The Hidden Logic of Absurd Behavior
CHRISTIANE'S story awakens such feelings of despair and helplessness in
sympathetic readers that they probably would like most of all to forget
about it as quickly as possible by passing it all off as a fabrication.
But they are unable to, because they sense that she has told the
unvarnished truth. If they go beyond the outer trappings of the story
and permit themselves, as they read, to consider why it happened, they
will find an accurate description of the nature not only of addiction
but of other forms of human behavior as well that are conspicuous at
times for their absurdity and that our logic is unable to explain. When
we are confronted with adolescent heroin addicts who are ruining their
lives, we are all too readily inclined to try to reach them with
rational arguments or, still worse, with efforts to "educate" them. In
fact, many therapeutic groups work in this direction. They substitute
one evil for another instead of trying to help these young people see
what function addiction actually has in their lives and how they are
unconsciously using it to communicate something to the outside world.
The following example illustrates this.
On a German television program shown on March 23, 1980, a former heroin
addict, who has been off the drug for five years, talks about his
present life. His depressive, almost suicidal frame of mind is apparent.
He is around twenty-four, has a girl friend, and says that he is going
to turn the attic of his parents' house into a private apartment for
himself, which he wants to do over with all kinds of bourgeois fixings.
His parents, who never understood him and who regarded his addiction as
a kind of physical and fatal disease, are ailing now, and it is at their
insistence that he is going to live in their house. This man is
intensely preoccupied with the value of all sorts of little objects that
he is now able to own and for which he must sacrifice his autonomy. From
now on, he will live in a gilded cage, and it is very understandable
that he keeps talking about the danger of returning to his heroin
addiction. If this man had had therapy that enabled him to experience
his bottled-up infantile rage at his restrictive, cold-hearted, and
authoritarian parents, he would have sensed what his actual needs were,
would not have let himself be confined in a cage, and would probably
have become a more genuine and sincere source of help to his parents. A
person can offer this help freely to his parents if he does not make
himself dependent on them like a child. But if he does, he is likely to
punish them with his addiction or by committing suicide. Either of these
enactments will tell the true story of his childhood, which he has had
to keep to himself (and from himself) all his life.
In spite of its enormous resources, classical psychiatry is essentially
powerless to help as long as it attempts to replace the harmful effects
of early childhood training with new kinds of training. The whole penal
setup in psychiatric wards, the ingenious methods of humiliating
patients, have the ultimate goal--as does the disciplining of
children--of silencing the patient's coded language. This is made very
clear in the case of anorexia. What is someone with anorexia, who comes
from an affluent family and has been spoiled with an abundance of
material possessions and intellectual opportunities and who is now proud
that her weight does not exceed sixty-five pounds, actually saying about
herself? Her parents insist that they have a harmonious marriage, and
they are horrified at their daughter's conscious and exaggerated efforts
to go without food, especially since they have never had any trouble
with this child, who always met their expectations. I would say that
this young girl, under the onslaught of the feelings of puberty, is no
longer able to function like an automaton, but in view of her
background, she has no chance to express the feelings that are now
erupting in her. By the manner in which she is enslaving herself,
disciplining and restricting herself, even destroying herself, she is
telling us what happened to her in early childhood. This is not to say
that her parents were bad people; they only wanted to raise their child
to be what she did indeed become: a well-functioning, high-achieving,
widely admired girl. Often it wasn't even the parents themselves but
governesses who were responsible for raising her. In any case, anorexia
nervosa exhibits all the components of a strict upbringing: the
ruthless, dictatorial methods, the excessive supervision and control,
the lack of understanding and empathy for the child's true needs. To
this is added overwhelming affection alternating with rejection and
abandonment (orgies of gluttony followed by vomiting). The first law of
this police system is: any method is good if it makes you the way we
want and need you to be, and only if you are this way can we love you.
This is later reflected in anorexia's reign of terror. Weight is
monitored to the ounce, and the sinner is immediately punished if the
boundary is overstepped.
Even the best of psychotherapists have to try to convince these
patients, whose lives are in danger, to gain weight; otherwise, a
dialogue cannot take place. But it makes a difference whether the
therapist explains to the patient that she must gain weight, at the same
time making it the aim of her therapy to reach an understanding of her
self, or whether weight gain is regarded as the sole therapeutic goal.
In the latter case the doctor merely assumes the methods of compulsion
used in the patient's early training and will have to be prepared for a
reversal or a new set of symptoms. If neither of these eventualities
should occur, this simply means that the second training period has been
a success, and once puberty is over, a permanent lack of vital energy is
assumed.
All absurd behavior has its roots in early childhood, but the cause will
not be detected as long as the adult's manipulation of the child's
psychic and physical needs is interpreted as an essential technique of
child-rearing instead of as the cruelty it really is. Since most
professionals themselves are not yet free from this mistaken belief,
sometimes what is called therapy is only a continuation of early,
unintended cruelty. It is not unheard of for a mother to give her
year-old baby Valium so he will sleep soundly if she wants to go out in
the evening. This may be necessary on occasion. But if Valium becomes
the means of insuring the child's sleep, a natural balance will be
disturbed, and the autonomous nervous system will be undermined at a
very early age. We can imagine that when the parents return home late at
night they may want to play with the baby a while and may awaken it,
since they no longer need to worry about him waking up alone. The Valium
not only undermines the child's natural ability to fall asleep but also
interferes with the development of his perceptive faculties. At this
early age the child is not supposed to know that he has been left alone,
is not supposed to be afraid, and perhaps later the adult will be unable
to perceive inner danger signals as a result.
To prevent absurd, self-destructive behavior from developing in
adulthood, parents do not need extensive psychological training. They
need only refrain from manipulating their child for their own needs,
from abusing him by undermining his vegetative balance, and then the
child will find the best defense against inappropriate demands in his
own body. He will be familiar from the beginning with the language of
his body and with his body signals. If parents are also able to give
their child the same respect and tolerance they had for their own
parents, they will surely be providing him with the best possible
foundation for his entire later life. His self-esteem as well as the
freedom to develop his innate abilities depend on this respect. As I
have said, we do not need books about psychology in order to learn to
respect our children; what we need is a revision of the theories of
child-rearing.
The way we were treated as small children is the way we treat ourselves
the rest of our life. And we often impose our most agonizing suffering
upon ourselves. We can never escape the tormentor within ourselves, who
is often disguised as a pedagogue, someone who takes full control in
illness; for example, in anorexia. Cruel enslavement of the body and
exploitation of the will are the result. Drug addiction begins with an
attempt to escape parental control and to refuse to perform, but the
repetition compulsion ultimately leads the addict to a constant concern
with having to come up with large sums of money to provide the necessary
"stuff"; in other words, to a quite "bourgeois" form of enslavement.
When I read about Christiane's problems with the police and with drug
dealers, I suddenly saw before me the Berlin of 1945: the many illegal
ways of coming by food, fear of the occupation forces, the black
market--the "dealers" of that day. Whether this is a strictly private
association for me, I do not know. For many parents of today's junkies,
this was the only world that existed for them as children. It is not
inconceivable, seen against the background of the inner emptiness
resulting from the repression of feelings, that the drug scene in
Germany also has something to do with the black market of the forties.
This idea, unlike much of the material in this book, is not based on
verifiable scientific evidence but on intuition, on a subjective
association that I have not pursued further. I mention it, however,
because many psychological studies are being conducted that show the
long-term effects of the war and the Nazi regime as they relate to the
second generation. Time after time, the amazing fact is uncovered that
sons and daughters are unconsciously reenacting their parents' fate--all
the more intensely the less precise their knowledge of it. From the few
bits and pieces they have picked up from their parents about early
traumatization caused by the war, they come up with fantasies based on
their own reality, which they then often act out in groups during
puberty. For example, Judith Kestenberg tells about adolescents in the
sixties who rejected their peacetime affluence and disappeared into the
woods. It was later revealed in therapy that their parents had survived
the war as partisans in Eastern Europe but had never spoken openly about
it with their children. (Cf. Psyche 28, pp. 249-65, and Helen Epstein,
Children of the Holocaust [New York, 1979].)
I was once consulted by a seventeen-year-old anorexic patient who was
very proud of the fact that she now weighed the same as her mother had
thirty years before when she was rescued from Auschwitz. During our
conversation, she revealed that this detail, her mother's exact weight,
was the only thing she knew about that period of her mother's past, for
the mother refused to talk about it and asked her family not to question
her. Children are made anxious by secretiveness, by their parents
hushing things up, by whatever touches upon their parents' feelings of
shame, guilt, or fear. An important way of dealing with these threats is
by fantasizing and playing games. Using the parents' props gives the
adolescent a feeling of being able to participate in their past.
Could it be that the ruined lives described by Christiane go back to the
ruins of 1945? If the answer is yes, how did this repetition come about?
We can assume that its roots lie in the psychic reality of parents who
grew up during a period of extreme material deprivation and who
therefore made it their first priority to have enough to live
comfortably. By continually adding to their material well-being, they
warded off their fear of ever again having to sit among the ruins like
hungry, helpless children. But no amount of affluence can banish this
fear; as long as it remains unconscious, it leads an existence of its
own. And now their children leave their affluent homes where they do not
feel understood, because feelings and fears are supposed to have no
place there; they enter the drug scene and either become active as
dealers, like their fathers in the larger economic world, or sit
apathetically on the sidelines. By so doing, they then resemble their
parents, who once actually were helpless, vulnerable little children
sitting among the ruins but who were later not permitted to talk about
their experiences. These children of the ruins had been banished forever
from the parents' luxurious homes, and now they reappear like specters
in their unkempt sons and daughters with their shabby clothes, their
apathetic faces, their hopelessness and alienation, their hatred for all
the luxury accumulated around them.
It is not hard to understand that parents are impatient with these
adolescents, for people would rather submit to the strictest laws, go to
all kinds of trouble, achieve spectacular feats, and choose the most
demanding careers than be expected to bring love and understanding to
the helpless unhappy child they once were, whom they have subsequently
banished forever. When this child suddenly reappears on the lovely
parquet floor of their lavish living room in the guise of their own son
or daughter, it is not surprising that the child cannot count on finding
understanding. What he or she will find is resentment, indignation,
warnings or prohibitions, perhaps even hatred--above all, a whole
arsenal of child-rearing weapons with which the parents try to ward off
every unhappy childhood memory from the war years that tries to come to
the surface.
There are also instances in which our children can cause us to confront
our unmastered past, with beneficial results for the entire family.
Brigitte, born in 1936, highly sensitive, married, and the mother of two
children, went into analysis for the second time because of her
depressions. Her fears of impending catastrophe were clearly connected
with the air raids she lived through in her childhood. In spite of the
analyst's efforts, her fears were not dispelled until the patient, with
her child's help, was led to acknowledge an open wound, which had not
been able to heal in all this time because it had not been noticed until
now and therefore had never been treated.
When her son reached the age of ten, the same age the patient was when
her father returned from the Eastern Front, he and some of his friends
at school started drawing swastikas and playing games inspired by the
Hitler period. It was clear from the way these activities were kept
secret on the one hand and invited discovery on the other that the
child, whose distress was apparent, was calling for help. Nevertheless,
his mother found it difficult to respond to his distress and try to
understand it by having a heart-to-heart talk with the boy. She regarded
these games as sinister and didn't want to have to deal with the
subject; as a former member of an anti-Fascist student group, she felt
hurt by her son's behavior and reacted, against her will, in an
authoritarian and hostile way. The conscious, ideological reasons for
her attitude were not sufficient to explain the intense feelings of
rejection she felt toward her son. Deep inside, something was coming to
the fore that until now--even in her first analysis--had been completely
inaccessible. As a result of the ability to feel that had emerged in her
second analysis, she was able to approach her earlier experiences on an
emotional level.
In her present situation, the more intolerant and horrified she became
and the more pains she took to "put a stop to" her son's games, the more
frequently and intensely he played them. The boy gradually lost trust in
his parents and became more attached to his group of friends, which led
to despairing outbursts on the mother's part. Finally, with the help of
transference, the roots of her rage were uncovered, and the whole family
situation then changed for the better. It began with the patient
suddenly falling prey to tormenting questions she felt impelled to
address to her analyst about himself and his past. She desperately tried
to keep herself from asking these questions out of a feeling of panic
that she would lose him if she uttered them. Or perhaps she feared being
given answers that would make her despise him.
The analyst patiently allowed her to formulate her questions, whose
significance he respected, but he did not answer them; since he sensed
that they were not actually directed at him, he did not have to ward
them off with hasty interpretations. And then the ten-year-old girl--who
had not been allowed to ask any questions of her father, just back from
the war--clearly emerged. The patient said she had not given this any
thought at the time. And yet, it would be only natural for a
ten-year-old who had waited for years for her father's return to ask:
"Where were you? What did you do? What did you see? Tell me a story! A
true one." Nothing of the sort happened, Brigitte said; it was taboo in
the family to speak of "these things" with the children, and they
realized that they were not supposed to know anything about that portion
of their father's past. Brigitte's curiosity, which was consciously
suppressed at the time but which had already been stifled at an earlier
stage, thanks to her so-called good upbringing, now entered into her
relationship with her analyst in all its vitality and urgency. It had
been frozen over, to be sure, but not frozen solid. And now that it was
allowed to come fully to life, her depressions disappeared. For the
first time in thirty years, she could talk to her father about his war
experiences, which was a great relief for him, too. For now the
situation was different: she was strong enough to hear what he had to
say without having to lose her autonomy in the process; she was no
longer the dependent little child. When she was a girl, these
conversations would not have been possible. Brigitte understood that her
childhood fear of losing her father by asking questions had not been
unfounded, for at that time her father could not have brought himself to
talk about his experiences in the East. He had constantly tried to rid
himself of every memory of that time. His daughter adapted herself
completely to his need to forget and managed to keep herself very poorly
informed about the history of the Third Reich; the little she did know
was of a purely intellectual nature. It was her view that one must judge
that period "unemotionally" and objectively, like a computer that counts
the dead on both sides without evoking any images or feelings of horror.
Brigitte was definitely not a computer but a very sensitive person with
an intelligent mind. And because she tried to suppress her thoughts and
feelings she suffered from depressions, feelings of inner emptiness (she
often felt as though she were "in front of a black wall"), insomnia, and
dependence on medication meant to inhibit her natural vitality. The
intelligent young girl's curiosity and need to know, which had been
diverted to strictly intellectual problems, first became visible almost
literally in the form of "the devil on her son's doorstep," whom she
tried to chase away from him as well--and only because in her repetition
compulsion she wanted to spare her introjected, emotionally insecure
father. Every child's ideas of what is evil are formed according to the
parents' defense mechanisms: "evil" can be anything that makes the
parents more insecure. This situation can give rise to guilt feelings
that will resist all later attempts to dispel them unless their history
has been experienced on a conscious level. Brigitte was fortunate in
that this "devil" in her, i.e., the vital, alert, interested, and
critical child, was stronger than her effort to adapt, and she was able
to integrate this quintessential part of her personality.
During this period, swastikas lost their fascination for her son, and it
became clear that they had served more than one function. On the one
hand, they had been an "acting out" of Brigitte's repressed desire to
know, and on the other hand they had caused her disappointment with her
father to be redirected to her child. Once she had the possibility of
experiencing all these feelings with her therapist, she no longer needed
the child for this purpose.
Brigitte told me her story after hearing a talk I gave. At
my request, she gladly gave permission for it to be included
here, because she has the need, as she put it, to communicate
her experiences to others "and not to remain silent any longer."
We were both convinced that her predicament reflected
the situation of an entire generation that had been raised to
keep silent and that consciously or (more frequently) unconsciously
suffered from this. Psychoanalysts in Germany devoted little attention
to this problem prior to the Conference of German-Speaking
Psychoanalytic Societies in Bamberg (1980). As a result, until now only
a few people here and there have had the good fortune to liberate
themselves emotionally as well as intellectually from the taboo of
silence. (Cf., for example, Männerphantasien [Male Fantasies] by Klaus
Theweleit.)
This same second generation reacted strongly to the television film
Holocaust when it was aired in Germany. It was like breaking out of
prison for them: the prison of silence, of not being able to ask
questions, of not being able to feel, of the mad idea that such horror
could be "dealt with unemotionally." Would it be desirable to raise our
children to be people who could hear about the gassing of a million
children without ever giving way to feelings of outrage and pain? Of
what use are historians to us if they are able to write books about it
in which their only concern is to be historically and objectively
accurate? What good is this ability to be coldly objective in the face
of horror? Wouldn't our children then be in danger of submitting to
every new Fascist regime that came along? They would have nothing to
lose except their inner emptiness. Indeed, such a regime would give them
the opportunity to find a new outlet for their unlived feelings that are
now split in scientific objectivity; as members of a grandiose group,
they would finally be able to discharge these feelings that are of an
unbridled, archaic nature as a result of having been locked up.
The collective form of absurd behavior is no doubt the most dangerous
because the absurdity is no longer apparent and because it is sanctioned
as "normal." It was taken for granted by most postwar children in
Germany that it was improper or at least uncalled for to ask their
parents specific questions about the Third Reich; often it was even
explicitly forbidden. Keeping silent about this period, which
represented their parents' past, was just as much a part of the "good
manners" expected of children as was the denial of sexuality around the
turn of the century.
Even though it would not be difficult to demonstrate the impact of this
new taboo on the development of current forms of neurosis, traditional
theories are reluctant to acknowledge the empirical evidence because not
only patients but analysts, too, are victims of the same taboo. It is
easier for analysts to pursue with their patients the sexual compulsions
and prohibitions uncovered by Freud long ago that are often no longer
ours than to uncover the regressions of our own time, which also means
of their own childhood. But the history of the Third Reich teaches us,
among other things, that what is monstrous is not infrequently contained
in what is "normal," in what is felt by the great majority to be "quite
normal and natural."
Germans who experienced the victories of the Third Reich as children or
during puberty and then later in life became concerned with the issue of
their integrity necessarily ran into difficulties in this regard. As
adults they learned the terrible truth about National Socialism and
integrated this knowledge intellectually. And yet there still live on in
these people--often untouched by all their later knowledge--the voices
connected with the songs, the speeches, and the jubilant mass rallies
that were heard at a very early age and were accompanied by the intense
feelings of childhood. In most cases pride, enthusiasm, and joyful hope
are linked in their minds with these impressions.
How is a person to bring these two worlds--the emotional experience of
childhood and the later knowledge that contradicted it--into harmony
without denying an important part of the self? To numb one's feelings,
as Brigitte attempted to do, and to deny one's roots, often seem to be
the only ways to avoid this conflict and the tragic ambivalence inherent
in it.
I know of no work of art that expresses the ambivalence of a major
portion of this generation in Germany more clearly than Hans-Jürgen
Syberberg's seven-hour film Hitler, a Film from Germany. It was
Syberberg's intention to present his own subjective truth, and because
he surrendered to his feelings, fantasies, and dreams, he created a
contemporary portrayal in which many people will find themselves
reflected, for it unites both perspectives, that of the person who sees
and that of the one who is misguided.
The sensitive child's fascination with the Wagnerian music, with the
pomp of the parades, with the Führer's emotionally charged,
incomprehensible shouting on the radio; the idea of Hitler as a powerful
and at the same time insignificant and harmless puppet--all this is in
the film. But it takes its place alongside the horror and, above all,
alongside a genuine adult pain that has been barely perceptible in
previous films on this subject because such pain presupposes liberation
from the constricting pedagogical pattern of blame and exoneration. In
several scenes in the film this pain of Syberberg's is palpable: he
realizes the tragedy of both the victims of the persecution and the
victims of the seduction that he himself succumbed to as a child. Last
but not least, his film, in my view, demonstrates the absurdity of all
ideologies, those continuations of pedagogical principles applied in
early childhood.
Only someone who has come to terms with having been led astray without
denying it will be able to depict this with the intensity of grief that
Syberberg does. The experience of grief is an essential part of the film
and conveys more to the audience on an emotional level--at least in
several powerful scenes--about the emptiness of National Socialist
ideology than many well-documented, objective books on the topic have
succeeded in doing. Syberberg's film represents one of the few attempts
that have been made to live with an incomprehensible past instead of
denying its reality.