Capitalism creates alienation, not psychology
I WAS a little surprised by
the tone of the review by Iain Dalton of the book, Revolution in
Psychology, in Socialism Today No.132, October 2009. He ended his review
by saying, "psychology will either flourish and break through its
ideological trappings or get thrown into the dustbin of history as a
medieval version of alchemy".
This sounded like a very
frivolous thing to say. Would he say this about other treatments in the
NHS, I wonder? The implication and tone of the article seemed to be that
psychology is something that can be discarded. Is this really the
attitude we should adopt?
Shouldn’t we instead be
fighting tooth and nail for better treatments for those suffering from
the effects of being bought up in this inhumane form of society?
Shouldn’t an article on this subject end by pointing out the dire
urgency of this situation and the need for socialists to campaign for
better treatments for millions of working people who suffer unbearable
psychological trauma?
Didn’t Marx say that the main
problem with capitalism is that it creates alienation? There is nothing
more inhuman than being treated as an expendable unit of production.
Thatcher said the family is everything and society doesn’t exist. Yet
when the population is atomised into family units like it is now, it has
a devastating psychological impact on millions of people who feel this
alienation from birth. So much so that the largest killer of young men
today is suicide.
Dealing with the
psychological effects of alienation is a terrifying prospect for many
people. My partner’s friend, a young man in his early 30s, committed
suicide recently. A very good friend of mine also killed himself in the
same violent way in 2004.
When families are forced to
be self reliant and subjected to terrible economic and societal
pressure, the person who bares the brunt of the pressure is very often
the child. The psychological damage endured in this kind of childhood
can be carried by a person for the rest of their life. As Trotsky wrote:
"Childhood is looked upon as the happiest time of life. Is that always
true? No, only a few have a happy childhood. The idealisation of
childhood originated in the old literature of the privileged… But the
majority of the people, if it looks back at all, sees, on the contrary,
a childhood of darkness, hunger and dependence. Life strikes the weak –
and who is weaker than a child" (My Life).
It is no surprise at all that
psychological treatments suffer from an empirical approach in capitalist
society but then again doesn’t almost every practise suffer in this way
under capitalism? Ian Parker’s book says that psychologists tell the
patient there is something wrong with them and not society. This does
not mean that we can allow psychology to be thrown into the dustbin of
history. It is merely a reflection of the solipsistic climate we live
under. (Solipsism is a philosophical view that maintains that the self
is the only thing that can be known to exist. For a damning critique of
solipsism and how this outlook permeates all areas of capitalist society
see Lenin’s book, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism).
As far back as 1923 Carl Jung
said "all neurosis is a substitute for legitimate suffering". In other
words psychology practitioners understood in 1923 that the suffering we
endure as children and throughout our lives is very real and has its
origin in reality not in the imagination of the patient. Traumatic
experiences are often repressed and turn into a neurosis so that the
sufferer can cope with life.
The psychologist John Friel
made the statement, "There is no such thing as a black sheep in the
family". In other words dysfunction does not drop from the sky it is
caused by the general dysfunction in the family.
RD Laing in his family
systems theory goes on to point out that the nuclear family is part of a
larger family system, a societal system. The dysfunction in the family
stems from the wider alienation it experiences in society (RD Laing, The
Politics Of The Family). This psychological approach is moving towards a
dialectical understanding of the cause of psychological problems.
If we accept that we live in
a dysfunctional society, then it is not really rocket science to work
out that psychological treatment and research does not function
properly, just as cancer treatment does not function properly and
efficiently. Would Iain have ended an article on cancer treatments with
the phrase: ‘cancer treatment will either flourish and break through its
ideological trappings or get thrown into the dustbin of history as a
medieval version of alchemy’? Or substitute any type of treatment for
osteoporosis, heart disease, etc? They all suffer under an empirical
approach. Should they all be thrown into the dustbin of history? Sadly I
feel that the review reflected some of the wider prejudices that there
are in society. To adopt a frivolous, mocking tone towards the treatment
of psychological problems will not send a very helpful message to those
who suffer in shame and silence from such deadly ‘taboo’ illnesses.
Aside from this, what a
damning incitement of our society that psychological problems are
treated with such prejudices by the society and system which has caused
them. Under socialism the need to understand our psychological make up
will not diminish, it will increase. All forms of human understanding
can be developed when the restrictions of the market and the profit
motive are removed.
I would also like to make
clear that I don’t agree that we should accept the current state of
affairs. Surely it is a Marxist’s job to change them? We cannot afford
to allow psychological treatment to be retarded by capitalism, just as
we cannot afford to allow global warming to continue. I want
psychological practises to be enhanced. I want expensive private
therapies which deal with eating disorders, sexual abuse, childhood
trauma etc to be bought into the NHS and be available to all, not just
the few who can afford them at the moment.
The attitude displayed in
this review should have no place in a progressive working class
movement. These prejudices should be constructively challenged by a new
working class political party.
Steven Capper,
Brentwood