I'm Afraid of Americans

I break my blog silence to venture into somewhat unusual territory – that of current affairs.  I do think, however, that the dark side of the psyche plays a strong part in this post.

Reacting to the recent massive increase in media coverage of “The War Against Terror”, sparked by the latest atrocity in Madrid, I have been frustrated into examining what I believe the fundamental issues are.

1.  Do the Americans act in anything other than their own self-interest?

Answer: clearly no.  But from their point of view why should they?  I think the issue here is that they like to project the image of responsible superpower, judiciously intervening to spank the bad boys in charge of brutal regimes whereas in reality they are sticking closely to their own selfish agenda. The former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark puts it well when he says:

“Our overriding purpose, from the beginning right through to the present day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: non-violently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of our foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources. And insofar as any people or states get in the way of our domination, they must be eliminated - or, at the very least, shown the error of their ways.”  (See http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html for the full interview).

Thus the Americans force other countries to play by their rules and resist strongly anything that might curb their ability to do what they want (e.g. the UN, the International Court).

2.  Is it reasonable for other countries to object to this US Foreign Policy?

I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for countries that, for whatever reason, fall foul of the US to object to their treatment.  They will have their own agendas and, if they are continually thwarted in their aims, will look for the ways of expressing this displeasure.  The less legitimate recourse they have to some kind of international arbitration, the more they are likely to take the law into their own hands.  This is not a good or reasonable course of action (please note that when I say “object” I do not mean “blow up civilians”) – but it may be partially understandable.  In essence, the more democratic the global political landscape, the less likely terrorism is used as a political tool.

3.  Is it useful to understand what these objections might be?

Time after time I hear people questioning the wisdom of American foreign policy being branded as Anti-American, terrorist sympathisers.   However, I do feel that we should be allowed to intelligently examine whether US foreign policy is stirring up animosity that, at its most extreme, can result in terrorist acts.  And that this examination (and any changes that may result from it) is not some kind of capitulation to terrorism but rather a sign of maturation.

I think that if you look at the culture of terrorism there are roughly three kinds of people:  (1) those psychopaths who will kill people wherever they end up in life; (2) extremists who can turn murderous if immersed in/brainwashed into a cause that consumes them; (3) a wider community who, while not engaged directly in terrorist activities, broadly sympathise with the terrorists and may offer them assistance.

If this analysis is correct then by constructive dialog and negotiation and by a shift in attitude from the relevant parties, it should be possible to take a lot of the pressure out of the situation, remove the opportunity for emotive crusades and generally calm the atmosphere.  If this happens then you should be able to eliminate all of group 3 and most of group 2 from the equation leaving group 1 exposed and without replacements when they are dealt with.

4.  What, specifically, are the underlying questions?

It seems to me that, apart from straight forward arguments over territory and who gets to control what resources, a similar set of questions underlie many of these potential objections.  These are:

I have not seen these questions tackled explicitly but am prepared to accept that this is a reflection of the media through which I choose to receive my information and that somewhere in the world these very issues are being nutted out with the aim of developing practical applications.

5.  What would Jung say?

Firstly, let’s look at the Persona.  This according to Jung was both the social face that we present to the public day in, day out (our social identity specifically not our true individuality) and at the same time an ideal image of ourselves in which we believe.  In my analysis above the American Persona is that of the benign, responsible superpower.

The shadow is the exact opposite of the Persona.  Most commonly it is used to mean all the shameful, “bad”, socially and personally unacceptable elements that form part of our makeup.  Because these traits clash with our persona, with what we’d like to believe about ourselves, we push them into the unconscious.  Because they are now unconscious they begin to exert an unopposed influence on us.  With the shadow, this typically takes the form of projection; what we dare not admit about ourselves we see and detest in other people. 

Hence Osama bin Laden has become another byword for the devil in our Western world.  And one of the interesting, if frightening, patterns that emerges out of the world of psychotherapy is that the archetype of “devil” also incorporates the role of Lucifer, the bearer of light, the one who forces home truths into unwilling consciousness.

The solution, and this is the underlying principle of psychotherapy, is to drop into the unconscious and confront the issues that lurk there.  When they become conscious they cease to have that automatic control over you.  This principle of making the unconscious conscious, of living in a self-aware state and not simply stumbling forward at the mercy of your unconscious is possibly Jung’s most fundamental message.  He said: "As far as we can discern the whole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being."

Thus, until the US faces up to the many unpleasant aspects in its national psyche, it will continue to see “terrorists” lurking everywhere and start arresting everyone with a beard, all the while acting in a way that opposing countries will view as little better than terrorism itself.