There has been much discussion on this list recently on the
related issues of political psychopathology and childcare. Much of this
seems to be prompted by Dr. Garelli's original comment that many of our
political problems are attributable to the pathological character of
politicians, and the suggestion that we can do away with such problems by
having mental health care professionals monitor our elected (or unelected)
officials, and by introducing new methods of childrearing. This
discussion is rooted in a general Chomskian concern for having a free,
anti-authoritarian society, but does not seem to engage the ideas of
thinkers in the fields of psychopathology and child development (except
for oblique references to how things have been going downhill since the
sixties).
Given this last comment, I know I am likely to be shouted down
when I make reference to someone as unpopular in Chomskian circles as
Michel Foucault, but I think the reference is an important one.
Foucault's writings on subjects like madness, punishment, and sexuality
make it absolutely clear how difficult it is to do away with the problems
of politics through "science". It is naive to think that whereas
politicians are wrongheaded, psychologists are inherently truthful,
scientific, and healthy, and capable of curing the ills of our society.
The definition of a word like "sociopath" is a product of the power
relations of our society, and therapists or other mental researchers
cannot claim to be above this society and its power relations.
One need not really even read Foucault to
accept this, anyway ... just think about the real implications of
Chomsky's work. The ideals behind the Universal Grammar understanding of
human intelligence says that we are all essentially equal. Our moral and
emotional needs may be quite different, and it is certainly possible that
some of us are, for a variety of reasons, "screwed up". But
essentially, we are all the same in our ability to think and to
communicate. Given this, talking about "the best minds" seems
offensively elitist.
As someone else pointed out earlier, it is dangerous to create
political solutions which rely on the elimination of human weakness ...
we need to create better institutions that can function WITH laziness,
selfishness, even deception, rather than waiting for a utopia where only
perfect citizens exist, or trying to weed out the "bad eggs" in some kind
of Freudian-Stalinist psycho-purge. Of course we want those in
positions of authority to be open, democratic, responsive to the needs
of society, and unselfish ... but I do not believe we can acheive that by
surrendering our own judgement as individual citizens to the judgement
of an elite set of psychologists. Anyway, I truly believe that
"pathology" is an essentially useless concept in mental investigation; we
ALL have our self-deceptions, our hang-ups, our twisted addictions and
fixations, etc. ... I feel I am a pretty goddamn neurotic person. The
difference between me and those who are in power, however, lies in the
fact that I am willing to be open about my problems and to try to deal
with them in such a way as not to inflict them on those around me.
In the present state of image-based pseudo-democracy, the power-twisted
psychology of those who rule is hidden behind a carefully constructed
illusion of rational competence ... but in the reform proposed by Dr.
Garelli, this would only get WORSE, as the defects of the political
regime would become further hidden behind the scientificized judgements
of (probably state-supported) mental health care professionals, whose own
power-interests would be carefully concealed from public scrutiny and
criticism by the white coat of the "expert".
So I think what we REALLY need is to each be our own politician,
our own psychologist, our own person ... this is the only way to have a
free and open, anarchistic society, and I do not think this interest is
well-served by putting the power into the hands of a few (admittedly
activist and concerned) scientists to make the distinction between sane
and insane, citizen and outcast, truth and falsehood. My vision means
letting everybody admit to their hangups and "let it all hang out" ...
only then can we really get some democratic discussion going on ...
And on the subject of child-rearing, while I am at it, let me
also say that perhaps what we really need is more concern for what the
CHILD wants ... Freudians have been telling us for years how repression is
necessary for the creation of a healthy ego, but in light of what I have
been saying, this is highly suspect. Given Chomsky's finding that we all
have the ability to rationally and creatively communicate our needs and
wants with one another from an early age ... and thus to rationally
justify and negotiate our relations with others ... traditional claims
that childrearing is about correct "managing" of the child by the parent
(whether mother or father) seem insidious. Perhaps the best way to deal
with children is simply to reason with them ... this stands against
much common wisdom, but I think we must question how much of that wisdom
is really about the good of the child and how much is about the
convenience of the parent and of the existing political and social order
... the vision Chomsky gives us of a free society seems to me to be
less about meeting psychoanalytic conceptions of "health" than about
learning to respect one another as rational, conscientious beings ... and
this goes for small children as well as big politicians.
peace,
m@2
"You're not really in love with yourself - you're just in love with the
idea of being in love with yourself"
- said to me by one of the two little fellas who hang out on
either of my shoulders ... I can't remember which ...
|
