The Psyche of Violence
The processes and relative importance in Freud’s tri-part Psyche structure of the Id-Ego-Superego have changed as we moved from the disciplinary society to the achievement society. Han believes that Freudian Psycho-theory could only have developed within a disciplinary society and it is now quaint and out of date but we are still stuck in the system of thought that it generated. Thus its terminology and ideas are useful in explaining some phenomena as far as it goes. In a disciplinary society the superego is king: it issues forth an unending stream of accepted actions and forbidden prohibitions. In that sense, Freud was making sense of the psychic aspects of disciplinary society from scratch. Everywhere he looked Freud saw repression and he asked the question: why would people self-repress? The internalization of all the commandments of one’s parents, school, workplace, church, and society manifested themselves in the notion of a superego that gave commandments to the poor ego. This kind of pseudo-scientific explanation found significant appeal to great many people thus its popularity. However as we move into a different world, the achievement society, it becomes harder and harder to accept because it rings less and less true. Today, its continued market “success” is due to the past establishing of cultural, educational, and medical institutions that promote it in the market place at every opportunity.
Speaking with the categories in Freud’s system of thought, what has happened is a move from the dominance of the superego to the dominance of the ego ideal. “The achievement-subject bases itself on the ego ideal, while the obedience-subject debases itself before the superego. These are two different modes of being. The superego generates negative compulsions. The ego ideal exerts positive compulsions on the ego. The negativity of the superego constrains the ego. Basing the self on the ego ideal, on the other hand, is interpreted as an act of freedom. But in the face of the unattainable ego ideal, the self sees itself as deficient, a loser to be assailed with self-reproach. Auto-aggression develops out of the gap between the real ego and the ego ideal.”
Another aspect of this movement from exterior oppression to interior oppression is loss of the demanding other that gives recognition. When you are under the compulsion of your boss, parents or God there is an other that gives recognition and reward. By moving to the self-actualized achievement subject we lose some compulsion; gain different self-imposed compulsions; and in the process transfer the task of recognition to the self: one’s own self. “The lack of relationship to the other causes a crisis in gratification. Gratification as recognition assumes the authority of the other or a third party. It is not possible to reward or recognize yourself [in a healthy way]…. Because of the disturbed structure of gratification, the achievement-subject feels compelled to achieve more and more.” The result is that we look to recognize ourselves in an unhealthy way: through narcissism: the personal, often disconnected from society, love of our own self-image reflected in everything.
The mode of internal conflict has also changed. Where in a disciplinary society a principle conflict in people and literature was “man against himself” often represented as the conflict between the desires of the Id and the dictates of the superego, today, as we become more committed entrepreneurs of the self, there is no internal conflict of two or more opposing forces or directions. Now the achievement-subject only debates among different degrees within a consensus of acceptable direction. For example in times past discipline-subject could debate with themself whether to work longer or take more leisure time. The superego would likely say to work more; the Id would say enjoy your leisure time. Today’s achievement-subject would expect to enjoy their work. “Late modern achievement-subjects don’t pursue any obligatory work. Their maxims are not obedience, law, and the fulfillment of duty but freedom, desire, and inclination. Above all, they expect to reap pleasure from their work….Thus they divest themselves of the negativity of the demanding other. However this freedom from the other isn’t just emancipating and freeing. The dialectic of freedom entails the development of new constrictions.” The new constrictions come from the popular consensus. While believing themselves free to choose (but only degrees of action on the consensus; where the consensus is always for more competitive achievement) they have lost the ability to discern real choice. And as such they are not really free. “Violence originates not only in the negativity of conflict but also in the positivity of consensus. The totality of capital, which now appears to be absorbing everything, represents a consensual violence.”
The Politics of Violence: Friend and Enemy
The “friend/enemy” dichotomy of the past has been subsumed into one: the “competitor” by achievement society. This may not sound like a bad thing as we lose the existential life and death threat posed by an enemy and replace it with the safe rivalry of a competitor. However the loss of a true friend/enemy to a competitor makes all our social interactions the same: uncommitted and flexible or in other words characterless. The character, commitment, and rigidity (or steadfast loyalty to a friend) that one needs to express to enemies and friends is replaced by an adaptability and flexibility needed to deal with competitors. “The ideal achievement-subject would be characterless, or actually character-free, available for any purpose, while the disciplinary and obedience-subject must display a consistent character. Up to a certain point, the state of flux is accompanied by a feeling of freedom. Over time it leads to psychological exhaustion….The inconclusive and unconcluded nature of the self makes it not only free but also sick. One could say that the depressive achievement-subject is a man without character.” The internalization of this characterlessness is particularly damaging to the individual because the competitive rivalry is internalized into a competition with oneself. Where the friend/enemy is always on the outside and the individual’s psyche is united, consistent, and clear about that status, with a competitor one may have to work with them even as one competes against them. For example consider the psychological simplicity of life pre-1989 during the cold war to the psychological complexity after. Or consider the psychological difference with someone who wants to hurt you verses a co-worker who wants your job. This is part of the story as to why capitalism needs to find an enemy: to simplify our psychological struggles; to give us a stable ground; to give us a character. “This constructed idea of the enemy helps the self find a verifiable ‘Gestalt,’ which frees it from its debilitating narcissistic self-reference and pulls it from drifting in the subjective void. Modern-day xenophobia displays this imaginary dimension.”
A better solution to the traditional existential friend/enemy dichotomy or the new rival/competitor psychic state of mind must center on restoring a healthy relationship with the other. Since both involve violence, one external the other internal, the solution must be non-violent. “It should be possible to have a relationship to the other in which I affirm it in its otherness, allowing it to be as it is. This yes to its being is called friendship…. The politics of friendship is more open than the politics of tolerance. Tolerance is actually a conservative practice because otherness is merely tolerated. It still maintains a stable self-image bound to a clearly defined identity,….The politics of friendship generates a maximum amount of solidarity from a minimum amount of commonality, maximum nearness from minimum relation.” By respecting the other in another we remove violence.