Psychoanalysis, Terror and the Theater of Cruelty

Abstract

This is an article about terrorism and about what clinical psychoanalysis might contribute to a discussion of its causes, its effects, and our efforts to combat it. The article views terrorism as constitutively theatrical, its acts of destruction calculated less for their potential to harm particular victims than to affect a mass audience that will witness its images on television and via the media. Because terrorism's aim is to strike psychologically at its enemies' sense of self-definition and cohesion, it is likened to Artaud's theater of cruelty. The article also argues that because psychoanalysis is constituted by the staging of the transference relation, it too might be likened to theater, even to a theater of cruelty inasmuch as it cures by forcing the analysand to remember what he prefers to forget. The clinical experience that is seen as providing the psychoanalyst with knowledge that might bear quintessentially on the question of terrorism is that gained by the treatment of traumatized patients who at times terrorize those who treat them. The link from psychoanalysis to terror through the metaphor of theater is accomplished by a reading of The Tempest, Shakespeare's meditation on both the political and psychological uses of a theater of cruelty.

Este artículo es sobre terrorismo y sobre lo que el psicoanálisis clínico puede aportar a la discusión de sus causas, sus efectos y nuestros esfuerzos para combatirlo. El artículo considera el terrorismo como algo esencialmente teatral, estando sus actos de destrucción más calculados para afectar un público masivo que los contemplará por televisión o a traves de los medios, que para dañar víctimas particulares. Debido a que el objetivo del terrorismo es golpear la cohesión y el sentido de sí mismo del enemigo, está ligado al teatro de la crueldad de Artaud. El artículo también argumenta que debido a que el psicona′lisis está constituido por la puesta en escena de la relación transferencial, también se puede vincular con el teatro, incluso con el teatro de la crueldad, desde el momento en que el psicoanálisis cura forzando al analizando a recordar lo que prefiere olvidar. La experiencia clínica que se considera que puede aportar al psicoanalista el conocimiento que podría influenciar profundamente la cuestión del terrorismo es la que se obtiene a partir del tratamiento de pacientes traumatizados que a veces aterrorizan a aquellos que los tratan. El vínculo entre psicoanálisis y terror a través de la metáfora del teatro se complementa con la lectura de La Tempestad, la meditación de Shakespeare sobre los usos políticos y psicológicos del teatro de la crueldad.

Ceci est un article au sujet du terrorisme et de ce que la psychanalyse clinique pourrait contribuer à une discussion de ses causes, de ses effets et des efforts pour le combattre. Cet article considère le terrorisme comme étant théâtral de constitution, ses actions destructrices étant délibérément calculée non pas surtout pour faire mal à des victimes particulières que pour affecter un auditoire de masse qui va devenir témoin de ses images à la télévision et par les média. Parce que le but du terrorisme est de frapper psychologiquement ses ennemis au niveau des sentiments de définition de soi et de cohésion, on le compare au théâtre de la cruauté d'Artaud. Cet article soutient aussi que, parce que la psychanalyse est constituée par la mise en scène de la relation transférentielle, elle pourrait aussi être comparée au théâtre de la cruauté dans la mesure où elle guérit en forçant l'analysant à se rappeler ce qu'il préférerait oublier. Il est présumé que l'expérience clinique du psychanalyste qui lui permet de connaître les fondements possibles du terrorisme est celle qui provient du traitement des patients traumatisés qui terrorisent parfois ceux qui les traitent. Le lien proposé de la psychanalyse à la terreur à travers la métaphore du théâtre se fait par une lecture de l'œuvre de Shakespeare, The Tempest, une méditation sur les utilisations à la fois politiques et psychologiques du théâtre de la cruauté.

Dies ist eine Arbeit über den Terrorismus und darüber, was die klinische Psychoanalyse zu einer Diskussion seiner Ursachen, seiner Folgen und zu unseren Bemühungen, ihn zu bekämpfen, beitragen kann. Konstitutives Merkmal des Terrorismus ist es, Aufsehen zu erregen. Seine destruktiven Aktionen sind weniger daraufhin angelegt, einzelne Objekte zu treffen, als daraufhin, eine große Masse als Zeugen seiner Bilder über das Fernsehen oder andere Medien zu beeindrucken. Das Ziel des Terrorismus ist es nämlich, einen psychologischen Schlag gegen das Gefühl von Selbstdefinition und Selbstkohäsion des Feindes zu führen, vergleichbar mit Artauds Theater der Grausamkeit.

Da die Psychoanalyse sich konstituiert an der Inszenierung der Übertragungsbeziehung – so führt die Arbeit weiter aus – kann sie mit dem Theater verglichen werden, ja sogar mit einem solchen der Grausamkeit, insofern, als sie dadurch heilt, indem sie den Analysanden zwingt, zu erinnern, was er lieber vergisst. Die klinische Erfahrung, die dem Psychoanalytiker das Wissen zur Verfügung stellt, das sich gerade auf die Frage des Terrorismus bezieht, entstammt der Behandlung von traumatisierten Patienten, die zu bestimmten Zeiten jene terrorisieren, die sie behandeln. Die Brücke zwischen Psychoanalyse und Terror über die Metapher des Theaters wird ergänzt durch eine Lesung von „Der Sturmt“, Shakespeares Meditation über den politischen und psychologischen Gebrauch des Theaters der Grausamkeit.

Keywords:

• self psychology
• terrorism
• theater
• empathy
• Shakespeare
• The Tempest

Notes

¹One exception is Robert J. Lifton's (2003) superb The Superpower Syndrome, which describes the rage and violence with which individuals and states react to feelings of humiliation and weakness, ideas central to the argument here; another is a lecture, still unpublished, that Marvin Zonis (2003) gave at the November, 2003 Self Psychology Conference in Chicago for a panel called “Psychoanalysis in the Age of Terrorism.” David Terman's (2004) talk on Paranoia and Charles Strozier's (2003) discussion of his research on New Yorkers who lived through 911, both part of the panel that included Zonis, were also extraordinary. The literature on psychoanalytic responses to terror is of course rapidly expanding. An outstanding reference is the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association's Special Section on Terrorism (Vol. 52, No. 3, 2004), which came out shortly after this article was completed, edited and introduced by Stuart Twemlow. This issue includes interesting articles by Cabaniss, Forand, and Roose; Levy, Kogan, and Stein; and Stein; as well as a panel report by George Hough on a discussion between Twemlow, Akhtar, Fonagy, Post, and Volkan that takes up the question I attempt to address here: “Does psychoanalysis have anything to offer to an understanding of terrorism?” The issue also includes a scholarly discussion of the literature by Leon Wurmser.

²Charles Strozier's (2003) descriptions of the hundreds of people who died this way are harrowing, stunning, and overwhelming.

³I am indebted to critic Laura Kipnis for this information in a personal communication.

⁴Osama bin Laden, for example, as a boy loved watching American westerns. His favorite was Bonanza, and he especially loved Fury because it was about a boy and his black stallion (Wright, 2006, p. 75).

⁵It should go without saying that the Arabs are hardly alone in the creation of such narratives. Many Jews and Israelis to take the nearest alternative example are no less eager to demonize Arabs and especially the Palestinians with a view toward justifying their wish to dispossess them of their lands.

⁶ Lansky's (2001) view—which is very close to my own—is that Prospero's exile to the island, and absolute control of Ariel, Caliban, and eventually his enemies, can best be understood in terms of the dynamics of unconscious shame. Indeed, he sees the action of the play in terms of the working through and ultimate transformation of Prospero's angry, defensive, and unforgiving sense of being wronged into his ultimate capacity for forgiveness.

⁷Lansky (2001, p. 1030) also sees self-forgiveness as the key to forgiving the other. In his analysis, this is achieved through an identification with the good object. For Prospero, this good object is Miranda.

⁸This idea lies at the heart of Arnold Goldberg's ideas concerning the treatment of behavior disordered patients: Only if we are able to see our own desire in their symptomatic acting out will we be able to help them, he argues (personal communication).

⁹Ruth Benedict believed that what adopted children needed to thrive was the recognition that their adopted mother could see herself in them (Goldberg, personal communication).

¹⁰ Lansky (2001) sees Prospero's possession of his book and staff in terms of his defensive “unforgiveness,” his righteous sense of being an entirely blameless victim. When Prospero “drowns” his book and buries his staff in the earth, he buries the grudge he holds against his enemies.

¹¹ Lansky (2001), I think, would argue that renunciation of their view of themselves as entirely blameless victims would expose them to unbearable shame.

¹²The irony is completed in that the serpent was born of U.S. money and training in those long-ago days of the Cold War when the affectionately termed “mu” battled a “proxy war against the Evil Empire” (Akhtar, 2001).