Estrangement Ideology – Part 30. Got Any Flying Monkeys?
How pop-psychology constructs a villainous support network to justify "no contact."
This is the thirtieth in a series of articles concerning Estrangement Ideology. Key concepts are introduced in Part 1. Tenets, Goals and Methods; Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values; and Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption. Other parts can be found here.
The term "Flying Monkeys" has become a widely used trope within online estrangement communities, drawn from the Wizard of Oz to symbolise enablers who unquestioningly support an alleged narcissist, often a parent. Within these forums, the phrase is used to delegitimise family members who attempt to mediate, encourage reconciliation or even express concern over estrangement, framing them as agents of manipulation rather than individuals with their own perspectives.
“They did the bidding for the Wicked Witch in much the same way as people might ‘work’ for a narcissist—hence the term being used to describe these people. A narcissist might use their friends or family—or even yours—as spies, or to spread rumors, making them act as substitutes for themselves.”
This rhetorical device—described in an article "Narcissists and Their Flying Monkeys"— functions as a way to reinforce the ideological framework of estrangement by pre-emptively dismissing any challenge to the estranged individual’s narrative. As discussed throughout the Estrangement Ideology series, such terminology discourages critical reflection, solidifies the victim-perpetrator binary and isolates the estranged person from potential outside perspectives that might promote understanding or resolution.
The Narcissistic Parent Gets a Helper
In Estrangement Ideology, the figure of the “narcissistic parent” serves as the foundational villain from which an abundance of relational dysfunction supposedly flows, and from whom the Flying Monkeys emerge as secondary antagonists. As discussed in Part 13: Who’s the Narcissist?, the widespread adoption of pop-psychology concepts like “narcissistic abuse” has provided estranged individuals with a framework that often recasts normal parental shortcomings, generational differences, or interpersonal struggles as evidence of deep psychological pathology. This perspective mirrors broader cultural trends of individualism and self-validation, where relational conflicts are interpreted through the lens of personal harm rather than mutual responsibility. The figure of the narcissistic parent is treated as irredeemable—incapable of growth, accountability, or genuine affection—meaning that acts of reconciliation are not only discouraged but actively pathologised as a failure to maintain “No Contact.”
By defining estrangement through this rigid psychological model, any relatives who challenge the estranged adult’s decision or advocate for nuance are assigned the role of Flying Monkeys, ensuring that the estranged individual remains insulated from perspectives that might complicate or weaken the black-and-white narrative of victimhood and emotional survival. This pattern of thinking aligns with the concept of “narcissistic vulnerability”—where individuals, rather than engaging in mutual understanding, seek constant affirmation of their emotional needs, leading to a relational dynamic of social withdrawal, validation-seeking and an obsessive need for external support. Within this framework, those who express doubt or encourage reconciliation are not just mistaken—they are actively harmful, complicit in the parent’s toxicity and deserving of exclusion. This interpretation fosters a culture of moral absolutism, where estrangement is framed as an act of self-preservation rather than a complex, painful, and often unnecessary rupture.
This mirrors themes I have discussed previously, where the redefinition of normal parental concerns as manipulative or abusive erodes the foundation of familial ties. Similarly, the reliance on pop-psychology tropes such as "narcissistic abuse" serves to justify estrangement by framing parents as fundamentally incapable of growth or change. The Flying Monkeys framework operates within this same paradigm, depicting attempts at reconciliation or continued contact—in this case, mediated by others— as a sign of emotional dysfunction, rather than as a legitimate desire to preserve meaningful relationships.
Fostering Ideological Commitment
A key concern is the way such content fosters an ideological commitment to estrangement. The Narcissists and Their Flying Monkeys article does not merely provide information; it actively steers readers toward an interpretation of their relationships that makes estrangement appear inevitable. This is accomplished through several mechanisms:
Psychologising normal conflict – Labelling certain personality traits as pathological—such as "narcissist", "enabler" or "co-dependent"—discourages a relational or historical perspective on family dynamics. Instead of considering context, culture or evolving perspectives, relationships are reduced to diagnostic categories that demand disengagement rather than negotiation.
Encouraging the victimhood identity – Victimhood narratives provide estranged individuals with a powerful but limiting self-concept—one where they are perpetually at risk of harm, requiring protective distance from those who "do not respect their boundaries." This reinforces long-term estrangement as an identity rather than a temporary state.
Reinforcing “No Contact” as the Only solution – Articles that frame family members as emotionally dangerous figures create an environment where reconciliation can be viewed as backsliding and strict “No Contact” the only truly safe option. This prevents the possibility of mutual repair, instead promoting the idea that "healing" requires total detachment from one's past relationships.
The article also aligns with Part 15: The Radicalised Parent Narrative, which examines how ideological estrangement encourages adult children to interpret their parents' behaviours through the lens of ideological purity—narcissists being inherently impure—mirroring past social movements like China's Cultural Revolution—a theme explored in Part 27. The Cultural Revolution and the Modern Denouncement of Parents. In both cases, the process of labelling someone as “toxic” or ideologically “unclean” leads to their social and emotional exile.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Narcissists and Their Flying Monkeys article exemplifies how Estrangement Ideology shifts relationships from a space of repair to one of exile. While genuine cases of narcissistic abuse exist, the oversimplification of complex relationships into good versus evil narratives fosters unnecessary cut-offs, psychological rigidity and a culture of perpetual estrangement.
Instead of resilience, these narratives promote fragility—instead of resolution, they encourage isolation—instead of personal growth, they create an echo chamber of justified disconnection. As I have explored in this series, such frameworks do not merely explain estrangement—they actively construct it as the preferred outcome.
Note: This article was developed with assistance of ChatGPT, used as a structured analysis and writing tool. All ideas, interpretations and final outputs were authored, verified and edited by me. The model was conditioned to reflect my reasoning, not to generate content independently.
Your article misrepresents the concept of "Flying Monkeys" and oversimplifies the reality of estrangement. First, Flying Monkeys are people who minimize or dismiss the valid reasons for estrangement, whether they fully understand the situation or not. And a parent doesn’t have to be a narcissist to have Flying Monkeys acting on their behalf. Plenty of estranged parents are not diagnosable narcissists, but they may still be controlling, emotionally neglectful, dismissive, or otherwise harmful in ways that justified estrangement. Flying Monkeys step in to defend these parents, sometimes believing they are helping, but often ignoring or downplaying the real harm that led to estrangement in the first place. Some do this because they don’t know the full story; others because they don’t think the issues are "bad enough" to justify estrangement; and some simply believe that the "family unit" matters more than an individual’s well-being. None of this requires the parent to be a narcissist, only that they have people willing to advocate for them, regardless of whether they deserve it.
Second, you downplay the gravity of estrangement, as if it’s a rash decision rather than the result of years of unresolved harm. Most estranged adults don’t arrive at this choice lightly. It often follows repeated mistreatment, manipulation, or a pattern of toxic behavior. Attempts at “reconciliation” from Flying Monkeys frequently ignore the estranged person’s perspective, pushing for reunion at any cost rather than addressing the real issues of why a person becomes estranged in the first place.
You seem to believe that estranged individuals are being manipulated into an "ideology of estrangement" rather than making rational, independent decisions. You portray estrangement as a movement that people are pressured into, rather than a response to real, personal experiences. This minimizes the pain and complexity of estrangement and paints estranged people as unthinking followers of pop-psychology trends rather than individuals who have made hard, painful choices.