It makes sense to me that the world is in such a mess. I see the problem as the cumulative effect of all the neurosis that plagues humankind. My books and articles have tried to expose the nature of this neurosis, which basically consists of varieties of inner conflict and our unconscious determination to experience this conflict along with its negative reverberations.
We are so resistant to seeing this conflict in ourselves because, through our ego identification, we hate to acknowledge the extent to which we are unaware of these important dynamics and so foolish as to allow this self-defeat and needless suffering to occur. Carl Jung expressed this human predicament in these words: “Our true religion is a monotheism of consciousness, a possession by it, coupled with a fanatical denial that there are parts of the psyche which are autonomous.”
The “true religion” in this quotation refers to our ego identification, which is monotheistic in our adherence to it, and which bestows upon us a dualistic, self-centered consciousness. The “fanatical denial” Jung mentions is our resistance, our refusal to acknowledge the degree to which we are not masters in our own house but very much under the influence of unconscious dynamics that shape our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors.
I have a gripe with Jung because, as I see it, he didn’t grapple as vigorously as Freud with the dark side of the psyche. Jung certainly acknowledged the unconscious mind, saying for instance: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate,” and “Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.” True, but these aphorisms are not sufficient in themselves. I think Jung was simply baffled by the unconscious, aware of its importance but feeling it to be unfathomable, perhaps as a reflection of how he struggled with mixed results to uncover his own inner dynamics. In his book The Undiscovered Self (1957), he did however warn us that, with humanity’s state of awareness, too many of us would not even recognize evil when it covertly arose up around us and threatened our lives.
It was a New York City psychoanalyst, Edmund Bergler, who plunged into the psyche and got into the nuts and bolts of inner conflict’s shenanigans. He discovered in human nature our unconscious willingness, even determination, to experience ourselves and our lives through inner conflict. Holding this conflict in place, said Bergler, is a covert condition he called psychic or unconscious masochism. Basically, this predicament consists of our conscious desire to feel good versus our unconscious willingness to go on experiencing unresolved emotions that produce misery and self-defeat. Through unconscious resistance, we are loathe to acknowledge in ourselves the self-damaging aspects of this condition. In collectively acting this out, we keep the world in a state of peril.
The remainder of this post consists of excerpts from one of Bergler’s books, The Superego (Grune & Stratton, New York, 1952). These excerpts show his determination to expose our dark side, despite our resistance to the knowledge.
In this first excerpt, Bergler rejects the common claim that we can be innocent victims of emotional trauma. Trauma can certainly happen, of course, but its effect can largely be determined by a person’s preexisting strength or weakness.
The idea, frequently met with, that some one experience is responsible for a neurosis is an attempt at simplification. If one examines such a supposedly “traumatic experience” through the microscope of analysis, one finds that thousands of little incidents have preceded it. Furthermore, a so-called “traumatic experience” is often only the culmination of these preceding incidents, and equally often real “experiences” have been misconstrued to suit unconscious fantasies.
A proof that traumatic experiences are not in themselves responsible for neurosis is the fact that often siblings, exposed to the same shock, react differently. In some cases, one sibling becomes neurotic, the other does not; in some cases, the two develop different neuroses; in still other cases, the “trauma” does not register because the neurosis is already established.
Moreover, the child may himself unconsciously provoke some psychic trauma, or misinterpret so-called real facts to fit into the child’s specific neurotic situation.
The decisive factor seems to be the elaboration of inner and outer facts by the unconscious ego. A neurotic mother may be equally disagreeable to each of her two sons; when they are grown, one will correct the experience by marrying a kind and loving woman, the other perpetuates the experience by choosing to marry a shrew who will soundly mistreat him.
Unwittingly, people can be willing to use real or imagined trauma as a defense, as the “reason” they are failing to fulfill themselves in life. In the next excerpt, Bergler points out the perils of such self-ignorance.
People indulge in many forms of self-delusion; one of the most dangerous is the mistaken belief that they can better their lot by giving up situations, positions or professions they “dislike.” No doubt, external circumstances may be unfavorable, and change beneficial, but these externals hardly affect inner conflicts, and by and large they are used as hitching posts for alibis or provocations. A neurotically querulous person will be querulous in any occupation; a neurotically incompetent person will remain a bungler, no matter how often he changes his position; a neurotic injustice collector will be “mistreated” here, there, and everywhere. Confusing reasons with results, however, people go right on changing their external settings, even when the decisive difficulty is internal.
This situation becomes especially tragic in the late fifties and early sixties. With a minimum of financial security, some people “retire”—from their troubles, they believe—by giving up work. What they fail to see is that the specific amount of masochistic self- damage which they unconsciously crave, and which previously they deposited in the difficulties of their external occupations, is deprived of its accustomed source by their retirement. Of course, they believe that getting rid of the “disturbing” profession guarantees contentment. Once more, reasons are confounded with results, and self-torture is but accentuated. Instead of inner peace, the effect of retirement is increased self-torture. In short, ignorance of the existence of the inner “torture machine” does not serve as a certificate of exemption…
This is undoubtably a better pill to swallow. People do not know that psychic masochism is part of their daily menu, and unchangeable without psychiatric [psychotherapeutic] help. Hence, they struggle against their destiny, fighting a shadow! This is a real human tragedy, and it is made even more poignant by the fact that neurosis is the progressive disease.
At one point, Bergler gives a definition of neurosis:
A simple yardstick for recognizing neurosis is a lack of ability to work (sublimation), to love (tenderly, and with normal potency retained), to have normal social contacts and interests, and to enjoy one’s hobbies. As long as there is relative contentment on that quadrangular score, there is no reason to become alarmed.
A lot of neurotic people would claim, as derived from the self-deception built into their neurosis, that they possess these abilities. I would add to Bergler’s definition the abilities to know and choose truth over falsehood, true strength over pseudo-aggression, authenticity over hypocrisy, and self-love over egotism. Unfortunately, the worst neurotics will lay claim to these abilities, too.
In this next excerpt (from the book’s Foreword), Bergler says more about resistance and our reluctance to come to terms with unconscious dynamics.
It is a typical emotional reaction to shy away from unconsoling facts, which is the reason most people prefer to ignore the established and highly uncomfortable fact that every human being harbors his worst enemy—an ogre self-created, to boot—within himself. To get an approximate idea of the “benevolence” of inner conscience [superego], one has only to imagine the terms of the relationship between a dictator—any dictator!—and an inmate of one of his concentration and extermination camps….
Once one accepts the fact that self-aggression recoils against the ego, accumulating in the superego, another incapable result must be added: the long maturation period of the human child, renders his aggression inexpressible; since it is inexpressible, it must turn against a child’s ego, for drives are like rivers—if the flow in all directions forward is impeded, the river must reverse its flow. Thus, every child starts life with a negative balance, with the dice heavily loaded against his chances at the “happiness-machine,” heavily loaded in favor of the “misery-machine” (Mark Twain). Inner conscience, the beneficiary of this rebounding aggression, does not ask, as the ancient gods did, for human sacrifice; as substitutes, it modestly accepts “conscience money” and human suffering….
Inner conscience is the master of the personality. The unconscious ego, in order to survive, must satisfy inner conscience by creating its double sentinel of alibis. We live by, and through, these twin alibis. Man’s precarious balance, dangling on the shoestring of twin alibis, is constantly endangered. At best, fifty percent of man’s psychic energy is unproductive expended in his attempts to ward off the constant avalanche of torture flowing from the superego. Man’s inhumanity to man is equaled only by man’s inhumanity to himself.
—
In my books, I present a comprehensive understanding of our psyche’s self-defeating dynamics. Go to my author’s page at Amazon to see a list of these books.
