The Issue of Change in History and in Psychoanalysis.

2. The past and present in history

I have to state from the beginning two ideas that I base my argument about history upon. First, history is not the making of individuals; it makes the individuals. It is   the expression of tacit social changes and unnoticed evolution in certain related areas like modes of production, distribution of wealth, ethics, education, and culture. What happens in those areas are not events but ‘phenomena’. As in an issue close to us, the birth of psychoanalysis was expressing a turning point in the advancement of western philosophy, which reached a stage where the unconscious (a philosophical discovery at first) had to be included in understanding the subject; the subject matter of philosophy. Freud found the way to doing that. Second, the individual who looks as if he is a major historical pronouncement or the initiator of major effective events, is only the title name of the historical phenomena. The phenomena would be already formed and remained dormant waiting to be born and declared at a convenient moment. Freud was not the creator of the phenomenon of psychoanalysis, he was the agent of a new phenomenon of a social demand to recognizing the unconscious in any future understanding the subject.

In psychoanalysis we deal the subject as an individual. In history we deal with human phenomena while the individual occupies a minor place in arguing the phenomenon.

                                                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Two weeks ago, I finished reading a recent history book by James Barr entitled: Lords of the Desert, with the subtitle: Britain’s Struggle with America to Dominate the Middle East. The book is an amazing recount of the thirty years that followed the end of WWII in the middle east. I lived those years fully, and remembered every detail he mentioned-correctly- in his book, the political characters who were active at that time, his knowledge of their interactions, and the meaning of the events he described, which were amazingly accurate and detailed. The book corroborated the main ideology of the political activists at that time: ‘fight the British occupation and dissolve the British Empire in the Middle East’ (Egypt was a British colony from 1882 to 1954). The news we used to receive in Egypt during that time was that several residual European Empires were also dissolving in Africa. There was a prevailing belief that what we achieved in Egypt will lead the oppressed like us, worldwide, to get their freedom from foreign occupations. In other terms we were making history and characterized our political activity as the beginning of the end of the age of empires (countries dominating countries and nations dominating other nations).

When I left Egypt in 1971, I gradually realised that Europe on its own (without any help from Egypt!!) had already renounced the principle of imperialism and ended its occupation of other countries. This happened with little local native resistance, but definitely without the contribution of the activists in other countries. The Soviet Union, which inherited the Tsarist’s empire, was giving the east European countries the status of Soviets in preparation for an impending change, which took place twenty years later. The revolutionaries anywhere, were not making history, they were merely agents of history activating and fulfilling its demands and expectations. They finalize processes that start earlier and just need to come to conclusion. However, the change in history, like change in individuals, is always subject to resistance. Societies reject change at first, and use self-deception, like patients do, to make it fail. It does not fail but it just gets delayed. Serious resistance to change was the reason behind all the wars that devastated humanity for millennia.  WWI dissolved the Ottoman empire, the Tsarist’s Russian empire, and the Hapsburg empires. But some minor European empires that emerged in Africa and in Asia in addition to the remainder of the British empire resisted the change to abolish imperialism, hence, WWII came to complete the job.

Reading, interpreting and reconstructing history give clues to what really happened, also to what might happen following the present of that history. Like in psychoanalysis, the historian exploration and interpretation the past requires reconstruction of the analysed material to achieve to predict future possibilities. It did not take years after WWII to completely abandon the notion of empires in any form it might take. The peaceful concept of alliance, which is recently giving its place to globalization, is currently used, but sometimes to hide some remnants of the old dealings. However, this anticipated outcome of change in the course of history’s evolution faces desperate efforts to prevent it from happening.

The USA was the main factor in the actual and material end of WWII, which is supposed to have ended the concept of imperialism. It was also the most effective country in establishing the international organization for the preservation of peace in the world. The resistance to that change remained very strong in the USA and several other minor international powers. The USA continued and still continues getting into wars (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) with an implicit conviction of the existence of Western superiority and domination of the world. It keeps that notion alive, with even the existence of the traditional and long-lasting historical foe; Russia. It also continues harbouring the fantasy of leading that imaginary empire. The USA a major force of change yet it still resists. As in individual resistance too, self-deception plays a great part in the process of resistance.  However, there are a number of countries around the world which also resist change and the evolution of history (India, Hungary, some Arab countries, etc.) and are paying dearly for that futile effort.

The main difference between a patient resistance to treatment and the societal resistance of a nation to evolution is the role of narcissism in both. In the individual, change comes from giving up what is unconsciously considered defense against a controlled danger that attacks from inside, while in nations is giving up what it considers protection from danger coming from outside. This difference deserves further elaboration but I prefer not to do that. I lived long enough in a part of the world that nations resorted to almost criminal measures to prevent the evolution of history, and learned that fighting those conscious and unconscious urges hardly gave results. However, there are lessons to learn from that. Before patients seek psychoanalysis as therapy (which they will resist) their vocabulary regarding their condition changes from complaining to either mention their suffering sardonically or the notion of therapy sarcastically. The reasons are obviously related to narcissistic mortification they feel for needing help. In nations, either a leader emerges using vocabulary which would keep reminding the people of their low present status and whip them to avenge themselves (Hitler), or another kind of leader who demeans his people to get them moving because they are the envy of the world (Trump). 

Trump as Historical Phenomenon:

Americans are very proud of their history and their achievements in that relatively short time. They were not usually very vocal about their pride and let their achievements speak for themselves. When it was reasonable to boast a little, it was always done graciously.  Until 9\11 American history was taking its natural course of evolving, changing, and keeping the USA part of the world.  However, after the shock of 9\11, and for the first time in its short history the Home Land was vulnerable things changed both superficially and radically. 9\11was a serious narcissistic shock to a nation that was the most loved, admired, and believed to be apart from the usual international squabbles. It was a very noticeable, after that narcissistic bad surprise, US politicians used more and more the vocabulary of bragging (the adjectives of exaggeration, the extreme in comparisons, and did that in almost a ritualistic manner like making the sign of the cross before mentioning the sacred thing). Hardly, any politician did not add to the words US or America the adjective of the best the richest the strongest, etc. Even Obama, who is cultured and savvy abut international political affairs would get into the ritual of reminding the listeners of the greatness of his country, from time to time. The country was hurt and needed that reaction which after a while had to change and the USA takes its place among the rest of the world. This natural course of evolution did not settle down well with the Americans who have less to brag about. The rage of narcissistic mortification demanded the continuation of defiance and segregation (s).

Trump came to personalize that phenomenon. He-in spite of his wealth and the other things he possesses is despised. But his defiance and amplification of the contradistinction he still attract the support of those unfortunate ones. However, we should not forget that he-somehow-presents his base a dilemma: he raised the motto of going back to when the US was great, which on cognitive basis is contradiction: the need to be better in order to be good again: does that mean the USA was not good before?

There is a short extension to this post. Till then than.