Tag Archives: election

Blog, Politics, Psychology

The Parentized Child Presidency

Originally published 12/09/16 on Nation of Change

Those of us who didn’t vote for Trump–the cast-off, disadvantaged children–will have to monitor Trump very closely.

A central concept from Psychoanalysis, the Parentized Child, is key to understanding why Donald Trump was elected in the first place, and secondly, what must be done to preserve the nation from the damage he will surely wreck.

Parentized Children are children who early in life had to assume the role of a parent because their actual parents were not up to the task of acting as adults. Whether the parents suffered from debilitating mental illness, serious alcohol or drug addiction, or were generally incompetent, the basic roles between parents and children were fundamentally reversed. Because the parents weren’t dependable, the children had no alternative but to step in and keep things running as best they could. Thus, the children prepared meals, dressed younger kids for school, etc. But as a result, the children had no childhood. This not only produced major bouts of depression later in life, but lifelong anger.

Of course, I don’t know what Trump’s childhood was actually like, but it’s clear that we’ve put someone who is not fully developed—a highly disturbed child—into a role that calls for an extremely competent, healthy adult. I suspect that a major factor for this is the fact that Hillary was viewed as extremely flawed parent who couldn’t be trusted. Therefore, a seriously undeveloped child was viewed, at least by those who voted for him, as the only sensible alternative. In effect, were those who voted for Trump acting as Parentized Children in expressing their intense hatred of Hillary? Was “Lock Her Up!” really a barely disguised call to “Lock Up the Bad Parent?”

Here’s precisely where another fundamental role reversal is called for. Those of us who didn’t vote for Trump–the cast-off, disadvantaged children–will have to monitor Trump very closely because a child acting in the role that calls for a healthy, well-developed adult cannot be trusted for one nanosecond to head the biggest “family” in the world. In short, are we cast into the role of Parentized Children?

Standard
Blog, Politics

The Trump Presidency: A Bitter Dialectic

Originally published 12/09/2016 on the Huffington Post

I am caught on the poles of a bitter dialectic. It’s every bit as bitter as the divide that separates us.

On the one side of dialectic, I desperately want President Elect Trump to succeed for our sake, not his. Unlike Senator Mitch McConnell who said when Obama was first elected, “We must do everything in our power to make this President fail,” I don’t wish Trump to fail, for if he fails, then we fail as a nation even more. I want to give him every chance to succeed.

I want President Elect Trump to display the qualities he did during his 60 Minutes interview. He was articulate, mostly sensible, and more coherent than I’ve ever seen him before. I want him to act as he did when he met with President Obama. He was not only respectful, but genuine in his praise for the President. He was clearly awed, if not overwhelmed by the job he was to undertake.

I’m heartened that he doesn’t necessarily want to do away with every aspect of Obama Care, or so he said during his interview. I want him to heal this bitterly divided nation. I want him to pass a jobs bill so that those who’ve been hurt most by the Great Recession can be put back to work. I hope fervently that he can help us to stop demonizing one another.

On the other side of the dialectic, I’m still smarting from Trump’s god-awful insults and rhetoric during the campaign. It was the worst that I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. I’m appalled that he still wants to ban Muslims and build a wall with Mexico. But most of all, I’m deeply frightened that he’s chosen someone like Steve Bannon to be his Chief Strategist. Bannon is undeniably a racist. Rudi Giullani scares me no less. I’m left with the overpowering feeling that The Rats Are Coming Onboard The Ship of State. God-awful indeed!

So where does that leave me? I still want Trump to succeed, but I feel we have to monitor him closely every step of the way. Maybe he’ll resign or be impeached as some are prophesying, but that would leave us with the arguably even worse prospect of Mike Pence and his horribly restricted, punitive world-view.

Hope for the best but be extremely vigilant is the best with which I’m left. I am hopeful but afraid!

Standard
Blog, Politics

More Fearful Than Ever

Originally published November 16, 2017 on the Huffington Post

While Donald Trump’s recent appearance on 60 Minutes may have calmed some of my fears, he has not put all of them to rest. Indeed, he’s even exacerbated them.

Given the low bar that he’s set repeatedly, he was more articulate, calm, and coherent than I had any reason to expect. But his past inflammatory comments are real cause for widespread demonstrations. His repeated inability/refusal to acknowledge the legitimate anxieties and fears of the protesters, and that they are not “professionals,” is highly disconcerting. But worst of all is his selection of Steve Bannon as his Chief Strategist. The choice of an out-and-out declared racist belies any desire to heal and to bring us together.

Rudy Giuliani scares me as much, if not more. He would be Secretary of State or Defense? He would be that close to the Big Bad Button? These are the actual and potential cabinet choices that are supposed to heal a highly fractured country?

I find myself caught between wanting to give Donald Trump every chance to succeed and watching his every move and statements with acute apprehension.

However, as much as I’m angry at the election of Donald Trump, I’m even more so with my fellow Democrats. How could we have selected such a flawed candidate who couldn’t really get in touch with the deep anger of the electorate and thus couldn’t truly connect emotionally with their pain?

Standard
Blog, Media + Politics, Psychology

The Unconscious Choice: The Forces of the Dark and Light Sides

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 8, 2012

Make no mistake about it. This election is about the choice between two worldviews that are as psychologically different and far apart as any two could possibly be. The choice is difficult not just because so much is riding on it—this much is obvious–but like most crucial things in life, much of it rests on factors that are largely unconscious. The later is far from obvious.

On the one side is the Republican view of the world (the Dark Side) that is as mean and repressive as anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. On the other hand is the Democratic (the Light Side), which while far from perfect, shows real signs of humanity and maturity. With no apologies whatsoever for my clear bias and partisanship, let me explore the psychological differences between these two worldviews. Hopefully, this helps to illuminate the unconscious factors that play a major role in what people vote for and why. To do this, let me discuss very briefly: 1. Jungian psychological types; 2. ego psychology; and 3. American mythology. All three interact in powerful ways to produce the enormous, and unfortunately, unbridgeable differences between the current versions of Republicans and Democrats.

As long ago as 1921, Jung identified, among many others, the psychological differences between: 1. Sensing and Intuitive, and 2. Thinking and Feeling personality types.

Sensing types instinctively break all problems down into separate and independent parts for which they then proceed to gather “hard data” or “facts” that “measure precisely” the “exact status or performance” of each of the parts. In addition, they are anchored firmly in the “here-and-now.” In short, if you can’t see, feel, hear, smell, taste, or measure something in the here-and-now, then it’s not real, let alone important.

In contrast, Intuitive types instinctively look at the big picture, the whole system. They are not concerned with parts per se, but only with how they all fit together. Indeed, by themselves, the parts have no meaning or existence. In addition, they are concerned primarily with future possibilities, not with imperfect things as they are today. If they believe in measuring anything, it is the “state of the whole.”

Thinking types are primarily concerned with analyzing things impersonally in terms of logic and science. Feeling types are concerned with people’s feelings.

Putting these together in all possible ways results in four basic personality types: 1. Sensing-Thinking; 2. Intuitive-Thinking; 3. Intuitive-Feeling; and, 4. Sensing-Feeling.

Next, let me say a very brief word about ego psychology. Ego psychology postulates that there are at least three characters or voices in everyone; 1. Parent; 2. Adult; and 3. Child.

The Parent is the character that sets rules and lays down laws of acceptable versus unacceptable behavior. It is the voice that says, “Do this!” Or, “Don’t do such and such because if you do, then you will have to suffer the consequences!” The Child is the character in all of us that forever wants to play and have toys and goodies right now with no consequences whatsoever. The Adult is the character that has to mediate between the immediate, incessant demands of the Child and the harsh strictures of the Parent. The Adult says to the Child, “If you eat all your broccoli as your Mother and Father want you to do, then you can have your cookies!”

As I listen to the current Republican mantras, Sensing-Thinking and Sensing-Feeling are the dominant personalities that literally occupy center-stage. But more than this, they are Sensing-Thinking and Sensing-Feeling overlaid with a very strong Parent. The Parent Sensing-Thinking measures success solely in terms of monetary wealth alone. It disparages all occupations other that of a CEO. No wonder why the super-rich are raised up to exalted status and revered as gods. It also consigns women to secondary roles and issues harsh dictates regarding women’s rights and what constitutes “legitimate rape!” As the “natural heads of the family,” men have been “chosen by Nature to rule over women and children!” And, if “they know what’s good for them, they will obey without question!” The Parent Sensing-Feeling regards his or her immediate family or tribe as the only social entity worthy of consideration, i.e., human feeling.

Although the Democrats have more than their fair share of the Parent as well, their personalities lean more toward the Adult Intuitive-Thinking and Adult Intuitive-Feeling. The Adult Intuitive-Thinking finds expression in their concern for the “health of the planet,” which the Republicans sneered at haughtily at their latest convention. (Republicans were also conspicuously silent when at the end of his acceptance speech, Governor Romney called for compassion towards the poor and unemployed.) The Adult Intuitive-Feeling finds expression in the Democrats concern with a much broader expanse of humanity, e.g., working people, the middle class, poor, etc. In spite of their great differences, Republicans and Democrats are united in their endless chant and use of the myth that “America is the greatest nation on Earth.” It’s not that America is not great. Rather, a truly great, i.e., mature, country would not need to prop up its flagging self-esteem by ignoring and washing over its great problems, e.g., the large numbers of uninsured, incarcerated prisoners, gun violence, poverty, etc., etc.

But here again, Democrats are much more able and willing to face harsh problems than Republicans. The real tragedy is that all four personality types need one another. Intuitive-Feeling types need Sensing-Thinking types to “ground them.” And, Sensing-Thinking types need Intuitive-Feeling types to see the “larger human picture.”

Intuitive-Thinking types need Sensing-Feeling types to literally see real, concrete human beings. And, Sensing-Feeling types need Intuitive-Thinking types to see the bigger, whole system. But this is possible if and only if the Adult governs each of them. One of the strong characteristics of the Adult is that no matter what its particular Jungian personality, it says to itself, “So I’m a Sensing-Thinking type; so what!; I need all the others to complement the weak sides of my personality; we all need to work together.” However, from a psychological perspective, don’t count on it at the present time. When one party is primarily in the Parent stage and the other is in the Adult, communication, let alone cooperation, are almost impossible.

My prime recommendation to the Democrats is don’t waste your breath with the Republicans. Keep saying what you’re saying, but in the clearest, most succinct stories you can muster. No matter what one’s psychological type, stories are what move us to great feats.

Finally, as a strong Intuitive Thinking and Feeling type myself (one can be more than one), I say, “Never give hope.” As dire as things are, I believe with all my heart that the Adult eventually will prevail. This is the ideal by which I choose to guide my life.

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 8, 2012

Standard
Blog, Media + Politics, Philosophy + Systems, Psychology

How Groups Become Extreme

Originally published on The Huffington Post, March 12, 2012

In two recent op-eds in the Huffington Post (“Is Truth in Politics Possible? Is Truth Possible in Anything Human?” and “Absence of Truth: Why the Republican Candidates Can’t Get Anywhere Near the Truth”), I argued that historically there are at least four different kinds and meanings of “truth.” There are of course more than four. But four is enough for my purposes.

Very briefly, first, there is traditional, primarily fact-based, impersonal, seemingly emotion-free, and unbiased scientific truth. (Science isn’t emotion free at all and it’s certainly not completely unbiased. It just hides its emotions and biases better than most fields. It also kids itself that they aren’t there. As someone with a Ph.D. in engineering, this doesn’t mean that I don’t believe strongly in science. I not only believe strongly in it, but I condemn those who don’t. Since it is done by humans, I just don’t believe that science is perfect.)

Second, there is speculative, philosophical, and theory-based science.

Third, there is community-based, social truth. This kind resides in the social customs, morals, religion, and wisdom of a community.

Fourth, there is also the kind that resides in the social customs, morals, religion, and wisdom of a small unit, typically a particular family, or close set of friends.

I also argued that all four of these ways fundamentally presuppose and depend deeply on one another. They couldn’t exist let alone work without the others.

I also argued that the current crop of Republican candidates has lost complete touch with truth (reality) because it is the captive of primarily one and only one way of knowing. In brief, the Republican candidates are the captives of the most primitive and debased forms of the third and fourth ways of knowing. For instance, in rejecting evolution and global warming, they are rejecting not only science, but rational thought itself. No wonder why liberals such as myself are so outraged and turned off by their ignorant rants.

But the question I want to raise here is: “How did the Republican Party become so skewed in its thinking? How did it become the captive of a perverse way of knowing and concept of ‘truth’?” There are of course sound historical answers to these questions starting with Goldwater’s humiliating defeat in ’64. As potent as these explanations are, I want to offer a different one.

In the late 60’s, a lifelong friend and colleague, Ralph Kilmann, and I hit upon the idea of putting all those with the same psychological outlook into the same group. Using a psychological test, we put all those who believed in the first way of knowing into one group; all those who believed in the second way into another one, etc. We then gave all the groups the same open-ended exercise: “What is your group’s definition and/or idea of ‘society’s most important problem?'” We also asked each group to: (1) build a collage of their problem definition so everyone could see their thinking, (2) give their collage and problem a short identifying name or label, and (3) list as many characteristics of their problem and collage as possible.

In this way, we were able to “see” personality, which by definition is an “internal state of mind,” and thus very difficult to observe by the untrained eye.

The exercise worked so well that my colleagues and I have been using it for over 40 years to help groups and organizations of all kinds to understand why different people don’t see the world in the same ways. The purpose is not only to help them understand one another better, but to use their differences constructively.

Putting people who all think alike into a common group does at least two things almost instantly. One, the particular group in which people are put very easily and quickly reaches strong, if not nearly complete, agreement. Two, the differences between the groups become magnified and even more intense. This makes it even easier to see differences in personality.
Notice carefully that we gave an open-ended exercise for if we had defined the exercise precisely, then in effect we would be operating primarily out of the first way of knowing. We deliberately wanted to give something nebulous on to which all the groups could project their different personalities.

After the groups have presented their collages, it quickly becomes apparent that each of them is speaking a totally different language. If one’s native language is German and another’s is Chinese, one usually doesn’t hesitate to involve a translator, particularly if one’s negotiations are crucial. But, one rarely involves a translator if people seem to be speaking the same language when in fact they are not.

If in addition, one introduces people into each group who are especially aggressive and extreme proponents of their particular way of looking at reality, then the groups quickly become even more extreme and one-sided. It then becomes virtually impossible for them to see that there is anything worthwhile in other ways of conceiving of reality.

In short, it is rather easy to create extreme groups. Indeed, over time, more moderate members are expelled for not adhering to the “group line.” And, the more that are expelled, the more extreme a group becomes.

I wish we could do for society at large what we are able to do in our workshops. There we are able to step back and explain how we created the groups, how and why they speak different languages, and help all the participants to come to see that the problems we are facing are so complex that they can’t even be properly defined, let alone solved, by one and only one way of looking at the world.

To build up their capacity to understand and appreciate different ways of apprehending reality, one of the other things we do is to create mixed groups. We then give them complex problems such as global warming that cannot even be defined, let alone solved, unless they integrate different ways of thinking.

To put it mildly, it takes a great deal of practice and encouragement to appreciate all four ways of knowing. To say that we desperately need more people who can do this is one of the great understatements of our time.

For this reason, I am utterly appalled when Sen. Santorum says that “going to college is an elite idea.” Really! College is one of the best, but not only, places where we can learn about ourselves by having our ideas challenged.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, March 12, 2012

Standard