Freedom Versus Belonging: A Core Ambivalence in Contemporary Political Dynamics

Pages: 493-514

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-30366-1_41

Abstract:

This chapter presents several different conceptualizations of the ambivalence which, it argues, is a central feature of the psyche of the modern individual. It is produced by two basic but potentially contradictory needs – for the assertion of individuality, and for membership of a collectivity. The understanding of this ambivalence is an important contribution of psychoanalysis to psychosocial theory. It bridges between sociohistorical and clinical perspectives and throws light on many aspects of the contemporary world. The starting point is Erich Fromm’s The Fear of Freedom (1942). Fromm describes the depth of fearful aloneness and vulnerability felt by the modern individual who has emerged from the very limited individuation of pre-modern societies. This leads to the dangers of a regressive escape from that fear, and into identification with an idealized collective, which is the basis of popular support for authoritarianism. This remains a highly relevant analysis, though another, complementary dynamic must now also be considered. This involves a fear of the collective, a libertarian denial of the pains of separation, and an idealization of the unfettered individual. A deficit of confidence in the core, individuated self produces vulnerability to both of these anxieties, trapping us in an ambivalence between freedom and belonging, unable to feel fully secure with either. Developments in post-Freudian theory have offered clinically-based elaborations and variations on this idea of a basic ambivalence. Here the focus is on Guntrip’s account of the schizoid dilemma, and on descriptions of a “core complex” (Glasser) involving agoraphobic and claustrophobic impulses and oscillations between them. These different formulations converge in their picture of a self unable to live either with or without human relationships. A number of key topics in politics today are then considered in the light of this analysis: attitudes toward the state, national identity and nationalism, terrorism, and populism. In each area, the expression and interplay of these complementary anxieties and defences against them are seen to contribute to the present difficulties of democracy.

Source: Scopus