Much of psychoanalytic theory was stood on its head by this understanding. At least in healthy development, relationships with other people were sought out not only, or even primarily, because they offered the possibility of release from physiological tension -- though in satisfying hunger or sexual needs they certainly did so -- but because interpersonal relatedness was itself the supreme value that people looked for. What then was the importance of physiological desire and the experience of its satisfaction? Hunger, obviously, led to the search for food, and sexual desire led eventually to procreation. Also, pleasure is itself a value. There was no puritan mistrust of pleasure hidden away in object relations theory. However, as Fairbairn put it, "pleasure is the sign-post to the object." 32 At least from a psychological point of view, the primary significance of desire (libido) is that it draws us into important relationships with others.
The
babies
in
the
institutions
that
deprived
them
of
human
interaction
were
well
fed
and
physically
comfortable
but
they
wasted
away
and
died
anyhow.
Survival
itself
seems
worthwhile
only
in
a
social
context
--
in
a
state
of
relatedness
with
other
real
human
beings.
And
the
growth
of
the
self
occurs
only
in
such
a
context.
As
Guntrip
put
it,
"the
basic
drive
is
to
self-development
and
self-fulfillment
as
a
person.
The
importance
of
object-relations
lies
in
the
fact
that
without
them
the
ego
cannot
develop." 33
And
of
course,
one
of
the
most
important
accomplishments
of
the
self
as
it
emerges
is
that
it
develops
a
capacity
for
resonating
with
others
--
for
empathy.
By establishing our relatedness to others as the centerpiece in its theory, object relations theory clarifies how this capacity it learned. It is a corrective to theories that see us simply as self-gratifying organisms, or even worse, as machines. Persons seek relatedness to others in an evolving matrix of relationships. That's how they grow and find meaning in life. When I speak of spiritual growth in this essay I have in mind the growing capacity of the individual for relating to an expanding range of sentient beings, while retaining his or her sense of individual autonomy and identity.
The Teaching and Propaganda Factor
Reality
is
multifaceted.
I
would
certainly
not
claim
that
in
this
brief
essay
I
have
captured
all
the
factors
that
contribute
to
the
madness
of
our
civilization.
Not
everything
is
determined
by
our
interactions
with
our
primary
caregivers
in
the
first
few
years
of
our
lives.
Societies
do
not
create
persons
who
will
comply
with
their
aims
and
rules
solely
through
the
kind
of
early
nurturing
that
is
provided.
They
reproduce
themselves
also
through
the
teaching
and
propaganda
to
which
children
are
exposed
as
they
enter
the
larger
world
beyond
their
homes.
Universally children learn that their nation, their religion, and their social class or ethnic or racial group is somehow superior or more human than any other group. If their early nurturing was adequate to facilitate at least some capacity for empathy, as in most cases it is, the growth toward a universal empathy is truncated by such teaching. This creates individuals who are selectively empathologized. They can relate to the members of their own group but are capable of treating human beings from other social classes, nations, religions or ethnic groups with remarkable cruelty. As the world has become a global community, unified as a single system, selective empathology of this kind is a serious matter. Indeed, given the power that technology has placed in our hands, it could be fatal to our species.
Pulling It all Together
In an article entitled " The Rise of the Second-String Psychopaths," David Schwartz tells us that "The great writer Kurt Vonnegut titled his final book " A Man without a Country . " Schwartz tells us what Vonnegut meant by this title:
"He was the man; the country was the United States of America. Vonnegut felt that his country had disappeared right under his -- and the Constitution ' s -- feet, through what he called 'the sleaziest, low-comedy Keystone Cops-style coup d ' Ã ©tat imaginable.' " 34
He was talking about the Bush administration Swartz explains, and goes on to summarize some of Vonnegut's thinking on this matter:
"How had our country disappeared? Vonnegut proposed that among the contributing factors was that it had been invaded -- as if by the Martians -- by people with a particularly frightening mental illness. People with this illness were termed psychopaths. (The term nowadays is anti-social personality disorder.) These are terms for people who are smart, personable, and engaging, but who have no consciences. They are not guided by a sense of right or wrong. They seem to be unaffected by the feelings of others, including feelings of distress caused by their actions. ...They suffer no remorse, no guilt, no shame. They are free to do anything, no matter how harmful. ..."
And Swartz concludes as follows:
"It is no secret that the Koch brothers and others of the super-rich seem to have undertaken a final push to consolidate control through the conversion of a marginally democratic to an essentially fascist state; extreme right-wing, authoritarian, and demagogic. This kind of government is ideal for control of a populace by the moneyed elite. ...Lest the citizenry realize who stole their money and storm their castles with torches, the rapacious elite need politicians who will carry out the work of re-directing anger at teachers, or labor unions, or the poor. I can only conclude that the people who now own the country couldn ' t find any first-rate psychopaths to carry out their work. Or maybe the smart ones were all occupied. So they had to go to second-stringers, people who could actually believe what they were told to say."
"We are a country who has become second-best, even in the quality of our psychopaths." 35
The diagnosis given here is largely the same as in our analysis. For reasons I have already given, I use the term "empathology" to designate what Vonnegut called "psychopathology." But, yes. We as a country are mad. I would point out that this madness did not start with the Bush administration. Our current state of madness is one manifestation of a larger madness that has infected western civilization for centuries. But certainly this country -- with increasing intensity since the election of Ronald Reagan -- has developed an especially pernicious form of the madness. At this point I'd like to pull together the data and theory that was touched on in previous sections of this paper, and sketch the probable dynamics by which a nation becomes even more mad than average.
One of our core conclusions is as follows:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
