As part of one’s training a Psychoanalyst must go through his/her own Psychoanalysis. While there have been many questions raised about whether or not Psychoanalysis is a Science, it is unquestionable that it is the closest state we have to a laboratory in which the patient (Analysand) can explore the machinations of his own psyche, complete with prejudices and unconscious biases. The typical analysis lasts anywhere from 4-7 years; during their time together the Analyst cultivates a Zen like attitude of neutral curiosity. Often caricatured as non-involvement (and sometimes, some Analysts do a terrific imitation of detachment) the Analyst must remain non-judgmental and curious about all facets of the patient’s mind. Part of the work involves helping the patient develop a curious attitude about himself, and especially about his basic relationship with the world around him. This is not as simple as it sounds. Patients, even patients who are desperately unhappy, who have had disaster after disaster in their work, or their relationships, have a powerful investment in maintaining their dysfunctional perspective. Many patients (and many people in general) would much prefer to see themselves as victims of their hereditary and their Neurochemistry, rather than as agents of their own unhappiness. All victims share some common features. Whether you are a victim of your genetics, of your parents’ inadequate nurturing, or of the greater society, all victimization involves a feeling of helplessness. Victims, by definition, are helpless. It is extraordinarily difficult to make someone aware that their victimhood is all too often an active state, one that they unconsciously create. Certainly, real victims do exist. The victims of the tsunami are real. Children who are being abused by parents or caretakers are truly helpless. However, once the world is divided into victims and victimizers, all discourse ends.
The type of binary distinction I am writing about is, in some ways, hard wired into our systems. Our nervous system, on the most fundamental level, is most sensitive to contrasts and edges, the distinction between one object and another, between the object and the background. We have cells in the visual cortex which fire primarily when they “see” an edge. Our visual cortex is organized in such a way as to enhance edges. While one always has to be careful to avoid reductionism, contrasts and edges are fundamental organizers for the nervous system, and later, for the mind. The first awareness of an infant concerns the distinction between self and other. (People who never develop a secure sense of their own self [ego] boundaries, are prone to the most severe types of psychiatric disorders, but that is a long discussion for another place and time.) The child’s sense of individuality, self, emerges from the undifferentiated mother/child and the child’s first stirrings of self-hood are loudly announced by the youngster’s “NO!” The self is heralded by negation of the other. Later, the child learns to encompass other important people in their sense of community (father, siblings, relatives). By the time the child is entering elementary school, he or she has begun to include others who share their various tribal affiliations as part of their group. I am a member of my family, my extended family, my religious group, my school, my state, my country. Our tribal affiliations are more fluid the farther they are form the family. The beauty of America has always been to enlarge the sense of tribal affiliation to include larger and larger groups. If we are all Americans, we all have the opportunity to take part in our community and become part of our culture. In so far as we can see ourselves as Americans, as all part of the same tribe, then discrimination or victimization is done by individuals to individuals, not by society towards groups. This idea, as everyone knows, has been under attack for quite some time. DJ Drummond of Polipundit, in Going Nuclear, has written about the effects of this kind of polarization on our body politic.
I have been trying to sort out exactly why the Democrats are quite so angry. Well, there is that sad unfortunate demise of their party as a relevant political force, but since so many Democrats are still in denial over that fact, they must be angry about something else. I think, after some thought, I may have an idea.
One of the rare sane Frenchmen in the last century, Claude Levi-Strauss, discussed language as what he called “binary pairs”, where words triggered not only the direct meaning of the word, but also opposition, on the theory that antagonism is a natural characteristic of the human psyche, and reveals itself in communication, down to our choice of words. Thus, any word which shows up often will indicate a deep-seated antipathy.
While this explanation has some merit and certainly goes along with my description of our brain’s and mind’s necessity to make clear distinctions, I think it also does an injustice to the arguments and the dilemmas of the Democratic Party. In reading many traditionalist, conservative, libertarian and, (to my mind) “old fashioned liberal”) blogs over the last two years, I have the sense that too many fall too comfortably into the Us versus Them dichotomy that we decry in the oppositions’ writings. While it is sometimes extremely tempting to demonize or belittle what seem like delusional rantings, the enjoyment one may derive form such activity does little to improve the discourse.
John Hawkins of Right Wing News has posted The 40 Question Reality-Based Community Quiz which is very entertaining and informative, but, while the Quiz is certainly based on some fairly remarkable memes that too many on the left have uncritically accepted, I think the quiz is ultimately a bit unhelpful. If we keep ourselves unaware of the assumptions that form the underlying basis for people's beliefs, we will never be able to challenge or discuss their "crazy" beliefs.
Please note I am not interested in empathizing with their pain (that is for politicians and Psychobabblers) but in understanding enough about their thinking to be able to engage in constructive discussion and argumentation, and, perhaps more importantly, to recognize the limits of civil and political discourse.
How one gets from recognizing how the mind is organized to understanding how and what to address is a discussion for another day.
PRB MD
Recent Comments