Skip to main content

Cosmopolitanism as a group-fantasy

... And the charge of "reductionism," often leveled against psychohistory, is simply misplaced, since it is not a failing but a scientific goal to reduce seemingly complex and disparate processes to simpler and more basic forces and principles. Lloyd deMause, Foundations of Psychohistory

DeMause's argument doesn't play very well right now. DeMause's goal, that we should "derive less from William Langer's famous 'Next Assignment' for historians to 'use psychoanalysis in history' than from Freud's initial hope that 'we may expect that one day someone will venture to embark upon a pathology of cultural communities,'" doesn't play well right now. It is very difficult for the cultured mind to shake out of thinking it as immature, eager, "conquistatorial," maybe spoiled ... as obviously untrue to the world as it is. An approach for a child who wants everything conflated for effortless, immediate consumption. 

Those who see deMause as reckless and overreaching would disagree with this, but I would suggest that if evidence ever came in that suggested that the nature of a society's overall experience of their mothers in the first few years of their lives determines, well, everything else, that if you were able to attend to these children, see the manner in which they were being raised, unless they were of the helping psychoclass whose resulting society hasn't quite ever been felt yet in history (we're beginning to), you could spell out pretty much exactly what kind of society these children will erect for themselves as adults, the evidence wouldn't be allowed by their psyches to be seen. The world will always be complex, multi-causal, multi-variant, even if proof emerges that there's something truer scientifically about seeing it as pretty basic -- one primary element, from which everything else can be extrapolated, from which everything else, "bloomed." They might allow “a theory of everything” in physics, but that’s when it barely bleeds out of the cosmopolitan medium in which it was encountered, and plays only as flattering the sophisticated palate. 

I personally think that there's something of this invariantly mature mindset that smacks of a collective group fantasy, an agreement, a collusion, to see the world in such a way that one's own childhood terrors are somehow kept at bay. From deMause, it's this bit: "so group-fantasies are substituted as shared defenses which prevent regression to childhood traumas." A world that is essentially complex and irreducible, that requires an enormous amount of experience and careful scrutiny and a cultivated, measured sympathy to be able to understand, is a cosmopolitan world; it is an adult world. Cosmopolitan people, like Obama (and unfortunately for Canadians and his victims, like Ghomeshi), who smack of the city rather than the creatures of incest in fly-over, are actually in a sense being clung to (in Ghomeshi’s case, his satisfying group-fantasy needs is why there really was no environment that was going to friendly to his multiple, educated, normally to be thought of as empowered accusers, until only very recently). They help "furniture" our world so that it becomes difficult to believe that our early childhoods of unchanged diapers and deliberate abandonments, has any place ... it can't be elevated into it in a way that the mind can make sense, so it is -- victory! -- left out.  

There is a lot to be said about keeping this group-fantasy alive. Those beholden to it are those still astonishing us by still pushing for a more evolved world ... news of the agreement with Iran is fruition from these sorts of people. And there's not a lot to be said for when they'll feel the need to leave it behind, the surrendering of the cosmopolitan group-fantasy, and start seeing sense in reduction, like editor of Atlantic Andrew Taylor is (against Islam), like former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges is (against “spoiled,” people-betraying liberals and the corporate state), like where the influential black intellectual, Salon’s Brittney Cooper (who just abandoned longtime hero Obama for blood-in-the-streets, race-war) is, where they can re-experience their childhood humiliations — no more waiting, as every bit more “unallowed” personal and societal growth was making them more manifest — by taking righteous revenge. 


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …