Wikipedia:
Ontology (from the Greek nominative ?n: being, genitive ?ntoV: of being (participle of e?nai: to be) and -log?a: science, study, theory) is a study of conceptions of reality and the nature of being. In philosophy, ontology is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. It seeks to describe or posit the basic categories and relationships of being or existence to define entities and types of entities within its framework. It is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of the objects, properties and relations in every area of reality. [1]
What could be more fun than a true ontology of snark--a dissection of the many forms it takes, a metaphysical dissertation on the many forms it can and cannot take in any number of possible worlds--what could be more fun than that?
But, alas, such fun will have to wait. This post is a mere prelude, devoted to the ontological status of snark as a whole. Where does snark fit in the grand scheme of things? What is its place in the universe?
My thesis in beginning this inquiry is simple: The characteristic response of rightwing blogs to those on the left is projection, demonization and ad hominem attack. The characteristic response of leftwing blogs to those on the right is snark. I wish to explore the relationship between the two by illuminating a larger framework of which these are a part. That framework is primarily composed of Freudian ego defense mechanisms, with a smidgeon of more primative processes that actually preceed the creation of the ego. And, of course, it applies to much more than just what happens on the blogs.
As Wikipedia explains:
In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by individuals, groups, and even nations to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behavior such that the physical and/or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of the Ego Defence Mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[1]
They are more accurately referred to as ego defence mechanisms, and can thus be categorized as occurring when the id impulses are in conflict with each other, when the id impulses conflict with super-ego values and beliefs, and when an external threat is posed to the ego.
The term "defence mechanism" is often thought to refer to a definitive singular term for personality traits which arise due to loss or traumatic experiences, but more accurately refers to several types of reactions which were identified during and after daughter Anna Freud's time.
Ego defense mechanisms range from primative to sohpisticated. Wikipedia notes:
In George Eman Vaillant's (1977) categorization defences form a continuum regarding to their psychoanalytical developmental level [7]. Levels are:
- Level I - psychotic defences (i.e. psychotic denial, delusional projection)
- Level II - immature defences (i.e. fantasy, projection, passive aggression, acting out)
- Level III - neurotic defences (i.e. intellectualization, reaction formation, dissociation, displacement, repression)
- Level IV - mature defences (i.e. humour, sublimation, suppression, altruism, anticipation)
Snark, of course, is a form of humor, a Level IV, mature defense. Psychotic denial and delusional projection, OTOH, are Level 1 psychotic defenses.
You knew it all along, right?
For all the gory details, join me on the flip...
|
| Cautionary Note
Before going any further, I want to make an important point: looking at politics in terms of defense mechanisms is just like any other perspective on politics--it offers a distinctive point of view that brings some things into focus that may otherwise be hard to get a handle on, but can have its own blindspots as well. No single view can substitute for a view that's well-rounded and all-inclusive.
What's more, it can be all too easy to avoid dealing with an unwanted argument by explaining it away as some sort of psychological quirk. Doing so is, of course, a logical fallacy: The Genetic Fallcy, which uses the origin of an argument to argue for its truth or falsity.
Thus, the purpose of talking about politics in terms of defense mechanisms cannot be as a substitute for rational refutation or support of arguments. But it can supplement such arguments. And, if you're being driven crazy by the umpteen-millionth chickenhawk's attack on your failure to "support the troops," then you really might want to check out this approach.
Intro--Continued
By way of further introduction, Wikipedia, explains:
The ego's use of defence mechanisms
When anxiety becomes too overwhelming it is then the place of the ego to employ defence mechanisms to protect the individual. Feelings of guilt, embarrassment and shame often accompany the feeling of anxiety. In the first definitive book on defence mechanisms, Ego and mechanisms of defense (1936), Anna Freud introduced the concept of signal anxiety; she stated that it was "not directly a conflicted instinctual tension but a signal occurring in the ego of an anticipated instinctual tension". The signaling function of anxiety is thus seen as a crucial one and biologically adapted to warn the organism of danger or a threat to its equilibrium. The anxiety is felt as an increase in bodily or mental tension and the signal that the organism receives in this way allows it the possibility of taking defensive action towards the perceived danger. Defence mechanisms work by distorting the id impulses into acceptable forms, or by unconscious blockage of these impulses.
Id impulses are not necessarily inherently bad. Some are--such as the desire to kill anyone who gets in the way of some other desire. But most are quite innocent in themselves, they're just primitive, pre-social desires that need to be expressed appropriately. (You don't just grab something and shove it in your mouth because you're hungry.) The more one matures, generally, the more capable one becomes of such expression. Contrary to normal development, however, rightwing, authoritarian politics works by thwarting healthy desires and promoting destructive ones. The more that healthy desires are thwarted, the more the resulting frustration feeds into destructive desires. Over time, feeding the more primitive defense mechanisms becomes an increasingly significant focus of rightwing politics.
Lest this all seem rather abstract, here's a rather down-to-earth overview of how defense mechanisms work, from a teacher's handout:
Defense mechanisms protect us from being consciously aware of a thought or feeling which we cannot tolerate. The defense only allows the unconscious thought or feeling to be expressed indirectly in a disguised form. Let's say you are angry with a professor because he is very critical of you. Here's how the various defenses might hide and/or transform that anger:
Denial: You completely reject the thought or feeling. "I'm not angry with him!"
Suppression: You are vaguely aware of the thought or feeling, but try to hide it. "I'm going to try to be nice to him."
Reaction Formation: You turn the feeling into its opposite. "I think he's really great!"
Projection: You think someone else has your thought or feeling. "That professor hates me."
"That student hates the prof."
Displacement: You redirect your feelings to another target.
Rationalization: You come up with various explanations to justify the situation (while denying your feelings). "He's so critical because he's trying to help us do our best."
Intellectualization: A type of rationalization, only more intellectualized. "This situation reminds me of how Nietzsche said that anger is ontological despair."
Undoing: You try to reverse or undo your feeling by DOING something that indicates the opposite feeling. It may be an "apology" for the feeling you find unacceptable within yourself. "I think I'll give that professor an apple."
Isolation of affect: You "think" the feeling but don't really feel it. "I guess I'm angry with him, sort of."
Regression: You revert to an old, usually immature behavior to ventilate your feeling. "Let's shootspitballs at people!"
Sublimation: You redirect the feeling into a socially productive activity. "I'm going to write a poem about anger."
As can be seen from these examles, it's generally not that hard to recognize and identify defense mechanisms at work. Not all of them, certainly, and not all of the time. But often enough that we shouldn't feel put off by talk about them, or feel unqualified to discuss them.
Defense Mechanism Categories--From Pathological to Mature
While there is some disagreement between different theoreticians and practictioners the following schema, again from Wikipedia, provides a good start:
Level 1 Defence Mechanisms
The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These three defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external reality and eliminate the need to cope with reality. The pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane to others. These are the "psychotic" defences, common in overt psychosis. However, they are found in dreams and throughout childhood as healthy mechanisms.
They include:
- Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety provoking stimuli by stating it doesn't exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduce anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
- Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs.
- Delusional Projection: Grossly frank delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.
Several caveats are in order here.
First, the category of "delusional projection" is introduced here, but points to the same wikipedia entry as plain old vanilla "projection" down below. There's really not any cognitive difference between the two, and projection seems to be about as close to pure denial--ground zero for defense mechanisms--as one can get.
Second, there is, however, another mechanism known as "projective identification," which is sometimes confused with projection. In fact, projective identification is both a more primitive mechanism, which first emerges before the ego is even formed, and a more sophisticated mechanism as it develops over time. I will discuss this at lengths in a future diary.
Third, there is another primitive mechanism, "splitting," that emerges before the ego is formed. Its earliest manifestation is divide good and bad, me and not me--but it does so in response to intense emotions, rather than realistic perceptions. I will discuss it along with projective idenfication.
Fourth, the Wikipedia entry for cognitive distortion clearly indicates that this comes from a non-Freudian therapuetic approach, cognitive therapy that works with mature patients dealing with their present-day cognition, and it presents a list of errors largely made up of classical fallacies. This makes little sense in terms of truly primitive defenses.
Level 2 Defence Mechanisms
These mechanisms are often present in adults and more commonly present in adolescence.
These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety provoked by threatening people or by uncomfortable reality. People who excessively use such defences are seen as socially undesirable in that they are immature, difficult to deal with and seriously out of touch with reality. These are the so-called "immature" defences and overuse almost always lead to serious problems in a person's ability to cope effectively. These defences are often seen in severe depression and personality disorders. In adolescence, the occurrence of all of these defences is normal.
These include:
- Fantasy: Tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts
- Projection: Projection is a primitive form of paranoia.
Projection also reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of them; attributing one's own unacknowledged unacceptable/unwanted thoughts and emotions to another; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". It is shifting one's unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses within oneself onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings, beliefs and motivations as perceived as being possessed by the other.
- Hypochondriasis (a.k.a. somatization): The transformation of negative feelings towards others into negative feelings toward self, pain, illness and anxiety
- Passive aggression: Aggression towards others expressed indirectly or passively
- Acting out: Direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse without conscious awareness of the emotion that drives that expressive behavior.
- Idealization: Subconsciously choosing to perceive another individual as having more positive qualities than they may actually have.[2]
As noted above, projection--at this level--and "delusional projection"--at Level 1--are not really different mechanisms. Otherwise the decription of this level requires no comment.
Level 3 Defence Mechanisms
These mechanisms are considered neurotic, but fairly common in adults. Such defences have short-term advantages in coping, but can often cause long-term problems in relationships, work and in enjoying life when used as one's primary style of coping with the world.
These include:
- Displacement: Defence mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening. For example, a mother may yell at her child because she is angry with her husband.
- Dissociation: Temporary drastic modification of one's personal identity or character to avoid emotional distress; separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.
- Isolation: Separation of feelings from ideas and events, for example, describing a murder with graphic details with no emotional response.
- Intellectualization: A form of isolation; concentrating on the intellectual components of a situations so as to distance oneself from the associated anxiety-provoking emotions; separation of emotion from ideas; thinking about wishes in formal, affectively bland terms and not acting on them; avoiding unacceptable emotions by focusing on the intellectual aspects (e.g. rationalizations).
- Reaction Formation: Converting unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous into their opposites; behavior that is completely the opposite of what one really wants or feels; taking the opposite belief because the true belief causes anxiety. This defence can work effectively for coping in the short term, but will eventually break down.
- Repression: Process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness; seemingly unexplainable naivety, memory lapse or lack of awareness of one's own situation and condition; the emotion is conscious, but the idea behind it is absent.
Two placements in this level seem questionable. First, displacement might plausibly be placed at Level 2. The experience of being unable to respond to a source of threat, but instead turning on a less threatening target must surely be a common experience for many young children, as any parent, teacher or child-care provider can surely attest.
Second, some practitioners regard dissociation as a relatively primitive defense, closely connected to splitting--perhaps even at level one. There does seem to be considerable variability in how dissociation manifests.
Level 4 Defence Mechanisms
These are commonly found among emotionally healthy adults and are considered the most mature, even though many have their origins in the immature level. However, these have been adapted through the years so as to optimize success in life and relationships. The use of these defences enhances user pleasure and feelings of mastery. These defences help the users to integrate conflicting emotions and thoughts while still remaining effective. Persons who use these mechanisms are viewed
as having virtues.
These include:
- Altruism: Constructive service to others that brings pleasure and personal satisfaction
- Anticipation: Realistic planning for future discomfort
- Humor: Overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor enables someone to call a spade a spade, while "wit" is a form of displacement (see above under Category 3)
- Identification: The unconscious modeling of one's self upon another person's character and behavior
- Introjection: Identifying with some idea or object so deeply that it becomes a part of that person
- Sublimation: Transformation of negative emotions or instincts into positive actions, behavior, or emotion
- Suppression: The conscious process of pushing thoughts into the preconscious; the conscious decision to delay paying attention to an emotion or need in order to cope with the present reality; able to later access uncomfortable or distressing emotions and accept them
Some practitioners go even further, and identify mechanisms with this level that are not strictly defense mechanisms at all, but that rather function pro-actively to create conditions of egoic well-being. This would seem to be the case, for example, with altruism, anticipation and identification, at least, and possibly humor and introjeciton as well. This perspective is made explicit at MentalHelp.Net, where Mark Dombeck lays out a three-level typology of defense mechanisms, which includes the following:
Affiliation, or the drive to socialize with others so as to benefit from their company and counsel, is probably not a proper defense, but it is a perfect offensive strategy for effective coping with anxiety and pain. Being with others provides opportunities for venting, distraction, reality testing and a host of other helpful emotional supports. Self-Observation (such as through journaling) is an alternative to seeking out others that offers some of the same benefits, including venting of feelings, distancing and increased perspective.
Assertiveness is a communication posture that exists between aggressiveness and passivity. Passive postured people allow others to invade them, while aggressive postured people invade other people. Assertive postured people defend themselves against the invasions of aggressive people, but do not themselves become aggressive and invade others - not even those who try to invade them. Assertiveness seems simple enough, but actually requires considerable finesse, self-confidence and a healthy and accurate understanding of social dynamics to function, unlike passivity and aggressiveness which do not require a whole lot of thought.
Furthermore, Dombeck concludes his survey of defense mechanisms with the following remarks, which have clear implications for how defense mechanisms function in a political context as well:
Defensiveness, Maturity and Relationships
In reading through this brief and incomplete survey of the spectrum of defensive coping strategies you have hopefully picked up on the way relationship skills correlate with maturity of defenses. Being able to maintain reasonable relationships is a pretty necessary ingredient for a happy and functional lifestyle, inasmuch as relationships are a primary means for satisfying basic human needs for affection, attachment and economic support. Defenses based on more accurate understandings of social reality tend to enhance people's functioning and their ability to relate to others. Vice versa, defenses based on more primitive, distorted understandings of social reality tend to sabotage people's ability to distinguish good from bad relationships. Knowing this, it may strike you as ironic to note that relationships are perhaps the best means known through which people whose representation of social reality are faulty can receive correction (Such folk need to be in healthy relationships to mature, but they all too frequently sabotage those relationships to which they have access).
Fully functioning mature adults are flexible - they are capable of a range of defensive maneuvers ranging from reactive pain avoidance to constructive and adaptive efforts at problem solving. They are able to meet their needs through this flexibility - the need to protect themselves, and the need to connect with others to satisfy intimate and economic needs. An important part of a mature adult's coping flexibility has to do with their ability to know when to be which way. Since their fundamental understanding of social reality is sound, they are less likely to misjudge situations; trusting when trust is worthy and mistrusting when mistrust is appropriate. In contrast, people operating at a more primitive level tend to lack this important balance and instead fall into more rigid applications of their defenses.
A lot of ideas here, most of which I have not done justice to. But that is what tends to happen when you try to compress a topic worthy of a book into an essay. Hopefully you've found the reading to be worthwhile. Feel free to add comments and to share any ideas of your own so that others can read them.
Clearly, increased flexibility has a profound historical connection with the liberal tradition, just as rigidity has with the conservative tradition. This hardly translates into every liberal being more mature than every conservative. That would be absurd. (Not to mention, a very rigid thing to think.) But it does help explain why we generally see a lot more primitive sorts of defense mechanisms playing a more prominent role on the political right.
Next Up: Splitting and Projective Identification
|
STATE BLOGS
