During my time in training, I was Chief Resident on two different wards. At that time, Psychiatry was in the process of delineating and defining the parameters of Borderline Personality Disorders. One of the hallmarks of the Borderline was their reliance on the defensive process known as "splitting." I have written quite a bit about splitting but have a particular aspect in mind. Patients who resort to splitting tend to divide up the Psychiatric staff into categories of all-good (those who can be helpful or can be manipulated) and all-bad (comprising those staff members who frustrate them or can not be manipulated.) They also tend to form alliances with staff and with other like minded patients and play one set of staff and assorted patients against each other. It became well known that any unit in the hospital that had more than 2 or 3 Borderlines at the same time ended up in chaos. Once I was ready to enter private practice I was warned by more than one Senior Colleague that if I were to take in more than 2 or 3 Borderlines into my practice, my life would be chaotic.
The only way to avoid the descent into chaos engendered by a surfeit of Borderlines was to first select a staff who were reasonably psychologically healthy and sensitive, to make sure that they were well trained, and that lines of communication and authority were always clear and open. Only by making certain that idealized staff recognized the unconscious determinants of their idealization could the staff avoid falling into competitive and hostile interactions with each other. In other words, in order for splitting to cause chaos, it required the cooperation (usually unconscious) of the objects involved; the objects must accept the split projections and play their designated role.
For example, when a patient would tell me that I was the best Psychiatrist they had ever met, I had to be aware that this was not a statement of fact, no matter how much I would have liked it to be true, but rather the production of a disturbed individual who unconsciously was driven to idealize and devalue those who became important to her. Alternatively, when a patient (often the same one, after I refused to grant them a favor or inappropriate request) insisted I was a sadistic monster, it most often represented the devaluation of a Borderline rather than an accurate perception of my nature. Were I to react to either statement as an accurate description or as a gratification to be savored and rewarded, I would no longer behave as an objective treating Psychiatrist but would become a role player in the Borderline's drama; chaos would ensue in short order.
As might be apparent, the staff always had to be aware of the potential to play into the idealizations and devaluations of th patients. ("Hm, I can see why you would think Dr. B is sadistic; I'll see if your case can be transferred.")
Splitting is most obvious when trained professionals are looking for it in a clinical setting; however, splitting is a pervasive part of the human condition.
I suspect that any parent can see reflections of the process in their children, where it is a normal part of childhood development. What parent hasn't had to deal with the child who is frustrated by Mommy saying "No" and then turns to Daddy, hoping for a "Yes"? The bests way to ensure domestic tranquility and assure that appropriate limits are adhered to is for both parents to be on the same page at all times, so that the child learns that splitting, in the real world, does not work.
From the descriptions, it should also be clear that "Splitting" is a ubiquitous feature of political life. BDS is nothing more than assigning all of the bad projections to the all-bad George W. Bush. The same accusation can be credibly made about those who see nothing but all-bad in Hillary Clinton. Splitting pollutes our national discourse and makes effective governance more problematic.
In the international arena, "Splitting" among the Western democracies has had a serious impact on the war against Islamic totalitarianism. I would submit that the ease with which Western democracies enabled the splitting of our enemies has led to unnecessary death and destruction.
In the run up to the Iraq war the French (and Germans) both gave assurances to Saddam Hussein that they would oppose an American invasion (at the same time assuring Colin Powell of their support in the UN Security Council.) They saw themselves as the repositories of all of the good aspects of Western civilization (tolerance, freedom, multicultural understanding, diplomacy) as opposed to the American cowboy all-bad approach. This engendered an easy acceptance of the Arab World's primitive splitting of the West into all-bad (Neocons, Jews) and all-good (Democrats, French, Germans, et al.) This split allowed the Iraqis to exploit the tension and construct a fantasy that the United States would ultimately back down and that the sanctions would be removed.
No one can prove that the French assurances led to Saddam Hussein's massive miscalculations prior to the invasion, but a good case can be made that if the West had presented a reasonably united front to the Iraqis, and enforced a genuine regime of sanctions, an invasion would not have been necessary.
As luck would have it we may well be offered another chance to see if the West can persevere and undo the damage that the past Splitting has caused.
The election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France does not just represent a change in tone in respect to American-French relations but a change in how reality is perceived. While no one should expect France to suddenly behave as if they approve of the American invasion of Iraq, it is not a stretch to expect that the French assessment of the state of the world and the threat of Islamic extremism will more closely match the assessment of America, Merkel's Germany, and Blair (soon to be Brown's) England. In many ways, France is more threatened from Islamic extremism than America and this includes the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. If the West can agree on a united front against the Iranian Mullahs, the possibility of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without the resort to force increases exponentially. The minimal sanctions applied already have had a noticeable effect in Iran; if all of the Western democracies support each other in enforcing sanctions with teeth, conditions in Iran conducive to regime moderation or change are likely to be enhanced.
In the other great trouble spot, a more united front against the hatred and terror that has been supported by so much of the European elites in the Palestinian approach to Israel can only be ameliorated if the Palestinians discover that their intransigence has consequences. By traditionally supporting the Palestinians as the all-good victims of the all-bad Israelis, the worst elements among the Palestinians have been empowered. This will not change any time soon, but a more even handed approach from Paris can have a powerful long term effect.
It is obviously too soon to know how significant Sarkozy's election will prove to be, but we may well be seeing a paradigm shift, from the dysfunctional split representations of the West to a more holistic and inclusive representation of the children of the Western enlightenment and their culture which who deserves to be protected.
Recent Comments