For some weeks in August, there has been a discussion of the banality of evil, Hannah Arendt, and Eichmann.
I have tried to follow these discussions with interest and some difficulty but one question rises to the surface. There may be no practical answer but as psychoanalysts, perhaps there are some explanations. I am sure we have all heard patients say: How can I do this when so many people are really suffering. How can I talk about my problems when there are people dying from starvation etcetc.? The wish to divert attention from one’s own internal pain is ever present – and perhaps here at APsaA too.
As analysts we usually see this as a resistance but because of this conversation this question gave me pause. Few of us actually do anything besides giving money to Doctors Without Borders and other groups that help people. Some have joined the peace corp in their youth. Very wealthy hollywood stars and our own Gilbert Kliman have actively tackled problems in Darfur and Haiti. But the fact is that we are all quite helpless – maybe like the Germans who didn’t join the resistance or shelter jews but went about their lives knowing but denying, or being brainwashed that Jews were less than human.
There is something about being and feeling helpless that I think we should talk about. In my mind it connects to childhood helplessness although even children can be better protesters. Do some of us grow up to become fearful of speaking out?
Someone will point me to Civilization and Its Discontents or even Lord of the Flies but I want us to talk openly about how helpless we really (?) are. Why do some dedicate their lives to efforts to change things? Why do others sit by trying to be politically correct? What is it that makes moral outrage so impotent. We see it in our own APsaA where for years there has been a power struggle and finally a possible solution thanks to those who have protested. But even here, those who wish to retain power cannot really understand or see that wish for what it is. They are convinced that passing a test gives them the eventual right to analyze those who still wish to learn our craft. They rationalize and deny and we sit civilly by watching as candidates are infantilized and encouraged to obey, possibly (no probably) ruining psychoanalysis by rigidifying it. Should our candidates first study the history of psychoanalysis, the secrecy, power lust, exclusionary practices that have forced
the creative people out? Going back to Freud’s ring circle we continue to have closed study groups in BoPS and we freeze out talent. Only now is APsaA trying to accept WAW and Horney, as if this acceptance is a gift. What about apologies? Actually, Karen Horney, Sullivan, and Theodore Reich are excellent examples of ousting talent. And what about Lacan and others who many study after graduation. When I was in training Melanie was verboten. No one dared ask why.
These are naive questions but I ask them honestly, not really expecting answers. I just wonder if tolerance of arbitrary authority is increasing. Marches on Washington and protests in general seem to have dwindled – and the young people seem to lack the fire we witnessed and even participated in during the sixties. Cool aid selling well.
Jane Hall
janehallpsychotherapy.com