Politics is a Disease!

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Sunday, June 26, 2005 03:39
VIEWED: 3546
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, June 4, 2005 9:15 PM

Wilhelm Reich made a very interesting criticism of liberal/conservative politics in his book The Emotional Plague (absolutely brilliant book, by the way). In his view, politicians are a kind of social parasite. He makes the distinction between "true work" and what politicians do. True work, he said, was something you could take anywhere and prosper with it; if you make shoes you can go to the other side of the world and even if you don't know the language, soon enough you will be able to make a living. Politicians, by contrast, are dependent on a very narrow band of cultural values, sometimes a walk of a few miles will render a politician powerless.

So Reich listed both liberalism and conservatism as diseases of the psyche, derangements of healthy living (politicians being a major symptom of the disease). Both were a reaction to a particular kind of "armoring" in the body/mind.

A thumbnail of his views is called for here (with apologies to Mr. Reich). He saw healthy living creatures in a constant state of expansion and contraction, from amoebae on up. This lead him to the understanding that orgasm, as the premier expansion of the body/mind of sexual creatures, was an essential regular component of mental/emotional health (this is where his detractors stop and dismiss him as merely sexually obsessed). The orgastic, as he called it, in life however moves far beyond the literal sexual climax to all forms of ecstatic experience. It's essential that healthy human beings "let themselves go" on a regular basis.

Problems arise early, when parents start to set arbitrary limits on thinking and feeling and acting. When a child is told "no" often enough, that "no" becomes internalized as "armoring." Armoring is a kind of wall that is built to disconnect one part of the psyche from another, undesirable part. So when the body/mind tries to expand into the armored area, it hits a wall and contracts back in upon itself without reaching full orgastic expression, and with dire consequences. Without release, the pressure builds and builds, people become rigid of mind as well as body. Generally, the wall of armoring can be passed through eventually, but it is painful and is expressed by "harshness." We have all been in an argument when a particular subject arises or we contact a particular feeling from which we are estranged and we feel this harshness. That's when we say things and they don't "come out" the way we meant them. We want to hit something or shout or scream, just so we can continue, clear our minds, "blow off steam." What we need is an orgastic charge to break down the armoring like dynamite in a mine.

But sometimes this "blow out" doesn't happen for years at a time. The armoring becomes too thick, too resilient and we experience what Reich called "emotional plague." Emotional plague is a perversion of empathy. When a severely armored person comes into contact with another person who is experiencing that part of their psyche from which the armored person has cut themselves off, the armored person will experience intense rage and even hatred for the other person. The homophobic man then, who has spent a lifetime pushing any hint of homoerotic feeling (feelings which everyone from Freud on down has acknowledge to be a part of every human psyche) out of his consciousness, when he sees gays being openly affectionate and reacts with rage and disgust, this man is experiencing emotional plague. When large sections of a society become similarly armored, the society become plagueridden. Emotional plague, in Reich's view, is the psychic source of all wars, genocide and racism (another brilliant book by Reich, Anatomy of Fascism, written in 1939 while he watched Nazis marching in the streets, explains eloquently what the rest of us are still trying to understand about the internal sources and function of fascism).

So, getting back to liberalism and conservatism; Reich saw both sides reacting to the same armoring but in opposite ways. The part of the psyche that has become armo

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 4, 2005 10:18 PM

That's certainly an interesting way to look at it. I can definitely see how people who've chosen different reactions to their armoring would react emotionally to each other. Something tells me this leaves a lot to be explained, but I'll ponder it awhile. Thanks HK.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NEUTRINOLAD

Sunday, June 5, 2005 10:35 AM

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that very few human beings mature to the point where they'll reason from the basis of what they can know to be true or at least can be reasonably proved, instead of what they wish were true. For most folk, their cherished illusions trump any evidence. Allow me to provide an example.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was used by LBJ's administration to provide justification for escalating U.S. involvement in the Vietnamese conflict. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, and the testimony of eyewitness observers, all the available evidence provided indicates that the incident was purposely provoked by U.S. action.
I, for one, wish this were not true. I want to believe that my country and its elected officials exhibit moral rectitude and ethical behavior in all their actions.
And yet, I'm confronted with the evidnce, including testimony by members of our own military. And worse, multiple corroborating reports.
I wish it weren't true. I don't want to believe it. Hell, I don;t want to know about it. Yet there it is, undeniable unrefuted evidence that indicates it was our fault. That it was our intention to provoke an incident to provide a pretext for escalation.
There are those who will never admit to our culpability in this act. For what it's worth, there are those who have spent the last three decades trying to rewrite the war in Vietnam so that not only were we on the side of the angels, we were the victors. Or if we weren't, it was because we were undermined by some nefarious force without whose intervention we would certainly have won. And this is the hardest sort of counter-argument to rebut because not only does the person presenting wish it were true, those of us who know it is not true nevertheless wish it were true.
What can one do in the face of this attractive revisionism? Not much, except to constantly remind yourself that you are not omniscient, but the arguments you would like to embrace have been shown to be false by the accumulation of evidence, no matter how difficult it is to accept that evidence in the face of our personal desires.
Unfortunately, those who would destroy, cheat, and lie have all the advantages on their side, which explains why it is so difficult to behave in a moral and ethical manner. But we must try, some few of us must try.
There were those who despaired of ever dismantling the notion of the divine right of sovereigns. There were those who despaired of ever achieving the vote for members of both sexes. There were those who despaired of ever bringing and end to the instituion of slavery in the U.S. But in the end they succeeded, if only for a short span of history.
If you must despair, work on in despair. Tomorrow is coming.

SGTGUMP

Sunday, June 5, 2005 2:49 PM

Quote:
In his view, politicians are a kind of social parasite.

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly' meaning 'many,' and the word 'ticks'
meaning 'blood sucking parasites.'" -George Stepanaphoulus

The 'Armoring' concept illustrates exactly the way I feel when I see politicians opposing common sense. When I heard that GW Bush wanted to a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw gay marriage, I couldn't believe it. It would be great if I could just believe that all politicians want to be in power for the noblest reasons, but that is my armoring. I am immediately suspect of anyone who would want to be in charge of anything larger than himself, so I don't fall into the Liberal category. I also don't care what anyone else does, so I can't be very Conservative.

I like that movie 'The Day After Tomorrow', but I think it was made by the liberal side. At the end of it, the U.S. had sought refuge in Mexico, and while I would like to believe that's what we would do I know that we wouldn't. I believe that Mexico would have become 'New United States' whether they wanted to or not, right or wrong. I also think an ice age would be a pretty good idea. Thin out the herd by about 90%.

So basically, I'm a 'heartless libertarian'.

STAGGERLY

Sunday, June 5, 2005 3:32 PM

Quote:
So basically, I'm a 'heartless libertarian'.

A perversion of empathy, this is really very interesting, HK. Very stimulating. I think the 'typical' liberal and conservative ideologies are a little over-simplified and maybe a little inaccurate, but then that's not the point, is it?

Thanks for posting this.

-----------------------
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:39 PM

Politics to me always meant: slanting truth, ignoring facts and misdirecting attention in favour of a particular viewpoint.
This is why I consider myself apolitical, for the most part.
Thanks so much, HK. This is a great thread.
Fellows on the edge, take notes.

Banzai's my guy Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, June 9, 2005 2:55 AM

Hi HKCavalier,

I've been dropping out for long periods and dipping back in briefly from time to time. I guess that's how I missed this.

I have to say I don't get the point. (Too bad there's no emoticon for "I'm a dummy". Everyone else seems to get it just fine.) I'll need to think on it.

I come from the direction where I LIKE to think that my personal politics are reality-based, neither presuming man to be good nor bad, but able to conform to the social standards of the day as a matter of survival (which takes place socially, not individually). And therefore, we need to be mindful of which social standards we embrace, as society will on the whole tend that way.

So I think I need to rearrange my thinking to get a handle on this. Unless you can somehow say the same thing in a different way and help me out?

PS

Quote:
Anatomy of Fascism, written in 1939 while he watched Nazis marching in the streets, explains eloquently what the rest of us are still trying to understand about the internal sources and function of fascism.

By complete coincidence, a few days ago during a discussion, I heard fascism described as the politics of sociopaths. So this is another instance where politics is described, albeit in a different way, as the external manifestation of the internal psyche. But I'm still trying to get a hold of what you wrote.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:37 PM

Hi Rue,

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that all opinions were a result of mental pathology, that all positions we hold are inherently distorted. Just as a man can take a drink without being an alcoholic, you may certainly have a "liberal" opinion without being the victim of a full-blown "case" of liberalism (you may only have a mild inflamation).

I had some thoughts this morning on the general subject of political consequences of personal psychic pathology.

One is the disease model of evil; that evil is a syndrome much like addiction. Evil tends to manifest in people in similar ways which can then become endemic to a particular community. Unchecked greed, racism and power-hunger in our leaders can work in concert to create an overseas war without the leaders ever consciously discussing these forces that drive their actions. There need be no equivalent of a Wannsee conference. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of evil is that it always hides itself behind our conscious ego-identified motives.

One of the constructs that particularly impedes people's ability to see evil for what is, is the notion that "intent" is its defining characteristic. It's at the heart of our legal system, but unfortunately our legal system is predicated on our pathological obsession with blame.

The notion of blame brings me to another way I understand the nature of evil; that the essence of evil is the denial of evil in ourselves; without denial, evil is no more threatening than virtigo. Evil exists in all of us, but we tend not to act on it when we are aware of it as such. We all have anti-social and self-destructive urges, but we don't have to act upon them if we can see them for what they are.

We get into trouble when we start seeing all kinds of evil in others, but see ourselves as champions of virtue. Then if we commit evil, we can tell ourselves and anyone who's listening that it was the evil-doers that made us do it. That the other is to blame, that they are the source of evil and we are blameless.

Bush & co. deny any wrong-doing, anything bad, even any error, and certainly any evil in their policies. Well, that is madness, it is humanly impossible and inherently dishonest (so yes, Bush lied, but the most important lies are the ones he tells himself).

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:02 PM

Rue, HK- I read the same thing and had the same reaction. Tried to "grok" what this person meant and couldn't get past the "orgiastic" pulsation that apparently drives all living things. Sounds a little too much like the "id needs to be liberated" to make sense to me, for a whole variety of reasons. But the idea of "armoring" catches a related concept in my brain. Decided the whole thing needs more thought!

RUE

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:58 AM

Hi HK,

Quote:
One is the disease model of evil; that evil is a syndrome much like addiction. Evil tends to manifest in people in similar ways which can then become endemic to a particular community. ...

One of the constructs that particularly impedes people's ability to see evil for what is, is the notion that "intent" is its defining characteristic. It's at the heart of our legal system, but unfortunately our legal system is predicated on our pathological obsession with blame.

Interesting. Eloquent. And such a different data set and point of view from my own. I catch glimpses ... like watching light reflect from some internal structure in a crystal - a flash seen sideways, of something you can't see straight on ...

Odd things which resonate - evil as pathology, like serial killlers who kill b/c it is the only thing that they feel anything about ... Australia, a community of endemic life-forms evolved for ever-escalating bio-chemical warfare, how does that happen? and once initiated, what is the end point? ... societies which raise children to feel that life is a battle, unsympathetic, unempathic, created sociopaths .... yes, the lack of intent in evil (though I do think when you see those with elaborate rationalizations for what they do, they do feel the evil as evil and have to create the reasons why it is OK; the truly driven will say "I do this b/c of something within me") ... and something I'd never thought too much about which is the apparent need to blame ...

This requires more thought, but please don't be too discouraged or frustrated that I am slow. It's refreshing to try to form my thoughts around a completely different outlook, and I'm looking forward to more discussion ...

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE