Officially, I am a Sociologist. 'Officially' here represents formal studying which resulted in gaining formal qualifications, i.e. an MA (Hons) in Sociology. But, I also did a BA in Applied Social Sciences before I gained my MA (Hons). In that BA I studied both Psychology and Sociology for three years, along with a year of Politics, Philosophy, English Literature and Anthropology - the latter I picked up again in my MA studies.
I have always wrestled with the nature - nurture debate. When I was studying Psychology many moons ago the arbitrary percentage / ratio was 66:33 nature - nurture. This means that your genetics / genetic predispositions are more likely to be dominant in your life, and will have more influence in your actions and the life choices you make. That didn't work for me; it jarred with my own (growing) experiences and with what I was learning in Sociology. I quickly ended up paying more credence to Sociology although I did use my studies in Psychology to pursue the avenues I was most passionate about, i.e. Social Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, Personality and Language. I have remained interested in these avenues although I stopped officially pursuing them, and I'm thankful for the training I received all those years ago.
My poststgraduate studies have been more rooted in Sociology, but Psychology has always reared its head at key points. Crossroads in a way. I've tended to follow my own 'expertise' and the expertise around me and chose the more Sociological roads when this has occured. But, I've always taken these turns and recognised that I'm not seeing the 'full' picture; that at some point I will need to bring Psychology back into my work (just as I have done with Politics, Philosophy and Anthropology). The most memorable of these crossroads was during my doctorate studies where I had to make the choice between adopting Laclau & Mouffe's political subject or Lacan's split subject in poststructuralist discourse theory. It was never quite as binarised as that, as Laclau wrote the Lacanian split subject into his conceptualisation of the political subject / agent. But, when it came to the seventh tenet of Laclau & Mouffe's (1985/2001) poststructuralist discourse theory, I explored the threatening 'Other' (see International Relations) rather than the radical 'Other', thus I never got to the psychoanalytic roots of how a radical 'Other' is needed to 'complete' the Self, and how the Self turns constructions of difference into Otherness to hold its fractured Self in place. I committed to 'Othering' using Politics and Sociology as toolkits; traversing how gender, 'race', social class and other socio-cultural characteristics were central to 'Othering' practices.
I don't regret this decision per se. I got a doctorate out of it and, with hindsight, if I had gone the other route it would have taken me much longer to complete said doctorate (and, quite frankly, it took long enough). But, deep down, I know I only gave 'half' of the story. Since completing my doctorate, I have continued to read psychoanalytic theory and popular Psychology and I think it's time to explore the other side.
Although, in fairness, I should also point out that during my doctoral studies and afterwards I also gained some uncomfortable life experiences in this other side. Which, now, I recognise may have been a more unconscious - and frankly devestating - way of exploring the Lacanian split subject. I experienced and witnessed 'splitting' which, on the surface, could be explained by Sociology and Politics; intersectionality especially. Although it would be called 'othering' rather than splitting from these perspectives. But, it had psychological roots, particularly as some of these individuals I was involved with had recent diagnoses of either Narcissistic or Borderline Personality Disorder.
There is a whole other conversation here about the rise in pyschiatric diagnoses of personality disorders in societies that are embedded in hyper-capitalism, patriarchy, racism and neoliberalism. But, I'm going to focus more on Psychology here as I have let the Sociologist in me run rampant enough. Through these individuals, I saw something else occur that wasn't just 'othering'. I saw and experienced 'splitting' - an inability in some individuals to process both good and bad aspects in a person and be able to reconcile them. Thus, when someone did something 'bad' all the good aspects of the person were forgotten and they were judged as being 'all bad' and the 'good' had just been an act and/or were no longer present in the individual - the 'bad' was dominant if not all pervasive. A line had been drawn and, using poststructuralist discourse theory, you could argue that the recipient was now being identified using the logic of difference rather than the logic of equivalence. But, those logics, for me, only identify what happens, they don't identify what goes on in the individual to make this happen.
Being on the receiving end of 'splitting' is frightful. One minute you are the greatest thing since sliced bread, the next you are not even worth talking to and/or, in worst cases scenarios, you end up on the shit end of a smear campaign. If you are a fairly empathetic person, you naturally turn inwards and question if you truly are a 'bad' person; beating yourself up in the process. This can be devestating. But, eventually, you start to realise that this is a pattern. Others come out of the woodwork and, usually shamefully, discuss how they had experienced something very similar from that same individual. Social class, gender and the intersectionality of socio-cultural factors just don't cut it to explain how this has happened. This is where I think an understanding of Psychology is paramount, and fills in the gaps of what actually happens when people are 'othered'.
I'm lucky in the sense that I've been involved with individuals guilty of this who have received diagnoses, and that I was re-idealised in time to be privy to this. I just want to say, before I continue, that I am not condemning people who have been diagnosed as having personality disorders. I have a very good friend who has been living with this for a long time and has been working, with others, to overcome some of the more debilitating aspects of this. One such apsect is splitting and it is something they wrestle with on an everyday basis. Fortunately, we have a strong enough friendship were I can call them out on it if I end up on the receiving end and we work, with respect, to reconcile it. The discussions we have had over recent years have helped me to understand how pervasive splitting is and where the roots of it can come from. We've openly weighed up the pros and cons of object relations theory and discussed the lived experience of 'lacking' object permanence. It has been a revelation, and healing, for both of us although I did get to the point where I thought I was guilty of this as well. Thankfully, I don't meet the criteria. But, it has shaped my academic and personal interest in understanding how psychological processes can also shape 'othering'; and kept me mindful of the importance of recognising and accepting both the 'good' and 'bad' in others to form deeper, and more intimate, relationships.
There are other psychological theories to which I am attracted. For those who have read some of my earlier posts, you will know that I am quite passionate about astrology. There was a famous psychoanalytic theorist who was also equally passionate about astrology and I have been reading his work, on and off, since I was a teenager. His work around the shadow and projective identification has always fascinated me and, throughout my life, I have done quite a bit of shadow work with the aim to understand where I feel shame, guilt and self-loathing so that I can integrate that within myself rather than project it on to others. I haven't fully integrated my shadow, but at least I recognise it is a life's work and I am at least partially aware of where my own feelings of shame come from and I try to unbind its ties with self-loathing. With some conviction, I do believe that Jungian concepts of the shadow and projective identification can help us to understand why we 'Other' and, crucially, assist in overcoming it.
At its most basic, the shadow is parts of ourself we have either disowned and/or that we were not permitted to explore. For Jung and Jungian psychologists, failure to integrate our shadow is often at the root of our interpersonal problems, and can fuel, if not outrightly be responsible for, prejudice and discrimination at the societal level. It is also strongly linked to Klein's projective identification which, in psychoanalytic theory, is a defence mechanism where individuals project qualities that they cannot accept within themselves on to other people so that it keeps their fractured sense of 'Self', as 'good' and righteous, in place. With more awreness of our shadow and in gradually integrating it into our 'Self' we become less susceptible to 'othering' and more conscious of why we, and others, do it.
As a Sociologist, I am very reluctant to individualise societal issues. I recognise that we live in a divisive world where various social groups are oppressed and are systematically excluded from full participation and recognition. But, I do think Psychology, in tandem with other social sciences, has a role in combating this. This is what I am now committed to exploring.
No comments:
Post a Comment