Individualism and Morality

The totalitarian state is a force of collectivism. What all totalitarians have in common is a desire to destroy man's individuality and self-determination and reduce him to an obedient tool of the state. Traditionally, this was accomplished by means of fear - threats of physical violence to encourage individuals to comply with demands that were not in their interest. In the present age, psychology is being leveraged to engage the subordinate in their own subordination - to create willing victims.

Historically, conflicts were between dictators seeking control - to determine which of them would be the master of all men. It has only been for a few hundred years that freedom has been an option: man does not fight to choose who will rule him, but to avoid being ruled at all and maintain his freedom and integrity.

And historically, a "society" was conceived as a homogeneous mass of individuals: a religion or a polity sought to have followers who all were essentially the same. It is only in the modern era that the notion arose of a society of individuals, who had different beliefs but voluntarily agreed to collaborate and coexist while maintaining their individuality and individual rights.

The Politics of Psychology

Psychology is a tool for understanding and influencing human behavior, which generally includes the diagnosis of abnormalities and therapy to return the patient to a normal state. But there is no universal criteria for what constitutes normalcy and health. A person's behavior is considered in the context of their society - and behavior that is functional in one social context is dysfunctional in another. The goal of the totalitarian is to gain the complete obedience and compliance of every citizen, and in that context a "healthy" or "normal" state would be one of complete submissiveness and obedience to the regime.

He mentions the difficulty of treating patients in Nazi-occupied Holland. Many of the problems for which people seek psychological help revolve around their relationships with others, the degree to which they feel they are in control of their own lives. To suggest to a patient that he is unhappy because he is politically oppressed is a dangerous thing in such a political climate.

In medical fields that treat physical disorders, the objective and scope of medicine is limited to the patient: an individual. The patient is treated in a manner that restores him to health and renders him capable of functioning in the way that the human body is designed. One does not need to consider the needs of the patient's neighbors or the interests of his political leader when stitching a wound or setting a bone, just the needs of the patient as an individual. There may be some politics involved in choosing whom to treat when there are many who are sick, but the treatment of the individual patient pursues very clear goals.

It should therefore follow in medical fields that treat mental disorders, the objective and scope of treatment should also focus on the condition and needs of an individual patient. That is, to treat a man as if his mind is like any physical organ, fit and functional for his own survival. It is in this way that psychology is, or ought ot be, a very democratic and individualistic science: it must take as a premise that each man exists for his own sake, and not as a means to be of service to others except by his own volition.

In a psychological sense, the "health" of a patient are determined by his ability to be self-sustaining as an individual. It is recognized that children are dependent, and necessarily so, and that attachment to the parents and other caregivers is a necessary part of their psychology because they are physically dependent upon them for survival. But in adulthood, an individual is physically capable of being self-sustaining and his mind must develop to prefer empowerment over dependency on others. Indeed, the dividing line between youth and adult is self-sufficiency.

Because man lives in the context of society, there is always a level of concern for the welfare of others. Sympathy for their conditions drives us to voluntarily serve their interests, and by necessity there cannot be a society in which every person is competitive and hostile toward his fellows. But beyond a certain point, love of others requires the abandonment of self, which is equally unhealthy. The proper state, functionally required for individual and collective existence, is a delicate balance between self-interest and respect for the interest of others.

As an aside, the author comments that there is a serious problem in Western society because of the way in which children are raised - the transition for an obedient and dependent child to a self-directed and independent adult is too abrupt, and often is expected to begin too soon. Growth is a slow evolutionary process, and an individual who is cast out of the nest too soon may find himself unable to cope with the responsibility of choosing his own course in life, and may cling to a totalitarian leader as a replacement for the caregivers who have abandoned him.

The Future of Psychology

The author predicts that the future of psychology will be marked by the conflict between those who wish to dominate and those who wish to defend against domination (at least against the domination of others). It is clearly not a matter of character or personal abilities: anyone can be brought into submission, as it has been seen that many of the victims of brainwashing and menticide were regarded as strong and loyal men.

The greatest obstacle is that individualism, freedom, and the right to exist for one's own sake are often ignored as the conflict is often between two different competing totalitarians whose sole concern is not protecting men against being controlled, but in being the sole controller of men. And for that reason, the need to prepare men to face brainwashing and to help them recover afterward will be ongoing - as freedom, liberty, and democracy come in and out of fashion.