Upon reflection, it is probably the permissive nature of society, reflected in the self esteem movement in counselling, that is responsible for giving rise to the “solution” of the harsh use of censure in “therapy”. In other words, I am suggesting that maybe the “therapist” is trying to medicate himself by means of such “therapy”.
I read in the book by Otto Fenichel that people sometimes find a permissive society very oppressive because it makes their morality more and more refined and hair splitting. So the imposition of an external imperative can come as a relief.
This may well be the case with many people today. Their neuroses are caused by a lack of moral standards, rather than having too much of one.
My case is, of course, the opposite — or has been until very recently — since the society I was brought up in was extremely authoritarian. Consequently, I don’t need anyone to act the big moral arbiter in my face. I don’t find that kind of pose radical or refreshing – not as someone might who has experienced a permissive society all their life might find it.
Rather, such an attitudinal posture returns me to much older coping methods. I can revert to these in a flash because, after all, I had achieved a very effective level of adaptation to my old, authoritarian culture. One puts up an emotional shield and says less. One saves one’s energies for any ultimate confrontation or show down. It is better not to speak too soon or show one’s hand.
I am extraordinarily well adapted to that method of behaviour, since it was ingrained in me since childhood.
Also, punishments that involve ostracism or having my nonconformity “noticed” don’t seem to bother me, since I have always cultivated an extremely high level of independence.
In short, and what I have taken the long road to saying, is that therapeutic techniques that might have been designed to give an overly sensitive/effete contemporary person a helpful kick of the buttocks do nothing like that for me. This is mostly because I anticipate the behaviour. I find it stereotypical of authorities — but apart from that, it doesn’t communicate much.
2.
So it is clear now that my issues had always been my repression of my rage, due to my extremely authoritarian upbringing and that trying to treat this kind of condition in a liberal democratic culture is near impossible, even if the background to it is thoroughly explained. People lack both the imagination and the cultural bridge to make any recognition of the actual issues possible. Part of the problem is that words have a different meaning in a different culture. For example, when I have used the word, “emotional”, I have often meant it in terms of something I had wanted to attain in order to overcome my previous repression. Yet in this culture “emotional” has the connotation of being emotionally labile, infantile and out of control. The very meanings of the words are almost the opposite to what I have wanted to convey. You would think that a sophisticated society could understand the need to transcend differences in cultural meaning, but apparently not.
3
Nobody ever “needs” more superego, because superego is a function of basic homeostasis (the ability to maintain psychological equilibrium and internal tension relative to the environment). The only people in the world who lack it are sociopaths and psychopaths.
Whenever people have assumed that this is what I’ve needed, I’ve always recognized: “I have enough self control to be able to kill you, if I have to — therefore I disdain to kill you.”
In other words, they confirm that my superego suffices me as a basic protective and self-defensive measure. I’m not falling apart.
However, someone who tries to make me feel more guilty than I need to feel is my enemy.
STAY SANE AND SAVAGE Gender activism, intellectual shamanism
No comments:
Post a Comment