Psychotherapy & Counseling in Setauket, New York

As all of us know there are many deaths that befall us in our lifetime — the most permanent, as far as we can tell, being our physical death. So wounding is the loss of someone we love, so painful as we rest him or her back into mother earth, that it overshadows other seemingly less absolute deaths that cross our paths. To have one’s reputation subject to slur and innuendo is a loss, to forgo the presence of former friends, – usually because of small but hurtful misunder-standings is even characterized as a death of a friendship. Obviously to experience a major financial loss can be experienced as a death. But there is a more ominous killer among us, a killer that can alienate us not only from our friends but also from the struggle to make our way in our very complex world. A killer who can distract us from the struggle to find what makes us real, in life, rather than just reactive, what opens our minds to mystery rather than to formulas. Like a mutating virus, this killer has many forms: one of which psychoanalysis speaks about as the defense of specialness – which is characterized by the shorthand term narcissism.

Narcissism is the excessive need to be noticed, the unfortunate conquest of specialness over personal uniqueness. The unexamined conviction, for example, that only by holding fast and absolutely to one’s own interpretation of what is going on in the world does one thereby achieve some kind of lasting personal significance. There is something truly profound in the human quest for truth, yet simultaneously tragic when we are convinced we have it. The goal of a liberal education, throughout history, has always been to bring such a paradox to full consciousness. When one does not appreciate the complexity of human experience, one can easily experience suspicion if someone, for example, questions one’s worldview. In the arena of religion such suspicion frequently leads to the judgment of heresy; in politics, such suspicion frequently leads to name calling – “liberal” or “right wing”. We, in the West, classify different cultures as primitive simply because they don’t meet our technological standards. Even in academia, narcissistic righteousness dismisses alternate opinions. Interpersonally, we are all too easily injured or angry if someone does not support our worldview. So pervasive, and frequently so unnoticed is narcissism, much more so than the dramatics of sexuality, that it can shadow a whole life – a whole cultural outlook, frequently masking under the banner of truth. A truth that I (or we) possess!

To have found such truth is to steal a little of immortality for ourselves; to seemingly lift ourselves out of the day to day historical flow of experience into a realm where the task of finding, and refinding, of weighing and counterbalancing our thoughts and opinions, has been solved for us. We have, in effect, achieved an immortality of certainty. I am speaking here to the psychological underpinnings of narcissism, not to the philosophical issue of truth and its attainability. No one, no group is immune from this stalking, frequently unconscious killer called narcissism. Life can be experienced as an inviting mystery, who we are is worth constantly exploring rather than just asserting. Education has to lead us out of our house of mirrors.

Can we protect ourselves from such a psychological virus? I don’t really know. Certainly to be, as well as to feel, loved, offers some protection; to commit oneself to the life-long task of learning and questioning is also a great help. To be aware that absolutes, in any guise, are misleading is perhaps the equivalent of washing our hands, frequently, to avoid colds. If we are complacent in our convictions, we should be concerned that the virus has struck; to know without question that we are right and that others are unequivocally misguided, or evil, is to have the beginnings of a serious illness. Nationalistic or ethnic pride, as the twentieth century painfully exemplified, easily obliterates the conviction of our universal human connection. To experience religious insights as a confirmation, rather than an invitation to truth, is, in short, to act as if our personal path is the highway for everyone else. It is to succumb to a narcissistic infection that will close our minds and steal our hearts to the profound mystery we call life, — to the deep, even if troublesome joy, of celebrating human diversity.

When I was a young man, I recall President Truman saying that we lived in a Christian nation – a remark that was not greeted with much acceptance. Unfortunately, such a sentiment is not just of historical interest. We are witness, today, as we know, to the growth of fundamentalism, what I would classify as a totalitarian consciousness, in both religious denominations and political ideologies. Consequently, I think it is legitimate to ask: Can one speak of a democracy and in the same breath speak of any nation as being Christian, Islamic, or Jewish? Do religious or ethnic identifications go together with democracy? The founders of American democracy evidenced profound political wisdom in their separation of church and state. They understood something about the nature of belief and the requirements of a democratic consciousness that many present-day politicians and religious leaders seem unaware of. They understood that democracy demands more than just a quiet acceptance of each person’s convictions; it requires a change in one’s understanding of both the function of religion in a civil society and the function of political beliefs.

The genius of representative democracy is the ability it fosters, and in a sense demands, of its citizens to distinguish between the particular content of any belief, that is, “what” one believes, and the recognition that most people need some belief system, some type of personal definition. The mark of any totalitarian system is its inability – either out of a grab for power or a basic lack of understanding of what free choice means – to distinguish between the human need for political or religious convictions and the content, that is, the “what,” of those convictions. Totalitarian consciousness is similar to fundamentalist thinking in that it provides the belief content, that is, the “what” one believes. This is clear, for example, in the issue of school prayer, setting up in public buildings engraved carvings of the Ten Commandments, or restrictions on who may or may not get married in a civil ceremony; in such cases we are being given “what” we are supposed to believe. A well functioning democracy, by definition, doesn’t confuse our very human need for self-definition with any objective creed or political position. A democratic consciousness imposes no answers, promotes no particular religious conviction or political ideology outside that of protecting the general welfare of people. Such awareness seems rather obvious; it seems to follow from the very definition of democracy, yet it is being overshadowed in our present political discourse.

Democratic consciousness is grounded in the awareness that alternate philosophies of life are the only guaranteed safeguard to everyone’s freedom. This is based on the recognition that imposed truth is, in actuality, no truth at all – it is intimidation. And intimidation gives birth to loyalty oaths. McCarthyism was not just a dark period in American political history – it was and is, ultimately, a mindset. The most powerful weapon in the world, as we know, is an idea. A foreign enemy, for example, who witnesses an elected leader during a time of war being criticized, is one of the best examples of democracy that I can think of. Not to know this is not to understand democracy at all.

When citizens engage in open debate, based on informed thinking, aware of the ever-present possibility of personal error, we have the opposite of totalitarian and/or fundamentalist consciousness. A democratic consciousness tolerates the anxiety that the lack of certainty entails. What the western world knew twenty-five hundred years ago in Athens had to be remembered anew with the dawn of western democracies. Democracy is not just a different political system guaranteeing religious and political freedom; in its fullest realization, it is a growth in human consciousness. One of the many deaths each person has to overcome is the death that absolute certitude brings. In its promise to respect individuality, in its refusal to celebrate any particular content, democracy is the best guarantor that any religious content or any political conviction will have a voice; but it demands, as I have mentioned, that one give up the consolation of certitude.

Is democracy served merely by its citizens voting? I have suggested that democracy imposes something more basic, namely, the obligation not only to respect individuality in all its many colors, particularly when those colors clash with one’s personal surroundings, but also and particularly to appreciate and foster open discussion. Such a position is basic for developing a democratic consciousness. Respecting individuality is, quite obviously, the opposite of name-calling. When an individual proclaims an opponent to be “liberal” or “conservative,” or one of their many variations – that is, when an individual uses such terms to accuse rather than to define – he or she is foreclosing the experience of a democratic consciousness and, in fact, laying the groundwork for a totalitarian consciousness.

Open dialogue is very easy to affirm; it is extremely difficult to implement, yet it is the cornerstone of a democratic consciousness. Without it, we lose an essential advance in civilization.

One of the most difficult things to handle is one’s child’s illness; particularly illnesses that may have a long duration, for example, serious allergies or juvenile diabetes. No matter what medical assurances parents may receive, they frequently are concerned that, somehow, they may have contributed to, or, could contribute or aggravate their child’s condition. This is particularly evident, for example, in the case of allergies to peanuts where one mistake could result in a fatal response. It is understandable that parents experience extreme, sometimes debilitating anxiety. Clearly one of the most painful things a parent can go through is the death of a child; to have the anxiety that one may have not been careful enough, in their parental care, would be overwhelming. I am assuming, here, that parents have sought and received sound medical advice as to how to handle any illness that they are dealing with.

While all the above is true there is an added problem that some physicians may not have the time or the training to address. By that I mean the psychological factors that are present with any illness. Children are particularly sensitive to their parents’ unspoken words and unspoken feelings. An unconsciously angry parent, for example, will create an emotional tone that surrounds the household, which can haunt a child, irrespective of the parent’s overt behavior. An overly anxious parent can invade a child’s psyche in subtle ways so that the child begins to evidence behavior as if he or she is the anxious one. Such an emotional situation burdens the child with his/her parent’s anxiety in addition to their own feelings about their illness. Most frequently both child and parent are not conscious of these dynamics. Consciously everyone’s energies are spent solely addressing the objective illness, while the damage that excessive anxiety is causing is left untreated.

What is a parent to do? Obviously such a state of affairs can snowball so that a family becomes overwhelmed with an admittedly serious physical illness but also a psychological one that has “invaded” the family. In such a situation if a parent is experiencing noticeable anxiety they should seriously consider a consultation with a neutral professional trained to recognize such reactions. In such situations parents have to learn to recognize the difference between understandable yet frequently unproductive anxiety—it just contaminates everyone around them—and, adult competent concern. We entrust our bodies and our minds and emotions to professionals who exhibit competent concern, rather than overly anxious responses. Parents, in particular, have to try to imitate such an emotion situation. I am not advocating cold or dispassionate response to an ill child. Competent concern is supported by knowledge and grounded in love. Competent concern is marked by a serious attention to, but not an obsession with, an illness. It conveys seriousness and diligence without conveying debilitating inactivity or avoidance of everyday tasks. It asks of parents that they recognize that their primary job is not only to protect and secure the best medical advice available, but also to convey to their child their own progressive competence in handling their illness. Even young children can be taught this. What we are talking about is an emotional and secondarily an intellectual message.

Quite frequently a few sessions with a therapist, for those parents who find that their child’s illness is causing them notable and intrusive anxiety, can prove to be very helpful. A neutral ear enables us to hear our best selves. Anxiety is a warning signal that something serious is in danger of happening; concern, on the other hand, recognizes the seriousness of an issue and responds by fostering, developing and teaching competence. As an ill child can experience his/her own beginning competence in recognizing and addressing their condition they are no longer the passive recipient of an unwanted illness, but rather an active respondent to a life situation which can contribute to a sense of mastery. That is an invaluable lesson for anyone to learn, child or adult.