Freud coined the term "return of the repressed" to explain the existence of neurotic symptoms. He theorized that an unconscious thought/feeling (Id derived) would constantly press for access to the executive fictions of the mind in order to be discharged. The Ego would be on constant alert to prevent the direct expression of the forbidden idea but the idea would find a disguise and surface as a symptom.
For an example, consider an only child whose parents are having a second baby. First born children live in a special world in which they are the center of their parents' universe. Those who are fortunate enough to have a younger sibling must negotiate the loss of their special position and the difficult emotions that are stirred up by the demotion. Typically, there is a mix of love, excitement, and trepidation at the arrival of the new baby; when the child realizes the newcomer is going to get much of the attention that used to be all his, anger at the interloper ensues. The child then learns that open expressions of hostility are not met with approval by his parents. The anger goes underground and eventually becomes unconscious. Often, as part of that process, the child professes his overwhelming love for the baby (a defense known as "reaction formation" is involved); the unconscious anger toward the baby then reveals itself in the child's attempts to "love it to death." Wise parents do not leave 3 year olds alone with infants. Eventually, the child manages to find ways to deal with his anger in acceptable ways and ideally learns that his love for his sibling outweighs his childhood resentment.
In cases where the growing child is never able to resolve the conflict between his anger and attendant wishes to do away with his sibling and his guilt and shame over such terrible and unacceptable feelings, the anger remains in the unconscious mind, forever looking for ways to express itself.
I offer this little bit of Psychoanalytic history and theory because it appears that many people have never learned this important lesson.
John Leo wrote about Free Speech on the Run in the West yesterday and pointed out the apparent paradox that speech codes in the West have done little to change minds:
An obvious thing to say about laws that limit speech is that we have no evidence that they work to meet their stated goal -- reducing bigotry and increasing tolerance. Banning Holocaust denial, on grounds that it is inherently anti-Semitic, has no track record of improving respect for Jews. If anything, hatred of Jews appears to be on the rise in these nations. Setting up certain groups as beyond criticism is bound to increase resentment among those not similarly favored. (Yes, we know all groups are supposed to be treated alike, but that is not the way these laws work.) In real life, the creation of protected classes sharpens intergroup tensions and leads to competition for victim status.
Leo also makes the point that only the First Amendment has protected the United States from the metastasis of speech codes from the campuses to the marketplace of ideas. Although I think he underestimates the current dangers to free speech in this country (hate speech laws, harassment laws that are defined by the feelings of the victims, liable suits, campus speech codes, informal PC-speech codes, etc) he is certainly correct that our free speech rights would be under much heavier assault were it not for the First Amendment.
Dinocrat took this several steps further in a very perceptive post, In a world without free speech, everything will be acted out in symbols — or worse. He points out that the reaction to the Ports Deal has very little to do with a rational assessment of the situation:
As we have said several times, the emotional power of the ports issue has almost nothing to do with ports. The power comes from a broad-based distrust and suspicion of all things Arab and Muslim in the wake of the cartoon riots and like events.
We have been consistently told that Islam is a religion of peace yet the behavior of the Muslim world has raised questions even if it is impolite to raise them in public. As Dinocrat points out, repression is not the same as resolution:
That people are forbidden to discuss their feelings openly obviously does not mean that the feelings disappear. They are driven underground. If this is unhealthy in a person, imagine how much unhealthier this is for society. Currently the crowds act out these feelings in nice and appropriate symbols, like a funeral or opposition to a change in owndership of a corporation. It is our view that the ceaseless repression of politically incorrect speech, particularly in Europe, is likely to produce very nasty results indeed if a critical mass of people decides that it has finally had enough.
As a bonus Dinocrat quotes Freud in his post; read it all, as they say.
When thoughts and feeling are repressed (an unconscious process of putting thoughts out of awareness), or suppressed (the conscious decision to not think of the forbidden thoughts) they do not disappear. They continually press to re-enter awareness and be placed into action.
An argument can be made that many of the most serious problems in our culture have been exacerbated by the inability of our culture to discuss ideas that are unacceptable to the prevailing politically correct wisdom.
It seems to me that the only way we will be able to begin the process of finding and supporting the "Moderate Muslims" so many of us hope exist, is to initiate a cultural discussion of Islam. If our impressions of Islam are faulty, surrendering to the legal threats by groups like CAIR, who often resemble terror-apologists rather than Moderate Muslims, is the exact wrong way to go about resolving the errors. Unfortunately, there remain very few Islamic spokesmen who have been able to articulate ways in which Islam can be integrated into a Western society. Instead of open discussion, the primary approach to those who raise questions has been the threat. This guarantees that the anger and fear will fester and grow. Eventually, the "repressed" rage will find a way to expression.
Recent Comments