“There is a widely known story about two men who greet each other on the
street in a small town in Poland. ‘Why have you not returned the pot I lent
you?’ one says to the other. ‘I did not borrow your pot’ the other replies. ‘Besides,
it was broken when you lent it to me and besides, I have already returned it to
you intact’ “ (1). In this reply each of the three statements contradicts the
other two and Milton Rokeach notices that, despite those contradictions, the
story shows a system of beliefs. Not a logical, but a psychological one. Then, “Many
important aspects of intellectual functioning in particular and cognitive
functioning in general can be attributed to personality rather to intelligence”
(2).
Another quotation: “Although it cannot be claimed that psychological
insight is any guarantee of insight into society, there is ample evidence that
people who have the greatest difficulty in facing themselves are the least able
to see the way the world is made. Resistance to self-insight and resistance to
social facts are contrived, most essentially, of the same stuff” (3).
I have always concerned myself with the reasons why so
often people think, feel and act in irrational and destructive ways and my work
is based on the distinction between the expression of personal potential
and activation of psychological defenses (defined as intentional
unconscious constructions). I carefully avoid speaking in vague or metaphysical
terms about "personal potential" and use the concept of
"psychological defenses" which does not have much to do with the
psychoanalytic one of "defense mechanisms".
When slavery was "normal", normality was crazy
and when the cult of the "aryan race" was normal, normality was crazy.
Normality can then be crazy today. In my opinion, the illusions that
pervade culture, social organization and normal interpersonal relationships
lead to a widespread tendency to look after children in ways that do not
correspond to their psychological needs. Such social and family realities normally
compel children to dissociate themselves psychologically for not staying in touch with
the painful experiences that they cannot manage without the support of adults. Growing
up with emotional closures and mental rigidity, children become adults inclined
to accept the myths and rituals of society and not able to care for their own children
properly. If this is true, the "ordinary irrationality" seems
destined to reproduce indefinitely and create new unnecessary suffering.
For these reasons, it is important to understand why
people think, feel and act normally in irrational ways and for the same
reasons it is important to practice philosophical analysis of ordinary irrationality
and psychological analysis of the experiences from which people
dissociate themselves when altering their internal dialogue and contact with reality.
Even if psychological disturbances are often set
against normality, they in fact reveal the same “emotional logic” as everyday
“normal folly”. Normality is a nightmare since everyone begins to suffer before
being able to work through the sorrow and therefore unwittingly, but also
intentionally construct defensive attitudes which are then kept up in adult
life. If this is not recognised, bizarre explanations are invented for
“pathologies” which are more normal than
normality.
The task of analytical work is not to make "normal" people who feel "ill", but that of working with people who want to recover their unexpressed personal potentialities.
The task of analytical work is not to make "normal" people who feel "ill", but that of working with people who want to recover their unexpressed personal potentialities.
Notes
(1) Rokeach, M., 1960, The Open and
Closed Mind, New York: Basic books Inc., p. 3
(2) Rokeach, M., 1960, The Open and
Closed Mind, New York: Basic books Inc., p.398
