Zizek's Old Joke

The joke, as Zizek tells it, goes along these lines: 

A man is convinced he is a grain of seed. He is quickly taken to a mental institution where the doctor eventually convinces him that he not a grain of seed; he is a man. He is then supposedly cured and is permitted to leave the hospital. However, once he steps outside, he immediately rushes back in trembling with fear. "There is a chicken outside," the man says "and he is going to eat me." The doctor tells him, "Come now, you know very well you not a grain of seed, but a man." "You and I surely know that," the man tells him, "but does the chicken know?" 

This just tells us the nature of psychoanalytic study -- it not enough to convince the truth to the patient, but one must also be convinced that others assume that same truth. It is this struggle of truths that encapsulates the psychiatric field, which attempts to normalize individuals who have accepted a reality different than that of one's peers. 

Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Modernity

In the beginning of book VII of Plato's Republic, Socrates begins to describe his most famous story -- the allegory of the cave. 

"And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: Behold! Human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood and have their legs and necks chains so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette-players have in front of them, over which they show puppets" [514]. 

An illustration would aid in understanding Socrates' scenario, with shadows being created on the wall the prisoners are facing. 

"To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images" [515c].  

To Socrates, this is the dark aura of the unenlightened persons -- living in the mere shadows of reality and lacking any movement beyond the state of mind that was molded of them. Unable to move their heads, the prisoners are unaware of the real mechanisms that guide their lives, instead they resort to the reflections as an understanding rather than being able to comprehend the reasons behind these reflections. So what occurs when the prisoners are released from their shackles, and forced to see the light? Socrates explains.

"And now look again, and see waht will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and  compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look toward the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned toward more real existence, he has a clearer vision -- what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?" [515d] 

"...and if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now becoming shown to him?" [515e]

Socrates here makes a crucial point, and it is this aspect of his telling that is the most relevant. Although the individual has been freed of the prison he was once kept in, he still yearns to go back to the comfortable reality of ignorance (the shadows). The newly-awakened sense of consciousness is suppressed, and replaced with comfortable thoughts; those that coincide with the reality the individual once took as 'real.'

Socrates, with this simply allegory, describes a phenomena that is common and persistent in modern social groups and cultural mores. He also describes psychological attributes which are a common theme in psychiatric studies, which have ramifications far beyond individual enlightenment. In Freudian terms, such mechanisms can be described as one of the major defense characteristics of the mediating ego -- outright simple denial, in this case. Being one of the more primitive of the mental defenses, such a reaction is knee-jerk one which lacks any rationalization when initially done. It is done to purely derive pleasure (i.e relieving anxiety and restoring one's comfort zone), and, lacking any justification, it falls into the trap of succumbing to the id, the instinctual drives that seeks to maximize pleasure. It is unresponsive to one's real positioning in reality, which is shown when the freed individual in the cave rejects what is true. 

Now, the basic question -- what does this all this Freudian lingo translate to and what are its implications? In modern society, especially in the Western world, we are bombarded with information more so than any other period in history. With such immense amounts of information, one must, consciously or not, form a concrete methodology of understanding; choosing out of this immensity, what one wishes to engage in. Much of this "choosing" occurs unconsciously; we are driven towards our ideology, at least to the unaware, towards what is fed to us. The media cultivates our perceived normality, reinforces our social positioning, and ferments in us certain desires. This is what I would presume Socrates would call "the cave" -- be it through reality TV, or creating a character of ourselves on social networking, these all create reflections that we perceive as integral to our consciousness. The shadows themselves are manifested in viewing our personal taste as authentic, but they are merely constructs of social mediums (i.e the puppeteers). Submitting to the id, certain such mediums tap into our pleasure principle -- creating desires and indulgences, or as Marx would call it, the fetishism of the commodity.

There is a twist to Socrates' tale, however. There is no need for such a 'bringer of light' that shows the prisoner the enlightenment. Knowledge in the Information Age is not suppressed, rather it is steadily subdued and structurally ignored. The knowledge of the internet is in the open, ready to be accessed, however social mechanisms and cultural norms that have been created over the years have created such a culture where information is paradoxically restricted. Be it in the political sphere, in literature, or any other -- structures within our own system facilitates "the cave" while subduing the enlightenment Socrates' pushes. Alienating to an insatiable degree, it bears resembles to one of the eerie mottoes of The Party in George Orwell's book 1984; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. It grants strength to the structures that dominate our consciousness, and consequently empowers the overseers of our individualistic demise.

The Compatibility of Freud and Marx

At first, the marriage of Freud and Marx in academia seems a bit out of place. It initially seems to be a senseless attempt to encapsulate two different fields of study, and to place them in similar spheres would be to diminish their individual professionalism and importance. Despite being distinct areas of interest, they do share parallels that should be properly analyzed and discussed cohesively.

Sigmund Freud is seen as the founder of psychoanalysis, and more generally, of modern psychology. Responsible for uncovering and studying the unconscious mind, Freud brought to light certain mechanisms which drive individuals, that are absent from one's natural cognition. Understandably so, this discovery had a profound impact on our supposed potentiality and actions -- the idea of mental workings beyond our individual awareness, driving our instinctual assumptions and activities, was a grave revelation. Likewise, much of it was repressed and met with harsh criticism when first introduced. The idea of an "unconscious" agent of action was seen as obscene and dehumanizing to individualist pursuits. One's idealized desires were now being undermined as simply being partial products of unconscious mechanisms, that were outside an individual's control or presumptive awareness. It was a frightening for most to even consider. 

Marxism takes a similar approach in its analysis. Marx too was responsible for uncovering social mechanisms that have escaped the supposed reality of societies, but were always present and crucial to functioning. He theorized all societies engage in a creation of surplus value and its successive allocation. Who allocates this surplus is a question that is answered by the organization and structure of the particular society, albeit unknowingly to those within it. In feudalism, such allocation was done by the lords in distributing the surplus created by the serfs. In slavery, it was the slaveholders. In modernity, it is allocated by 'capitalists' -- or under the corporate model, by a board of directors. Like Freud, Marx brings forth the uncomfortable truth that has escaped the collective consciousness (rather than the individual). He discusses a social apparatus that has always existed, but has been absent from the mentality of the community. Similar to Frued's analysis of the ramifications of the unconsciousness on human behavior and conditioning, the allocation of the surplus is responsible for cultivating and molding the community culture, its cherished beliefs, and its wants. Once again, similar to Freud, we see workings that have been absent from human awareness, but have been crucial in its development. And just as Freud's developments, they have been suppressed all the same, and for similar reasons, although you could argue analyses of the unconscious have become relatively mainstream.

This is where the main similarity lies, which validates the merging the two fields for respective questions that require it. Such an approach is practiced by the likes of philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who adheres more to Lacan's methodology, and psychologist Wilhelm Reich, who analyzed class relations through a Freudian lens. Personally, I see much of Freudian psychology to be lacking and being too speculative where it should be substantiated. The works of Jacques Lacan and Carl Jung are perhaps more compatible with Marxian thought, especially Jung's work on the collective unconsciousness, however Freud's analysis still has its uses despite its recurring limitations.

Anomie and Revolution

Sometimes in the heat of revolutionary change, unspeakable atrocities are committed. Individuals look back in horror at what was inflicted and are unable to comprehend how citizens could go into such a collective state of irrationality. This societal dilemma is called an issue of anomie, which is described as a state of normlessness; where there is a rejection of self-regulatory values and any distinction between right and wrong, for the moment, become obsolete. 

David Émile Durkheim, one of the fathers of modern sociology, coined the term 'anomie' in 1897 in his book 'Suicide' and describes it as a "a rule that is a lack of a rule." A society can become anomic for a variety of reasons, but it is always preceded by a dissatisfaction with the current set of affairs. In essence, the people's will to change the old order overcomes their rational instincts and makes them primitive peoples; regressing them from their modern consciousness. It is this phenomenon that is perhaps an obstacle to major revolutionary change, if done too hastily; since people loose their moral senses, their ability to recognize an emerging despotism all the more diminishes. This can have devastating consequences to the society after the initial short-lived euphoria of change.

One prevalent detailed precursor to 'collective anomie' is distorted idealism. The German Romantic author, Jean Paul, called this relationship of the mind and earth Weltschmerz - the grim understanding that the demands of the mind cannot be met in the physical world and that one's weaknesses are a direct result of his relationship with the cruelty of what he witnesses and experiences. There are seemingly two dark paths that can follow; either the individual enters a state of escapist mentality and seclusion or develops an anomic response that renders him incapable of self-regulating his values. The former is much less socially destructive, since it is individualistic, and is much more prevalent; it is known as Hikikimori in psychological studies and oftentimes is caused by post-industrialism and its implications. It is especially present in modern day Japan, given the origin of the word itself; affecting about 3.6 million.

The anomic response to Weltschmerz holds a much greater societal cost. Although individual anomie is dubbed "sociopathic," collective anomie is much more radical; it is the destruction of norms and values - and seemingly, for that time being, the destruction of morality. This deregulation of morals is often seen in war and violent struggles. It was present in the Yugoslav Wars, where Serbian soldiers in newly declared states of Croatia and the Bosnia would massacre citizens of non-Serbian ethnicity - for little reason other than ethic cleansing. 

A complex dilemma arises when you examine their actions; where did their moral consciousness go, and how could these seemingly 'civilized' peoples engage in such irrational violence? 

Oftentimes, when individuals are given authority they feel inclined to maximize their power; the Serbian military was in a position of dominance, and they felt they needed to fully exert their power, no matter the ethical implications, for their 'nationalistic common good." They had no limits; they were in a state of anomie. And moreover, war usually causes irrationality in the soldiers themselves, affecting their decision-making and their state of mind. It drives soldiers to do inexplicable acts - some so heinous they're difficult to comprehend. In Bosnia during the Yugoslav War, rape was used as 'an instrument of terror' by the Serbian-Bosnians. The victims were usually Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) of the region. It illustrated a total suspension of ethics and is difficult even to describe in words. Young Bosnian girls were sold and passed around in predominately Serbian infantry lines for rape, torture, and sometimes death - the majority of this happening the region of Foča in Bosnia & Herzegovina. There were specific camps designated for rape and torture, driven by religious and ethnic hatred. Young females were systematically brought to the camps, raped & tortured, and traded to other soldiers for money or just general 'enjoyment.' In the submitted 'Seventh Report on War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia: Part II" the atrocities are described in grim detail:

"Day and night, soldiers came to the house taking two to three women at a time. They were four to five guards at all times, all local Foča Serbs. The woman knew the rapes would begin when 'Mars na Drinu' was played over the loudspeaker of the main mosque.." 

"..While 'Mars na Drinu' was playing, the women were ordered to strip and soldiers entered the homes taking the ones they wanted. The age of women taken ranged from 12 to 60. Frequently the soldiers would seek out mother and daughter combinations. Many of the women were severely beaten during the rapes."

The song 'Mars na Drinu' was a Serbian-Chetnik patriot song that was banned under Tito in socialist Yugoslavia. To illustrate the ethnic dimension even further, the report goes in more personal detail of the rapes:

"While the witness was being raped, her rapist told her, 'You should have already left this town. We'll make you have Serbian babies who will be Christians.' Two soldiers raped her at that time; [And then] five soldiers raped the 18-year-old girl in full view of the witness."

You can read the this particular war crimes report in full here. Also, an interview of Seada Vranic, the author of 'Breaking the Wall of Silence,' can be found here. She is a renowned journalist who has covered the mass rape that occurred during the Bosnian War. 

Now, the frightening question still remains; what caused these individuals to lose their sense of humanity? What desensitized them to the point of violence and rape? The collapse of their moral environment, their racially-idealist attempt to realize their nationalist goals, and the elimination of social values all contributed to their irrationality. They became submissive to 'herd mentality' that was formed on 'rules that lack rules' - there was no moral direction. It is this, I fear, that any form of disorganized violence could bring. This form of irrational collectivism is dangerous, and if any revolutionary change is brought it must be properly handled to prevent such a tragedy, in the true Aristotelian sense of the word, from happening.