Category Archives: Uncategorized

Scrooge 2023

You are Scrooge and it is Christmas 2023. You’re at home, which is a one-bedroom apartment in the city that costs 3K$ per month. You are alone with your Uber Eats, playing a video game that rewards the killing of elves, and as you rack up a record score you imagine that you might be visited later that night by a ghost who may warn that video games and Uber Eats will stunt your growth. Just desserts, the ghost will imply. Tomorrow, Christmas is a day off—your one day off per year, more or less enforced by the absence of anyone else, co-workers or customers. Actually, you don’t have co-workers per se, just a couple of subordinates at the start-up you own, one local, the other in Katmandu, which is in India, or is it Nepal? You don’t really care. The local employee, Bob, has been asking for a benefits package recently, now that’s he’s working over thirty hours a week. He’s got a disabled son—cerebral palsy, muscular diaspora, or something—and he needs benefits, has got rising medical costs. You’re tempted to say he should move overseas, work remote, like the guy in Katmandu. Does he know about medicine there? The guy was traveling recently, went hiking near the Everest base camp. Not exactly a metropolis. Anyway, next day he’s feeling a pain in his lower stomach, one that worsens over three hours. He realizes he needs help, takes a cab to a hospital, gets diagnosed with a kidney stone, spends the next few days on an IV, taking painkillers, feeling nothing and watching Netflix. Best few days of his trip, he later says, and the bill? $2500! If that was here, with the drugs, the MRIs, and everything, the bill would’ve been more like 50K$. Benefits? Nah, too expensive here. But you’ll pay. You’ll pay because otherwise your local guy, Bob, will leave. He’ll leave like your partner Jacob left.

              Okay, you just killed another Elf. Thinking of Jacob juiced you up a bit, spiked your hate and sharpened your reflexes at just the right moment. Jacob’s down south now, in LA working as a software engineer, designing new product that will rival yours. Making good money. Taking days off. He’ll be off tomorrow, swimming in the ocean in the dead of winter. Scuba diving, maybe. Jacob has dreams, wants different things, isn’t focused enough for a start-up. Wants to act. Hah! You think he’s crazy, guy thinks he’ll be famous. He won’t even get parts. I mean, right now he’s likely auditioning for a role as an extra in something that won’t get streamed—a part a robot could do, or a woman, or a transgendered woman, or any person of color. Anyone other than a white guy who works in tech and scuba dives on the weekend. But hey, maybe he’ll catch a break. You hear they’re re-making JAWS down there, with an all-female cast, including Meryl Streep, who’s playing Quint and will likely get another Oscar. Jacob might get a part as a diver that gets munched in the opening scene, ending up as a part, literally. Serves him right, you think. At least he won’t need benefits. With the day job he’s got and shouldn’t give up, he’ll have that covered.

              Your niece is doing well, you think. Yeah, you have no kids. Just the kids of your sister Fan to think of at this time of year. Kids to send cards to, shoot a text to. Zooey, the niece, is an EMT living in Colorado, also spends half the year in Yellowstone, rescuing incompetent hikers that get lost in the wild. Recently she had an ordeal, was out in the woods on a call when she came across a grizzly. Cocaine bear. It was the only film you saw last year. It filled you up, sated a bloodthirsty streak in you not dealt with by elf-killing video games. But it made you worry about Zooey, being chased in a forest. On that last occasion she was rescued—actually, inadvertently—when her partner Fred got stuck in a redwood tree only to get knocked off by a low flying eagle that clipped his ear. He would have fallen to his death had the fall not been broken by the crazed bear that was stalking Zooey and about to make its kill when impact occurred, causing concussion. The bear was out, will have to retire from his game, maybe. There’s no telling where and when miracles will happen, in the city or in the wild. Anyway, it’s enough to make you believe in things like God and Christmas. Well, it almost makes you believe in God and Christmas.

              You wish you could skip this holiday and head straight for New Year’s. How come no one queries your famous ancestor’s mood on that night? Given that it’s just a week later, at the climax of the year, a new page to be turned, you’d think posterity would take notice. After all, if the story is about redemption, making new resolutions and sticking to them, wouldn’t we want to know about the new leaf on January 1st  and how long it will last. Couldn’t that have been the sequel, the reboot, or even the video game? Humbug. Back to New Year’s 2023. You can’t wait for the show that Ticketmaster ripped you off for. Deep Purple is replacing a Pink Floyd cover band at Red Rocks in Colorado because the latter band’s members all got Yellow Fever ahead of a benefit concert for Incels that have blue balls. It’s all a joke, of course. Someone from Dickens’ homeland is taking the piss, as they’d say, hiding where the profits are really going. Can’t trust any of these people, but you don’t care so long as it’s a good show and DP plays “Smoke on the Water”.

              It’s a good thing it’s a joke for another reason. You don’t like charity gigs, mostly because you don’t like charity. That’s why you’ve begged off a show happening the following week, also in Colorado. It’s an anniversary bash for a “friends of” January 6th  group that’s been put on by one of your investors and a former employer, Mr. Fezziwig. You think the emphasis should be on the word bash. Fezziwigg wasn’t a right-wing nutjob when you first met him. He was just a hound-dog who liked to make as much money as possible and then spend it on strippers in his free time. Then, during the lock-down, all the strip-joints closed down and Fezziwig was lost. He couldn’t even get a handjob at the local rub and tug. If only he played video games, you could’ve lent a helping hand, helped him get through the loneliness and the boredom. No, not that kind of helping hand! You’d have helped him count his money, assuming he’d get some kind of kick out of that. But Fezziwig went another way, wanted someone to blame, someone to take revenge upon. Not that you mind a little bad attitude and grumbling, but starting wars or claiming that coups d’etats have happened in the nation’s capital isn’t quite your cup of tea or figgy pudding. Humbug, you say to him, wanting no part of his ugly social vision. In fact, as you think of it, you’re sick of the game you’re playing, the elf thing. You’ve broken the record. The little people are strewn over digital asphalt. You suddenly want a power failure, and for Alexa to answer every one of your questions wrong. You’ve placed too much faith in the inanimate, the material.

              Your phone pings at midnight. The girl who once broke up with you found your neglected, much swiped-past profile on Tinder. “What’s up?” writes Belle in a text, plus “Merry Christmas!”. “What’s up with you profile? You don’t like long hikes”, she chides. “You like money, and you like video games”.

              “I’m learning to like elves,” you reply.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fail Safe

Fail-Safe. It seems to mean limit, the point of no return. Fail-Safe, a rather stoic film from 1964 about accidental nuclear war, was released a few months after its more famous twin, Dr. Strangelove, an almost doppelganger treatment of the same subject. The later release of Fail-Safe was no accident. According to fact as well as folklore, it was tabled as a result of a lawsuit filed by, among others, Stanley Kubrick, the principal auteur of Strangelove, who will have thought Fail-Safe a rival to his now legendary satire, hence the legal action. Of course, affording Kubrick a commercial head-start was not the reason for the settlement that ensued: producers compromised and agreed that Kubrick’s film would get first release. The premise of the suit was the assertion, apparently upheld, that the script of Fail-Safe, actually based on a novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, was too close in substance to the source material of Strangelove, a Peter George novel called Red Alert, so a copyright infringement was determined. Anyway, in the books, a mechanical failure results in a false order for planes armed with nuclear weapons to attack their targets in the Soviet Union.

              The main theme of Fail-Safe, now seemingly hackneyed in our A.I. obsessed angst of the 21st century, is that our machines are getting away from us, that we are moving too fast, being careless in our complacent regard for the power of technology. Okay, so Ukraine, Israel and Hamas notwithstanding, World War Three might finish third in a 2023 list of social concerns, behind, say, privacy erosion or the problem of our carbon foot prints–the problem of being replaced, if not destroyed–but the ominous gist is similar. Back to Fail Safe: the film’s script proceeds logically, setting up the motif: during early scenes, we are given a tour of a military installation, shown how satellite photography can locate the positions of enemy missile sites from space; how Soviet submarines are positioned just fifty miles off the Pacific coast. An overseeing general is proud of the officers and technicians that he commands. He has utmost faith in the reliability of the system they control. He and his subordinates are even unperturbed by a preliminary drama: the appearance of a UFO somewhere in the north Atlantic that triggers an air force alert system. A routine precaution, he blithely says of the monitoring that occurs. A visiting congressman—yeah, what a coinkydink—is not so sure. Somewhat awed, the politician seizes the chance to give pontificating warnings: who’s in control of all this technology? An accompanying academic supplements the concern. The computer systems—remember, this is 1964—operate too quickly, are so sophisticated that despite human oversight, mechanical operations are too subtle to be captured by human beings. Mistakes are inevitable.

              Strangelove isn’t nearly as pedantic, or even reverent. Perceiving a darker human theme in the source material, Kubrick’s film alters the premise of the nuclear accident. In Strangelove, the problem is not in the machines per se, but rather in the question that the congressman in Fail-Safe had asked: who’s in charge? Well, a nutjob general not accidentally named Jack Ripper is in charge. In his opening scene, Ripper calls his second in command, inexplicably a foreign exchange officer from the UK, played by Peter Sellers, to announce an attack on the Soviet Union that he personally has authorized, though he implies White House and Pentagon approval. Group captain Mandrake is the sanest character in Strangelove. That is, he is its soul of neurotic denial: a humble officer, a soldier with an eye upon order and reality, plus glitches* in a system that displace from a more fundamental human problem: death wish. Though the reasons for the unwieldy technology in Strangelove are likely the same as those suggested in Fail Safe—namely, the hubris and complacency of leaders—in Strangelove, the deeper problem is the hell bent hatred, paranoia, or just plain lunacy of almost everyone involved.

              In Fail Safe, the characters are mostly earnest, well-intentioned, even noble figures. The principal hero is played by Henry Fonda as a fatherly president, not donning that role for the first time, as I recall. Watching Fail Safe today, I can just about imagine Barack Obama playing his part: Fonda is relaxed, genial with subordinates, the everywoman secretary or his nervous Russian translator, played by Larry Hagman, just before his Dream of Jeannie period. Fonda’s character is naturally in charge as he enters the fray. He may not save the day, but he’ll do the right thing, at least. He’ll lead with calmness, compassion and tender strength; issue sage words from time to time, and deliver a great speech at the end. Too bad he can’t do anything about the system that’s gotten out of control. Too bad his familiar voice doesn’t sway a dutiful pilot whom he finally reaches by radio communication. The man can’t follow the presidential order to abort the accidentally-triggered bomb-dropping mission to Moscow because he’s been trained to ignore what may be tricks by the enemy. Interestingly, the scenes where the Fonda character or the wife of the pilot are desperately crying out for mission retreat seem as absurd (or perhaps just over-acted) as anything in Strangelove.

              And this would seem to have been why Kubrick and his script-writers changed things ahead of their filming. They just found the scenarios depicted in Red Alert too silly to be taken seriously, so they doubled down, went with the absurdity. The result was a comedy that mocked, not lamented the hubris of military systems. It mocked patriotism, anti-communism, even the sexual neurosis and narcissism that underpins human aggression. As for the concept of “limited” nuclear war, which Fail-Safe addresses like a class lecture inserted into the script’s middle third, Strangelove, uh, blows it away, injecting a comic-book doomsday idea, as introduced by its namesake character, also played by Sellers. It’s unfortunate yet also interesting that Fail-Safe has a less farcical answer to the wheelchair bound loon that Sellers plays. Walter Matthau’s role, similar in purpose to that of the more famous Sellers character, is that of a chip-on-the-shoulder nerd who becomes a virulent political scientist. Actually, he’s an excellent foil to the virtuous Fonda character, or the character of general Black, the man whose angst about nuclear war disturbs his sleep, sending him nightmares in which he identifies with a “killer” matador.

              Again, much about the legacy of Fail-Safe seems either unfortunate or sort of…too bad. It’s like its depressive ending: a too serious, too straight-faced handwringing about a hard subject. Even its climactic theme—one of sacrifice (New York gets deliberately nuked by the US to reciprocate for the accidental destruction of Moscow)—seems to reflect its fate as both a film and an artifact of how its audience dealt with mortal terror. In earlier times, during World War II for example, audiences may have clamored for and easily consumed straightforward, hero-worshipping fare in cinema. The crowd would have heeded the dire warnings of artists-as-social critics, but retained its belief that their leaders are good people with our best interests at heart. Had Henry Fonda not been available, then Spencer Tracy might have played the role that delivers fatherly blessings at the end. But 1964 was a turning point on something, I think: JFK had just been assassinated. Vietnam was about to get worse, and America’s sense of being infallible was eroding. Nixon would further the cynicism a decade later, and comedians ranging from Lenny Bruce to Monty Python to Saturday Night Live were altering what we laughed at. Wholesome humor still exists, but edgier tastes seem to dominate, and might have passed a point of no return in our robotic present-day.

              We’ll laugh at anything if it’s telling the truth, plus something else perennial: at times we listen more to the jester than the pedagogue. That’s the indelible message of Strangelove, the reason it stands up better than its worthy rival of 1964. It didn’t need the lawsuit to win its lasting influence.

** Incidentally, this program froze on 3 separate occasions during the writing of this blog essay

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson

Want more on guilt and shame, how they get confused, the one feeling obscuring the other? Well, let’s look to cinema again, and more specifically, to the fast-fading iconography of the boomer era. In 1968, the year of my birth, the name Mrs. Robinson quickly became a shorthand for a proto-feminist, Betty Friedan era woman who had missed her chance to take life by the scruff, so instead she dons the role of seductress and settles upon a hapless young man as her target of revenge.

That’s at best half the premise of The Graduate, a great sixties artifact that is otherwise about generational divides: young versus old, war versus peace, complacent materialism (“I’ve one word for you, Ben—plastics!) versus the implied vows of poverty from those who would tune in, turn on, and drop out. Ben, as in Benjamin Braddock, the protagonist, gets to take his time before dropping out of anything. In the film’s opening scenes, he is drifting amongst his parents’ friends, amidst the ephemera of white, upper middle-class wealth. He has graduated from college, has won some kind of award for athletic excellence, and is poised to join the rat race, climb the social ladder, find a nice girl to marry—you know, all those unfashionable yet routinely chosen privileges that lay before him, waiting like appetizers on a lavish buffet table. Ben is stolid, lonely and depressed, not to mention repressed, and disillusioned, and as he wades through a celebratory crowd trading platitudes with party guests, the filmmaker captures a fleeting glance of a fly in the ointment: the watchful, likewise alienated Mrs. Robinson. She has Benjamin Braddock in her crosshairs.

The wife of a long-time partner of Ben’s father (their business type stays unidentified), Mrs. Robinson follows Ben to an upstairs room—his childhood bedroom, we’re meant to guess—and appears suggestively at his door, asking for two things: a cigarette, plus a ride home. Right off the bat, the viewer gathers that she is as bored as Ben is by the graduation party at his parent’s home, though her initial queries to him seem like those of a gossipy, traditional house-wife. Is he depressed over a girl? She asks. Unlike Ben’s parents, she is at least attentive to his feeling and curious as to his thoughts, which signals a running theme to the story: the lack of empathy between young and old. Clueless and self-absorbed, Ben is slow to recognize the intentions of the apparently long-time neighbor, but he complies with her wishes (the ride home) out of politeness, or perhaps to escape the oppressive atmosphere of the party. Arriving at her home, she entices him indoors, again with traditional artifice (she wants to be escorted to the door), while Ben still seems reluctant and put out, as if this is all stealing time better spent with private ruminations. Impatiently, he indulges her questions, agrees to wait with her until her husband arrives home, and then, finally, after the queries get increasingly personal and a bit of clothing gets shed, he cottons on to her desire.

Thus, the stage is set for an unlikely affair that takes comic and then dark twists and turns. Not quite a May-December coupling, there is enough of an age difference between the two to make her the dominant personality. However, after traversing first-timish jitters, Ben relaxes enough to request sincere conversation on one of their clandestine hotel nights, during which he manages to get under Mrs. Robinson’s skin. It turns out that she was once an aspiring artist, or at least an art student in college. Dolefully and briefly, she recounts the history of an unhappy marriage, of an aspirational life thwarted because of a grubby sexual fumbling in the back seat of a car, resulting in pregnancy and the later birth of her daughter, the soon-to-be-real love interest of her now younger lover. What kind of car? Ben asks, betraying his callow, nerdy side. Mrs. Robinson scoffs at his irrelevant question, but it is nothing compared to the offense she feels upon hearing his next remarks: “so old Elaine Robinson was conceived in the back seat of a—” (I don’t recall what car it was and it matters even less that I remember the make), followed by an ill-advised quip about dating the daughter, Elaine, in part because that’s what Mr. Robinson keeps hinting at in his odd, cuckolded scenes. In their hotel bed, Mrs. Robinson becomes a black widow, grabbing Ben’s hair, jabbing a finger at him and compelling a promise that he’d never go near her daughter.

Initially bullied into a false promise, Ben soon gets hot under his own collar, thinking that Mrs. R. has now insulted him by implying that he’s “not good enough for her daughter”. It’s not clear why she’d think this besides having good reason to believe he’d not be a faithful partner, which is at least hypocritical of her given that she clearly made the initial advances towards him. One supposes that Mrs. Robinson is feeling protective of Elaine, who is similarly naïve as Ben, yet by implication less corrupted than he is at this point in the story. But regardless, the cover story of “not good enough” seems unconvincing, a not-good-enough narrative of what’s actually happening. Firstly, each seems to be getting very ahead of themselves, as if something is already known and felt about the characters (Ben and Elaine) who at this point in the film have not yet interacted, though they will have been acquainted as kids and it’s tacitly understood that each is attractive. So, there is a putative jealousy in the older woman’s aggression, but that also seems an imprecise takeaway, unless the viewer is meant to infer a profound dearth of self-esteem in her character such that she would react with such venom towards Ben’s suggestion. It’s a kind of how dare you think of her the way you might of me expression. Anyway, Mrs. Robinson apologizes to Ben for offending him, though she stops short of explaining herself more fully and Ben is likewise avoidant of unpleasant truths, at last saying “let’s not talk. Let’s not talk at all”.

Shame. Let’s not talk. Let’s just do that thing we do; that thing that was fun when it started, full of intrigue, mischief, an escape from something banal. That Ben is full of self-doubt and therefore believes he is looked down upon by his older lover is not shocking. We’d seen it in his Hamlet eyes from the first shot of the movie. It was that dissociated gaze that was meant to signify lost if talented youth, floundering in the aftermath of a Kennedy assassination, struggling to maintain fragile ideals. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, and all that. That Mrs. Robinson has regrets, low self-esteem is not shocking. We observe it in her bitter air, caustic expressions and alcoholism. This mid-life crisis, this affair with a younger man, would dwindle from this scene onwards and the prohibition that she aims at Ben regarding Elaine would go the way of many other instructions from her generation: it would be rebelled against. And what of the absent daughter? She pops up mid-way into the story, cheerful and pretty, unremarkably bright yet somewhat oblivious to the cynicism that’s all around her. Under pressure from his parents, Ben does indeed date Elaine. It’s as if his father and hers had arranged their marriage when they were ten or something, though clearly Mrs. Robinson wasn’t consulted on this mooted plan.

Is he good enough for her? We don’t learn the answer to that question, or learn that Mrs. Robinson was necessarily motivated by jealousy when she forbade Ben from pursuing Elaine, or even when she spitefully outs her affair with Ben to Elaine, which temporarily blows that budding romance while sinking the affair that has been a guilty pleasure to observe. What follows is an interesting spell wherein the viewer is left to consider the ironies of what relationships are forbidden and why. In other words, the forbidden match of Ben and Elaine is a displacement from the more forbidden affair of Ben and Mrs. Robinson. Regarding the motivation of the seductress, I suspect a reversal of what she first conveyed to Ben in that hotel bed is closer to the truth. See, her morose reminiscence about a life unfulfilled plus a climactic line from Elaine to her are clues that Mrs. Robinson was likely envious of her daughter’s lot in life rather than merely jealous of Elaine’s youth, charm and beauty. This isn’t mirror, mirror on the wall, and it’s not that Ben is not good enough for her daughter; it’s that he is good enough, that he represents passion and idealism despite his fumbling actions. Ben represents the kind of young man that Mrs. Robinson may have wanted as a partner earlier in life: he’d be a good partner to Elaine; unthreatened by her promise, supportive of her aspirations, faithful—a good friend as well as an attentive lover. And that’s the problem.

“It’s too late”, says Mrs. Robinson when Ben arrives at a church to disrupt the wedding between Elaine and a frat house robot she’d met somewhere along the line. Mrs. Robinson’s pronouncement is delivered twice: smugly at first, but then in a panic as Ben seizes Elaine’s hand. A young woman rips her white wedding dress and dashes from the altar. A mother attempts to pull her daughter from a wedding crasher/bride hijacker who is also her former lover. Yes, the times they are a changin’. “Not for me, it isn’t”, Elaine replies, now matching her mother’s wits. And there it is: a knowing moment between women across a generational divide. A parent is supposed to want what’s best for her child; she is meant to want more for that child than she ever obtained for herself. That’s our Superego talking, injecting guilt into the equation. The Graduate posits amongst its more famous themes that Oedipal rivalry between women exists; that parents’ envy of their children’s hopes is a thing. But it’s okay, Mrs. Robinson. We—meaning the audience that made you famous—celebrate your complexity, your dark humor, your blend of old and new, of good and evil. Ben’s heroism notwithstanding, you were actually the most memorable character in The Graduate, and as your song goes, Jesus loves you more than you will know.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Scarlet Letters are really blue

That sex addiction is an excuse for licentious behavior is itself one of contemporary society’s displacement arguments. It’s also a displacement to argue that sex addiction treatment is a coded endorsement of monogamy. It is. But this argument is only half made on behalf of the religious. What progressive-leaning, anti-religion commentators won’t add is that the monogamous implications of sex addiction treatment are made on behalf of the largely monogamous women who comprise the majority of impacted partners, who find in sex addiction treatment a partly-medical, partly-psychotherapeutic premise for an overreaching critique of masculine sexuality: the too frequent demands for sex of heterosexual men; the objectifying, “performative”, “penetrative”, but not “intimate” sexual needs of misattuned, inattentive, sexually remedial men.

Why am I going here in Getting Real About Sex Addiction? Well, I might not have had I not been encouraged to explore what editors and early readers described as “intersectionality”. Of course, they meant that sex addiction treatment intersects with matters of social justice in a way that draws attention to how social groups like women are disadvantaged in treatment circles, not how they have tacitly garnered allies and are seated at the side of righteous authority, being cast as “betrayed” or “survivors”, in keeping with monogamous agreements and trauma model theories. So, I did a naughty thing in mine and Joe Farley’s book and went the other way. The reason: I didn’t want to write a load of trite BS, basically. I know about the hoary biases that society and the medical establishment have aimed at girls and women over the decades, but at the risk of being glib or seeming dismissive about that which I haven’t endured personally, that’s not the zeistgeist that is in place within the field of sex addiction treatment, nor is it likely the trend in a profession now dominated by women (numerically, at least); and by the way, that “trend” has been in place for some time now.

Sex addiction treatment, its principles or underlying assumptions, intersect with our protean sexual mores, our notions of what is objectifying treatment of human beings, for example, because many practitioners in this field, and in the wider field of psychotherapy, routinely attach their interventions to thoughts about what is happening in the culture at large, all in the name of concepts like intersectionality. There can be no doubt that in some quarters, the matter of sex addiction is attached to movements against sex slavery, or so-called gender-based violence, and that protests against such phenomena are aimed against a sex addiction treatment population that is dominantly comprised of heterosexual men. The treatment of sex addiction—the invoked theory, if you like—is girded by psychoanalytically-derived observations of obsessive sexual fantasy that casts sex partners as sex objects, treating persons as interchangeable bodies and images, or part-objects, as they are also termed.

This dovetails with a feminist critique of masculine ego primarily, hence the pathologizing of men more than women in sex addiction circles—a reactionary trend. The pathologizing of women, by male practitioners especially, is largely discredited in the current discussion of sex addiction. To assess a female patient as a sex addict is to risk being branded a slut-shaming misogynist, perpetrating an iatrogenic, traumatizing intervention, thwarting the fragile sexual freedoms of women. If a female therapist were to assess a male patient as a sex addict, she might be branded a misandrist, but this is less likely, if only because most people, including many mental health professionals don’t even know that word. Such is the bumper sticker, Twitter (or “X”)-speak vocabulary of many in our society. Meanwhile, opponents of sex addiction treatment like to pretend that sex addiction theory is a fabrication of religious zealots because it is politically correct to scapegoat religion for all of the guilt and shame that stems from our neurotic relationship to sex.

The guilt and shame that feminists might like to induce in male sex addicts, or men in general, is not called guilt and shame when such feelings emerge. Not typically. Dodging religious associations with those words, they’d call the phenomena something else—justice, probably. Only in this respect would I concede that our book, Getting Real About Sex Addiction, is anti-feminist, because no less than any impacted partner of a sex addict, I do not like being gaslighted. Though not religious myself, I don’t think it’s right that religion takes so much on the chin in sex addiction treatment when social justice is the real moral lens of the field and has been for some time. Secondly, if you think that male sex addicts, or that masculine ego in general deserves a moral reckoning, I may say fair enough. But let’s stop pretending that treatment protocols, which have practitioner sex addiction specialists standing with polygraph machines nearby, full disclosure confessional exercises, all-day, or all-weekend workshops, and provisional labels of sex addiction (which is not yet recognized by the American Psychiatric Association) plus gratuitous extras like Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which is), are privileging its subjects. Stop pretending that your nomenclature is anything other than pejorative, and that your scarlet letter agendas haven’t turned blue.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Theory filtered through politics

With choppy rhythm plus an aversion to run-on thought, the following sentence begins a paragraph in mine and Joe Farley’s book, Getting Real About Sex Addiction (I shall blame Joe for the choppy rhythm): “Undercurrents filter down into therapists’ offices, lurking as assumptions that inflect counsel”. This teasing opinion, one of many offhand expressions in our text, signals a critique of what lies in the cuts of sex addiction treatment. Via jargon, popular or theoretical, and often derivative of older, more esoteric theory, sex addiction specialists (and others, to be fair) impart a repertoire of ideas reflecting biases, and psychological theory, like scientific data, is a tool of manipulation; a means to an end.

In this blog, I’ve made numerous allusions to psychoanalytic theory or psychodynamic technique without giving many examples of either. Partly, the reason is that theory and especially interventions are hard to represent out of context, meaning case illustrations, and case illustrations are lengthy and, I suppose, not blog-worthy, though I’m not quite sure what I mean by that. I guess I mean something similar to my use of the word “teasing”: I’m introducing a book, not delivering it in serial form. Anyway, it seems apt to give illustrations of theoretical ideas, especially ones that can be represented economically. I’ve decided as much as I begin my latest and likely final perusal of copyedits and notice a certain pause upon the concept of reaction formation. It is a pause of sustained interest, not doubt.

Reaction formation is one of several fraught concepts in the Sigmund Freud lexicon: meaning, it is controversial, but that only depends upon its application. That in turn means that reaction formation is subject to bullying; it is a kicked around idea, used to represent standard thought, establishment thought, ill-advised thought…taken for granted thought. If you’re not an avid reader of psychoanalytic literature, you won’t know the term, but you’ll know its meaning. You’ll have observed its application, even employed it yourself, on countless occasions. Basically, the concept refers to a reversal of feeling based upon a defensive position that counters an uncomfortable thought and feeling. Wait, what does that mean? Well, it means something derived from a famous line in a Shakespeare play: “the lady doth protest too much”. When you take a position of opposition to something—a position of moral offense or disgust—a psychoanalyst will suspect that your offended position conveys the opposite of your desire, as a defense against a wish that is incompatible with ego, Superego, etc.

In our text, I make reference to reaction formation numerous times. The reason, as you might imagine, is that sex addiction, porn addiction, sexual deviancy, or just plain sex, is subject to moral objection, of course. In (fact?), what incurs moral objection or disgust more than sex, or that which falls under the general heading of sex? Anything? Notice I’m adding the word disgust to the term moral objection. This cues an example I noted in the manuscript: a man prone to sexually addictive habits, including certain “perversions”, elicits disgust from his wife, which he in turn finds arousing. This is an example of a paradoxical reaction—a reaction formation—to an adverse stimuli: to counter the unpleasant with a pleasure reaction, thus defending against anxiety and revulsion. More commonly, we tend to understand reaction formation as something like the wife’s reaction: a reaction of moral disgust to the sexual demands of her husband. Moral indignation: men only want one thing, etc.

What we suspect of her isn’t nice. It isn’t politically correct, to cue the secondary purpose of this entry: to indicate the selective application of this commonly known phenomenon with an obscure name. In the current zeitgeist, it is likely deemed sexist to interpret arousal from revulsion…at least as it pertains to what heterosexual men perceive in women. And don’t get me wrong. It is politically incorrect for some sensible reasons. Perceiving arousal within rejection has rationalized innumerous episodes of sexual harassment and assault, no doubt. Therefore, to rebuke an interpretation of reaction formation within a sexual rejection is to prevent danger. But that is about censoring thought due to fear of its behavioral corollary—not so much to cement a counter-truth that would govern the thought itself.

When reaction formations are deemed less dangerous, or else when they seem to represent worthy retributions, they are given a pass. In the realm of sex, we might therefore consider the issue of homosexuality. Within the history of psychoanalysis, and likely beyond amid a dominant heteronormative culture, homosexuality has been deemed a reaction formation, or again, as something like it. Freud offered that a same-sex sexual orientation results from a failure to properly identify with the opposite-sex parent; in the case of boys (Freud’s focus), it represents an excessive identification with a mother such that a boy would mirror her sexuality and thus aim libidinal interest at men. Mainstream society more or less agreed with this idea and at some point (possibly before Freud, for all I know) coined a derisive shorthand for this phenomenon: “mama’s boy”.  To be gay is to fail at acquiring a Superego, which in a dominant heteronormative culture means adopting the conscience and moral repertoire of the traditionalist, largely patriarchal system.

However, Superegos change because culture changes, and in the 21st century, within the largely diversified as well as secularized world of psychotherapy, Freud is often chastised for his sexism while his anti-religious positions are for the most part forgotten or ignored. As for homosexuality and the perception of that trait, another kind of reversal has taken effect, possibly a reaction formation of another kind. So, think of the following example: a man exhibits moral objection, even disgust, at the advances of another man towards him, and issues a rebuke to the offending figure. A commonly held opinion is to cast the man exhibiting the disgust as a homophobe. He is exhibiting a reaction formation: a reversal of idea to counter feelings within himself about which he is uncomfortable. He does not have a phobia in a medicalized sense (he doesn’t have panic attacks, necessarily), so the use of the term phobe or phobic is figurative and offhand. However, the assignment of reversed affect is in earnest.

And so, these examples illustrate the infiltration of social mores into psychological theory. Indeed, they illustrate how theory is subordinate to culture and historical change, whether that change is institutionally imposed, or else populist. Science has its data, its facts, and sometimes those facts define phenomena. In psychology, data is thin and is often spun to designate truth. Instead, it defines a surface layer of truth while an interior truth is left to speculation, theory, interpretation and bias. Speculation and theory represent what we want them to represent, only the “we” is variable. Some think the we is more inclusive than it once was. Probably. Or maybe. More substitutive, I’d suggest.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Glancing Views of Peripheral Matter

Within psychoanalysis, much has been written about perversion. Ever since Freud’s 1905 work Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, we’ve wondered about child sexuality, and while inclined to attribute sexualization to childhood trauma, we (meaning, psychoanalytic thinkers) still consider that unconscious oedipal and pre-oedipal fantasy remains significant in psychosexual development. Addiction, especially sex addiction, has taken a back seat to perversion in analytic literature, with few even bothering to address the topic of addiction, thinking it derivative, perhaps, of the Freudian lexicon. They may be right. Meanwhile, practitioners and theorists outside of the psychoanalytic tradition dominate the sub-field of sex addiction, which more or less compelled a distracting polemic in mine and Joe Farley’s book, Getting Real About Sex Addiction, published in 2022. In that milieu, which markets to a consumer (patient) base that generally seeks practical, short-term treatment options and is thinly aware of deepening analytic approaches, professionals like me work to tear away from bad objects that have hijacked standards of concept and intervention, acting upon zeitgeist notions of what men owe women, especially.

This is why some of the suggestions that inflect our non-fiction, fitting in between the lines of other narratives, offering readers a glancing view of peripheral matters, might disorient yet give pause—have them consider a reversal. There are comments here and there, footnotes that add density to offhand assertions, especially those that pertain to childhood sexual abuse, perversion—ya know, the mooted etiology of men’s preoccupation with porn, prostitution, or deviant sex. I allude to the intimate relationship between a mother and child, of a mother’s seductiveness, her influence upon psychosexual development. My comments are provocative, if hardly original. Readers looking for attachment history accounts of abusive or neglectful fathers or mothers may nod in recognition of some familiar verbiage, but they may recoil as they read theories that go way beyond what standard attachment theory proponents offer. Take Graeme Taylor’s 2019 article, “Creativity and Perversion: waiting for the muse”: published in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, this paper offers a case illustration of an adult male who presented with depression plus a fetish for giant women, which began as a foot fetish when he was three years old. The man spent time drawing pictures of giant women, which represented a perversion (a “distortion”) of a once observed talent. The patient’s mother had once idealized her son’s artful abilities, but pushed him in his adolescent years in ways that met her narcissistic needs. Pressured to accommodate her, the patient lost his sense of identity, ceasing to draw creatively and pursuing an unrewarding career in book-keeping, seemingly in denial of himself. He disavowed his gift and his sexuality, eschewing sublimation while he acted out a dread of annihilation, turning it into pleasure.

Though he kept drawing, the patient’s depiction of nude or giant women was a part-rebellion, as his mother had been prudish, disapproving of nudes and not allowing him to watch films with scenes of nudity or violence. Jealous mother, we might think. Meanwhile, in his adult life, she was intrusive with her own physicality, kissing him on the lips whenever they met. Further, the patient’s father was a passive man, seemingly unable to take a firm stand with other people, including the patient’s mother. Guilty that he was not utilizing his talent to its fullest extent, the patient was nonetheless stifled, dreading separation from his mother but acting subversively with respect to her wishes for him, the guilt countering the aggression he felt. The giant woman fantasy was a source of comfort for the man, allowing him to deny unacceptable feelings of hate for his mother; indeed, to transform such feelings into sexual excitement. A reversal.

In Getting Real, I reference this kind of reversal, backgrounded as glancing illustrations of emotionally (perhaps physically) incestuous mothers who represent bad internal objects while good internal objects (passive or absent fathers) are missing. In Taylor’s essay, he draws from numerous sources to describe the role of a muse: a traditionally female figure that represents either an equal or an internal good object that facilitates creativity. He disagrees with analysts who believe that the focus of treatment (of perversions) might focus upon the sexual and generally physical inadequacies of the subject. In this Adlerian-sounding formulation, the subject counters feelings of “being small” (and therefore not gratifying the seductive mother) with fantasies of largesse. From the analytic perspective, creativity requires a degree of aggression, which in turn requires an identification with a potent object, or else an introjection of a good-enough mother, as conceptualized by Winnicott. A traumatizing, not-good-enough mother fails to contain her young child’s terror and emotional pain, and the child’s image of her becomes fused with the mother’s rage, plus the oral and anal-sadistic impulses that the child projects onto her. The Medusa-like figure fosters annihilation anxieties which generate helplessness, plus an ongoing struggle to sublimate, but it does not inhibit the split-off rage via acting out behaviors.

Here, the term “acting out behaviors”, so common in sex addiction treatment circles and therefore in Getting Real, replaces the term perversion, more commonly employed by analytic writers, even though the term acting out connotes re-enactment. The terms acting out and perversion are more or less synonymous as they pertain to dynamics that subjects experience with their objects. However, as I wrote previously in “The biggest elephants slip out of sight”, the tendency in SA treatment, besides avoiding terms that suggest “judgement” (as if we couldn’t simply define perversion as distortion) is to assign acting out behaviors to a root-cause of castrating fathers rather than powerful, abusive mothers. More specifically, the tendency is to follow classical psychoanalysis in an unthinking way: blame the abusive (hitting, yelling) father, for that thinking retains the masculine identity of abuse, which is in turn ego-syntonic with populist thought. The shift in analytic thinking, which may not be a shift but rather simply a contextual alternative for flexible thinkers, reflects a Kleinian versus Freudian conception of childhood development wherein the nexus of development is the breast, not the phallus.

In one respect, I envy the likes of Graeme Taylor, or at least that’s what I felt reading his essay. See, as I read his analytic formulation of a fetish-obsessed man, I wondered about the backgrounded figures, like the impacted spouse of his possibly addictive pattern—the shadow consumers, as I have less flatteringly dubbed them. Regarding Taylor, I think, how do you do it? I mean, do you live in a psychoanalytic vacuum, cut off from pop psychology, the pull of the sex addiction zeitgeist? All this stuff about annihilating objects, oral and anal sadistic impulses, and not once do you mention the m word: misogyny. Remarkable. You’re in a different world, mate, assuming you’re not catching flak from circular arguments. See, if you cast a husband as Frankenstein to his wife, then you’re describing misogyny. You cast a wife as Medusa, then you’re describing misogyny. Get it? Okay, maybe Frankenstein is a more sympathetic character, but my point is that demonizing is perceived differentially. The men in my therapy groups, versus those who choose or whom I invite into analysis, live in a world of social justice, of love languages, mindfulness training workshops, not sweating small stuff and working the steps. Upon hearing the Oedipal theory, some would subscribe to the castrating father story (though they’d invariably refer to “abuse”, not castration), as the Kleinian theory is more emasculating. It says that men who suffer from perversions feel dominated by women, and some (though not many) in a group of men would admit to that. They are also less likely to report drawing giant women and masturbating afterwards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Basketball and Football

The gash in the tire was the first elephant in the room, or rather facility, or center. Jim had lived at the Wagner assisted living home for three months now, was still calling it a facility or center. It wasn’t home, was his point. It was an institution—a benevolent one, perhaps, and no longer the prison that constituted his first impression—but not yet a place where he’d commit to stay. That’s why he kept getting away for hours at a time, in a four-wheel drive van that he’d owned for a decade and a half. Transposing wheels and limbs, he admitted the car was on its last legs, which recently included the set of four tires, all of which were looking a bit threadbare, so none would take the kind of impact that Jim had given one tire on a Sunday morning.

             “I was in a rush, I suppose”, he offered palely.

             “On a Sunday morning…why? Where do you have to go to so quickly anymore?” This was Frank, Jim’s curt, middle-aged son, who visited on weekends and was accustomed to fixing problems for his dad—usually problems like a frozen computer, or a frozen bank account. Sometimes a blocked-up toilet dirtied the chore list. Frank looked at the gash in the front driver’s side tire, half-impressed as well as concerned. It was shaped like a goal mouth, or a doorway turned sideways, and it could be peeled backwards to reveal the hollow interior into which goodness knows what had flown. Inconsequential debris, maybe. Strange, how physics works, Frank wondered. What kind of impact makes that kind of tear? Anyway, it didn’t matter. Jim wanted it fixed, and Frank wasn’t inclined to replace the tire himself, though he might have. He could have, he may have wanted to say. Get your hands dirty. Flex those slender, brittle, keyboard-tapping fingers of yours. Show your old man that despite the years of bookish study and interior living, that you can still muster some good-old-fashioned grit and change a goddamned tire!  

             Anyway, elephants. The issue was whether Jim should be driving at all, not whether Frank could remove and replace a piece of mutilated rubber. While Frank formulated words for a feeble inquiry about living skills and the future, Jim pulled out his Smartphone, another item whose functions he could barely manage, and called for road service. Surprisingly, Jim about managed this next task, having readied his driver’s license and his triple A card, and despite soon being thrown by the gratuitous instructions of an unctuous dispatcher. Text messages and verification codes and such. “What?” and “sorry?” Jim said twice each before the voice on the other end seemed to give up and accede to a past generation’s understandings. “A driver will be there in about thirty minutes”, the voice said tiredly. Jim shook his head and chuckled, pleased to have heard those golden words yet baffled as to why they hadn’t been said until several minutes into the call. Moments later, he was lamenting a complicated new world, speaking as uncharitably about that dispatcher as he had about the construction project that had blocked the main street, forcing him onto a sidewalk curb, hence the u-shaped gash in the front driver’s side tire.

             “You drove on the sidewalk?” Frank asked, like he was still collecting evidence for a later argument.

             “No, no. Of course not. Not the sidewalk. I mean the…whattadyercallit…the thing that does the water”

             A broken, uncomprehending pause followed.

             “A hydrant,” Frank said. “You hit a hydrant?”

             “I hit something.” Jim shrugged. “There was a stream of water, anyway”. Another complaint, it seemed.

             About twenty minutes later, a road service vehicle appeared, flagged down by Frank’s waving arms, and pulled up next to Jim’s van. He stepped up eagerly, pleased by the relatively quick service. This is more like it, he evinced, turning to his son. At that moment, Frank was peering over his father’s shoulder, his eyes fixed upon the service vehicle’s driver’s side. Inside, hands and arms linked to an unseen face scribbled on a notepad and then opened a driver’s side door. Moments later, out stepped a uniformed black man, about six foot six inches tall, and looking like he weighed about three hundred pounds. Frank nodded, seeing the exiting giant first.

             “What’s up,” the man greeted. Immediately, he seemed stolid, would likely be terse, if not necessarily rude for the rest of this meeting.

             Jim, who moved in all directions slowly and gingerly, at least when not driving, turned from Frank to regard the service worker whom he was eager to have change his tire because his effete, not-anywhere-close-to-three-hundred-pound son would likely demur on the task.

             “Whoa”, Jim uttered, followed by, “basketball?”

             What? Frank thought. Fleeting denial. A stifled guffaw. The service worker understood immediately, appeared to take it in stride, emitting a small chuckle that contained the protest of race. He raised his chin, striking a slightly affronted pose, and breathily replied: “Football”.

             The fix-it job lasted minutes, during which Frank stewed, thinking about the friends and family with whom he’d share this culture clash-capturing moment; this brief exchange that would say everything and nothing…about something he’d give cursory thought, ultimately. Juneteenth was last week. Basketball? Football. Let’s call the whole thing off, the old song goes. Joe, Frank’s now deceased, once obsessively irreverent and probably racist friend, would have had a grand chortle about this scene. Frank’s sister, a somewhat more conscientious, as in bumper-sticker-committed observer of white guilt, would have issued thin amusement, coupled with a prim tsk tsking thought for their elderly an un-woke father. Indeed, Jim would not have awakened to anything but the pleasure of his suppositions, the privileging of physical rigor, physical acts, tacitly working-class ethics, plus the joy of getting his tire fixed so that he might resume his driving. These were final days of his feeling free in his dotage, unworried by his own carelessness. He glanced at Frank, smiling and concluding, “I think he’s done this before” as the worker swiftly completed his job.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Years of reunion

Another reunion. Another? Like I’ve been to so many. “This is my second,” I said to—I’ll call him Steve for now. His stats were better. He’d been to every one since the first one at year five. They’re supposed to happen at five-year intervals, so what gives, I thought, when I saw the e-mails three months ago, only a year and a half after the last event. This was a multi-plex, multi-year reunion, I soon learned: a gathering of all classes at Acalanes from the eighties. That may have promised a bigger turnout to come, but it didn’t seem to be the case. The numbers seemed roughly comparable to those of the 21’ reunion of my one and only class, I casually observed. Something homeostatic, maybe? More people from across the years means more people you don’t know; more of a crowd to wade through before seeing a familiar face. That would be my truth regardless, so I’d be no more deterred than I ever was. Some may not have preferred this promissory more. Others would be drawn by the structure, perhaps: an admirably designed tripartite of loose gathering in a park, boozy clique-seeking at a bar, and then a presentation, featuring a panel of alumni giving their high school testimonials.

I saw a familiar face at the first get together, and I mean a face as the body had changed significantly. That was to be expected, of course, given the passage of time—thirty six years, I’m now bound to say. Regarding bodies, I’m not one to talk, I think is the expression. Anyway, Steve had a hanging back, been-here/done this look about him, about which I got the story soon enough.

“Which reunion’s been your favorite?” I asked, talking smallishly.

Steve made an impressed noise. A good question, he evinced. After all, he’d been to every one so far. He wasn’t boasting. “Um, the thirtieth, I think,” he said with some conviction. Then he paused, thought again. “No, check that. The twentieth was the best. I met my wife at the twentieth”.

“Ah-hah”, I uttered, also impressed. Then I paused. “I agree that’s a good reunion. Sound criteria for a great reunion, actually”.

Steve nodded, just about registering my drollness.

“Um, that thirtieth one must’ve been something to rival the one where you…ya know”. I didn’t get more on that subject. No intriguing or salacious story was forthcoming there. Perhaps Steve had looked over his shoulder while talking, having caught sight of his more gregarious other half moving towards us. She appeared moments later, showing some manner of need for him, then a perfunctory interest in me. Also a former classmate, she rang a bell for me, though the feeling did not seem mutual. Before I moved on, I scrolled memories of them, wondering if they’d seemed a match as teens. Had they long harbored secret admiration for each other? Or, were they one of those couples who meet later in life, with one or both scoring a more pleasing re-assessment.

That’s one of the reasons for H.S. reunions, I will have thought. I mean, it’s a cliché, isn’t it? You attend in order to show off what you are today, not just to reminisce on what you were decades ago during the awful stage of life called adolescence. And if you attend a reunion when you’re much older, perhaps more attractive, however that is indexed in later years, and you find someone who is available, jaded by the dating battlefield or been there/failed that at marriage, then a second look at once-upon-a-time “crushes” may be called for. Good for them, I thought. Speaking of crushes, there would be more on that later at the panel discussion, which I learned I might have been a part of but for the decisions of the event organizer. At the same gathering, I’d seen Matt floating about in his ubiquitous way and called out to him. We had a few moments recalling the last time we’d spoken, which had been at a nearby hotel about a year ago. Matt, Mayor Matt of Acalanes alumniville, had been impressed by my recall of an old TV appearance of his pertaining to his career as a journalist. He’d enjoyed my write-up of the last reunion of the 86’ class in 21’, and in particular my light-hearted parody of his good image. Now, in our few minutes together, I came to understand that our follow-up talk in a hotel bar was an interview of sorts, about taking part in the future in the kind of public discussion he’d facilitated at the last reunion. It’s not that I failed that interview: it was more of a keep you on file sort of thing because I didn’t quite make the cut. I was a back-up, Matt now said—on deck should any of the panelists of this event drop out.

And I was cheerfully accepting of this having not expected any contact on the matter for at least another three years. Truth be told, I might have been more equivocal about the suggestion in the first place, and that equivocation was further stoked when I attended the panel-discussion portion of the reunion. It would be too facile to say that I didn’t enjoy the two-hour discussion that took place at the Acalanes Performing Arts Center; equally unfair or imprecise to say that I was envious of the speakers, Matt included, or otherwise thought myself inadequate compared to my peers. Well, in some respects, I thought that. The issue is complex and it depends on everything from taste to some manner of ethics to determine what makes for a good high school testimonial. For sure, Matt had done due diligence—his homework, as we’d have said back in the day—and made not only a fair selection, but to an extent a diverse and star-studded one. At least two of the panelists were celebrities, or near-celebrities—both in a writerish, behind the scenes sort of way. Another was a former mayor of our hometown, and a figure who rubbed shoulders with Matt in political circles on the east coast. Matt himself had rubbed shoulders with a stable of household names in his career, from Presidents to California governors. With his ease on the mic and before an audience, he seemed like he could add talk show host to his resume, if he hasn’t already. He put together a nice movie and music collage, and kept his poise when the AV technicians played the wrong video. He prefaced introductions with fond tributes, and made clever asides, like juxtaposing quotes of German philosophers with those of obscure punk bands. He exuded a kind of Charlie Rose-like charm—or, at least the kind of charm that man had before we learned he wasn’t so charming. 

With each panelist, Matt drew upon past conversations and preparatory questions, sounding like a seasoned therapist at times. He teased out disclosures that panelists might not have wanted to share; perhaps broke tacit agreements over don’t go there details. The fourth member of the panel was a self-identified social underdog, a girl from the other side of the tracks who didn’t fit in with popular kids, and didn’t fare much better with teachers and principals. Karen is the owner of the Round-Up Saloon, a rather creaky if stalwart fixture that is sandwiched between a spread of luxury condos on Lafayette’s main strip. In recent years, Lafayette has not so much grown as bulked up, which has no doubt helped the nightlife business in the heart of town. Karen recalls being terrible at math at Acalanes, but that didn’t stop her diving into the pool of small business, and has apparently thrived in it ever since, with an anachronistic, “cash only” policy no less. Still, the reason she was behind the microphone was to share about high school’s more shadowy memories. She was a “stoner”, I guess, a runaway, and during one spell anyway, a victim of a kidnapping gardener employed by the school (incidentally, in writing this, I’m gambling on an impression that Karen has reconciled herself to the semi-public disclosure of her story, and seems at peace with it. Besides, the readership of this untagged blog entry will be quite modest in its numbers, and likely not of interest to non-alumni. That’s my rationale, at least). While some panelist recollections were comic in purpose, like covering the being-high-in class category of anecdote, for example, or the weight-gaining properties of past cafeteria snacks (funny asides, both), the women’s stories were somewhat haunting. Allusions to bullying, sexist teachers embedded within a sexist eighties pop culture, took center stage with the other female panelist complaining that “boobs” had dominated the decade.  

I’m not quite sure what to say about eighties culture. It’s not my favorite decade in that respect. It seems the zeitgeist to celebrate its music and maybe some of its movies, but not so much its values. I didn’t even like the music that much. My sporty friends liked some of the bands mentioned the other night, like Van Halen or Journey. I have memories of working out in the school gym, listening to those bands, AC/DC, or other such acts whose raison d’etre was fuck chicks, drink beer, do cool things with the guys, etc. I patronized the noise but hadn’t yet developed my taste—ever a later bloomer, it seemed. I am reminded that when Steve mentioned that he’d soon be attending a Deff Leppard concert in Sheffield, England, I nearly faux pauxed with “I’m sorry to hear that”. That thought was partly about Sheffield, England, actually. Anyway, like many dweebs or nerds (or whatever the terms were in that Ferris Beuler inventory), I didn’t notice the values that some of those bands implied, and therefore I didn’t object much to the boob-exposing or beer-centric culture they glamorized. I wasn’t that into the genteeler options either, such as Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, English Beat, Spandau Ballet and others of that cool and epicene ilk. For a hot minute I liked Queen, long before they were fashionable to like, and for a while because I couldn’t get that insistent beat from “Another One Bites The Dust” out of my head. Later, I noted amongst my peers the cool indifference towards theirs and Freddie Mercury’s beyond America, worldwide fame, and sort of inferred that pre-Aids homophobia was the reason. The Go-Go’s were another guilty pleasure. I liked their bouncy, fun energy, wanted to get in my pajamas and join the slumber party. But, for reasons to do with sex I suppose, I also felt like an uninvited guest whenever I listened to them, like I was a younger brother who had sneaked into my sister’s room to hang out with her friends. Meanwhile, I loathed Iron Maiden, thought them ridiculous, a Spinal Tap prototype, and I’m pretty sure that saying so was the reason I was not invited back to a regular Dungeons & Dragons game circa 1984. It didn’t matter, I sucked at that game anyway. About Maiden, I understand they are getting inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Kudos for them, I think now that my musical snobbery has softened, but I’d still love it if a three-foot replica of Stonehenge dropped down behind them during their acceptance speech.

On the values question, I have a few thoughts to offer, some of them not so with it with the times that aren’t a changin’ as much as some think. Firstly, on the not noticing front: I realize that it’s not good enough to say that you don’t or didn’t notice things like sexism, or racism. It’s a poor excuse, like when German citizens post WWII said they didn’t know anything about the camps. Same concept anyway—denial, I mean—so chill if you think the analogy distasteful. But here’s the thing: I wasn’t in those PE classes where some football coach told the girls to bend over, and I wasn’t at the parties where beer-soaked stripteases and date rapes were happening. I know. I’m being defensive, and it’s not all about me, I hear you saying. And the ladies, by which I mean all or many of them, not just the two panelists plus the feminine hmming of last Saturday night, aren’t saying that gentlemen drop the ball by not calling out their creepier brethren on bad behavior. But they are, sort of. It’s like that song from one of those quintessentially eighties films that wasn’t just about lewd behavior and cheap laughs: “I need a hero”, from Footloose, which sits alongside Breakfast Club, or Say Anything, as cinematic odes to sensitive yet heroic eighties guys.  See, some ideas still sell: someone’s got to step up and be that cute but decent, sincere, libidinally-restrained guy that will do the right thing for, as ever, women.

I did not particularly like Rebels with causes films featuring James Dean heir apparents, and I liked even less films that were about drinking, peeping in shower holes, hunting gophers on a golf course, or animal housing. I simply was not a party animal, so had my peers not talked about Porky’s whatever year it came out, I might have thought it a Porky Pig cartoon also. Those things about the eighties, or our high school experience of that era, have indeed not aged well. I don’t suppose they were ever meant to. But before I peel off into another pop culture spiel, here’s another point of view: I think there are elephant-in-room-sized holes in the current dialogues about men, women, and sex. The holes are the result of censorious rules of engagement, translated as cultural sensitivity for those who support that sort of thing. For example, Helens of Troy, as in women who like and therefore enable crude, mesomorphic men, still exist. But they’re a media-protected species (the women, not the mesomorphs): it’s acceptable to lament their victimizations at the hands of shallow or cruel men, but—for male observers, at least—it’s not okay to point out that they chose those men originally and it was never shocking that such men would misbehave. Plus, there are those who will speak of being objectified one minute, and yet squeal at Rob Lowe’s image the next, or even join Will Forte in a conjured (and perhaps lustier) memory of Mathew McConaughey’s bare chest. In high school and beyond, these women turned their attention to guys who were over six feet tall and had broad shoulders, or dreamy eyes and six pack abs. So, you think that a deep gaze into nice eyes is nicer, more humane or romantic than a glassy-eyed scan of a chest? Well, maybe you’re right, but maybe not by much. After all, you’re still privileging the physical, or assigning personal qualities based on that dubious linkage. And really, after all this time, what do you expect us nerds and dweebs whom you looked past once upon a time to say about this? If, one day, college coursework will teach something else about objectification—namely, that’s it’s a concept drawn from pre-twentieth century philosophy and psychoanalytic theory, not post-modernism, and means reducing a person to a thing or an idea, then that which makes us mad may actually broaden. 

Anyway, this is why people don’t invite me to parties. Or, it’s a reason I don’t go. It’s a chicken or egg thing, really. Conscious fear tells me that my voice or my opinions are not worthy of a hearing. Freud’s descendants tell me that I shut myself down lest something dangerous and wrong gets out. If I attend the bashes and do what I want to do—have quiet conversations about these sorts of things at close quarters—I’ll either behave as a pedantic, boorish guest, or else I’ll inhibit myself and become boring precisely because I don’t want to be an obnoxious, boring guest. And was I like this as a sixteen or seventeen year old? (I graduated H.S. before hitting 18) Not really. Back then I was rather wooden and bland; a mediocre if budding intellect. Not a terrible student, but not a great one either. Meanwhile, I was quite unschooled in peer mini-culture. I’m not sure if I belonged to any clique, or category of human, cool or not. I was ordinarily conformist, having no dyes or gel in my hair or piercings anywhere on my body. Fashion bored me, so my clothes were non-descript, lacking anything pastel, studded on leather, or padded on the shoulders. I may have gone to a dance or two, and tried to ape the dance styles the eighties prescribed. So, like everyone else I jerked and twitched with quasi-geometric movements to pert, synthy pop songs, but I was no one’s ideal dance partner. On the whole, I may have felt like an outsider, but I didn’t even know what “smoker’s corner” was, nor did I frequent principals’ offices to face severe chastisements or disciplinary actions. And yet, looking back, it was a chastening time for me at Acalanes. I felt dull, a spiritless non-entity. Despite a modest political bent*, which inspired awkward diatribes about the politics of places like Nicaragua, which I aimed at hapless listeners like Ralph Chase during my senior year, I lacked abiding interests or passions, which is a terrible thing for a youth. Actually, what’s terrible is to be young and not know what you’re good at, what you’re interested in, or what you want to do with the life that’s about to change.

There’s one thing that each of the panelists spoke to that I will heartily agree with: teachers, who will also agree that one should not finish sentences with prepositions, are indeed the unsung heroes of our high school experience. I can think of few things about them that have not aged well. My memories are of kind, patient, good-humored people who cared about kids and likely could not afford to retire in a luxury condo in Lafayette. Seriously people, especially those of you who live and work in D.C., let’s do something about that. For me, a special shout out goes to Mrs. Meek, a lovely, soulful English teacher. And even the curmudgeonly types (messrs Fee and Dietz come to mind) deserve a place in my heart, whether they thought highly of me or not. So, what is left to say about high school that wasn’t said by someone at this event? There’s more to come, Matt promised to an appreciative audience and panel. For now, this reunion had a little of something for everyone who attended any eighties year at Acalanes High in Lafayette: A few stories about alcohol and hallucinogenic drug misadventures; a rumination about ethics in auto-shop; memories of rivalry and back-stabbing in high school journalism; a bad review of the Cow Palace as a concert venue; social commentary about digital media, the black hole of the internet, changing parental styles, and with a nod for those who remember Stan Oberg’s AP class in French, a touch of epater le patriarchie. What did I get from this? Well, if Matt’s remarks about all-nighters at the Round-Up or at someone’s nearby home are anything to go by, then I got another enactment of that not-going-to-parties FOMO thing. Think I need to figure that one out. Other things I have figured out, maybe, which is why I’m okay showing my face at these things now, however much I mingle amongst the crowd. See, I figure that reunions like this are partly about being pulled back into something. You come to have some fun, show off your better-aged self maybe, or share a little wisdom, get a few things off your chest, or effect a little reckoning on some issue or two. We think we have moved on from the past, but if I may play my seasoned therapist card here, I’ll share that we’re never really moving on when we’re looking back. These last two years have been our years of reunion amid an era of revision. Me too. I’ll slip out the back again, got a beer to drink, a wife/chick to go home to and kiss, and a gopher in my yard to hunt.

*Actually, I was quite outdone in this respect by an Israeli foreign exchange student whom I met senior year, whose name I can’t recall– I lost touch with him– and I can’t find him in the yearbook of 86′. Anyway, his knowledge of and seriousness about politics was on another level. While my classmates were enjoying or languishing away the last days of senioritis, we’d hang out and talk in the library at lunch and he’d practically pin me against the book stacks, giving me his doomsday, pro-Israel vision. We were still talking about it on the last day of school. In fact, I think the last serious words that any classmate said to me at Acalanes while I was still at school–and I now think the meaning more contextually layered than what was then intended–was his gravely spoken pronouncement: “Graeme, you know that there can never be any peace!”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Treatment of hoarding induced trauma

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Standards Manual, Edition V (2013) reports that between 2 and 6% of the general population have a hoarding disorder. Once considered a type of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), hoarding is now regarded as a serious clinical condition co-morbid with diagnoses of depression, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, and sometimes psychosis given the delusional levels of denial that hoarders often present (Frost, Stekelee, Tolin, 2011). Hoarders engage in excessive acquisition of items, whether those items have real world value or not, as well as excessive shopping. This behavior often results in living environments that are seriously compromised, if not uninhabitable: blocked entrances and exits, leading to fire hazards; hygiene and safety problems resulting from the acquisition of consumer products, items of supposed sentimental value, plus a plethora of strange items, including trash and feces.

           Imagine the life of someone living with a hoarder. Imagine what it must be like to live in perpetual squalor, or to fear being trapped in the event of a fire or some other emergency, or more commonly, to lack space for one’s own personal belongings. Other consequences include: sleeping in beds that double as storage areas, or losing valuable items because they are buried or crushed beneath a hoarder’s accumulated belongings; discovering beloved animals neglected or deceased, or the discovery of unwelcome creatures, such as rodents.  Imagine having one’s entire household space or the interior of vehicles rendered unusable, unsafe or unhygienic. Partners and other family members are the invisible and sometimes buried victims of hoarding behaviors. Invisible because while traditional treatments for hoarding behaviors have focused clinical attention upon the perpetrators of hoarding, they have focused much less so upon supportive or instructive interventions for or on the behalf of impacted loved ones. Within existing treatment models, there is no established diagnostic criteria nor intervention strategy for the treatment of hoarding induced trauma (HIT), a condition based upon discovery of PTSD symptoms related to similar acting out disorders, such as sex addiction, leading to treatment models like sex addiction induced trauma (SAIT) (Minwalla, O., 2012)

This is a serious omission in the field of obsessive compulsive disorder treatment. Treating the problem of hoarding simply as an obsessive-compulsive disorder, or even as a disorder co-morbid with mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders, while avoiding the proper diagnosis and treatment of the accompanying abuse of others, constitutes a significant area of clinical neglect. The perpetration of hoarding behaviors entails much more than the pathologically excessive acquisition of items. The condition further entails the maintaining of an elaborate thought system that compartmentalizes a protected reality, a routinized impingement upon a partner or family member’s living space, plus a manipulation of such victims’ reality. Hoarding perpetrators hide belongings in obscure or secret spaces, deceiving others as to the extent of their hoarding behaviors. They make false promises about cleaning unhygienic surfaces, or tidying cluttered spaces, without follow-up on such promises. Alternatively, perpetrators invoke false rationales, such as casting spilled garbage as ‘compost’ merely awaiting appropriate elimination, or normalizing lack of hygiene by comparing the accumulation of feces in common areas to implicitly virtuous, eco-friendly ‘dry toilets’ such as those prominent in emerging world economies. Or, they declare disingenuously that items unused or placed in inaccessible areas will be “used at some point in the future” and must therefore be kept in their existing, congested spaces. However, when real attempts are made by others to tidy or clean household areas, perpetrators regress from glibly-stated organizational goals, are prone to bullying behaviors, which they subsequently deny and indeed project onto their plaintive loved ones, ever assuming the role of victim rather than accepting responsibility. These calculated rather than compulsive tactics result not only in frustration for others, but also a sense of betrayal and confusion, plus a feeling of being gaslighted in a world of relational danger.

Meanwhile, if the rationales employed by perpetrators seem bizarre, the underlying motives for hoarding behaviors may seem entirely inexplicable. This is another area of clinical neglect in the treatment of hoarding behaviors. Though Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has been shown to reduce symptoms of hoarding behavior (Gillman et al, 2011), there is little evidence that such approaches unearth the compartmentalized realities protected by perpetrators. These realities include deep feelings of emptiness that are self-medicated by excessive accumulations; distorted and excessive self-identifications with personal belongings, or the behavior of clinging to objects as a symbolic substitute for unresolved abandonment depression. Existing treatment models do little to explain such dynamics to either perpetrators or their impacted loved ones. Instead, partners and other family members are told they have “enabled” perpetrators, become “co-hoarders” by providing or perpetuating the kind of living environments that make possible accumulating behavior. This is like telling a burglary victim that he or she has enabled a thief, become a “co-thief”, via the practice of homeownership and consumerism in a capitalist society. Otherwise, partners and family members are simply encouraged to be patient with hoarding perpetrators, or they are coached to not yell at or criticize them, as if protecting the hoarder from feelings of shame or decompensation were the paramount, if not exclusive purpose of treatment.

Such approaches fail to address the hoarder’s lack of awareness about the real-world impact of their behavior. They express little about the intrapsychic, familial and social underpinnings of hoarding behavior, such as anal personality structure, or gender-based subversive/oppositional reactions to patriarchal norms of property ownership. Perpetrators erect alongside their hoarding behaviors a complex conscious and unconscious system of relational reality that perpetuates a pattern of abuse upon loved ones that is tantamount to human rights violations. A perpetrator’s interior/exterior reality is translational, crosses physical and symbolic relational boundaries in a manner that Laplanche (2005) describes. Living in a psychic vacuum, needing a vacuum of another kind, they induce a like interior/exterior reality in others. Their system of behavior and psychic manipulation denies fair allocation of space to others, not to mention filling space that could be made available to visitors, resulting in social isolation plus the exclusion of outsiders, potential residents, immigrants. It places loved ones in danger while imposing upon overpopulated or housing-limited communities a cruelly ironic waste of personal and collective space.

The hoarding induced trauma (HIT) model is a directive, didactic, and intensive clinical method designed to galvanize awareness in a perpetrator of a complex and destructive pathology. Coordinated clinical intervention with individuals and families, coupled with psychiatric intervention to contain psychotic symptoms, is designed to outline thirteen different areas of distinct trauma suffered by victims of hoarding behaviors, and to confront the intersection of hoarding, personality disorder and distorted social constructs that perpetrators typically exhibit. The hoarding induced trauma (HIT) model aims to comprehensively address and treat the abusive impact of that pathology upon all who live with this terrible disorder. 

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association, (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fifth edition). Arlington, VA. American Psychiatric Publishing.

Frost, A., Stekelee, G., Tolin, A. (2011). Comorbidity in Hoarding Disorder. Depression and Anxiety. October 3: 28(10). 876-884.

Gillman, C.M., Norbury, M.M, Villavicencio, A., Morrison, S., Hannan, S.E., Tolin, D.F. (2011). Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Hoarding Disorder: an open trial. Behavior Research and Therapy, 49 (11), 802-807.

Laplanche, J. (2005). Freud and the Sexual: Essays 2000-2006. Transl. J. Fletcher, J. House, and N. Ray. New York: International Psychoanalytic Books, 2011.

Minwalla, O. (2012, July 23). Partners of Sex Addicts Need Treatment for Trauma. The National Psychologist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pedro and Graeme, part two

So, we ask senior analysts: do you really want to know all the shit we want to say to you as parents/instructors, objects? Maroda (2022) suggests there’s something of a “developmental tilt” phenomenon happening here: Are senior analysts truly responsive to the patient’s needs, or might developmental deficit theories allow a senior analyst to identify with the patient who lacked early nurturing, thereby bypassing that person’s threat as a voracious adult? We can be seen as eager children, but with strong limits defined, we are called upon to perform “mature tasks” as analysts – not something in the realm of the good-enough. What do supervisors want here? This creates a confusion (Ferenczi, 1933) that is only solved if you are seen doing the work the way you are told to do the work, which subjects a clinician to projective identification, because a supervisor can identify with a protoge and be satisfied. In one of our institutes, an ongoing joke circulates about an analyst who thought she was told ad verbatim to tell her patient that what he wanted was for her to “water his balls” like someone would water plants to make them grow. This was a message that a supervisor told the analyst in a humorous and contemplative moment, though what unfolded was an equally humorous incorporation of the supervisor figure rather than an internalization of his thoughts and analytic stance. The analyst actually spoke the supervisor’s exact formulation to the patient, who not surprisingly got up and left, outraged. Examples like this reflect an eagerness to please the adult/parent/supervisor as a vulnerable child would, perhaps even mimicking a supervisor’s expressions. Moreover, supervisors sometimes use their supervising hour to relax between their own clinical sessions, which may create moments where they speak more freely.

So, are principals at institutes going to allow newcomers to change things? Or should we, the newcomers, simply do as we are told? One of us had a one-time consultation with an experienced senior foreign analyst. After discussing eroticized aspects of transference-countertransference pertaining to the case, he commented that we’d have a hard time explaining what was going on in that case to another senior analyst without that person becoming suspicious of acting out behavior within the case’s treatment. Regarding supervision, the foreign analyst observed: “You will have to dance the dance”. Not exactly “fake it until you make it”, but maybe “fake it until they think you make it”.

How false might a professional self become in this kind of atmosphere? Stumbling, hesitant, overworked, we hold fast to illusions, as Winnicott (1951) suggested, of a mediated space between ourselves and our objects, between inner and outer worlds, of fantasy and play, that would serve us well in our training. The capacity for illusion formation enables creativity, makes us participate well, be flexible in our thinking, not fixed in ideas, serving a false position of delusion. We’ve kept hope. Things changed during training without us noticing. Now we might differentiate from former supervisory figures and alter how we separate from objects. We might observe a shift in how we relate to our patients, especially upon their leaving us. We’d feel excluded, dropped even as we eventually let them go, but with more equanimity, perhaps. We’re not the primary objects after all, Steiner (2008) reminds us. 

Disillusionments. Disappointments. We can be rejected yet—in short, fail—or else we can be told “no” with respect to various requests or demands, or worse still, we can be told to wait, or to endure perennial tasks, extra consultations, more work and learning. There is always more, we’ve thought greedily and warily, and it will all seem like a privilege if there is a carrot of acceptance, plus something more still, at the end of a non-linear process. We understand that this doesn’t happen to everybody. The prosaic, tacit basics of inclusion and exclusion: surely, not everyone is enfolded into the analytic community and thereafter practices happily as psychoanalysts. There have always been runts in classes, outliers in groups, haven’t there? We think psychoanalysis doesn’t serve the delusion that it’s different in this respect, though Tucket et al (2008) report that at psychoanalytic federation conferences training analysts speak of their reluctance to reject members, thinking it tantamount to professional murder. Well, it seems we give and receive a taste of blood along the way: fielding reviews with comments that paint with broad strokes and linger in our neurotic minds; meanwhile, we push back with anonymous online feedback, suggestions for how seminars can be improved. 

Some amongst us have been more ambitious, having extended their disappointments and their capacities for illusion to the realm of social unconscious. At the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, a faction of students and faculty collaborated in 2021 on what they’d topically call the Anti-Racism Task Force (ARTF) Report. Seventeen pages deep, the report lamented what it termed the “realization that we are implicated in creating an organization that many would identify as racist and elitist. We feel very deeply that this is not who we are or what we are about”. Established in June 2020 amidst the furor surrounding the killing of American citizen George Floyd, the ARTF sought to review policies of the center’s psychoanalytic education division, its procedures and standards, to identify areas of exclusion, inequity, inaccessibility, and racism, and to make recommendations for changes necessary to become an equitable, accessible, inclusive, diverse and anti-racist psychoanalytic community. Among the report’s findings were criticisms of an overly subjective application procedure that rendered applicants susceptible to interviewer bias; that application forms lacked explicit statements regarding anti-racist policies, and that requirements for participation were too rigorous.  

More specifically, the report challenged the use of ambiguous terms like “suitability” and “analytic process” in policy statements, plus the lack of clear and transparent guidelines for admissions as well as the tracking of candidate progress within the program; that step-by-step procedures for recognizing bias in the assessment of candidates were lacking, and that no procedures determined the efficacy of requirements that diverged from those of The American Psychoanalytic Association (ApsaA) or the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA). Within weeks a faculty response was published, bristling in defense of program integrity, and providing data that disputed the ARTF’s premise that recent admissions trends reflected a lack of racial diversity. The call for more transparency, plus so-called “objective” standards further seemed to offend the sensibilities of some. Amid the distance of the contemporaneous Covid crisis, murmurings across Zoom calls bemoaned this would-be “reification” of training standards, plus a general atmosphere of “calling out”, which seems to live in binary opposition to a fear of being called out. Some kind of illusion was under threat. Suddenly, it seemed that an analytic stance of “not knowing”, of neutrality, might be re-cast as hapless denial, or worse, a form of ethical cowardice. In seminars, presenters speak of not knowing, evincing an ethic of humility and calm, speaking to the presumedly like-minded about the value of an analyst’s discomfort. Ultimately, we stir over an aggregate of critiques, challenges, some that insult, others less so, that cut back and forth across contexts. Today, we wonder how many will have noticed the altered flavor, the audacities of candidate complaints pushing back—the upped ante of illusion and disappointment. 

References

Ferenczi, S. (1939/1988). Confusion of Tongues Between Adults and the Child. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 24:196-206

Freud, S. (1913) On Beginning the Treatment. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud 12: 121-144

Gabbard, G.O., & Ogden, T.H. (2009) On Becoming a Psychoanalyst. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 90: 311-327

Junkers, G., Tuckett, D., & Zachrissson, A. (2008). To Be or Not to Be a Psychoanalyst. Psychoanalytic Inquiry 28: 288-308

Maroda, K. (2022). The Analyst’s Vulnerability. London and New York:Routledge.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized