Being “special” is a heavy psychological burden. For most, recognition, individuality, and the feeling of being different from all others are core aspects of identity and self-esteem. But when people come to feel that they are no longer special—that their abilities, characteristics, or social class placement are mundane or replaceable—psychological insecurities set in. This is especially dramatic in majority insecurity dynamics, when the groups that previously exercised privilege or power experience a sense of loss of difference, status, or superiority. Not only is the risk an individual loss of identity, but also the dissolution of the group.’
It is necessary to understand the psychology of such insecurities because they impact people’s relations with others, organisational behaviour, social justice movements, and even political mobilisation. The essay below discusses the psychology of “no longer being special,” i.e., majority insecurity, drawing on social psychology, identity theory, and cultural studies. It takes into account how insecurity arises, its behavioural effects, and how it can be challenged.
The Psychology of Being “Special”
1. The Want for Uniqueness
Human beings possess two conflicting desires: a desire to belong and a desire to be distinct. Snyder and Fromkin’s (1980) Need for Uniqueness Theory proposes that people want to be unique, but not too much, so that they can be completely separate from the group. When their uniqueness is compromised—when they are perceived as too similar to others or controlled—their self-concept is injured. For instance, if a student has been characterised as “the smartest” in high school but then transfers to a competitive college where all students are high achievers, his or her feeling of specialness goes away, and most often leads to an identity crisis or lower self-esteem.
1. Specialness and Narcissism
Contemporary psychology identifies specialness as connected to a self-centred personality. Narcissists, Campbell and Foster (2007) suggest, draw self-esteem from being unique and superior. Insecurity in the narcissist surfaces when threatened and shows up as defensiveness, aggression, or withdrawal. Not only does an individual become entitled to develop self-centred tendencies, but so does a group, perceiving itself uniquely entitled or special. Majority groups, when challenged, can strike back in kind, showing hostility equal to that of a single self-centred action.
Majority Insecurity: Conceptualising the Phenomenon
1. Defining Majority Insecurity
Majority insecurity arises when cultural, political, or social majority groups feel their specialness or privileges are crumbling. Demographic transformation, equality movements, globalisation, or cultural diversification can be the cause. Even though the majority group is still dominant, insecurity arises due to even the perception of losing specialness.
For example, research on “status threat” indicates that White Americans who believe that there are demographic changes to a “majority-minority” country are racially resentful and anti-immigrant (Craig & Richeson, 2014). In this context, the majority is not losing privileges but believes that they are at risk of losing privileged status and supremacy.
2. Relative Deprivation
The majority of insecurity psychology is linked to relative deprivation theory (Runciman, 1966). Even when material levels are stable, individuals experience deprivation if they perceive others as “catching up.” This is why certain majority groups oppose equality policies: they perceive minority gains as a personal or group loss of privileged status.
Psychological Origins of Majority Insecurity
1. Social Identity and Uniqueness
They obtain their self-esteem through group membership, according to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). They will define themselves by their superior status as dominant groups. Dominant groups feel threatened by distinctiveness when marginalised groups become visible. Brewer’s (1991) Optimal Distinctiveness Theory expounds: groups want to be distinctive enough to have uniqueness but similar enough to have belonging. When powerful groups feel that “everyone is equal,” they suffer from identity anxiety since their “special” status is under threat. System
2. Justification and Loss of Privilege
Jost and Banaji’s (1994) System Justification Theory suggests that people justify existing hierarchies to feel secure. When hierarchies shift—through gender equality, civil rights, or cultural pluralism—the majority feels destabilised. Even small reductions in privilege are interpreted as existential threats. This explains why the majority’s insecurity often manifests as resistance to progressive change, framed as “losing our way of life.”
3. Scarcity Mindset
One other psychological foundation is the scarcity heuristic: the perception that resources, attention, or respect are scarce. When marginalised groups receive attention, groups that are in the majority may feel they are losing their uniqueness. Fiske and colleagues’ (2002) studies on stereotype content demonstrate that dominant groups view subordinates as rivals for resources, and this generates hostility and insecurity.
Manifestations of Majority Insecurity
1. Interpersonal Level
At an individual level, the majority of insecurity occurs in small, unobtrusive forms. A student who was once complimented as “gifted” will falter when others perform equally well. In organisations, male coworkers feel insecure when female peers move up to top positions. It is not so much a matter of concrete loss but the psychological hurt of reduced distinctiveness.
2. Organisational Level
At the level of organisation, the majority of insecurity comes in the form of backlash against diversity and inclusion efforts. White male workers, as research demonstrates, find diversity training threatening to their privilege, anticipating that they will “no longer be valued” (Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011). Defensive attitudes, less cooperation, or backlash ensue.
3. Societal Level
At the societal level, majority insecurity contributes to nationalism, xenophobia, and opposition to social justice movements. For instance, populist politics increases in the U.S. and Europe on the grounds of perceived assault on the majority culture, language, or practices. In India, religious pluralism controversies tend to create insecurities in the dominant religious groups against “loss of cultural centrality.”
Research Evidence on Majority Insecurity
1. Demographic Shifts and Threat
Craig and Richeson (2014) ran experiments demonstrating that White Americans who were exposed to demographic information about a “majority-minority” future became more conservative and exclusionary. This indicates the way demographic change information imperils the majority’s specialness, irrespective of actual impact.
2. Gender Equality Backlash
Rudman and Phelan (2008) established that men react with hostility towards women leaders as a result of status incongruity, whereby women’s promotion defies typical male privilege. This is indicative of the majority’s insecurity, where men stand to lose their unique leadership position.
Read More: Leadership Style And Its Psychological Impact On Employees’ Well-Being
3. Cultural Identity Threat
Verkuyten (2005) described how members of the majority group resent it when minority cultures are institutionally recognised as taking away their uniqueness. This study points out that even symbolic equality—such as multicultural festivals—is capable of generating insecurity among the majority.
Emotional and Behavioural Consequences
- Anxiety and Fear: Mass anxiety is engendered by the majority’s insecurity, whose members are apprehensive of losing cultural or social superiority. It is neither necessarily rational nor necessarily rational but perceptual in nature.
- Hostility and Aggression: Anger may be the consequence of frustration at no longer being special. For instance, social psychology reveals that when individuals’ specialness is challenged, they derogate others or confirm group boundaries (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004).
- Withdrawal and Apathy: Not every response is hostile. Some retreat, disengage, or become cynical. On the job, it might be “silent resistance” to attempts at inclusion.
Coping Mechanisms for the Majority Insecurity
1. Reframing Specialness
One of the ways that insecurity may be minimised is by redefining specialness. Rather than uniqueness being equated with superiority, it can be redefined as contribution, collaboration, or common humanity. Interventions utilising superordinate identities—i.e., “we are all citizens” or “we are all learners”—mitigate insecurity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).
2. Promoting Growth Mindset
Dweck’s (2006) growth mindset experiment indicates that people, if they perceive capabilities as malleable, are less defensive of others’ success. Applied to insecurity in the majority, perceiving social change as something that poses a challenge to group enlargement and not competition renders them less defensive.
3 Encouraging Intergroup Contact
Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis of intergroup contact verifies that meaningful contact between groups lessens prejudice and insecurity. Contact makes marginalised groups more relatable, decreasing the feeling that majority specialness is under attack.
4. Structural Interventions
Policies at organisational and societal levels that emphasise equity over zero-sum competition are essential. Communicating that equality does not translate to the depreciation of others’ values lessens majority anxiety.
Contemporary Examples
1. The Digital Age and Attention Economy
In the age of social media, “specialness” is synonymous with visibility and acknowledgement. The majority of insecurity arises when previously hegemonic voices feel overwhelmed by multicultural producers manifesting their voices. The mainstream-to-multicultural shift on screen, on page, and in cyberspace is accepted by marginalised groups but resisted by majorities as losing cultural turf.
2. Educational Spaces
Elite institutions are fertile soil for “no longer special” feelings. People who have been used to being the best suffer from identity crises when they find themselves among others who are equally capable. Impostor syndrome studies (Clance & Imes, 1978) concur: insecurity does not only arise due to self-doubt but also due to relinquishing comparative specialness that previously characterised identity.
Broader Consequences
- Political Polarisation: Majority insecurity is one of the sources of political polarisation. Politicians who use these insecurities by making campaign promises to “restore greatness” are playing on anxieties regarding lost specialness.
- Organisational Change Management: In the workplace, not confronting the majority’s insecurity discredits diversity programs. Insecurity has to be accepted even as inclusive models of achievement are being promoted by change agents.
- Mental Health Concerns: At an individual level, loss of sense of specialness can lead to depression, anxiety, and an identity crisis. Self-compassion (Neff, 2003) and coping through resilience training are prescribed by therapists.
Conclusion
The anxiety of “no longer being special” is a distinctively human experience, yet it has especially powerful implications when directed toward majority groups. The majority of insecurity arises from perceived losses of uniqueness, privilege, or superiority, even when objective declines are small. Based on social identity, system justification, and scarcity theories, majority insecurity is realised as opposition to change, punitiveness against marginalised groups, and political polarisation.
But insecurity need not result in division. By reframing specialness, developing growth mindsets, and creating intergroup contact, individuals and groups can discover more adaptive ways of adapting to social change. In the end, the mass psychology of insecurity shows not only vulnerability in human identity, but also potential for more open societies where specialness is not superiority, but collective contribution and connection.
FAQS
1. What are the factors leading to feelings of worthlessness among youth?
The factors responsible for the same include peer pressure, family expectations and academic load, which in many stages of development, affect an individual both physically and mentally.
2. What can be the probable repercussions of not feeling special?
Not feeling special can lead to mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and feelings of worthlessness, along with physical health problems, including weakened immunity, heart disease, and chronic inflammation, potentially shortening lifespan. These repercussions can manifest as changes in behaviour, such as social withdrawal or increased stress, and can stem from or exacerbate underlying issues like social isolation, trauma, or neglect.
3. How does overcoming fear lead to feeling worthy or special?
Overcoming fear leads to feeling worthy and special by building self-confidence, proving capability, fostering resilience, and fostering personal growth, ultimately empowering individuals to take control of their lives rather than being controlled by fear.
References +
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The self-centred self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), The self (pp. 115–138). Psychology Press.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high-achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247.
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189–1197.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 248–264.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.
Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualisation of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta‐analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337–353.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. Routledge.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 28, 61–79.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. Plenum.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 121–138.
