I want to thank you for sharing your secrets with us. You have trusted us, and treated us as if we were sinless and kind. You big old great thing, you sure are pretty as an Angel, and you have got plenty charm enough to be a gangster. I have seen every gangster movie ever made three times and I know what I am talking about. They put a little boot black on your hair, you could play Bugsy Siegel. From the foregoing, one might be led to think that the most desirable state is to feel free. This is true, but the situation, as usual, is not so very simple. Very often the feeling of freedom and of power to act is the most desperate of defenses against a deep and totally unconscious sense of powerlessness and constraint. A familiar clinical example is vigorous phallic activity covering an unconscious sense of smallness. The kinds of character defenses that are classified in general as counterphobic go along most frequently with an exaggerated sense of conscious freedom, or euphoria, or power to act at will. This is seen in its most vivid and most pathological form in the manic-depressive psychosis. When the patient is in a manic state, one is perfectly happy, perfectly powerful, and perfectly free—absurdly so, of course, so that one is not surprised to find one a short time later in such a state of stupefaction and despair that one cannot speak or move at al. As in most affect, intensity of the experience is an excellent indicator that the extreme opposite is close to expression. #RandolphHarris 1 of 16
May an intense feeling of compulsion and of lack of power be a defense against the achievement of greater freedom of the self? Why, indeed, should freedom of the self be defended against, when it is presumably what all mortals want? Christ having returned to Earth and to the Church he had founded appears and is recognized, for his grace shines among all mortals as in the days of his life. As a crowd gathers in wonderment and love about him, the Grand Inquisitor passes by, and, immediately understanding the situation, orders him arrested. That evening, in the darkness of the dungeon in which Christ is imprisoned, the Grand Inquisitor himself, alone, enters with a light in his hand. He speaks sternly and bitterly to Christ and recalls to him the temptation in the desert, during which the cursed and dread Spirit, the spirit of self-destruction and non-existence had put him the three temptations. These three temptations are to offer Christ something less than freedom; bread, or miracle, or mystery, or authority, but not freedom. For, as the dread Spirit had said, “Thou wouldst go into the World, and Thou art going into the World with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which people in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread—for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a mortal and a human society than freedom.” #RandolphHarris 2 of 16
And, in the words of the Grand Inquisitor: I tell Thee that mortals are tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom one can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born….Didst Thou forget that mortals prefer peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? In place of the rigid ancient law, Thou wouldst have it that mortals must hereafter with free heart decide for oneself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before one as one’s guide. However, didst Thou not know that one would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if one is weighed down with the fearful burden of free choice? Is the nature of mortals such that one can reject miracle, and at the great moments of one’s life, the moments of one’s deepest, most agonizing spiritual difficulties, cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Thou didst think too highly of mortals therein, for they are slaves. #RandolphHarris 3 of 16
We must ask ourselves what arrangement of the parts of the self might produce the feeling of freedom which Christ is represented as offering to mortal, then we may get an important clue from this passage. Consider this sentence of the Grand Inquisitor: “Didst Thou forget that mortals prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of chose in the knowledge of good and evil?” And, again, “In place of the rigid, ancient law, Thou wouldst have it that mortals must hereafter with free heart decide for oneself what is good and what is evil…” Here is a psychoanalytic sort of interpretation: the knowledge of good and evil refers to conscious knowledge of all the usually unconscious, internalized prohibitions and prescriptions, particularly those that relate to the most primitive and most energy-laden of our drives. Knowledge of good and evil implies the availability to consciousness both of impulses and of the forces that control impulse. It means, further, that the expression or renunciation of impulse would become a matter of conscious decision, made by the whole self, rather than a matter of the triumph of blind forces of either desire or restraint. Another way of putting this, in terms of such theoretical constructs as psychoanalysis provides, would be to say that, in freedom, the ego would no longer relate to the superego as a child to a punishing parent, but that the superego would become entirely integrated with the ego. #RandolphHarris 4 of 16
The feeling of constraint, then, may be said to derive from a fearful and hating orientation of the ego to the superego—that is, from an arrangement of parts of the self that would be the inner equivalent of being constrained from without, by alien and powerful forces. Such an arrangement is learned, of course; it occurs as a result of the experience of having been constrained by others, chiefly the parents. Still, it is evident that some such specialization of parts of the self is the normal and desirable state of affairs. If discipline is orderly, rational, and loving, it will not lead to severe repression and to consequent domination by unconscious forces. The feeling of freedom and the absence of inner, irrational compulsions will then be determined chiefly by the extent to which the superego is rational and conscious, and impulse is gratified or renounced in accordance with the decision of the ego. The existence of internalized irrational parents is thus a prime source of the feeling of compulsion, and indeed may actually restrict ability to respond adaptively—recall the phrase “the rigid, ancient law.” If, however, the ego itself were to become the source of ethical prescriptions, having assimilated the old function of the superego, the source of the prescription would no longer be unconscious and the feeling of compulsion would vanish. This is the aim of the psychoanalytically-based psychotherapies. #RandolphHarris 5 of 16
It should be noted that the production of a relatively rational superego by loving and rational parents is still something very short of that hypothetically possible if rarely realized state in which superego and ego are one. The client-centered therapy whose theory and practice is particularly impressive in its emphasis on the unconditional self-worth of the client and the total acceptance by the therapist of the fundamental goodness of the client. In terms of this analysis, such therapy would offer the client a loving and rational parent to internalize, but it would not have the further goal—and one that is rarely achieved in any case—of making available to consciousness once again the most primitive of impulses and the most powerful and most repressed of prohibitions. However, this latter is something of a digression. Let us return to the defensive character of compulsion, and to one of the most important of the arguments made against Christ by the Grand Inquisitor—that “nothing has ever been insupportable for mortal and a human society than freedom.” Why should the majority of people find such an arrangement of the self an intolerable one? Largely, one must answer, because of infantile fears—or, more accurately, because of fears that were very great during the period of early childhood, and that have persisted with undiminished intensity in the unconscious. Such fears were, to begin with, fears of outer forces of great power—literally, I believe, fear that one would be destroyed for expressing impulses unrestrained. #RandolphHarris 6 of 16
In civilized society (which, unhappily, a baby does not realize it has been born into) such fears might be called, from our civilized, adult viewpoint, unrealistic. Most parents really do not mean their children any harm. The baby, however, is not yet civilized, and he invests the outer forces with every bit as much intensity of desire, and rage when frustrated, as he himself possess. Thus he has good reason, when he is angry or insatiate, to fear the giants with whom he interacts and on whom he depends. He fears them because of the strength of his own impulses, which he experiences fully, and because the boundary between inner and outer is still fluid, so that he is not always certain who is enraged. In the adult, such fears persist, first of all, as fear of impulses from within, and, secondly, as fear of destruction from the internalized parents. It would be easy to say, “unrealistic fears,” but the fact is that persons kill themselves for their own impulses—that is, they deal out the most extreme punishment to themselves for a crime they were impelled to commit, though the crime they do in fact commit is murder of the self rather than of the other. Where impulses are so fearsome and the forces of restraint so ferocious, it seems safer not to be free—or, to put the matter in other terms, it seems safer not to know anything about the situation of the self. #RandolphHarris 7 of 16
However, here one is reminded of a most significant quotation from the New Testament—“one who would save one’s life shall lose it…” The moral message of Christ, insofar as it is embodied in this question, consisted exactly of the advocacy of the wisdom of self-forgetfulness, which objectively in psychoanalytic terms means the establishment of a relationship of harmony and love between the ego and the superego, or the dissolution of the wall that separates what we are from what we think we should be. I cannot develop the thesis in detail here, but it seems to me that the New Testament is best understood in terms of the relationship between personified conscious knowledge—the Word made flesh, alive and changing, taking its chances, open to beauty and decay—and the ancient, rigid law and lawgiver, fixed, abstract, decided. The constantly recurring imagery of the Son and the Father suggests that the specific content of the conflict and the disharmony which Christ sough to resolve. To recapitulate: freedom, or conscious knowledge of the primitive forces of id and superego, is greatly feared, even in adulthood, because of the persistence in the unconscious of the earliest and most intense of fears. Thus the prospect of freedom is intolerable. One further aspect should be touched upon. The condition of freedom, or complete consciousness, would entail complete assumption of responsibility for one’s self. #RandolphHarris 8 of 16
One could not claim to know not what one did, for the impulse in all its vulnerable state would be experienced. The intention would be fully realized and, if consented to, accomplished in full knowledge. However, if one follows the dictates of an internalized parent and is thereby somewhat less free to act according to one’s deepest inclinations, one is at the same time not wholly responsible for the consequences. The parent is responsible, and the ego is still a child. Thus the individual may avoid judging for one’s self what is right and what is wrong. One is not weighed down by the fearful burden of free choice, and one is consequently actually less free. For it remains to be said that the truth shall make one free. The essential point of this analysis is that objective freedom, in the sense of response variability, is at a maximum when a genuine feeling of freedom exists, and that such a feeling of freedom occurs in the presence of a broadened consciousness both of impulse and of ethical prescriptions. So far as the postulate of determinism is concerned (for instance, absolute predictability in principle), it should be quite evident that such a postulate is irrelevant to both the objective and the subjective meanings of freedom. If one assumes a closed system of knowledge and a perfect description of the given state of affairs, then all events are absolutely predictable, including the actions of human beings of quite different degrees of objective freedom and of subjective sense of freedom. #RandolphHarris 9 of 16
The acceptance of determinism as a working hypothesis is basic to psychology as a science. When it become more than that, as it so often does, and is elevated from modus vivendi to sentiment and then to principle for one’s whole life, it is surely itself a form of self-imposed restriction upon imagination and the capacity to create. For myself, I believe there is a recalcitrant oddness at the heart of things—I had almost written at the heart of hearts—and I am pleased when my mind wanders off to think no more of this or that. There are many experiences which jar us out of the quantitative, routine treadmill of time, but chief among them is the thought of dying. A modern English author describes how he endeavored for years to write by following conventional methods. “I thought I could write to formula,” as he put it; and during the war, he continued, “I found out why I had not been published before. When we were all thinking we might die the next day, I decided to write what I wanted.” When we point out, as actually happened, that his writing then became successful, some persons might interpret the illustration with a conventional success moral, “If you wish to be successful write what you want.” However, such a moral, of course, entirely misses the point. The author’s previous need to write according to external standards and for ulterior purposes—success being the chief one in our day—was exactly what was blocking him in tapping his qualities and powers as a writer. And it was precisely this need that he gave up at the time of facing death. #RandolphHarris 10 of 16
If one may die tomorrow, why knock one’s self out trying to fit this standard or that formula? Assuming tat success and rewards might be achieved by writing to formula—which is a toss-up in any case—one may not be around long enough anyway to enjoy the rewards, so why not treat one’s self to the joy at the moment of writing according to one’s own integrity? The possibility of death jars us loose from the treadmill of time because it so vividly reminds us that we do not go on endlessly. It shocks us into taking the present seriously. Thinking that tomorrow is also a blessed day no longer comforts and excuses; one cannot wait around forever. It makes more crucial for us the fact that whole we are not dead at the moment, we some time will be: so why not choose something at least interesting in the meantime? The so-call cynical poet of the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes, is in fact very realistic at this point. Amid his recurrent refrain, “all is vanity,” he points out that the wise man will not wait around for future rewards and punishments. “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do” Ecclesiastes continues, “do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor substance, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whiter thou goest.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 16
A mortal should act under the form of eternity. For I understand Eternity to be existence itself. For the existence of a thing, such as an eternal truth cannot explained by duration or time. The existence of something depends on its essence—and idea which is not as abstruse as it sounds at first glance. To apply it to one’s self, a person acts under the form of eternity to the extent that one’s actions arise from one’s own essential center. In example of the author we talked about previously, such an act was his decision to write, not according to external changing fads, which rise and fall from week to week, but from the inward, unique, original character which makes one an individual. Living in the eternal moment does not mean mere intensity of living (though self-awareness always adds some intensity to one’s experience): nor does it mean living by an absolute doctrine or covenant, religious or otherwise, or by a moral rule. It means, rather, making one’s decision in freedom and responsibility, in self-awareness and in accord with one’s own unique character as a person. If a person is to be creative in one’s use of anger, two basic conditions need to prevail. In the first place one needs to be aware of anger and accept is as a valued part of the self. Secondly, one needs to be able to express one’s anger directly and responsibility. If these conditions can be met in some degree, various values can be achieved. #RandolphHarris 12 of 16
For one thing, this creative use of anger will mean less punishment of ourselves. We will not be so likely, for example, to suffer physical illness. It is unquestionably true that many instances of heart trouble, high blood pressure, and ulcers (to name the most obvious problems) are related to the suppression of anger. When a person is filled with chronic unexpressed hostility (of which one may or may not be aware), the body is overworked by being in an almost constant state of preparation for emergency in which the heart works harder, the blood pressure rises, and digestive processes slow down. Eventually the body is likely to suffer permanent physical damage under this strain. If the person is able to deal with anger as it arises and get it out of one’s system, however, the natural rhythm of the body can be maintained as the reactions caused by the anger quickly subside. Since depression also often results from turning anger in on oneself, creative expression of anger can frequently eliminate this punishment we inflect on ourselves. Kelley, a college girl, made an almost successful suicide attempt by taking a large number of sleeping tablets. In the weeks that followed, with the encouragement of a therapist, she began to express some of the anger toward her parents that she had previously felt she dare not talk about. Kelley’s depression quickly subsided, assisted in part by the fact that her parents accepted her feelings much better than she had thought they would. #RandolphHarris 13 of 16
The creative expression of anger not only helps us to be less self-destructive, but it also makes for more effective relationships with others. Many of us, because of early teaching, go through our lives assuming the opposite. If we become angry, we are likely to feel guilty because we feel we have destroyed something between ourselves and the other person. So instead of improving ourselves in the skill of expressing anger, we try to become better at controlling and suppressing it. How can getting mad at others improve our relationship with them? Well, for one thing, when we express anger, we are more emotionally honest in our relationships. Too often we do not really know each other, even when we desire to be intimate. Our encounters with each other have a shadowy, unreal quality, because there are so many gaps in our communication. We hide many of our feelings. Often the feelings we hide is anger. And when we do not express our anger to those who matter to us, we do both ourselves and them a disservice. Our lack of candor perpetuates the psychological distance that exists in the relationship and cheats us of satisfying experiences of intimacy. #RandolphHarris 14 of 16
A cunning part of Satan’s strategy is to dissociate anger from agency, making us believe that we are victims of an emotion that we cannot control. One couple discovered after fifteen years of marriage that the wife had harbored resentment about a pet peeve for most of that time. Whenever they went out for and evening or weekend with other couple, she thought he did not pay their share of the costs. However, she never expressed her anger. Finally, when it did come out in a group-therapy session, she discovered that all the time he had been contributing their share or more in a quiet, unassuming way. If she had been more emotionally honest and had been able to express her anger years earlier, this particular could would not have impaired their relationship. It begins to become clear, then, that to show anger is often an expression of love and concern, a way of saying, “You matter to me.” On a community level, for example, significant social reforms have usually occurred in situations where someone has expressed anger about existing conditions, saying in effect to some segment of society, “You are hurting yourself and all of us by what you are doing.” We learn in the proclamation on the family that the family is central to the Creator’s plan and that husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness. The family is also Satan’s primary target. He waging war on the family. #RandolphHarris 15 of 16
One of his schemes is the subtle and cunning way he has of sneaking behind enemy lines and entering our homes and lines. Satan often damages and destroys families within the walls of their own homes. His strategy is to stir up anger between family members. Satan is the father of contention, and he stirs up the hearts of people with anger, one with another. To lose one’s temper is an interesting choice of words that has become a widely used idiom. To lose something implies not meaning to, accidental, involuntary, not responsible—careless perhaps but not responsible. “He made me made.” This is another phrase we hear, also implying lack of control or agency. This is a myth that must be debunked. No one makes us mad. Others do not make us angry. There is no force involved. Becoming angry is a conscious choice, a decision; therefore, we can make the choice not to become angry. We choose! Choice and accountability are inseparable principles. May the Lord bless you and inspire you to walk without anger. “One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and one that rules one’s spirit than one that takes a city,” reports Proverbs 16.32. It is when we become angry that we get into trouble. Most of the inmates of our prisons are there because they did something when they were angry. “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger rests in the heart of the unfortunate,” reports Ecclesiastes 7.9. #RandolphHarris 16 of 16
Randolph Harris Research and Development 