Sunday, January 11, 2015

Freud, Freedom, and the Human Animal

Why teach psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theory? What do I want to accomplish in the semester ahead? How is Freud still relevant?

Freud had two intellectual commitments I want to share with you. The first involves an appreciation of our animal nature.  The second is his vision of personal liberation while mindful of the opportunities and boundaries of our existence as humans.  My goal is to clarify the fundamentals that remain relevant from the time Freud invented this subject matter to the present. 

Freud's first commitment was to our animal nature. We are mammals:  primates subject to the pains and pleasures, the needs and conflicts that come from a primate nature that informs our capacities and dispositions. As animals go, we live a very long life.  We have a long gestation, an extended infancy followed by a period of childhood vulnerability, and a maturation that takes decades.  Finally, we have decline and death. This provides considerable time for a life to go well or poorly. 

Freud was especially fascinated by the relationships of infancy and childhood to adult personality. He said that the child is the father to the man, and as Adam Phillips points out, showed that “Childhood...informed everything but predicted nothing.” I think this empirical claim is correct and goes a long way toward clarifying why the history of psychotherapy and the history of “good enough parenting” go hand in hand. Psychoanalytically informed culture has models of parenting and methods of therapy that speak to each other in similar terms.

Saying that childhood predicts nothing is not to say that childhood does not make adulthood understandable. I think it does.  Untying this knot will show a significant connection between our nature and our freedom.  Keep in mind, understanding and predicting are not the same. You can make sense to me even if I can't predict your actions. (What I can do is recognize whether your behavior seems in-character or not.) 

Freud's work involved coordinating human developmental biology with the requirements for membership in the human community. I'm less concerned with what Freud took the biological facts to be, we've learned some things since his time,  and more interested in how he used the idea of human developmental biology as an organizer and constraint on behavior. 

I want to say a bit more about nature, constraints, and freedom: Our forty-week gestation and slow development create the necessity for a stable social unit to protect the infant and young and shelter their immediate caretakers. Family, community, and culture follow as a necessity. It takes a village. This will ensure our possible survival and provide the context for acquiring our various values, knowledge, and competencies, but also our conflicts, inhibitions, and vulnerabilities. Sex and aggression, hierarchy and power, the competition for love, mates, and resources become inevitable themes of social opportunity and regulation. Desire and regulation will necessarily conflict. The nuanced examination of conflict, personal and social, conscious and unconscious, is always on or near center stage in Freudian thought. 

Sexual desire and its regulation are central features of Freud's theory, especially desires not limited to serve reproduction. Freud took as a given that the desires and pleasures that come with the body cannot be ignored or fully renounced.  Sensual and sexual pleasures are intrinsic motivations.  We are interested in sex and pleasure apart from reproduction, a disposition we share with our primate cousins and other big-brained mammals (especially, it seems, the aquatic ones).  We take the pleasures and pains of mating seriously but are polymorphous in our erotic expression. We get turned on in all sorts of ways from infancy until our decline, and once we have established a pattern of desire, it tends to persist.  

Our abilities and dispositions to express sexuality vary widely, and are a source of significant pleasure, inhibition, and trauma.  Since sexuality has such a pervasive influence on our lives, sexual behavior becomes a central focus of civilized regulation and constraint. 

As we mature our competence to tolerate and manage the world changes along with our potential for trauma. Freud was particularly sensitive to how conservative we are in harboring traumatic damage; how we remain preoccupied with how we've been hurt. We are dogged in returning to the scene of the pain. He called this the return of the repressed, driven by a compulsion to repeat, a concept he used to describe the unconscious and self-deception. Freud also invented a therapeutic relationship, psychoanalysis, as a weak but useful antidote to the problems of unfortunate repetition. 

Freud and the psychoanalytic community that followed him had a second commitment. The first was to our instinctual animal nature. The second was to our status as persons. When things go well enough, the average expected case, we are not merely Homo sapiens but become human beings and persons. We become skilled deliberate actors, able to knowingly make choices, are linguistically competent, and as a result live a life in a dramaturgical pattern. Our lives hold together in an improvisational drama of developing, changing, and recurring through-lines of significance. Our story can be told, with some tellings being more serviceable than others. Freud believed the self-examined story offered the narrator greater freedom than the under-examined. Psychoanalysis would facilitate such an examination. The goal was to free up choices not otherwise seen. Here, his commitment to biology, personal history, intentionality, and self-awareness coincide. His therapeutic goal was to help the defensive and unconsciously driven actor become more self-aware and deliberate. He believed that self-awareness better serves our capacity for “love and work”.  I think this is true. 

Self-understanding is a boundary condition on our personal freedom, on our non-predicable possibility to do something spontaneous and new. Awareness and choice go hand in hand.  

Freud synthesized his two commitments. He painfully appreciated that we are far less free to engage in deliberate action and to enjoy the opportunities and pleasures of our bodies than we wish. In this spirit he wrote Civilizations and its Discontents and The Future of an Illusion. We domesticate ourselves and find religion. That brings us both good news and bad.

The bad news is that because of traumas and deprivation, necessary and unnecessary compromises of desire, and through culture's indoctrinations, we become a version of a human being whose drama has through-lines shaped by character disorder and neurosis

The good news is that all of us share these features and are capable, under fortuitous circumstances, of becoming more reasonable, spontaneous, and deliberate actors. Rarely can we do this alone. We need help. Sometimes help comes from enlightened parenting, sometimes from finding and settling into stable and tolerant love and friendship. And, as Freud found, it can be helped along by a prolonged immersion in a relationship that provides a second chance to revisit and explore the inhibitions and compromises that rob life of its possible joys.  (Still, ever the pessimist, he thought the usual outcome would be to transform neurotic misery into ordinary unhappiness). 

Therapy requires work, an ordeal of sorts, taking whatever time is required to examine and confront the unhappily ingrained patterns, the unserviceable though-lines, and explore and practice other in-character versions of being a better person.  It will likely require more time than conditions allow.  He called this the working-through conducted by engaging in free association as a manner of confronting and reducing the neurotic repetition-compulsion. This is psychoanalysis. 

Freud's vision was to create increased freedom of association through the method of free association. He invented a relationship to facilitate this. Empathy, appropriate silence, and mindfully refraining from judgment and direction would become central to the Analytic Attitude needed to maintain this relationship.  Psychoanalytic therapists would cultivate this stance toward their clients' thoughts and feelings in the service of enhancing their ability to engage in emotionally competent, deliberate and non-deliberate intentional action. 

Intentional Action, the general case of goal-directed, meaningful behavior, can go right or wrong. It likely will go wrong when performed with inadequate knowledge of the circumstances, without suitable know-how, or with underdeveloped, conflicted, or unacceptable motives. Sometimes we literally don't know what we are doing or how to competently achieve it. If we don't know what we are doing, we can hardly choose to act otherwise. Choice requires a knowledge of serviceable options. With this in mind, Freud developed methods of interpreting and confronting self-deception.  The analysand is invited to engage in compassionate but ruthless self-examination.  For this to be possible, the analyst has to self-examine, too. This, the analysis of the repetitive patterns of transference and resistance, is the heart and soul of the psychoanalytic process. 

Freud attempted to understand the human animal with the aim of liberating us from the unnecessary damage and neurosis brought on by the trial of becoming a person. This remains the difficult, complicated, and constantly revised work that I intend to share with you this semester. 

An outline of the psychoanalytic theory and practice I'll teach this semester can be found here: Essentials of Psychoanalytic Theory and Practice.

Some notes on treatment: Mindful Uncertainty: What is Psychotherapy?

An expanded version of the therapeutic policies that Roy Schafer calls The Analytic Attitude:

And an oldie but goodie from The Kinks on our primate nature:

Saturday, January 10, 2015

When Religion Masks Pathology: The Vengeful Gods Within. We are Carlie Hebdo!

Every idea is someone's idea and every use of an idea is someone's use of the idea. 

How can a cartoon evoke murdous rage? How can satire justify  a  religious community's claim of victimhood? Who is so vulnerable to insult that murderous rage results? The logic to this madness involves religion as a problematic solution to personal and social pathology. Selective religious doctrine creates a map assembled for particular purposes. But who will follow the selections? 

It is easy to appreciate the victim who has directly suffered trauma, been cheated, degraded, lost territory, or power. But injury can be less direct. We can also feel victimized when the insult and damage happens to the people who are, in a manner of speaking, significantly part of us. If you hurt my children or my wife, I suffer, since my identity, my basic sense of self, is inexorably and intrinsically tied to them. I probably won't feel the full anguish of their pain, but I feel my version of the pain of those I deeply love. In a vital way, I am not separate from them. And if you hurt my children, if you hurt my wife, I will want to hurt you. I am fine with this. I think it's normal.

My family is not the same as the abstract idea of my family nor are they equated in my heart with their name, image, or likeness. My family is different, more significant, than any abstract belief in the sanctity of family. The map is not the terrain. But not everyone makes this separation nor is everyone so tolerant especially when it comes to images that depict the sacred.  Some religions forbid forms of representation and treat such representations as taboo and respond accordingly.  Still, there are many ways to address transgression both within and outside of one's community. What is a significant violation in one community may matter differently in another. 

For Muslims, images of Muhammad with comic or satirical intent not only transgresses but causes insult. For non Muslims, it may be different.  If you ridicule my tribe, my politics, or religion (if I had one), I‘ll be irritated and defensive and probably push back. Go ahead, insult what I hold sacred. Make all the jokes you want. I won't like it, but I will tolerate it. In contrast, some people’s religious identification is so personal, so intertwined with their identity, their sense of self, that to insult their deities or prophets cuts to the core. They directly feel the blow.  Reacting in desperation, they can't tolerate comedy or ridicule directed toward their faith. 
It is an intense narcissistic injury. They will never simply suffer the joke but demand that the comedian suffer, too.  Some will try to cause that suffering. Religion that requires or facilitates such revenge is a very ancient and a very bad idea. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. 

Vicious revenge is especially unsurprising when insult stirs up damage already there, damage and vulnerability that colludes with religious justification. This is not principled revenge, if there is such a thing, but narcissistic rage.

Religion vulnerable to the outrages of free expression is dangerous when it facilitates reactive intolerance to the cosmopolitan sense of satire's fair game.  Joking about the sacred is inevitable in urbane society; even in bad taste it comes with civilization's progress. Liberal society makes room for various systems of belief and offers an alternative to fundamentalist and totalitarian ideologies while living in uneasy detente with them. This works when people are generally happy with their lot. But not everyone is so fortunate.  Fundamentalist and totalitarian ideologies offer redress to victimhood, real and imagined.  And the conditions that invite malignant ideology show no sign of abating. The grievances at root-cause fester; just solutions are long in coming. Uncompromising ideologies promise compensation if embraced.  People make do with what they find and religion is very easy to find. It's already there offering community and meaning.  But faith, the opium for some, can soothe and placate or crystalize into an amphetamine of hate. 

Deprivation, abandonment, poverty, abuse, and the degraded, marginalized identities wrought by racism and colonization spawn individuals and cultures where personal identification with a deity offers the possibility of feeling whole. Gods sometimes get internalized to fill an awful gap. These conditions can hide in places where all looks well. A middle class family that appears fine can conceal pathology that an Allah or a Christ promises to remedy. Desperation answered by religious zealotry can produce a condition that satisfies until it is doesn't. Such solutions to pathology do not stand up well when subject to questioning or laughter. If I need God to hold myself together, if it's all I have to hold on to, I'll defend my faith in urgent self-defense.  

The values of religion are legion, but when the internalized gods that mask pathology are insulted, they seek revenge.   

On the behavioral logic of indoctrination: "On Indoctrination".

A  New York Times essay that reflects similar themes : Two Outcomes, Similar Paths: Radical Muslim and Neo-Nazi.

And another from the Times: Isis and the Lonely Young American.

Blame it on depression? : "Chattanooga Shooter Was Depressed."

You may substitute any ideology or religion. Laïcité is fundamental for the French. From Salon: A faith that affects everyone should be susceptible to critique by all.

Oh, what the hell, all together now, say "Yahweh!"

18 June 2016
The carnage of homophobic religion and personal pathology:

15 July 2016
Another fucked up character:

20 September 2016

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A Jury of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Peers

ayin tachat ayin

Jury selection is underway in Boston for the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I took the jury survey and won’t qualify to serve for two reasons: I was a block and a half from the second explosion and under no circumstances would I support Tsarnaev’s execution even though I think he’s a monster.  I don't know how many others share my view regarding Tsarnaev's lack of humanity, but 57% of my fellow Massachusetts citizens would not vote for his death regardless of his guilt. Only 33% would.

I am in full sympathy with the urge to kill this beast but I want to live in a civilization where the state does not implement this desire.  The majority of my fellow Bostonians appear to feel the same.

In the days that followed the bombings, my Back Bay and South End neighbors felt profound shock and dislocation. We comforted each other and talked through our absence of preparation. I live in a place where this violence was unexpected and where most of us were emotionally unprepared. We were vulnerable because our civil life allowed the reality or illusion of safety. Fortunately, we had heroic first responders who knew what to do. Although we despise Tsarnaev and what he and his brother represent, we remain in opposition to his execution. Killing him will not make us safer or undo our injury. 

The dead are gone and the injured painfully soldier on. Most of us have gone back to walking our dogs, playing with our kids, and living a fortunate and protected life.  We are the majority, the average citizens of this good Commonwealth. We oppose the death penalty much as we’d like to strangle the perpetrators with our bare hands. Perhaps this makes us hypocrites. Regardless, the people acceptable to serve on Tsarnaev’s jury are my community’s outriders, harboring whatever other beliefs support an examined or unexamined acceptance of state sanctioned murder. Massachusetts has not allowed this since 1947. 

Tsarnaev’s fate will not be decided by my peers but, perhaps in some small way, his. 

5/15/15   Those not representative of  my community have passed judgment and are asking for Tsarnaev's death. 

Some further thoughts can be found in the entry: Choice, Sickness, and Evil. Some thoughts on clinical and moral language.