|
Psychoanalysis
It is often assumed that psychiatry
is the school of thought which focuses on the individual, that its main concern
is , moreover, the various forms of mental illness which some individuals
suffer from. This is not true. Freud wrote a book entirely devoted to Group
psychology, and there are various studies which relied on the insights of
psychiatry to explain such cultural phenomena as Literature, the Cinema, and diverse cultural
phenomena. Politicians today rely on the insights of psychologists to comprehend
the motives for world leaders acting as they do.
Freud
Defense Mechanisms:
It is well known that Sigmund Freud based his analytic
system on interaction with his patients. During the exchange, he discovered
that patients resist telling him the truth about certain experiences from their
past. He thought that this is intentional, at first, and then he came to
discover that, sometimes, patients just forget, or deny, or repress, the truth, because it is difficult to
deal with.. The anxiety level of the subject rises considerably when reminded
of such experiences, some of which being traumatic and frightening. Therefore,
the defenses are methods of concealing, either from the psychiatrist, or from
the self, at least some of these experiences which could well be partial causes
of the illness the patient suffers from..
It is therefore important to stress that these defense
mechanisms are rhetorical.. They express the self in language.. as the subject
wishes to present him/herself to the world.
It is certain that most normal humans use them as much
as mentally ill people do. As usual, what distinguishes the normal individual
using defenses from the ill person is a matter of degree.. When these methods
are used to guard the individual from real or potential harm, then he still
controls the usage. However, when the usage confuses the user, when he gets
caught up in the defenses he creates, then they become harmful, and the usage
ought to be stopped.
This study seeks to explain the
defense mechanisms of Sigmund Freud, and apply them to certain cultural
phenomena. I will try to suggest that those defenses are rhetorical, that is,
they are specific uses of language meant to defend the self from specific
threats, and are therefore embedded with social values. One cannot, after all,
defend any act or thought, without its being previously attacked, both the
attack and defense being always related to social norms.
What follows here is a list and a brief
discussion of some of these defenses, with their applications to everyday
lives, and political and social debates…
Reaction Formation:
Reaction formation is the
development of a new point of view concerning an old desire which could not be
fulfilled.
As Freud puts it:
As the child becomes aware of sexual
excitement which cannot be fulfilled, the sexual excitations evoke opposing
mental forces which, in order to suppress this unpleasure effectively, build up
the dams of disgust, shame and morality.
Original feelings of happiness turn
to the very opposite, almost as a thesis turns to its own antithesis. Feelings
of love turn to hatred and Disgust.. This reminds one of Romantic ideas ,
popularized by Rousseau, about the child being born good, and then turning bad,
harming others, through the influence of society. The novel Frankenstein by
Mary Shelley describes in detail how a monster, with a kind heart, started
acting monstrous through the mechanisms of social rejection. Therefore, it
cannot be denied that reaction formation is achieved through social mechanisms,
which try to make the individual conform to the norm.
The difficult ethical question to
be posed here is: Is Social intervention in the construction of the desires of
the individual good, that is, does it make him happier? Freud thinks that
change is desirable, at least, in the case of ill adjusted individuals.
However, he honestly states that at best, the individual after treatment is as
likely as anyone to suffer from the frustrations and miseries of everyday life.
In short, Socially induced reaction Formation does not guarantee happiness.
Eugene Kinkead wrote a famous essay
entitled: American P O W s in Korea, which provides a very interesting example
of a culturally imposed form of Reaction formation. The author focuses on the
indoctrination and Brain washing the P O W s were subjected to during the 50s
war. He suggests that the majority of the American prisoners in Korea yielded
in some degree to communist pressure, that is, their views on the conflict
changed after the imprisonment, and to the extent that a rumor indicating the
impossibility of defeating communist indoctrination was wide spread at home.
This meant that each soldier did not have the morale necessary to resist the
attempts at indoctrination in the first place.
On returning home, most P O Ws talked
about Korea as a socialist, rather than a communist, country, which meant that
they have accepted the terminology of the Koreans. Many of them also suggested
that, while socialism might not work in a rich country as the States, it is
necessary in poorer countries as China and Korea. This meant that those P O Ws
have repudiated the causes which their country sent them to fight for.
So, how was this reaction formation
achieved?
The Koreans created a new set of
circumstances, which estranged the P O Ws from their environment, and each
other. First, most Americans, even today, would be lost without a bottle of
pills and a toilet that flushed.(627) In short, they are accustomed to a certain level of
luxury which certainly did not exist in the prison camps. In response, the P O
Ws lost respect to their military elders, as though they were responsible for
the plight. The Koreans certainly did all they can to make P O Ws disrespect
those elders. Sometimes, they would force an elder to confess to a small mistake,
aloud, such as not washing one s teeth in the morning. A simple humiliating
confession like that makes the soldiers lose respect for the elder they held in
high esteem before.
To make matters worse, soldiers
were trained not to rely on each other. The Koreans tried to get soldiers to
inform on one another, for little awards, such as Cigarettes, and fruits, or
some support and words of encouragement. Thus the soldiers lost their trust in
one another and started relying on the Korean system. If any problem happens,
imprisoned soldiers reported it to those responsible for them. While, in the
war with China, soldiers depended on one another, and hated their captors for
ill treatment, the Koreans did not as a general role abuse their prisoners. The
food was not good, but healthy.
Consequently, the American soldier
lost trust in his superiors, and in other P O Ws. He is now totally alone. If
he believed in anything, he would have still survived, but the process of
indoctrination makes him doubt what he believed before. He does not even know
whether the war his country sent him to fight was justifiable. Now, the loss of
direction , coupled with isolation, causes the individual to start despairing.
Nothing is worthwhile, not even life.
The sense of loneliness and despair
which the P O W faced increased to the extent that some of them would refuse to
leave their beds or eat. Because those soldiers lost the will to live, the
disease was called - giveupity. It was recommended that, in case a soldier
refuses to leave bed in the morning, he should be insulted to the extent that
he is angry, and starts fighting. If he does, then the will to live will return
to him. Otherwise, he will be dead in a matter of days.
What then is reaction formation? It
is simply the development of a new attitude towards issues of importance to the
life of the individual, through either coercion, or manipulation. When reaction
formation occurs, the individual changes his views about the issue which he had
strong feelings about. As we have seen, reaction formation indicates that the
individual felt isolated for a long time, and almost lost the wish to live,
before the change occurs.
There are a number of well
documented psychological effects which result from Reaction Formation.
Psychologists noticed that, when soldiers returned, they were apathetic. Things
which interested them before ceased to interest them now. The author Kinkead
indicates their characteristics:
They
displayed much less than the average amount of interest in their environment;
their outlook was a noticeably restricted one, and they expressed few, if any,
demands or desires for the present, or plans and thoughts about the future.
They discussed their lives in an extraordinarily flat and unemotional way,
using stock phrases over and over. Their apathy was not unlike that seen in
psychotics, who are often abject; the returned prisoners were capable of
response, but their reaction time had been measurably slowed and they showed
only a limited capacity for elaborating the ideas they expressed. Beneath this
apathetic surface, however, they were turbulent, ready to be extremely
aggressive, to tear into something in a rage. (628)
It is as though the reaction
formation changed the psychological make up of the individual. He has now a superficial
cold demeanor. He does not seem to
care much about the future, and is rather absent minded. His language relies on
stereotypes, and therefore he can not develop original ideas. Yet, the effect
of the change, which is a transgression on the dignity of the individual, is
that he is very angry.. He might explode at any minute, for the slightest
reason.
The problem with reaction formation
is that it is a coerced change. One changes through experience willingly, all
the time, and is more creative, and happier, as a result of the change. But,
reaction formation is forced on the individual, therefore, the effects of it is
to mentally and emotionally cripple the individual.
|