Loving Hate, Paranoia, and the American Dream

Dear Editor,

Psychoanalytic knowledge is not only applicable to individuals in the treatment room but to society, politics and its leaders as well. Here I will share some of my reflections on these issues. Erik Erickson has addressed a developmental relationship between play and political imagination, which is a shared vision with the world, the interplay of work activities, intimate affiliations, and the political activities of a community (Toys and Reasons and the Ritualization of Experience, 1977). He also indicates that in the interplay between individuals, society, and the designated leaders we may share in the “national dream” or in our collective nightmare.

There was a time in which little boys played and dreamed of becoming president. This ego ideal of contributing something good to society might be lost where conditions are such that competition for society’s benefits are only available to the few. The shift then becomes a move from idealization of the presidency to the denigration of it, to what Christopher Bollas calls “loving hate” (The Shadow of the Object, 1987). In loving hate, hate’s aim is not necessarily to destroy another. In loving, the person hates another person for precisely the opposite reason; the aim is to preserve the relationship, to act out an unconscious form of love. An individual maintains a relationship by sustaining a passionate negative catharsis of hating or by being hateful and inspiring the other to hate them, compelling the other into passionate relating. Viewed this way hate is not the opposite of love but a substitute for love for the purpose of sustaining an attached relationship and preserving the other; loving hate becomes the relationship of choice.

Jules Nydes in his studies of the paranoid and the masochistic character found that the masochist gives up power for the sake of love, and the paranoid gives up love for the sake of power (“The Paranoid

-Masochistic Character,” Psychoanalytic Review, 50 [1963] (pp. 215-351). Nydes does not see sadism as the other side of love. He perceives the paranoid process as the corresponding process in pursuing being loved. Nancy McWilliams in her description of the neurotic paranoid character writes that they often seek out political roles as an opportunity to impact and oppose forces they see as evil or threatening (e.g. Bush’s “axis of evil”). These individuals often present themselves as highly competent, which helps to get them elected, uniting the voters around what they see as good for the country and labeling anything different as non-patriotic. Paranoid people struggle not only with anger, resentment, vindictiveness and other hostile feelings—they also suffer overwhelming fear, as well as shame and guilt (Nancy McWilliams, Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Practice, 1994). They tend to attack before they are attacked, have a sense of entitlement, and deny responsibility while utilizing reaction formations, for it is the others who are at fault, it is they who are out to get him. Regrettably, this seems to be the case in contemporary American politics

Many times in the past seven years of the present administration I have found myself thinking of the extent of my hate and resentment of its policies. I hate and resent President Bush and Vice President Cheney for demeaning liberalism and intellectual pursuits in the name of patriotism. It has been so disappointing to see Colin Powell and others who are in a position to oppose bad policies knuckle down to demands by those dominating this presidency. Is

Page 94

my hate a response to their hatred in disregarding my needs and the needs of others? Why have we allowed their counterproductive policies to bring this country to economic chaos and a loss of status in the world? Why have they not been forcefully challenged? Why don’t all of the large number of Americans who feel exactly as I do have more influence? We seem to have not united in the name of love, hope and positive regard for one another, but instead remained connected to one another and to the present government policies though our hate of their policies. We are the recipients of their internal and external love hate relationships, which in turn elicit our own negative responses and keeps us tied to politics of hostility and hate. This is not always the case, but seems to be so at present.

The leader cannot lead without the group. This interconnection exists between the members of the group in power on the one hand and the electoral group on the other. The tendency of groups is to seek someone to lead for unity and safety. The individual ideal is given up for the group ideal. It is the egoideal from which positive injunctions originate, and it is the superego from which the negatives arise. It is a question of positive regard versus fear of punishment. What happens in politics hinges on the healthy narcissism of the elected leaders, for it is this healthy narcissism that allows them not only power but also the ability to achieve what is truly good for the country. If paranoia is the prominent feature of leaders then group paranoia will be dominant. One difference between narcissistic and paranoid tendencies is that the narcissists are afraid of revealing their inadequacies and the paranoids are afraid of people’s malevolence, and therefore have a tendency to jump the gun and act out their demons.

Sincerely yours,

Hanna Turken

Page 95