Ambivalence Toward the Nation-State

--part1_9d.38a5459f.2be8707f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am indebted to an e-mail from M. Kaplan, who related ideas put forth
in my post on "National Unity and Hatred" to those of Judith Butler and
Slavoj Zizek. I wrote about the national passion toward unity and the
nationalist's insistence upon unanimity, which often takes the form of
condemning or ostracizing those who do not "go along" with the program. These
skeptics (non-believers) are perceived by the majority to be outside the
domain of national consensus. The existence of dissenting others threatens
the fantasy of "oneness" that characterizes the dream of nationalism.

Nazism was an extreme case of nationalism, almost a paradigm for this
phenomenon (rather than an anomaly as some would prefer to believe).

Hitler's idea was that it was necessary to exterminate those who "tore
the Volk apart," persons (or classes of persons) whose existence seemed to
cause the nation to fragment, be deprived of unity.

Nazism was a profoundly religious phenomenon. Jews were thrust into the
role of infidels. Hitler said, "We wish to have no other God, only Germany."
Jews symbolized persons who seemed to have another god. They represented
those who were insufficiently reverential or worshipful toward the beloved
Volk.

What was the Final Solution? Essentially, it was a religious ritual
whose meaning was "death to the non-believers." The infidel Jews would be
destroyed, even as they were compelled to bow down, submit absolutely to the
Nation-State. The Jews would be forced to acknowledge the inexorable,
inescapable will of the state, the god to which the German people already had
prostrated themselves.

Butler's conceptualization of the relationship between the wish for
national unity and hatred goes as follows: "The 'will' that is officially
represented by the government is haunted by a 'will' that is excluded from
the representative function." She goes on to say that in an "apparently
paranoid fit," universality seeks to efface (annihilate) "all traces of the
alterity that clings to it."

Zizek notes that the faction that requires the community's "total
endorsement" in fact produces "the very dissent it seeks to eliminate." He
calls the Jew the "unassimilable Other" that will always be imagined to
exist: "Specific members of this community will be forced to embody this
paranoid fantasy in reality."

What are the dynamics of this relationship? Why does the need to attach
to and worship an omnipotent object require scapegoating? Why is nationalism
bound up with the necessity for an "enemy?"

Where human beings imagine a nation, an omnipotent, benevolent entity
that is to be honored, embraced and loved, they also bring into being through
their imaginations an "enemy." The enemy also is an omnipotent entity, but
now a malevolent one. Just as the idea of the devil sustains the idea of god,
so does the idea of the enemy sustain the idea of the nation. The enemy is
our split off hostility, our own wish to abandon the object which we love and
to which we have submitted.

Love of one's nation and hatred of the enemy are two sides of the same
coin. In order to love Germany unreservedly, Hitler needed to create a Jew.
What are the dynamics of this mechanism that requires hatred (and
destruction) in order to sustain love?

My research on Nazism and other forms of nationalism has led to the
conclusion that the splitting mechanism described above grows out of
AMBIVALENCE TOWARD THE NATION-STATE. In order to maintain our attachment to
our country (or culture), belief in its absolute goodness, we have to have
another place to locate our hostility.

We need to split off our perception that the country that we love is also
bad and destructive, in addition to being good. The "other" is the place into
which we project the destructiveness that has its source in our own nation.

The German nation and its leaders were responsible for the deaths of
over two million German soldiers in the First World War. Hitler was there at
the Western front. He saw his comrades continually being blown to bits. He
witnessed the endless mutilation of their bodies. He was well acquainted with
the horror and destructiveness of war. He could not help but know that his
fellow soldiers were being sent to their deaths by his own society and its
leaders.

Yet-and this fact is the source of everything that was to follow-Hitler
NEVER (consciously) COULD BLAME OR EXPRESS HATRED TOWARD HIS OWN NATION. He
would state in MEIN KAMPF that, in spite of what had occurred in the war,
nevertheless it would have been a "sin to complain." After all, were the
soldiers not "dying for Germany?"

Hitler's wish to maintain belief in the "goodness" of Germany, his
refusal to acknowledge the badness contained within his own nation, caused
him to repress or deny hostility. In order to maintain trust in Germany,
Hitler projected the source of the nation's suffering, the cause of its
destruction, onto THE JEW. Jews symbolized split off hostility toward
Germany, Hitler's own wish to separate from, abandon the hegemonic project
(which oppressed him just as it oppressed everyone else).

One of the dynamics of American culture is that hostility toward the
nation, recognition of its destructiveness or imperfection, is split off and
localized within intellectuals or academics. Within the arena of public life
and debate, there is little criticism of the nation and its leaders. In the
academic sphere, on the other hand, criticism of and hostility toward the
nation are common.

SPLIT OF AMBIVALENCE IS PROJECTED INTO A PARTICULAR CLASS OF PERSONS,
the intellectuals or "academics" who function to express hostility and
skepticism toward the otherwise beloved nation. This class of persons
"contains" the ambivalence experienced by everyone, permitting hostility to
be repressed or disavowed by the majority culture.

Thus, the wish to attach to an omnipotent object and to disconnect from
it, love and hatred for one's nation and its people, the desire to identify
and to abandon identification, are contained within a SINGLE CULTURAL DYNAMIC
OR SYSTEM.

The "war movement" and the "peace movement" go hand in hand. Each
constitutes one element of a single dynamic or system. Whenever a war occurs,
a "peace movement" is required so that persons have a place into which they
can split off the repressed perception that war is destructive and
pathological. PEACE MOVEMENTS ARE PART OF WAR MOVEMENTS.

It is insufficient to be a "social critic." What is required is a form
of research, inquiry, analysis and interpretation that reveals the MECHANISMS
OR DYNAMICS UNDERLYING CULTURAL SYSTEMS. We must work toward uncovering the
PATHOLOGY THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE HISTORICAL PROCESS.

I call this project of revealing the dynamics of civilizational
destructiveness that of "making conscious the unconscious on the stage of
historical reality." To expose and reveal the shared fantasies that sustain
the cultural process is to take the first steps toward AWAKENING FROM THE
NIGHTMARE OF HISTORY.

With regards,

Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D.

--part1_9d.38a5459f.2be8707f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>     I am indebted to an e-mail fr=
om M. Kaplan, who related ideas put forth in my post on "National Unity and=20=
Hatred" to those of Judith Butler and Slavoj Zizek. I wrote about the nation=
al passion toward unity and the nationalist's insistence upon unanimity, whi=
ch often takes the form of condemning or ostracizing those who do not "go al=
ong" with the program. These skeptics (non-believers) are perceived by the m=
ajority to be outside the domain of national consensus. The existence of dis=
senting others threatens the fantasy of "oneness" that characterizes the dre=
am of nationalism. 
 
     Nazism was an extreme case of nationalism, almost a=
paradigm for this phenomenon (rather than an anomaly as some would prefer t=
o believe). 
    
    Hitler's idea was that it was necessary to exterminate th=
ose who "tore the Volk apart," persons (or classes of persons) whose existen=
ce seemed to cause the nation to fragment, be deprived of unity. 
 
     Nazism was a profoundly religious phenomenon. Jews=20=
were thrust into the role of infidels. Hitler said, "We wish to have no othe=
r God, only Germany." Jews symbolized persons who seemed to have another god=
. They represented those who were insufficiently reverential or worshipful t=
oward the beloved Volk. 
 
     What was the Final Solution? Essentially, it was a=20=
religious ritual whose meaning was "death to the non-believers." The infidel=
Jews would be destroyed, even as they were compelled to bow down, submit ab=
solutely to the Nation-State. The Jews would be forced to acknowledge the in=
exorable, inescapable will of the state, the god to which the German people=20=
already had prostrated themselves. 
 
     Butler's conceptualization of the relationship betw=
een the wish for national unity and hatred goes as follows: "The 'will' that=
is officially represented by the government is haunted by a 'will' that is=20=
excluded from the representative function." She goes on to say that in an "a=
pparently paranoid fit," universality seeks to efface (annihilate) "all trac=
es of the alterity that clings to it." 
 
     Zizek notes that the faction that requires the comm=
unity's "total endorsement" in fact produces "the very dissent it seeks to e=
liminate." He calls the Jew the "unassimilable Other" that will always be im=
agined to exist: "Specific members of this community will be forced to embod=
y this paranoid fantasy in reality." 
 
     What are the dynamics of this relationship? Why doe=
s the need to attach to and worship an omnipotent object require scapegoatin=
g? Why is nationalism bound up with the necessity for an "enemy?" 
 
     Where human beings imagine a nation, an omnipotent,=
benevolent entity that is to be honored, embraced and loved, they also brin=
g into being through their imaginations an "enemy." The enemy also is an omn=
ipotent entity, but now a malevolent one. Just as the idea of the devil sust=
ains the idea of god, so does the idea of the enemy sustain the idea of the=20=
nation. The enemy is our split off hostility, our own wish to abandon the ob=
ject which we love and to which we have submitted. 
 
     Love of one's nation and hatred of the enemy are tw=
o sides of the same coin. In order to love Germany unreservedly, Hitler need=
ed to create a Jew. What are the dynamics of this mechanism that requires ha=
tred (and destruction) in order to sustain love? 
 
     My research on Nazism and other forms of nationalis=
m has led to the conclusion that the splitting mechanism described above gro=
ws out of AMBIVALENCE TOWARD THE NATION-STATE. In order to maintain our atta=
chment to our country (or culture), belief in its absolute goodness, we have=
to have another place to locate our hostility. 
 
    We need to split off our perception that the country that=
we love is also bad and destructive, in addition to being good. The "other"=
is the place into which we project the destructiveness that has its source=20=
in our own nation. 
 
     The German nation and its leaders were responsible=20=
for the deaths of over two million German soldiers in the First World War. H=
itler was there at the Western front. He saw his comrades continually being=20=
blown to bits. He witnessed the endless mutilation of their bodies. He was w=
ell acquainted with the horror and destructiveness of war. He could not help=
but know that his fellow soldiers were being sent to their deaths by his ow=
n society and its leaders. 
 
     Yet-and this fact is the source of everything that=20=
was to follow-Hitler NEVER (consciously) COULD BLAME OR EXPRESS HATRED TOWAR=
D HIS OWN NATION. He would state in MEIN KAMPF that, in spite of what had oc=
curred in the war, nevertheless it would have been a "sin to complain." Afte=
r all, were the soldiers not "dying for Germany?" 
 
     Hitler's wish to maintain belief in the "goodness"=20=
of Germany, his refusal to acknowledge the badness contained within his own=20=
nation, caused him to repress or deny hostility. In order to maintain trust=20=
in Germany, Hitler projected the source of the nation's suffering, the cause=
of its destruction, onto THE JEW. Jews symbolized split off hostility towar=
d Germany, Hitler's own wish to separate from, abandon the hegemonic project=
(which oppressed him just as it oppressed everyone else). 
 
     One of the dynamics of American culture is that hos=
tility toward the nation, recognition of its destructiveness or imperfection=
, is split off and localized within intellectuals or academics. Within the a=
rena of public life and debate, there is little criticism of the nation and=20=
its leaders. In the academic sphere, on the other hand, criticism of and hos=
tility toward the nation are common. 
 
     SPLIT OF AMBIVALENCE IS PROJECTED INTO A PARTICULAR=
CLASS OF PERSONS, the intellectuals or "academics" who function to express=20=
hostility and skepticism toward the otherwise beloved nation. This class of=20=
persons "contains" the ambivalence experienced by everyone, permitting hosti=
lity to be repressed or disavowed by the majority culture. 
 
     Thus, the wish to attach to an omnipotent object an=
d to disconnect from it, love and hatred for one's nation and its people, th=
e desire to identify and to abandon identification, are contained within a S=
INGLE CULTURAL DYNAMIC OR SYSTEM. 
 
     The "war movement" and the "peace movement" go hand=
in hand. Each constitutes one element of a single dynamic or system. Whenev=
er a war occurs, a "peace movement" is required so that persons have a place=
into which they can split off the repressed perception that war is destruct=
ive and pathological. PEACE MOVEMENTS ARE PART OF WAR MOVEMENTS. 
 
     It is insufficient to be a "social critic." What is=
required is a form of research, inquiry, analysis and interpretation that r=
eveals the MECHANISMS OR DYNAMICS UNDERLYING CULTURAL SYSTEMS. We must work=20=
toward uncovering the PATHOLOGY THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE HISTORICAL PROC=
ESS. 
 
     I call this project of revealing the dynamics of ci=
vilizational destructiveness that of  "making conscious the unconscious=
on the stage of historical reality." To expose and reveal the shared fantas=
ies that sustain the cultural process is to take the first steps toward AWAK=
ENING FROM THE NIGHTMARE OF HISTORY. 
 
With regards, 
 
Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D.</HTML>

--part1_9d.38a5459f.2be8707f_boundary--