Defense mechanisms. Are there such things?
In 1936, Sigmund Freud’s youngest daughter, Anna, published her famous work, Ego Psychology and the Defense Mechanisms. There, she describes any number of seemingly innate psychological processes by which the integrity of the human psyche is, somehow, mechanically protected from unwanted or undesired stimuli. But do such mechanisms actually exist? Is there such a thing as an innate mechanically induced process in us all that defends us from undesired subconscious content, or is the kind of behavior that psychologists have traditionally thought of as “defensive” simply the way the structure logically reacts to certain types of contradiction?
Let’s first look at one of Anna’s most controversial assertions: Denial as a mechanism of defense.
Denial
Classical psychology tells us that denial is that human defense mechanism designed to block a subject’s consciousness from ego-damaging experiences. But is it? In order to answer this question, let’s look at this so-called mechanism from a structural perspective.
Examples:
- Mary and her mother are like two peas in a pod. They are one and the same. Mary’s mother dies unexpectedly in her sleep. Mary’s sister tells Mary that her mother is dead. Mary, however, insists that her mother is only asleep.
- Jerry gets fired from his job but shows up the next morning, ready for work anyway. As far as Jerry is concerned, he was never let go.
- A chain smoker insists that smoking is not dangerous.
All three of the above scenarios are classic examples of what contemporary psychologists call denial yet, in all three scenarios, we notice that potent contradictions are present as well as exceptional or unusual circumstances. For example, accepting the death of a loved one, being fired from a life-giving job, or being impeded from what can feel like essential life support are not only scenarios that contradict the structural imperative of continuance but obstruct positive confirmation from a subject’s environment. (Confirmation and continuance are two out of three structural imperatives that influence these behaviors.)
Mary
Keeping in mind how we are psychologically structured as total human beings (genetic self + environmental self), given Mary’s reaction to her mother’s death, it is highly probable that Mary’s mother occupied a disproportional part of Mary’s environmental self.
When Mary is told that her mother is dead, from a structural perspective, Mary will sense such news as preposterous. This is because Mary is fully aware that she, herself, is still very much in existence, and yet there is someone who is telling her that she is not. (Structurally speaking, Mary’s mother’s existence is synonymous with her own). Telling Mary that her mother is dead, therefore, would be structurally equivalent to telling Mary that Mary herself was dead, which would, quite logically, be counter to Mary’s assessment of her current existential reality and, therefore, logically experienced by Mary as false.
The only remaining option for Mary when she sees her mother lying in bed with her eyes closed, would be that her mother is probably sleeping, but certainly not dead.
Jerry
If Jerry is unable to process the fact that he just lost his job, it is probably because his job is the only job he feels he can do. In other words, the loss of Jerry’s job would be, for Jerry, the equivalent of accepting a definitively contradicting event, which, as we know, would be structurally unacceptable. The intense structural significance of a contradiction of this nature is the reason why Jerry denies its presence. He denies it not because he is mechanically defending himself from a painful subconscious realization. Jerry is simply unable to experience losing his job as real in exactly the same way as neither he nor any other human being would be able to accept losing their lives when, indeed, they’re not. For Jerry, you see, losing his job would be equivalent to losing his life and yet, there he is, just as much alive as the next person.
The smoker
Many of us consider activities like reading, eating healthy food, jogging, or meditating as necessary, essential, life-giving activities. Such activities are felt this way because they complete both the structural imperative of positive environmental confirmation (a source of pleasure) and continuance. For some, one could say such practices are essential addictions.
In a similar way, there are those who feel that certain other habits, like smoking for example, are crucial to their well-being because such activities afford them both positive environmental confirmation (pleasure) and continuance, and that too, structurally speaking, are clearly good things.
If a cigarette addict feels that smoking is good for them, they are not in denial concerning the dangers of cigarette smoking. They simply equate the way smoking makes them feel (good) with what smoking is for them (good). Besides, they are not convinced that smoking is dangerous for them personally. That said, the minute they experience the contradictory nature of their habit first-hand (they start coughing up blood or a smoking buddy dies of lung cancer), they will immediately stop considering smoking as a good thing and will break the habit. It’s all about conviction or the lack thereof, not defensive behavior.
Projection
Classical psychology tells us that projection is that human defense mechanism that takes one’s unwanted or negative qualities and defensively projects them outside the confines of the ego. But does that really happen? In order to answer this question, let’s look at this so-called defense mechanism from a structural perspective.
- The clumsy carpenter blames his tools.
- A constantly angry man perceives his friends as having anger management issues.
- A young teenager inadvertently embarrasses herself at a party. As a consequence, she feels that everyone is talking about her.
When examining what is understood as classic projection, the first thing one should remember is how we are psychologically structured. Given that we are all relational beings, our environment inexorably forms an integral part of who we are. This means that our emotions will always have a dominant environmental component to them.
When, for example, we feel sad, happy, anxious, apprehensive, overjoyed, and so on, such emotions will be sensed as directly relevant to our environment. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that whatever emotions our selves feel, they will and must be felt as environmentally relevant. Remember, you are you plus the world around you (your environment); therefore, if you’re sad so, you will sense, must be those around you. Structurally speaking, you are all in the same perceptual boat together.
In instances where a contradiction occurs and embarrassment or guilt is the emotional result, two distinct events will occur.
First, by virtue of The Structure, the contradicting event will implicitly become disassociated with the person who experiences the contradiction. (One’s existence is implicitly incompatible with contradicting objects or events.) Second, since the event is environmentally anchored, any guilt that is felt will be felt as emanating from where that guilt was created in the first place (in the environment). Take note that from a structural perspective, one cannot feel guilty absent of their environment. Such is only possible where an animated environment is present. One could ride the subway from Queens to Manhattan totally nude and smelling of rotten fish yet feel no embarrassment whatsoever as long as there was no one else present.
As a result, a carpenter who uses one of his tools incorrectly and makes a mistake, someone with anger issues, or an individual who feels embarrassed after committing a socially unacceptable act will immediately view whatever it was that they did as no longer pertaining to them (this, as only positive confirming objects and events can be de-facto associated with the human self). In such cases, the subject in question will rightfully experience the unwelcome error or act as not having anything to do with them and express that reality by saying things like, “What a lousy pair of plyers,” “This racket needs adjusting,” “If I had only known.”
This does not mean that the author of a self-contradicting act cannot or will not know that they are the responsible one for the consequences of that act, only that that act is no longer associated with them. Someone who commits an error does not mechanically banish or project their error outside of themselves in order to save themselves from psychological harm. They perceive the error as disassociated with their selves because now it is. Contradiction cannot be related to any living subject as all contradiction is counter to the reality of who we structurally are. On the other hand, the only place from where positive or negative environmentally created emotions can be logically felt is from that place from which they actually do originate: From the environment.
Self-criticism
Error, fault, and feelings of guilt go hand in hand with the sensation that one is no longer in control of oneself. The loss of control adds to the impact of contradiction and becomes, in and of itself, a contradiction of one’s continuance. When we criticize or insult ourselves for having done something that is self-defeating, the loss of control that is associated with that contradiction returns to he or she who insults themselves.
The carpenter who blames his hammer for a mistake he has made does not do so in order to save his ego from harm. What he does do is perceive the error committed as attributable to the hammer because the hammer was, in fact, what erred. (No hammer, no error.)
The angry man who feels that others have anger issues does not project his anger outward, therefore, perceiving it as coming from without rather than from within in order to protect a fragile ego. His anger is, in fact, produced by someone or something in his environment, a fact that can, if the emotion is sufficiently intense, lead the subject to understand his environment to be, as is his self, an angry environment and, therefore, in need of assistance.
Projection and paranoia
When someone feels that others may be judging them and doing so negatively when, indeed, no one is judging them at all, it is not because they are projecting their unwanted traits or emotions outside of themselves to keep their egos from harm’s way. They are simply experiencing the potential of negative judgment from the only place from which such judgment can emerge: their environment. Such individuals do not suffer from some mental affliction because they feel judged when, in fact, no one is judging them. They are simply experiencing their environments as being either potentially or actively contradicting. Keep in mind that the origin of all contradiction is one’s environment. Therefore, if one feels guilty of an environmentally offensive act, it is only natural that they look to their environment for the culprit as well as the solution.
All in all, human beings don’t project, they simply experience, and in a tightly logical way.
The animation of inanimate objects
Pat sits at his desk. He just made another mistake. He crumples up the paper he was working on and tosses it nonchalantly over his shoulder with the subconscious intention of finally finding some success by magically making a basket just because he’s “who he is.” Sadly, the crumpled piece of paper lands nowhere near Pat’s goal. Pat slowly gets up from his desk and retrieves the crumpled paper. On the way back to his desk, he looks over his shoulder towards the basket and tosses the paper once again. Once again, the crumpled piece of paper falls short. (So far, we have, in addition to the initial contradiction related to Pat’s mistake while working, two additional contradictions consisting of two failed attempts to sink a basket “without really trying.”) Now, angered by all three contradictions, Pat goes up to the basket, stands directly over it then, violently jams the paper inside. Pat mumbles to himself, “Stupid basket!” (As if the basket could hear him and had been purposefully resisting his goal-seeking behavior.)
Did Pat temporarily lose his mind, animate his paper basket, and insult it as if it were not only alive but the protagonist of his failed attempts?
No. That’s not at all. Here’s why:
Keep in mind that because we are animate beings, all the inanimate objects with which we establish relationships immediately form a part of our animate environment, an environment that becomes a relational extension of our animate selves. When an inanimate object enters actively into our animate world and produces animated consequences, it implicitly becomes relevant to our animate existence and, therefore, has no other option other than to be experienced by us, depending on the level of its affirming or contradicting interactions, and to a more or less degree, part of who we are as animate beings.
We speak words of praise to our car if, during an accident, we feel its construction or safety measures saved our life. But we curse the mayonnaise jar that refuses to open. We do this not because we’ve lost our grip on reality. Inanimate objects simply become animate objects when they produce animate consequences in an animate world.
Repression
Repression is another emotional response classically considered a mechanical defense reaction. In reality, however, there is nothing mechanical or defensive about it. Repression is simply just one more way we humans are able to deal with contradiction. Remember, for purely structural reasons alone, we innately accept affirmation but are unable to accept contradiction. There is nothing mechanical or defensive about the emotions or behaviors that simply limit themselves to following structural guidelines. A circle that rejects being called a square does not do so because it possesses a mechanical response designed to defend itself against such an incongruity. It rejects being called a square because it isn’t one.