by Wayness Tamm-Clattuc
[Dr Tamm-Clattuc is a 1971 graduate of Augsburg College and jungian analyst who worked for many years in Zurich and is now at home in western Wisconsin; the following is the re-posting, with her kind permission, of a comment posted by her in Bodwyn Wook earlier — BW]
I hope that Emmett is doing this deliberately. Complaining about all of the name-calling in politics — in a true welter of insults all his own! Otherwise he has gone off the deep end completely, sad to say.
The great problem of politics is that it mires us in the literalist fallacy; thus the air of constant “crisis” and irreality generally. Everything becomes equally urgent all of the time. Everything is a tarbaby and no one can possibly disentangle themselves. That very well may be the historical end of democracy, of course, in which case one must look ahead to a time now that much nearer at hand, in which a hierarchical or archetypal order reasserts itself in human culture. Connie Concepcion, in a comment on a previous posting by Emmett Smith, summarizes the historical failings of capitalism, but again the literalist fallacy leads her, too, into error. I mean that she assumes that the only end can be some form of armegeddon. Only then, ironically enough, she writes:
“…and there simply is no redemption for it, except to literally start over again.”
I added the emphasis in order to stress the point; how often in training was I reminded of Dr Jung’s dictum? That by definition every human collective setup amounts to no more than a kind of shambling violent lunatic. And this is true even when everyone in it is on the side of the gods and completely correct in all of their beliefs and conclusions! “So much the worse for you, then!” as the Nazi said to the Pole. In the asylum detention-hospital the pattern that is observed is that the mad will construct, for instance in art therapy, ever-more-orderly designs, arrangements, pictures and other artworks. These are the basis of the so-called “mandalas” that New Age people were all excited about in the 1980s. Then quite simply there is a huge whingding and everything gets smashed to bits. Afterward, the patient starts in again; it is a kind of instinctive repetitive drive to establish order. That is the basis of our mammalian politics, too. Naturally, the Tea Party wants a new American Revolution, and the partiers suppose that they, themselves, are on the side of god and will now of course be able to to take heaven by storm. Do you notice the fallacy? Literally this heaven on earth stuff is the same fantasy of a promised land and era that motivates the liberal party. All that is being quarreled over are the methods and so no one notices, after all they just can’t, that all involved are gobbling down, here in America, whole hogs and yet choking on mosquitoes.
Now of course the Tea Party are entirely right in an animal and archetypal way, in their instinctive longing for change, that means after all there is a kind of vestigial awareness of the future going on. Jungians call that the collective unconscious at work. But the conscious attitude again — this is the fear underneath it all, you see, it is the control-impulse of the ego-complex at work — lies and assures them, the tea partiers, that they, themselves, will now get in on all of the goodies of this new outbreak of “liberty”. Meanwhile, the same ego-complex is busily at work in the ears of the left, whispering that the answer is naturally to be found only in more professionalism and subsidies. Unfortunately, there is more to it and so Emmett also is entirely right to call for a sacrifice by the American right at this time [Emmett Smith had written that the American right should rally behind the Democratic Party for the unity of the country — BW] in order to forcibly haul the discussion back onto the middle ground. That means again an ongoing kind of perception at work, namely that any real change will first emerge in a convulsion of violence. People who are not only unconscious but who also are romantic and ignorant, rather than sceptical and wise, about humanity and history think that revolutions are “sexy”. And in fact there are plenty of opportunities for atrocity and rape and murder, too. Like it or not, the outcome we are familiar with to the American Revolution was wholly contingent on the sum total of individual decisions and behaviors at that time — and many, many of these were extraordinarily brutal and rotten. Had only a bare handful more of these been rotten and vicious, the scales well might have tipped the other way.
This stuff is as dangerous as nitroglycerin, and unfortunately the Rush Limbaughs are as hamhanded as the President Obamas are oblivious.
[all rights reserved
[2 November 2010]