Part two:

Psychoanalysis will no longer be learned in ‘institutes’ of psychoanalysis. It will be part of the world of knowledge in academia not confined to the world of apprenticeship in the institutes. In light of the anticipated radical changes in its learning and training analysts should not feel sorry for what they know and have to discard. They better begin working on an advanced theory and practice of psychoanalysis.  One of the primary issues we have to deal with is the development of a language that could be understood and spoken by other academicians. We also have to work on the subject-matter of a theory so that we could exchange knowledge with other professional about what is overlapping between their theories m and ours.    

 The problem with psychoanalysis since its birth is ignoring that there is a difference between the subject- matter of “psychoanalysis” and the practicing of psychotherapy. If psychoanalysis is only psychotherapy, why then do have so much vocabulary about unrelated issues of psychotherapy! The lack of distinction between those two issues was caused by Freud discovering psychoanalysis while doing psychotherapy. A blind- almost infantile- identification with Freud as a therapist rebuffed some great thinkers from joining him and us after him. The theoretical base of psychotherapy itself could have and still can benefitted from inputs of that nature.

Psychoanalysis: Theory and Practice.

If psychoanalysis is more than just psychotherapy (which it is) what could it about. The main point in answering this question is knowing what we analysts do when we practice the psychotherapy of psychoanalysis. Do we analyze the patient, his speech, or a psychoneurotic structure? I hope that it is noticeable that whatever the answer of any of those questions might be the analyst has to have a theory, in which those issues are of some sort of theoretical entity and could be subject matter of that act of therapy. If that is achieved psychoanalysis would be more than just some vocabulary that is not even constituting a language.

There is a fundamental preface to this notion. The last six centuries were the age of philosophy. Philosophers’ work during that period was understanding the nature of the human subject (the subject matter of philosophy). They reached the point where a contradiction in his nature needed to be dealt with. Freud was the one ‘destiny or time has assigned to reveal the duality of the human subject, and it became the subject-matter of the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis. I will explain this point without preliminary discussion relying on the contributions and  discussions of other colleagues’ and some material I published lately.

Acknowledging a distinction between the intrapsychical (the subjective psychical aspect of the person) and the interpersonal (the psychological aspect of relating to others) depicts two human conditions: a subjective sense of being, or the I am, and an objective sense being an  he or the object me. The formation of the very personal intrapsychical structure is made possible because the human faculty of language which allows distinctions of that kind. Language as a mental capacity creates a gap between the subject as I and an object Me. Our psychological life is there in that gap. The subject-matter of psychoanalysis, or what analysis is analysis of- is the linguistic bridging between the subject I and his objective me (a counterpart or the I). Without this particular subject- matter our vocabulary will have no psychoanalytical content. Cicero as I sublimated his urges of superiority as a me, benefitting from his verbal endowment to fulfill his narcissistic inclinations. If we did not have in mind the that Cicero transformed his intrapsychic urges into fulfilling behavior our usage of word sublimation would be misinterpreted.  Vocabulary is meaningless until it sets up the context in which it will attain its meaning. What we have till now-in psychoanalysis- is mostly vocabulary that has confusing meanings and creating different psychoanalytic languages.  Psychoanalysis does not have a theory yet, but has some vocabularies, and a shadow of a subject matter.

Temporarily, I would say that the human subject presents us with a phenomenon that is very difficult to fathom: his duality. It is a duality that is inherent I would even say that the subject-matter of psychoanalysis is that duality of the human subject’s existence. I do not mean by that the dualities of conscious and unconscious, manifest and latent, past and present, primary and secondary, metonymy and metaphor; I mean the duality of identity: I and me. The other dualities, which we are more familiar with are onlypossibel to exist because of the nature of the person is inherently dualistic. 

I think that language, which is a human characteristic that does not exist in any other life entity facilitated and allowed a dichotomy within the human mind to take 'hiself' as an object.    

 

The Theory of Psychoanalysis

A.  What and How

It is obvious that psychoanalysis (in the USA) is clearly going through major and sweeping changes in theory, learning and training, and the process of qualifying its practice in future related professions. It is equally obvious that important and serious effort and work is needed for that change to happen successfully; preferably with participation from the existing psychoanalysts who could guide the new generation to what would contribute to that change.

I strongly believe that a starting point in that direction is the theory of psychoanalysis. We do not have a theory of psychoanalysis yet. What we think is our theory is just some vocabulary that does not even have an agreed upon meaning.

                  ………………………….

Preface:

Psychoanalysts, and mostly in North America, believe that we have a theory of psychoanalysis, if not even more than one. What we have is just psychoanalytic vocabulary, which in our opinion qualify as a theory, because we believe it to be originating from an established theory. Generally speaking, vocabularies are enough to a theory and are not necessarily product of theory. They have to constitute a distinct language because the meaning of words and their communicative function- a precondition for language- are decided by the way the material of the language is interconnected.

We have to ask: what is psychoanalysis a psychoanalysis of; or what is the subject-matter of psychoanalysis. I expect that most analysts will say who needs to know: we know what we do and we do it. This reply is unsatisfactory in light of the radical changes that are approaching. Psychoanalysis will no longer be delivered within ‘institutes’ of psychoanalysis. It will be part of the world of knowledge in academia not confined to the world of apprenticeship. Therefor, it has to develop the language that could be understood and spoken by other academicians. It also has to have subject-matter of a theory that be the link between itself and other academic topics.     

 What is psychoanalysis a psychoanalysis of?

The problem with psychoanalysis since its birth is ignoring that there is a difference between the subject- matter of “psychoanalysis” and practicing psychotherapy. If psychoanalysis is only psychotherapy, why then do have so much vocabulary about unrelated issues of psychotherapy! The lack of distinction between those two issues was caused by Freud discovering psychoanalysis while doing psychotherapy, and by a blind- almost infantile- identification with Freud we limited ourselves to psychotherapy, or took the feature of the therapeutic act as a theoretical background.

Psychoanalysis: Theory and Practice.

If psychoanalysis is more than just psychotherapy (which it is) what is it about. The main point in answering this question is knowing what we analyse when we practice “psychoanalysis”. Is it the patient? His speech? Neuroses? I hope that it is noticeable that to answer any of those questions the analyst has to have a theory of psychoanalysis in which those issues are of some sort of theoretical entity and could be subject matter of that act of therapy. If that is achieved psychoanalysis would be more than just some vocabulary that is not even constituting a language.

Whatever vocabulary we have to describe the patient’s condition, or even offer a causative explanation for it we will still not reach the point of defining what psychoanalysis is psychoanalysis of…. The reason is that the subject matter of a theory is the required need for that theory in particular. The theory of evolution was reached because change (its subject matter) caused the urge to get an explanation of that subject matter.

 Psychoanalysis and its Subject Matter.

The last six centuries were the centuries of exploring the nature of the human subject. Philosophers’ works during that time was making strides in understanding the nature of the human subject (the subject matter of philosophy). They reached the point where the contradictions in his nature needed to be dealt with. Freud was the one ‘destiny or time has ‘designated to discover the duality of the human subject. The duality of the human subject became the subject-matter of the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis. I will explain this point without preliminary discussion relying on the contributions the discussion of other colleagues’ and some material I published in my last Book.

What distinguishes the human subject from the rest of the animal kingdom is the existence of an intrapsychical structure that is distinctively subjective. The intrapsychic is the psychological nature of the person, which does not exist in the rest of animal Kingdome. [Object relations are reflections and products of the person’s intrapsychical structure]. The formation of the very personal intrapsychical structure is made possible because the human faculty of language. Language-existed because of the human to be aware of self as subject and as object too.  This mental capacity creates a gap between the subject as I and an object Me. Our psychological life is there in that gap. The subject-matter of psychoanalysis is the linguistic bridging between the subject and his counterpart or himself. The duality of the subject is not between things like conscious\unconscious, impulse\resistance, ego\id; it is the duality of subject\object (as I will show a little later) in addition to several others, of that nature.  Without this particular subject matter our vocabulary of will not be psychoanalytical.  Cicero sublimated his urges of superiority, benefitting from his verbal endowment to fulfill his narcissistic inclinations. If we did not have in mind the that Cicero transformed his intrapsychic urges into fulfilling behavior our usage of sublimation would be misinterpreted by the listener.

 

Letting Go of an Old Belief:

Psychoanalysis is what we learn and train in IPA and IPA like institutes. Outside that set up we will likely encounter deviations from ‘true’ psychoanalysis.

One Consciousness not two:

I just received a personal email from a senior and very insightful colleague regarding the interest of young psychologist-in academia- in psychoanalysis. My colleague expressed the wish to be excluded from any possible open discussion of that matter on the member’s listserv. Therefore, I will mention two of his new and valuable ideas without mentioning his name.

He stated that the interest of young psychologists in psychoanalysis is due to the on-going deterioration of the condition of teaching psychology (post cognitive psychology) in departments of psychology. I do not have first hand knowledge of that but from past experience I can see the correctness and weight of such idea.  The second is the best characterization I encountered of the psychoanalysis we presently train young analysis in (I wish to get the sentence and the permission to publish it). In summary, psychologists are studying a dying science because there is nothing that could be new or different in studying psychological cognitive functions now (memory, conflict solving, etc.) than what was there to study twenty years ago. His description of contemporary psychoanalysis underlines the troubling issue of the use and abuse of the vocabulary of “psychoanalytic” observation as its theoretical foundation. His characterization of psychoanalysis and the observation about the psychology of conscious function is the best understating of the need of psychology for learning about the intrapsychical dynamics, and psychoanalysts’ need to change the substance and the method of learning psychoanalysis. Psychologists have to open up their science to the unconscious processes that shapes the intrapsychical dynamics, and analysts have to know that personal analysis was and still is the only way to experience how psychoanalysis is done, therefore make clear the link between what is done in analyzing and what is taught about it. There is no literature or scientific material that could teach how analysis is clinically done. This ‘fact’ should make learning and training in  psychoanalysis centered on what we work on changing in therapy, and how its done through psychoanalysis not via correcting cognitive failings.

      The significance of my colleague’s two remarks, which unfortunately will not be properly presented by me, is in making us see that psychology without learning about the unconscious dynamics is a dead science. He also makes it clear that psychoanalysts without a clear and good definition of consciousness will be without a subject matter. The human subject deals with his psychological life in two ways at the same time:  one conscious and the other is unconscious. The issue is that we deal with our life both consciously and unconsciously at the same time.  There is only one consciousness in each human subject, but aspects of that consciousness are not always within the fields of the subject’s awareness. There is no consciousness without its own unconscious counterpart.  The unconscious is one of the different conditions in consciousness. I need to emphasize a point: unconsciousness does not suddenly jump into the patient or the analyst consciousness but reveals itself through, within, or by the distortion it creates in consciousness.

Therefore, we should approach the new wave of interest in psychoanalysis as the natural and healthy awareness of psychologists to the fact that any cognitive, emotional, mental event is subject to the influence and the contribution of unconscious aspects that we are unaware of, and we need to uncover to make our consciousness meaningful. Most importantly, we should consider the psychologists recent interest in psychoanalysis not an invitation to participate in the academic world of psychology, but a call for unifying the conscious\unconscious duality in one psychology that envelops the subjects’ psychological life (from sickness to ingeniousness). We should work on modifying our conception of the unconscious to meet the psychologist expected effort to acknowledge their need to advance their understanding of the human subject. Psychologists still have some good work to do in regard of the cognitive, emotional and mental phenomena that require different understanding with adding the unconscious as vital constituent of psychologic life.

Accepting that there is only one consciousness that in some conditions escapes attention is the way to free psychoanalysis from its isolation from any meaningful status. The notion of one consciousness that encompasses several dualities will make the idea of uniting psychology and psychoanalysis a logical and a natural thing. However, this notion is a big pill for psychoanalysts-medical and none medical- to swallow. Psychoanalysis has been a practice that several professions could seek training in it.  The creation of the new science of psychoanalysis will reverse this situation: instead of different professions getting training in psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis will create different professions that need solid basis in psychoanalysis.

It is useful and very important to note that the push to change psychology to become more than a science of the conscious psychological functions, and psychoanalysis’s to be more than a discipline of psychotherapy, happened in a natural way: unconsciously. It is not happening because of individual calls but as the outcome a need for change. It is rewarding to wait for normal change get rid of the declining old.

 

The Link Between the Social and the Individual:

 In the previous part of this posting I postulated that the social precedes the existence of the individual and the psychological is a product of the social. My basic argument is that a gathering of individuals in some sort of a group changes their individual psychology, strongly implying that every group of people has its psychology, which goes beyond the psychology of each of its members separately. The other point is that the individual psychology of a member could undergoes changes while social psychology is not affected by the psychology of the individual, except when we deal with issues pertaining to leadership.

The recent predicaments the USA society is facing brings to attention a gradual closeness happening between whites and blacks, radicals and conservatives, higher and lower classes; even Republicans and Democrats. This is major change. Thus, the link between the social and the individual is the main issue in the phenomenon of change, as such. Change is always that gradual narrowing or widening of gaps between opposites in the society. In other terms, when we look closer to social change, we could notice a tendency to turning the social into psychological or separating the psychological from the social: at the present time whites are psychologically prone and inclined to condemn what was -maybe- accepted or ignored a few years or months ago. The point is that psychoanalysts reject to give social changes the deserved attention because they do not know how to fit that change in a psychological formulation of problems. As an example, dealing with racial discrimination from the narcissistic point of view is something recently accepted and integrated in the analysts view of the return of the repressed. Yet, if we introduce the notion that Blacks too have narcissistic issues that needs to be considered part of understanding the contemporary picture of racial discrimination, psychoanalysts get flustered because they thought only of a situation that their basic analytic training could make them deals with. (I can vouch for that from the responses I get to suggesting addressing Blacks’ narcissism in our thinking. The main objection is a wrong understanding of narcissism as self-love, and anything else would complicate of dealing with social narcissism and dividual narcissism (of blacks).

The move from the social to the psychological is a movement that most psychoanalysts neglect that it is happening all the time, even in the psychoanalytic organizations. As neglecting this fact in a society leads to social unrest and missing good chances to move ahead. My thought about that is coming from being an analyst and having experiences with my colleagues’ resistance to notice the forces of social change and the reluctant of the ‘individuals’ give up their dissections. Not being classical (or what one has learned in his training) is a common resistance to change in psychoanalysis.

Coming back to the main issue: the gradual and unavoidable social change changes the methods of rearing the young, male-female relations, and moral and familial concepts among many other things related to daily life. Social change creates new “human subjects”. Analysts, particularly in the USA are unable to look at psychoanalysis from the point of view that they can acknowledge change and still remain devoted to their traditional ways of thinking. Because what changes in the society is the individual and in the psychoanalytic society is the analyst then we could say that the subject matter of both ‘socials’ maintain their inner cores: a contemporary subject will be as moral or immoral as his ancestors but according to a new system of morality. In psychoanalysis, a modern analyst will remain advocate of psychoanalysis but with a better understanding of its discoveries about the subject. An example, a modern analyst will not understand narcissism as withdrawal of libidinal investment to the self, but as a disturbance in the sense of identity. The subject of the twentieth century deals with sexuality differently but guilt about sexuality would  still remain present in modernity.

We come now to the third point: is there a psychoanalytic theory of the society? Psychoanalysis is a theory of the subject. Any changes to the subject that is resulting from social change will require psychoanalysts to look closely at the psychodynamics of that new subject. It is expected that the psychodynamics will remain the same (defense mechanism or the usage of metaphors as the means of expressing the unconscious. The changes in the Oedipal triangle will be different and expressing the difference in new patterns of attachments will be the contemporary analyst’s job.  This change will dictate changes in the meaning of love, aggression, loyalty, etc. That might need reformulating aspects of the ‘social’ according to those changes but  the permanency of the psychical will not be affected by the social in a manner that will turn the subject into a human object with no psychological life.

 In a broader conception we could say that psychoanalysis will have a new theory of the subject of the ‘social’ of the time. The subject of the twenty first century will be replaced by contemporary issues that pertain to modernity. Although the ‘social’ is a multifaceted topic (economics, familial rules and structuring, morality and spirituality, etc.,) all those facets get internally organised in a way that permits the sociologist to have new social theories, but psychoanalysis will be limited in what has to be changed.

Psychoanalysis and Social Events (USA).

The psychoanalysts’ contributions to evaluating and understanding social phenomena is not a simple matter, because it requires moving from the field of the psyche to another field of phenomena that they have little or no experience with, i.e., the social. This shift is like shifting from medicine to epidemiology. Talking about a medical problem in clinical practice is not like talking about the same medical problem in socio-epidemic phenomenon. The main point is that we cannot apply the same understanding of the individual (criminal mind) on a society that is suffering from an increase in criminality. The social is made of hundreds and thousands of different individuals. Even a small group of individuals who are alike (psychoanalysts !!) act differently as a group; their psychology as individuals change and a different spirit takes over.

This point of view has to deal-I think-with three issues: 1. what creates the other, the social or the psychological, 2. what could be the link between a social theory and theories of the individual,3. Is there or could there be a psychoanalytic theory of society?

I believe knowing more about those three issues will ultimately allow dealing with another perplexing question: do people create their leaders or is it the leaders who influences people? Is it Alexander the great who encouraged the Greeks to invade the world or was it the Greeks who were eager to go beyond their group of islands and created Alexander to actualize their desire? 

1.    The Social and its Psychological Counterpart:

The late events of unrest, demonstrations, obvious political conflicts, and raising the issues of race discriminations in the USA could be explained by clear and blatant police racial bigotries. Putting the issue in this way proves that there are other factors that are not considered: police bigotries is not a new matter and was evident- in the same manner-for a long time before. The percentage of black incarcerations compared to whites is another evidence that what happened lately has been happening before too.  It seems that nothing new is recently started to change. Yet, the rise of the white people in solidarity with blacks and their adoption of the spirit of objecting to police behaviour is something new. It is new because that change is not response to changes in the circumstances; it is change in people white they are or black. It is a change in the American society not just its black minority. Moreover, this change is not in the ‘material’ conditions of people (income, education, class structure, etc.). The change that happened lately is a change in the psychological characteristics and attributes of both blacks and whites.  As a foreigner, who is observing from a distance, black Americans have produced a strong evidence that they are as capable as the whites, when they find the stance, and they serve the country as well as whites do with the same dedication and skill (federal and local governments, media, etc.).

However, some Americans, and not just a few, could no longer build their narcissism on the old conviction that blacks are inferior people. They also could not ameliorate deep rooted hatred and aggression toward blacks to be simple despise and disregard. Psychologically, the whites who still do not accept equality of the blacks are preserving old means of maintaining a narcissistic feeling of distinction, and transmitting it from generation to generation. The unobvious but proof to the still existence of those resistant attributes is their sudden and sporadic displays in social relations. They come out like the return of the unconscious in individual cases.  To say it briefly “the social pre-exists the individual but uses its tools of expression as the means to make a statement”.

2.    The Suddenness of Social Change:

Social changes that create new individual awareness (counterparts) look like a sudden turning point in a regular stream of affairs. As an example, the gradual industrialisation of the North in the United State gradually created few businesses and businessmen (Carnegie, Roosevelt, Morgan, …)  which and who wanted to expand in the south and modernize that part of the US. Notwithstanding their progressive intentions and the leadership of Lincoln, they also realised that they will benefit from the war itself (W. Scheidel), 2018). The minds of the northern Americans and the new emigrants made the civil war a possibility, a fact and an act. At the same period of time, the no change (fixation) in the south maintained the notion of farming and slavery unchanged, therefore they denied the change in the balks around them. All big historical events happen in the same way because they surprise the people themselves who unconsciously changed. The equivalent to that in the individual is the impact of an interpretation on a patient while he is preconscious of what he was relaying to the analyst.

Therefore, it is important when we try to understand what is happening now is to listen to what those acts are saying to us preconsciously. They are not saying that they believe in slavery but they say we still believe in racial discrimination: Why, and why more policemen than expected of law enforcing people? More than that: the events are saying (preconsciously): they are not like us. The events happening now in the streets of cities and town in the USA talks about unusuality in one of its forms. This is not a racial matter. Racial discrimination is ‘used’(preconsciously) to object to other inequalities. The dream of Americans was always equal opportunity. The present-day dream is looking for the value that supported that dream till now.

3.    Thank God that very few people listen to psychoanalysts when it comes to social matters; or they would have lost trust in us as therapists too. As a preparation for the point I want to make I would like to mention a short exchange with a colleague, many years ago, about ‘socialising’ psychoanalysis? He claimed that we know all what it needs to understand human phenomena, whatever,

I asked why Wars? He said it the natural aggressive endowment in us. Why aggression in us is a natural thing he replied because introjection persecutory object that we need to keep getting rid of. I stopped the discussion there because Klein’s vocabulary will keep him going uselessly.  Sadly, analysts in American association jumped on a term-otherness- as the key to riddle of racial dis crimination.

In reality, in child psychology, the child recognises his mother’s image in mirror few weeks before showing any sign of know who is the other child who sits on his mother’s lab. We know ourselves as others and we remain otherness to ourselves for ever. We say I and one as exchangeable pronoun. This approach to explaining racial discrimination stop sat the point of departure. It is not otherness but the rejection of separateness is the problem. A British is otherness but a black American is an I that I hate. Let’s look at that closer because white persecutors could be diverting their self hate away from themselves.

I do not believe there is psychoanalytic theory of the social, as there is no sociological theory of the psychical. That does not answer the question that is the core of the next part of this posting: since there is a link between the social and the individual could there be a theory about that link; could we have some guiding principals to examine the link between racial discrimination and the evident need for social changes in the American ……..etc.?     

I expect to disagree with most of the Americans who follow this blog about the subject of racial discrimination in the USA. However, they need not agree with me.

I raised a question regarding the violence of the police force in parts of the USA toward black people: explicitly I see it as a social phenomena that is tempting psychoanalysts to use their theories about the psyche of the subject to interpret it. I have reservations about that.    

I am not saying that something psychological is behind what is happening in the area of policemen’s recent (and not so recent) responses to black people.  Policemen have their own psychological problems, but I did not intend to explain their reaction as psychologically determined. I am thinking and writing about the phenomenon of people of law and order breaking the law with blacks in particular without any sense reservation. No doubt that somethings like that happens with white suspects too, but the flagrant defiant way it is happening with blacks ‘lately’ should raise our attention. Within days from a racial event of discrimination that raised the attention of a whole nation and the world another similar event happened and a third was just waiting for the circumstance to happen and t just happened. This sequence supports that what is happening -maybe not planned- but intentions -in waiting. 

However, the reaction of the black community should also catch the attention: rioting followed by looting followed by material destruction of whites’ manifestations of wealth, distinction, social power. Any way you want to play it will bring you back to a modern, contemporary, socially unjust society that is constantly on brink of needing ventilation. Could we say that it is an up-to-date struggle against slavery as a social disorder?! I believe so, because what is happening now is not limited to the black race. It is a social system that it is just hitting the blacks more severely. It is also practiced, but differently and less frequently, by people against people of their own race. In short, what is happening in the USA now in that regard is a new episode of emancipation that is facing resistance from the ruling class, white represented by the residuals of the old slave owners, authorities (law enforcers), and some blacks are not be aware of their participation in the new racial discrimination against themselves. I just finished reading a book by Bakari Steller which is all about the successful blacks with great admiration of those particular blacks (including himself) but with almost no mention of the majority of the struggling blacks.  The successful black community, mostly in academia, the media, politics, and upper middle class are not showing any serious concern about the majority of blacks who need to be freed too.

Now is a new age of struggle for liberation from unobvious and silent slavery.  The first movement of emancipation, expressed in the great civil war, did not get fully, properly, completely assimilated and the unassimilated part is now returning to engulf both whites and blacks. The old narcissistic mortifications are returning requesting some sort of healing. There is no escape from acknowledging that the civil war did not bring about all the objectives it happened to make happen. This is the nature of social change that does not take its natural course of evolving. We should not miss that there is still persecution of Jews and ethnic prejudices because the social movement to eliminate them did not walk the whole course of change.

When we come to what is happening now in the USA regarding racial discrimination we should realize, acknowledge, and accept that psychoanalysts-as an educated, cultured! and mature group of people, which shares the responsibility of patriotism with their peers: A patriot has to bring to the attention of his peers the flaws and failings in his country to work on correcting them (opposite to naïve patriotism that keeps talking about how……the country is , est….). So, when they see what could become psychical blindness regarding some on goings it will be important to configure what is wrong in a language that could have a clear meaning and real-world value so the none analyst would benefit from. That is why using the framework of our clinical proposition could mislead. Example: the notion that the police officer who shot the guy in his underwear was because of unconscious reasons or character disorder is hypothetical and presumably suggesting unconscious causes. But if that act reflects a state of mind of a society or a group of people (other officers who do things of the sort) this interpretation would be ridiculous: we should help n understanding a social phenomenon not foreclose it by giving it a psychological explanation. What is behind a social phenomenon is a socially determined meaning or value. The officer who shot the black man seven times while holding his under ware could have done that out anger, fear, reaction formation., but for us he did what officers are now do with balk guys. What is behind a social phenomenon is a conscious urge of the individual and his unconscious mental set up. We could also say that the residuals of the civil war that were not properly worked out but just got repressed are returning; hopefully get worked out fully this time.

What is happening now in the USA is dealing with residuals of the struggle with emancipation and creating a new “better” social consciousness for both whites and blacks.           

C. The Link Between People and Leaders:

[I use the term ‘narcissism’ in this post to mean the sense of being, because the subject needs to have picture of his-self to form a sense being, is the fundamentally based on the subject's duality. That image is his reflection in the minds of others. The subject has no sense of being without those reflections, and can never “be” before recognizing those reflections. Narcissism, thus, is subject to all the possibilities of authenticity and falseness, stability and volatility, sickness and health, but without it the human subject is a person without an identity].

The relationship between people and their[aF1]  leaders is very central and a better angle to look at Social Narcissism and Social Change. Therefore, I will start with a personal experience to explain my approach to dealing with the issue of social racial discrimination and its link with narcissism.

In Grade 11 (in Egypt, 1951) the first part of the class in history was contemporary history!!The teacher started by suggesting a discussion about a controversial recently assassinated politician. He divided the class into two groups: Pro and Anti that leader. After half an hour of shouting and just throwing “statements of Facts” at each other he stopped the arguing. He said that this so-called discussion would continue with no hope for reaching a decision. He then said: you cannot understand history without a theory you adopt and learn from it the direction you take to reach your objective, and gave three names of historians (one of them became my professor of philosophy in university two years later). This thinker\philosopher wrote extensively about Friedrich Engels (also thinker\philosopher). Any how, I got very impressed by Engel for his general philosophical theory regarding change, which is the most complex part in studying societies. He emphasized that small and gradual quantitative changes in a society reach a point after which the next step forward would be a qualitative change (like boiling water). In practicing psychoanalysis (among other things that preoccupied me) the small changes that happen with the daily interpretations initiate small insights and minor changes that eventually lead to a major interpretation and reconstruction. Then, the analyst could notice retrospectively how the qualitative changes was engendered by the small interpretations that led to it.

However, the most remarkable idea in Engel’s theory of history was that the major changes (revolutions in particular) happen in that same way of gradual small events here and there (happening unconsciously), and suddenly the old collapses and the new appears. In terms of narcissism: a gradual rejection of the old narcissistic group images (social image) suddenly reveals the build up of a new narcissistic social identity that emerges to replace the old one. I believe that the sudden change that brough out of the Whites their best qualities was the ugliness in the police man (men), which was the last straw, and if not also the beauty of Floyd’s peaceful reception of demonstrated in helplessness.

World Wars and Racial Discrimination:

There is a lot to say about what makes the last two world wars different than other wars, but I will concentrate on their relation to race discrimination. In Europe the second war started as the Arian race making a last attempt at giving the white race an internal hierarchy of superiority that was meant to precede re-gaining its global superiority which was gradually waning. The Japanese race that assumed a superior status in most of China, Indochina and the archipelago between Asia and Australia was also facing challenges from the other Asians races and a new rival called the USA. In Africa countries and nations, i.e., the black race, were shedding off the shackles of the white race by liberating their countries from the imperial empires of the Europeans. In South America the Natives were finding their place next to the old Spaniard minorities. Those wars that extended from beginning of the nineteen century and mainly ended in its sixties. They were wars about the human race(s). Other countries and races that joined in that international upheaval, ultimately came up with the notion of globalization. Globalization was the qualitative change in that course of evolution. The result was surprising: while the white race fought in Europe, Asia and in Africa on a small scale it won all its wars, but ended up shifting the grandeur of winning into a more mature narcissism: anti-racial political morality. The most significant aspect in reaching the notion of globalization to replacing race distinctions is an almost silent pan acceptance o f that change, worldwide.

The citizens of the USA- till few years before WWI and few more years before WWII – were practically speaking- paying no attention to the world beyond the two oceans bordering its east and west shores.  Americans until that time regularly considered racial segregation, distinction, or quasi-slavery, as they were practiced in the USA, the natural and the most common way of treating blacks everywhere else. Although WWII brought out the USA from its isolation behind the two Oceans- there were several features in that ‘joining’ that were discouraging. I will mention two. The first was a sense of superiority to the rest of the world-justified by the obvious Americans better conditions relative to the conditions everywhere else in the world; including white race nations. This discovery created a narcissistic sense distinction related to being American (social narcissism) more than being white. The second was a sense of entitlement due to the obvious material advantages American were enjoying. The danger of this kind narcissism is its volatility because if and when the counterpart managed to catch up with the narcissistic subject the narcissistic injury creates undesirable reactions. The most common reactions are denial and aggression toward the previously inferior counterpart. An excellent time for repression proper to deal with the unsettled matters in those matters.

Notwithstanding, the white race in the USA underwent a major change in regard to narcissism when the European whites recovered from the effect of the wars and a dozen countries (including Canada) surpassed the USA. The success of the Civil Rights movement came at a time when the whites, in America and Europe, were facing serious competition in modernity and affluence from Russia and China. The USA consolidated its superiority again in the form being the leader of the ‘free civilizes’ world. Having enemies who could be demeaned lowered the degree of need to demean the blacks. Narcissism needs an antithesis to gain momentum: something to oppose, compare with, to turn love- hate relationship into hate- love relationship. Thus, American social narcissism did not lose all its vigour, but directed it to other “enemy” whites. The picture is less gloomy because with all those changes. A more mature American social narcissism has become the rule in the majority of whites. Even in the area that still “harbours” die hard racists there is no silly signs of overt segregations. Accepting and admiring the civil rights movement and its leaders established the notion:  of you not the colour of your skin. The most revealing signs of that is the gradual return of the value of fairness, which was the basis of the early formation of the white communities in in the budding states. Although the slogan of “Make America great again” is alarming it was only a slogan raised by a specific minority.

The Political Leader and Narcissism:

In times of political crises political leaders emerge expressing the different ideologies that are creating the crises. Usually people under those circumstances become vulnerable to political misleading ideas. Leaders who mange to echo people’s narcissistic unrealistic ambitions get the votes. That sounds logical, but there is a very uncommon result that is ignored because it related social narcissism which is a familiar phenomenon. Do people create their preferred leadership or do those leaders create their own supporters [did Hitler create Nazism or did Nazism invent Hitler. Germans wanted a leader who wanted to conquer the world to get them back their pride in being Ariens. Lenin found in defeated Russia a (first world war) a nation that is in need and ready for communism and took the chance. We, psychoanalysts are still grappling with narcissism because we have not settled another theoretical problem: do we study and practice intrapsychical issues or intersubjective issues? Does the person create his narcissism or does narcissism create the person?

The human subject is a duality of I the subject and me the object. Our narcissism is caught between those two entities.  We differ in which of the two components is the person and who is the image. Just make a comparison between Trump and any other reasonable leader to understand the difference.  However, this distinction represents two the above-mentioned schools of psychoanalysis anywhere: if I is the person and the image he reflects to the other is his me then we are at the its the intrapsychical theory of the person. If it is the opposite then it will be the object relations theory of the person. Do people identify with the leader as their I, thus the social narcissistic entity will be less contaminated by falsies or it is the opposite and people are identifying with the “me” of the leader as the image of something.

In the last street demonstrations against racial discrimination people were primarily identifying with the leadership of the civil rights movement. They were calling for justice for all. Ordinary white people found that objective in governments’ abuse of their powers that is allowing the persecution of black extends to limit their own freedom irrespective of color. They were calling for justice for all because the present ruling class is as anti ordinary white people. They identified with the oppressed black because  they have become equally oppressed in slightly different matters. White Americans, for different points of view, are accepting blacks not just as equal but also as a manifestation of their own mature narcissism.  The last reaction to police cruelty to blacks, whites in most the demonstrations, were more in numbers than blacks. There is something of great significance in this phenomenon. Individual narcissism is usually enforced by social aspects that could provide that narcissism with a sense of social orientation. Americans’ pride in their nationality is a source of solid support to any ethical humane or personal quality they also endear. Nevertheless, there are people particularly politician who misuse social narcissism and return the noble social narcissism into its opposite. I will use social narcissism in other countries to explain my point of view (reason is obvious). Egyptians compliment themselves for being hospitable and that their social narcissism is derived from that conviction. However, when a religious leader explains that Egyptian social narcissism is manifestation of their religious piety, he destroys that social narcissism and renders it fallacy. The same as when Americans’ pride in their concerns about others is turned into “our values” turning thus inti a manifestation and not a genuine moral quality.

Understanding social phenomenon in terms narcissism and its structuring nature of self awareness is a filed that psychoanalysis can contribute to a great deal. It is also  a duty to avoid the future leaders who look as if they are faithful to the people’s aspiration when they are using social narcissism to heir own benefit. 

---

 [aF1]