I am not a psychologist, nor have I ever received any formal training in psychology, so what I am about to say is not a diagnosis, more the recognition of a pattern. I am relatively settled on the differences between the secular rationalism and religious authoritarianism as the dividing "ideology" within American politics. I put "ideological" in scare quotes, in part because the differences likely have psychological roots and manifest themselves, not so much in a systemic philosophy -- nothing like the developed philosophy of Marxism, a Hayekian conservatism, or even a Nietzschian facism -- but rather in patterns of metaphors and the appropriation of loaded terms. On the former, patterns of metaphors, George Lakoff lays the ground work, and I encourage all to read his short book, don't think of an elephant, for the basic principles. On the latter, the appropriation of key terms, some are already to fraught with contradictory meaning as to be meaningless -- "freedom" and a "free people" being a case in point. A more recent and less fraught appropriation is the notion of "fake news." For the secular rationalist, news is fake when it deliberately invents false evidence. For the religious authoritarian, news is fake when it deliberately provides evidence that contradicts core tenants of faith. In either case, there are things that should go without saying, but for the secular rationalist its the sort of thing that earns Trump the "pants on fire rating" from the fact checkers, for the religious authoritarian its the popular vote and the comparative size of the inaugural crowds. It's not so much that the news got it "wrong," but that it should literally have "gone without saying," and by saying it, they reveal not only a "partisan agenda" but apostasy from the faith, which in turn makes them not only unpatriotic in their resistance to the elected president, but an "enemy of the people" as well.
I could go on, but the mounting evidence seems overwhelming to me, and the differences as irreconcilable as those surrounding "slavery" in the 18th and 19th century. So, the differences likely have psychological roots, though again, I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, only to recognize a pattern, and one such pattern is the battered person syndrome -- BPS for short -- that seems to be inherent to most religious authoritarianism. It was brought to mind by a news analysis that appeared in today's Post as "A Tale of Two Speeches: the Contradictions of Donald Trump's Presidency," but before I get to that, let me just outline BPS. In the most general terms, "the syndrome develops in response to a three-stage cycle found in domestic violence situations. First, tension builds in the relationship. Second, the abusive partner releases tension via violence while blaming the victim for having caused the violence. Third, the violent partner makes gestures of contrition. However, the partner does not find solutions to avoid another phase of tension building and release so the cycle repeats." We're familiar with the archetypal three state cycle within families from a hundred life-time movies, but on the larger stage, it's relatively obvious that tension has been building within our domestic political life for some time, and phrases like "deeply divided America" have become commonplace within punditry, and have occasioned much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, including my own. I wept -- literally wept -- when Trump was elected, and they were tears of mourning for an America lost. It's relatively obvious too (at least to me) that Trump epitomizes the violent partner within our domestic relationships. Although she was accused of everything from suborning pedophilia to contracting political assassination, I don't recall HC expressing a desire to punch hecklers in the face, offering to pay the legal fees of those who did, or gloat about her ability grab men by the balls to Whoppie. The violence implicit in much of Trump's Breitbartian campaign rhetoric seems now ancient history, but it is still there, and it's erupting in various ways, from the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, to lone wolf acts of right wing terrorism. Although it is unlikely that Trump feels, or will express active support for such overt violence, as so many have noted, you can't lift the lid off pandora's box and then bemoan the escaping demons, and so his condemnation of the desecration of the cemeteries seems like a belated "gesture of contrition." So bad and sad, but the act of contrition is not matched with any sense of personal accountability, and consequently no sense that he must personally take action to find solutions, so we can expect the cycle to repeat, and repeat, and repeat.
I am suggesting that we, as a nation, are trapped within domestic relations that replicate the patterns implicit to the battered person syndrome, and it will get worse before it gets better. I am also suggesting that the secular rationalists among us are the battered persons. The two articles that I cited at the beginning of my last post are a case in point. The Times article goes a long way toward upending accountability and accepting responsibility for cycle of violence. Although she would be aghast to hear me say as much, the writer, Sabrina Tavernise, reminds me of the battered wife. She writes, "In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed." Reading this, I want to say bullshit. I feel like the police at the scene of a domestic dispute turned violent, looking at the battered woman apologizing for her apologizing for the abusive husband by claiming responsibility -- it's my fault, it's something I said, and I only need to be more cautious next time. Although more subtle, the conservative right is claiming the moral high ground of the victim, saying "you made me feel bad about myself," when the liberal left has been battered by a kind of moral revanchism -- the uncompromising belief that the conservative vision for the country is the only right one -- a belief so uncompromising that Obama, the symbolic representation of secular rationalism par excellence has been mercilessly pummeled in the conservative media for nearly a decade (and still serves as the scapegoat) for every ill real and imagined. Here again, we have seen the archetype in a hundred lifetime movies, the abused latching onto the smallest act of contrition as evidence that the abuser wants to change, will change, and then takes it upon herself to better understand him and give him one more chance. So, when the violence recurs, as it inevitably will, the abused partner is left "feeling at fault for not preventing a repeat cycle of violence." As the battered wives of the world, who want nothing more than to find a solution to the problem, to ease the discord and heal the divisions, we set themselves up for the abuse. When the abuser shouts "I didn't want to, but you made me do it," he is confirmed and empowered when the response is "you're right" and "I'll try harder next time." Likewise, the religious authoritarian already knows he's right, and any concession, any acceptance of responsibility, provides justification for the next act of harsh discipline because he IS right in his anger, because she DIDN'T try hard enough. So it goes, the wife, the people are battered into submission because it inevitably escalates, because the "correction" of one transgression, lets the abuser to move on to the next, more finely-tuned transgression.
We will see the pattern again and again, which brings me back to the article "A Tale of Two Speeches." Dan Balz writes "The President Trump who spoke to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night bore only passing resemblance to the President Trump who spoke from the Capitol’s West Front on Inauguration Day. Some of the words were the same, but the tone was utterly different." Balz sees it as the "the contradiction — and — challenge of his presidency," but I see it as part and parcel of the same abusive, authoritarian personality. "In his inaugural address," Balz writes, "Trump spoke of American carnage and as the tribune of the forgotten American. To the assembled members of Congress seated behind him that January day, he offered a rebuke and the back of his hand." Which was followed by a small act of contrition, when "on Tuesday, he made repeated appeals for national unity and cross-party cooperation. Looking out across the House chamber, he seemed to offer an open hand to the same political establishment he had pilloried just weeks ago." Abuse, and contrition, which elicited remarks like "once again, then, Trump succeeded in a setting where nearly everybody — including me — thought he would fail." And Balz suggests "It is no longer a question of which is the real Donald Trump but more the question of whether he can build a successful presidency out of this split political personality." Trump, however, does not have a split personality. He has a single personality, and its archetype is familiar and frightening. It is not a question of if, but when the tension will build into the next abusive attack, and it too will be followed by an act of contrition where the dynamic duo of Trump/Bannon act out the role of the "good" president, and the abused will find ways to blame themselves for the abuse and give the abuser yet one more chance because see! he wants to change. Again, the archetype is clear. "Since the victim is not at fault and the violence is internally driven by the abuser, this self-blame results in feelings of helplessness rather than empowerment. The feeling of being both responsible for and helpless to stop the violence leads in turn to depression and passivity. This learned depression and passivity makes it difficult for the abused partner to marshal the resources and support system needed to leave." At the moment, one sees the battered person syndrome most clearly in his relations with the GOP, who should feel responsible for Trump and who do seem helpless to stop him. While I do not think Trump is crafty enough to play out the archetype deliberately, I suspect that Bannon may be, and he knows this learned passivity will make it difficult for the GOP to marshal the inner resources needed to do what they know they must -- leave the marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment