[lit-ideas] Re: Sustained Incongruencies
- From: Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:37:27 -0700
> Are you advocating for the Karen Horney reading in
> _Neurosis and Human Growth_ that the tension between the real self and the
> ideal self drives neurosis?
ck: I was being simplistic in a dogmatic tone. Thank you for complicating.
I suppose that book did influence me, but I was referring to a more expanded
views that encompasses basic hypocrisy. Advocating, as you put it, for
reducing the burden of guises (personae) in an individual's life. In my
life, for instance.
> Surely that's not the same as the ability to hold contradictory views in
> mind and suspend judgment, the so-called "negative capability"?
ck: Surely that is not the same. Right. Intellectual capability is not the
same as, say, the emotional dissonance that comes from believing sets of
contradictory ideas. The Krugman column you maligned was his acknowledgement
of personal discomfort at holding contradictory views. The column was an
initial attempt at resolving that incongruency (one that a slew of his
readers share) by acknowledging it out loud. This is an important function
of columnists.
But back to this not being about you. You inhabit various roles, in the
sense of adopting points of view for the purpose of argument, on this list.
I don't take that to mean that you necessarily agree with what you espouse.
In Horney's construct, such intellectual and emotional play helps nurture
the creation of an authentic self (what an old, comforting notion!). Adopt a
position, try it on in a three-sided mirror, and rent it for a special
occasion.
Problems tend to amass when the belief systems cohabit and contradict, as in
your example of the ideal vs. real self. Confronting that obvious
discrepancy would cause disequilibrium, to a degree. Depends on the person's
defenses, and the weight of that discrepancy (incongruity) to a person's
total self-concept.
But lookie here--look at the range of small and huge lies we buy into,
politically, ethically, etc. "I am a person who does not relish lying, and I
do so only when telling the truth would hurt a loved one's feelings." Okay,
got it. This person's belief system allows for lying, under some
circumstances. Would it be any surprise, then, if this individual gives Bush
slack to lie time and again? No. The rationale might be that Bush is
protecting us, his beloveds, by lying. Necessary lies. Lying, then, wouldn't
diminish the honor in Bush's behavior or character, in this individual's
eyes. Simple. Not so simple, though, if our hero approves of Bush's lying
for a "higher purpose," but also believes that this democracy must be
"transparent," with limited power to the executive branch--no carte blanche
on lying for the head of state.
Resolved for the individual through debate, or by rearranging priorities. If
not, you get the sad, ludicrous, and neurotic (ah, love that old term!)
situation of a guy screaming, "I hate people screaming!"
Carol
Rather the
> incongruence in neurosis have to do with self concept and forms of desire.
> (E.g., "I am a great painter who will start painting as soon as I get time
> off from my Wal-Mart clerk job.")
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
