It's the Personality, Stupid by Frank R. Morris

It’s The Personality Organization, Stupid!
          by
           Frank R. Morris

 

 Forgive the title. It’s an attention-grabber like James Carwell’s famous line from the 1992 Presidential race - “It’s the economy, stupid”. George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant provides hope that the populace is now ready to understand personality organization.  Lakoff systematically shows that Republican Conservatives are oriented around a “Strict Father” syndrome while liberal Democrats are centered around a “Nurturing Parent” syndrome.

 

 Psychotherapists have known for decades - perhaps even a century - of this now popular view of the difference between conservatives and progressives. Why “a century”?  Because a hundred years ago Sigmund Freud wrote a book on the Superego, Ego and Id.  Don’t get put-off by those phrases. He simply meant that there is one part of the mind that monitors and censors behavior in a critical manner (the Superego or Conscience). It thrives on discipline studded with should’s, ought’s and must’s.  The Ego simply means the centered reasonable self that is objective and delivers measured thinking. According to Freud, the Id represents remnants from childhood where a person acts out of old repressed material. Three circles stacked one on the other provide a visual picture. Superego is on top, the Ego is the center and  Id is the lower circle.

 

 Heavy drinking provides an excellent empirical illustration of the three story structure. Booze works from the top down. One or two martinis lifts many inhibitions at the top story, the Superego. Three martinis impair the Ego so driving becomes inadvisable. Four martinis and the drinker begins to reveal Id material and becomes either sad, angry, or happy like a child.  The next morning the Superego returns and the person with the headache cusses himself for being so idiotic.

 

 In the sixties, psychiatrist Eric Berne elaborated Freud’s scheme. He used five circles: two on top, one in the center, and two on the bottom. The top two were called “Critical Parent” and “Nurturing Parent”, the middle one “The Adult”, and the bottom two were labeled “Adapted Child” and “Natural Child”.  Berne’s scheme spawned great ferment in therapy. It became clear that the task of therapy was to lessen the size of the Critical Parent and the Adapted Child portions, while increasing the size of the Nurturing Parent, the Adult, and the Natural Child. (AC refers to the adaptations leftover from childhood).

 

         Contamination

 

 Additionally,  Berne came up with a wonderful diagram of how the Adult can be dismally influenced by either the Parent or the Child.  In each instance he used two circles. The top circle, or Parent, overlapped the middle circle or Adult. He said that this was when the prejudices of the Parent mess up (or contaminate) the thinking of the Adult. Likewise, he had the lower Child circle overlap the Adult circle and explained that this is when the wishes or problems of the Child space mess up (or contaminate) a person’s reasoned center.  This is important when engaging a Conservative or Progressive in conversation.   Further, this explains in dramatic form why it is so difficult to get clean information into heavily partisan persuasions.

 

         Choice Points

 

 Berne’s scheme adds to Lakoff’s linguistic analysis. The important idea is to realize that there is a Choice Point when a crisis  arises that distinguishes conservatives from progressives. The road splits when there is a moment of scare for the conservatives. Their scare prompts either a Critical Parent or Adapted obedient Child response.  Progressives tend to have an excited response at the Choice Point and can become overly  idealistic.

 

 An illustration is when social programs arise in discussion. Conservatives emphasize hard work, discipline, personal responsibility, and lean aid to the poor who,  supposedly, will motivate them to greater effort. Progressives emphasize providing equal opportunity in terms of better schools, food for the poor, and basic health coverage.  At the extreme ends, conservatives become super self righteous while progressives become enablers. Another illustration can be seen in prison treatment. Conservatives want harsh  interments that will, supposedly, install discipline in the personality. Progressives stress education for prisoners and help after incarceration.

 

 Now a seeming tangent that highlights personality organization. Let’s consider religious conversion.  Imagine a kid named George who spends his late adolescence and early adulthood as a drunk, roustabout and ne’er-do-well.  He grew up with a powerful father who was seldom around and a dominating mother who is like a Prison Matron. She was tough on her children. George rebelled. He did whatever the hell he wanted. At age forty, due to insistence from his wife, George found religion and did a complete about face. He ascribed his change to God. Psychologically speaking, he had found his mother’s programming in his unconscious mind.  How do therapists know this? Because “conversion” occurs in areas outside religion. A person may switch from being Id (or Child) driven to the Adult or Parent.  Common parlance understands this conversion phenomenon  when comments are made about there being nothing worse than a reformed drunk, overeater or  smoker.

 

 Consider Foreign Policy.  Conservatives approach foreign policy in a disciplining, strict father manner. Words they use are “muscular”, “tough” and “decisive” They lead with military power and think diplomacy is often weak. This alienates a good portion of world leaders who are unwilling to adapt and please the USA.. It is true that progressives can be too nurturing.  The smart Foreign Policy principle is to never become predictable because that fosters defeat. Decisions are best made out of a cold Adult space; not Critical Parent or Nurturing Parent.

 

 Another example. Child rearing focusing on either of the extremes leads to problems. The Critical Parent conservative approach either leads to rebels or pleasing adapted kids who remain obedient and do not achieve separate thinking identity. The Nurturing Parent approach can be so permissive and forgiving that children can be so lax that they take drugs and live irresponsible lives. The idea for parents is to use whatever parental response that aids children to have separate identities that provide personal fulfillment.

 

 One of the grand characteristics of the Critical Parent approach is the reliance upon rhetoric. Like automatons, they seek formulas supplied by religionists, propagandists, political spinners and business leaders. To onfrontations by others,  lock-step folks repeat slogans learned on the radio from Dobson or Limbaugh, on television from Hannity or O’Reilly, or on the Internet from Drudge. In other words, true believers do not think: they recite. Many of this persuasion believe that showing shaming, sarcasm, and disgust are actual logical thinking. They are unaware of their dismissive tone and believe themselves reasonable.

 

         Why Won’t Conservatives Stick to Reason?

 

 Structurally speaking (ie.  Think three story building) they go to the Parent place with absolute unquestioned belief structures. They cannot understand why others do not grasp their rigid points. Whether it is Religion (fundamentalist interpretations), Economics (Fair Trade absolutism), Education (testing toughness), or other issues, they speak down  in a Father Knows Best style. You and I may know that the Judeo-Christian Tradition has marginalized women; Conservatives deny it. You and I may know that reading the Bible, like any document, is subject to the three immutable laws of selection, emphasis, and interpretation: they deny it. You and I may know that the Constitution is a human document that needs elaboration; they spout nonsense about strict constructionism. You and I may know that Free Trade is not absolute; they hide behind  rhetoric.

 

 Further, they refuse to examine their premises. It is logically maddening. In fact, nothing is more pathetic than their attempts at writing non-fiction. The reader is soon aware that the conservative writer has a decay of spirit, a loss of soul, and inability to authentically  feel. Why? Because disgust and disdain fill the text.  Splashing acerbic verbal acid on a liberal is considered reasonable. Writers such as Coulter and Hannity actually think that haughty sarcasm is logical thinking, when, in reality, it only shows their lack of emotional soundness.

 

 BUT, there is a major reason why conservatives cannot pursue arguments.. If, say, a fundamentalist were to realize  his house of cards rhetoric is false, he fears mental annihilation. Internally, he believes that if  his system of meaning is phony (ex. based on the flat earth view), he would be perched perilously close to the edge of the abyss. Fear of truth holds for any close-minded mental system, including Supply-Side economics. Simply speaking, unless the hide-bound conservatives hold to their rigid premises, they fear psychosis. This is why honesty with data cannot be allowed. This is enormously sad because good people are so delusioned.

 

          Applications
      
 1. One illustration is how to solve a matter of human nature. Each person has a remnant from our animal past where, given the right (or horrible) conditions, humans act like barbarians.  Critical Parent Republicans have solved this through discipline, obedience, a continual barrage of shoulds-oughts-musts-you gotta’s, a reliance upon scared sarcasm at emergences of crises, and a quick appeal to a tightened, denial sense in terms of their bodies. Liberal-progressives have a different approach to handling the barbarian within. The idea is education, art, culture, reason, and continued intellectual dialog.

 

 2. Understanding the difference in personality organization explains why right-wingers can be so verbally cocksure.  Democrats, in the light of such absolutism, seem disorganized. An example is Gingrich when he talks about history. He is definitely certain that his selections, emphases, and interpretations are absolutely true - no question. A liberal would be more hesitant and realize the complexities of historical interpretation.

 

 3. The Parent personality organization emphasizes loyalty as a primary virtue which leads to cronyism. This can be seen in Bill Bennett’s Book of Virtues  and in the GWB White House. This means that truth is subservient to obedience. Whistle-blowers must be prosecuted.

 

 4. When the variation in terms of personality organization is understood, it becomes clear why soldiers and evangelicals usually vote Republican. They are brainwashed to be obedient to absolute chains of command. Further, soldiers must demonize the enemy in order to kill them. Evangelicals believe that those who disagree with them theologically will be burn in hell for trillions upon trillions of years (without water!).

 

 5. It also becomes clear why business leaders who have gone through the system in order to be promoted also have the Parent dominated personality. To be promoted it is best to not question actions of bosses.

     How to Get Through

 

 As can be imagined, psychotherapists face the problem of communicating to those with closed minds everyday. While it is true that the Parent driven are frequently not in therapy because their system has ALL the answers,  the looming threat of a divorce often brings them to the couch. So, what works? Let me assure you that arguments are in vain.

 

 Therapy, to an amazing degree, operates on questions. That’s right: questions. The next step is to chisel the questions in such a way that dents may be made in the armored.

 

 +“So you are saying that your primary life energy is spent in business and that your family should be willing to live in the background until you accrue major capital ... say in thirty years or so ... is that right?”  (Humor: one dairy owner actually told his 30 year old wife that they would have fun when he retired at age 65!)
 +“Are you aware that you are saying that your religious group of maybe 75,000 people are absolutely right and that the rest of the five billion people on earth will go to hell?”
 +“Are you saying that Free Trade is absolute in all dimensions and that no other considerations are to be taken into consideration?”
 +“Do you have any idea that the life you are describing in incredibly boring”?

 

 Well, you get the idea. You are shooting for a reductio ad absurdum. The trick is to phrase it Adultly with no judgment. Also, the idea is to slam the person right up against his/her premises so, maybe, the light of day can pierce into the dark room.

 

 Does that sound easy? Well, with right wing religionists your chances are very small. With lost businessmen, your chances rise. With conservatives who are aghast at the fiscal mismanagement of the administration, hope improves. And with friends, your chances go even higher. But you have to allow questions to be like seeds in the mind. Then let Nature take over.