapists, does not have that program. If his is imagining that all those good things happen automatically, he is applying half measures.

I will ask him and let my readers know his answer.

"I messages" was a device of Thomas Gordon in the 70's Instead of saying "Stop that noise!" the course participants were taught to say "I feel hurt by your making that noise!" Soon the other side found to say "That's your problem!"

.