AMBIVALENCE TOWARD ONE'S NATION

--part1_63.1d1535be.2bf97578_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The initial stage of the process of "splitting" occurs, not in
relationship to "the enemy," but within one's own nation or culture.
Subjective experiences of love and hatred produce or become articulated as
ideological structures within society.

Human beings experience the emotions of both love and hatred toward
their own nations. Love is bound to the wish for identification or desire to
become "one" with one's nation. Hatred is connected to the wish to
disidentify, to separate from or abandon one's nation.

Identification with one's nation is equivalent to a kind of fandom and
brings with it a sense of power or omnipotence. "We're number one. We are the
greatest." All of us attain toward a sense of omnipotence through
identification with our own nation, society or culture.

However, we also experience our own nation or culture as oppressive.
The term "hegemony" is not simply (or primarily) descriptive of an objective
situation. Rather, this word conveys an experience, that of a self being
dominated or "hegemonized" by a powerful force that cannot be resisted. We
experience society as hovering above us, weighing down upon us. Ideas, words
and images seem to flow into us from afar (against our will), and to colonize
or hegemonize the self.

Typically, the ambivalence of subjects within a national culture is
expressed or institutionalized through the vehicle of a splitting mechanism.
Differing experiences of the nation are organized within the framework of
political positions. The "right winger" is someone who feels that his or her
nation and its leaders are "good." He or she identifies and supports the
nation, and therefore tends to struggle against the claims of "left wing"
types of persons, who express the opinion that the nation is "not good."

The left-wing position consists of expressing a skeptical or hostile
attitude toward the nation and its leaders. Persons who embrace this
ideological stance see "bad" in their own nation and culture. They experience
their nation's badness as a force acting to oppress or stunt the self. Such
persons adopt a rebellious posture toward the nation and its leaders as well
as toward those who tout the "goodness" of the nation--those unable or
unwilling to see the flaws or "evil" of its ways.

I suggest that these conventional ideological stances constitute a
single cultural system that exists to contain ambivalence. Right-wingers who
see mostly "goodness" in their nation act vehemently to push away or repress
the sense of their nation's badness. They repress or deny badness by fighting
those (left-wingers) who draw attention to the evil that the nation performs.
These persons cannot bear to acknowledge that their leaders and society
possesses a dimension of badness.*

To "the left" is delegated the ability to perceive, experience and
discuss the evil or badness of the nation and the acts that it performs.
Those on the left express their relationship or attachment to national
culture as paranoia. They denigrate right-wingers who refuse to perceive what
seems to be self-evident: that the nation contains badness and performs acts
of evil.

Beyond "the subject" lies the individual. The idea of individuality
implies that one no longer is entirely defined by one's nation or culture.
The attainment of individuality requires detachment, or the psychic
experience of separateness. The experience of oneself as psychically
separate from one's nation diminishes the need to idealize or denigrate one's
nation. Conversely, when one no longer needs to idealize or denigrate one's
nation, it is easier to separate from it.

Of course, from the perspective of the "life of the nation," embracing
and cultivating the realm of autonomy borders on committing a sin. The
individual who proclaims autonomy may risk becoming an accursed "man without
a country." According to the theory of nationalism, everyone is "part of" the
nation, obliged to participate and take a stand ("which side are you on?").

To refuse to take a stand regarding whether one's nation is "good" or
"bad" is equivalent to declaring that one is detached from it. What is feared
is that if everyone were to detach or separate, then the idea of one's nation
as an omnipotent, immortal group would dissolve or disintegrate.

The domain of the nation is the realm of immortality. The idea of the
nation contains the fantasy of eternal life.

We all live both within the concrete domain of everyday life and the
sacred realm of national (religious) immortality. This is a balancing act.
Even as we exist and live our actual lives (to the extent that this is
possible), so do we connect to the symbolic realm of immortality.

Hitler said, "You are nothing, your nation is everything." Some
academics say, "There is no other than the other." Within the framework of
these ideological positions, which affirm the absolute power of culture, the
subject becomes "snuffed out." Those who are unable or unwilling to
experience a degree of separation experience a sense of oppression, even as
they obtain gratification by virtue of feeling that their subjectivity is
fused with what seems to be an omnipotent or immortal realm.

The experience of separation from one's nation, religion or culture can
produce intense anxiety (terror)--as belief that one is fused with an
immortal realm begins to disintegrate. To affirm belief, one may seek to
submit absolutely to the omnipotent object. Affirmation of the omnipotent
object is achieved through absolute negation of the self.

Dying for one's country or religion constitutes proof of devotion.
Terrorism and war are efforts to prove one's devotion to others
(non-believers), to demonstrate to the world the power of one's god.
Terrorism, war (and genocide) require the death of others in the name of
one's own god or nation. Terrorism insists that others should share one's
sacrifice. War seeks to delegate sacrifice.

With regards,

Richard Koenigsberg

*An extreme case of those who refuse to acknowledge that nations and leaders
contain destructiveness are Holocaust Deniers. To some extent or another, all
of us are Holocaust deniers in that we prefer not to examine the possibility
that profound pathology is inherent within the ideology of the nation-state,
emanating from within the very fabric of civilization.

Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D.

--part1_63.1d1535be.2bf97578_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>      The initial stage of th=
e process of "splitting" occurs, not in relationship to "the enemy," but wit=
hin one's own nation or culture. Subjective experiences of love and hatred p=
roduce or become articulated as ideological structures within society. 
 
      Human beings experience the emotions of both=20=
love and hatred toward their own nations. Love is bound to the wish for iden=
tification or desire to become "one" with one's nation. Hatred is connected=20=
to the wish to disidentify, to separate from or abandon one's nation. 
 
     Identification with one's nation is equivalent to a=
kind of fandom and brings with it a sense of power or omnipotence. "We're n=
umber one. We are the greatest." All of us attain toward a sense of omnipote=
nce through identification with our own nation, society or culture. 
 
      However, we also experience our own nation or=
culture as oppressive. The term "hegemony" is not simply (or primarily) des=
criptive of an objective situation. Rather, this word conveys an experience,=
that of a self being dominated or "hegemonized" by a powerful force that ca=
nnot be resisted. We experience society as hovering above us, weighing down=20=
upon us. Ideas, words and images seem to flow into us from afar (against our=
will), and to colonize or hegemonize the self. 
 
      Typically, the ambivalence of subjects within=
a national culture is expressed or institutionalized through the vehicle of=
a splitting mechanism. Differing experiences of the nation are organized wi=
thin the framework of political positions. The "right winger" is someone who=
feels that his or her nation and its leaders are "good." He or she identifi=
es and supports the nation, and therefore tends to struggle against the clai=
ms of "left wing" types of persons, who express the opinion that the nation=20=
is "not good." 
 
      The left-wing position consists of expressing=
a skeptical or hostile attitude toward the nation and its leaders.  Pe=
rsons who embrace this ideological stance see "bad" in their own nation and=20=
culture. They experience their nation's badness as a force acting to oppress=
or stunt the self. Such persons adopt a rebellious posture toward the natio=
n and its leaders as well as toward those who tout the "goodness" of the nat=
ion--those unable or unwilling to see the flaws or "evil" of its ways. 
 
      I suggest that these conventional ideological=
stances constitute a single cultural system that exists to contain ambivale=
nce. Right-wingers who see mostly "goodness" in their nation act vehemently=20=
to push away or repress the sense of their nation's badness. They repress or=
deny badness by fighting those (left-wingers) who draw attention to the evi=
l that the nation performs. These persons cannot bear to acknowledge that th=
eir leaders and society possesses a dimension of badness.* 
 
      To "the left" is delegated the ability to per=
ceive, experience and discuss the evil or badness of the nation and the acts=
that it performs. Those on the left express their relationship or attachmen=
t to national culture as paranoia. They denigrate right-wingers who refuse t=
o perceive what seems to be self-evident: that the nation contains badness a=
nd performs acts of evil. 
 
      Beyond "the subject" lies the individual. The=
idea of individuality implies that one no longer is entirely defined by one=
's nation or culture. The attainment of individuality requires detachment, o=
r the psychic experience of separateness.  The experience of oneself as=
psychically separate from one's nation diminishes the need to idealize or d=
enigrate one's nation. Conversely, when one no longer needs to idealize or d=
enigrate one's nation, it is easier to separate from it. 
 
      Of course, from the perspective of the "life=20=
of the nation," embracing and cultivating the realm of autonomy borders on c=
ommitting a sin. The individual who proclaims autonomy may risk becoming an=20=
accursed "man without a country." According to the theory of nationalism, ev=
eryone is "part of" the nation, obliged to participate and take a stand ("wh=
ich side are you on?"). 
 
     To refuse to take a stand regarding whether one's n=
ation is "good" or "bad" is equivalent to declaring that one is detached fro=
m it. What is feared is that if everyone were to detach or separate, then <B=
>the idea of one's nation as an omnipotent, immortal group would dissolv=
e or disintegrate. 
 
     The domain of the nation is the realm of immortalit=
y. The idea of the nation contains the fantasy of eternal life. 
 
     We all live both within the concrete domain of ever=
yday life and the sacred realm of national (religious) immortality. This is=20=
a balancing act. Even as we exist and live our actual lives (to the extent t=
hat this is possible), so do we connect to the symbolic realm of immortality=
. 
 
     Hitler said, "You are nothing, your nation is every=
thing." Some academics say, "There is no other than the other." Within the f=
ramework of these ideological positions, which affirm the absolute power of=20=
culture, the subject becomes "snuffed out." Those who are unable or unwillin=
g to experience a degree of separation experience a sense of oppression, eve=
n as they obtain gratification by virtue of feeling that their subjectivity=20=
is fused with what seems to be an omnipotent or immortal realm. 
 
     The experience of separation from one's nation, rel=
igion or culture can produce intense anxiety (terror)--as belief that one is=
fused with an immortal realm begins to disintegrate. To affirm belief, one=20=
may seek to submit absolutely to the omnipotent object. Affirmation of the o=
mnipotent object is achieved through absolute negation of the self. 
 
     Dying for one's country or religion constitutes pro=
of of devotion. Terrorism and war are efforts to prove one's devotion to oth=
ers (non-believers), to demonstrate to the world the power of one's god. Ter=
rorism, war (and genocide) require the death of others in the name of one's=20=
own god or nation. Terrorism insists that others should share one's sacrific=
e. War seeks to delegate sacrifice. 
 
With regards, 
 
Richard Koenigsberg 
 
*An extreme case of those who refuse to acknowledge that nations and leaders=
contain destructiveness are Holocaust Deniers. To some extent or another, a=
ll of us are Holocaust deniers in that we prefer not to examine the possibil=
ity that profound pathology is inherent within the ideology of the nation-st=
ate, emanating from within the very fabric of civilization. 
 
 
Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D.</HTML>

--part1_63.1d1535be.2bf97578_boundary--