The Geographical “Solution”: A Source of National Paranoia?

Dr. Fuchman’s evocative and topical presentation opened the way to exploring a problematic cultural stance in this country: attribution of our social woes to the influence of “alien” groups and movements (both domestic and foreign). This was described as a “paranoid” phenomenon—ranging from suspiciousness to psychosis—that could extend beyond individual opinion to political conviction.

I would like to propose that the American tendency toward paranoia might be further understood if the psychoanalytic definition of paranoia is considered. As put forward by analyst Melanie Klein, a paranoid reaction is one in which undesirable psychic states in the individual are attributed to external sources (notably to others), often with great intensity. Klein attributes this to an immature capacity to contain and manage negative feelings and reactions, therefore “projecting” responsibility for them to a location (notably human) outside the self. Thus, it would seem that in this example blame belongs with “him,” not “me,” or in the case of social groups, with “them,” not “us.”  Klein sees this as a normal developmental stage that becomes pathological if it persists to adulthood. It is a distortion of the normal dependent child-state preceding the more mature stage of responsibility. Normal development would next facilitate the individual ability to modify subjective wants with a realistic understanding of the needs of others—a stage described by Klein’s colleague, Donald Winnicott, as “the capacity for concern.”  Caught in a developmental passing-the-buck, howev-

Page 208

er, the paranoid individual will continue to locate the source of conflict outside the self.

Other psychoanalysts, Freud and Jung in particular, suggest that social groups may act as though they were collective individuals, and subsequently may evolve through stages of psychic growth parallel to those experienced in the development of the individual self. It then could be argued that a young and growing nation might be subject to emotional passages similar to those experienced by young and growing persons, and to a similar distortion of those passages. In America, a substantial part of the population might be overly inclined to locate social problems with “others” rather than adapt to the needs of a wider social context along with the needs of their own group.

Sometimes, clinicians ironically refer to this psychological maneuver as a “geographical solution,” as the patient decides to move out of town, job, partnership, or even psychotherapy to evade dealing with personal change. The patient acts as if psychic conflict over adaptation can be literally located outside the self and moved away from.

Before going further, it should be said that the complex tapestry of national paranoia cannot be woven with just one thread. However, there seems to be merit in considering that American paranoia may have become more pronounced as “Westering” to unsettled land has ceased to provide a “geographical solution” to social conflict. If projection is still used to avoid self-awareness, the time-honored device of scapegoating may become the predominant means of locating blame elsewhere.

It might even be said that the United States was founded as a geographical solution to social conflict. The country was settled by those seeking freedom from social constraint, even persecution, in their place of origin. They looked for space to settle as they chose either to develop a more desirable form of government to live with or pursue a specific way of life or belief without outside regulation. Those in the first group tended to settle in place and develop agreed-upon rules respectful of individual approaches to mutual goals while those in the second group remained less encumbered by the demands of any growing, diverse social context by continuing to move westward. North America seemed to offer endless territory to accommodate (for instance) the idealized lone cowhand or the religious sect. In all fairness, it should be noted that neither the first

Page 209

nor second group necessarily came into existence for paranoid reasons; the need to relocate was often based on a very real need to survive. The paranoid inclination, when present, developed parallel to the situation and likely over time.

Curiously, it would seem that America was founded on a contradictory concept of freedom as understood by these two groups. On the one hand, democratically inclined settlers perceive freedom as the outcome of cooperation among individual differences. On the other hand, Westering settlers tended to define freedom as the unquestioned right to do whatever they had chosen to do. For the latter group, the geographical solution allowed the projection of social conflict room enough to seem inconsequential and even a heroic expression of freedom. But when space ran out, the problematic nature of projection appeared increasingly in persecutory manifestations of “us” and “them” paranoid thinking.

The paranoid part of America, accustomed to being able to locate the source of conflict outside the self—indeed, even identifying this stance with a patriotic belief in freedom—sees its national idealism as threatened. It is then difficult, sometimes impossible, to argue reasonably that social freedom can only be maintained when we are all willing to make some space for each other. However, in a world growing steadily smaller, finding a place where no one is in disagreement seems increasingly unlikely. A realistic degree of change in the self is a necessary part of growing up. Our collective self would seem to have as difficult a time as our child self in coming of age.

Page 210