FREUD
EXPLAINS WOKENESS
WSJ
080822
There sure is a lot of moralism going
around. Censorship, condemnation, excommunication, demands for apologies. There
are even spontaneous chants of “Shame! Shame! Shame!” directed at the villain
of the moment. I recently saw an ad for a psychology workshop that argued
outright that people from “privileged” groups should “hurt” and “feel shame.”
People are guilt-tripped for using disposable straws, liking a canceled song or
speaking “ableist” words.
How did we descend from the libertine
culture of the 1960s—“if it feels good, do it”—into a pit of endless shame?
Ask
Sigmund Freud. He divided the psyche into three parts: the id (unconscious
drives), the ego (the conscious self) and the superego (the site of moral ideals,
inhibitions and shame). Freud saw mental health as the result of balance—being
aware of feelings as they come and go, but not letting any one part of the
psyche become too dominant.
A
large amount of mental illness is attributed to an overactive superego. Cycles
of harsh self-criticism can induce depression or push people toward drugs or
alcohol. Inhibitions around things like cleanliness or public speaking can
underlie anxiety disorders. Rigid prohibitions can contribute to sexual
dysfunctions and eating disorders. Judgments, righteous anger and control can
lead to interpersonal problems.
Some
psychoanalysts argue that the superego, in its purest form, is linked to a
“death drive,” which seeks to regulate all thoughts and feelings down to zero.
This is the suffocating aspect of Nurse Ratched in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s
Nest.” Fully internalized, it’s the logic of suicide.
The
superego isn’t always ethical. Someone could feel intense shame for having
something stuck in his teeth during a date and no guilt at all about cheating
on his taxes. The superego is often irrational, though its pronouncements can
feel as if they come from on high.
The
superego is often linked to father figures. In the Oedipal drama of early
childhood, a son supposedly identifies with his father to internalize rules and
ideals to live up to. Freud, like Plato, thought the parts of the psyche
paralleled strata of society. The ego resembles a society’s leaders, the id is
like the masses, and the superego is most like the police or other bodies that
enforce rules—bureaucrats, censors, corporate HR. The leaders (the ego) have to
manage the selfish desires (id) and the moral idealism (superego) that drive
society. They do so by gratifying them somewhat and directing them toward
productive goals, but not letting either entity seize control because both tend
to be shortsighted.
How
does all this fit into the transformation of the 1960s counterculture? In the
1960s, many figures on the left tried to abolish the superego (some
consciously, others less deliberately), and this goal seeped into the entire
counterculture. It wasn’t only the overthrow of “the patriarchy,” an
anti-father ethos, or the shifting of sexual mores, but a deeper attempt to
overthrow rules and gratify desire.
Obviously
it didn’t work. Selfish desires are too destructive. Children need discipline;
societies need laws. New rules emerged—rules that were somehow still opposed to
the old rules but attempted to perform the same functions. The result is a
patchwork morality that’s harsh in some places, absent in others and ultimately
incoherent. If excessive sexuality is causing trauma and exploitation, rather
than curtailing sexuality, activists demonize masculinity, deny the differences
between the sexes, and eliminate due process.
Hypermorality
is now everywhere. “Implicit bias” training attempts to purify the unconscious
of forbidden thoughts. There are the extreme inhibitions of safety culture and
the use of ostracization to target heretics. Then, there are grandiose moral
ideals. Zero carbon. Zero gun crime. Zero pedestrian deaths. Zero tolerance.
There’s
also the misattunement of moralization. Criminals get compassion while police
are vilified. There’s sometimes more judgment of people who don’t wear a mask
than of people who rob stores. Insults directed at white people or men are seen
as the epitome of justice and wisdom, while even unconscious bias against other
groups is seen as unforgivable.
What
happens to a society when the leadership is overpowered by a dysfunctional superego?
Unachievable and grandiose ideals lead it astray. Narrow goals that hit moral
notes override wise leadership. People lose sight of the big picture, of social
cohesion and the need for humility, pragmatism and tolerance.
As
the superego bears down too heavily, symptoms can emerge: paranoia, loss of
reality, odd behaviors, despair. Eventually, as the over-pressurization of
moralism intensifies, the desires of the masses erupt. A monstrous id emerges
to topple the monstrous superego. This response is unlikely to be
well-organized. More likely it will be impulsive, awkward and strange—a
paroxysm of forbidden desires, gratifying but destructive.
The
only hope is a new ego that can rein in the dysfunctional superego. This
requires leadership that can speak directly about the costs of excessive
morality and uneven standards and let people be people, with the diverse
desires they have, under fair, pragmatic rules.
Hypermorality
is seductive because it seems, well, virtuous. But in practice it dampens
spontaneity, joy and ease, and it often has hateful overtones. It can make
relationships cold, bitter and formal. It wastes enormous amounts of energy,
and it makes society less fun. The id is the source of humor, creativity and
inspiration. The superego is stiff and dull.
More
to the point, hypermorality often worsens the problems it aims to address.
Think of people who constantly criticize themselves for being socially awkward,
making themselves more awkward. Or think of someone who tries a severe diet
only to become more attached to junk food. Prolonged Covid lockdowns can
increase excess deaths, aggressive “antiracism” can aggravate racial tension,
and intrusive forms of social coercion, however well-meaning, can provoke
hostile reactions.
One
doesn’t have to agree with all Freud’s claims to see value in his perspective,
but many of his points are shared by others in history. Lao Tzu wrote
in the Tao Te Ching, “Try to make people happy and you make them miserable. Try
to make people moral and you make them evil.” Societies require a light touch.
They need a limited superego attuned to the most important wrongs, one that
holistically considers costs and benefits of rules and is gentle enough to let
us be human. It’s good advice for individuals too.
Mr.
Hartz is a psychologist in private practice in New York City.
No comments:
Post a Comment