Kakar The Indian Jungle

Psychoanalysis and Non-Western Civilizations
1. Auflage 2024
ISBN: 978-1-915565-18-1
Verlag: Karnac Books
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 150 Seiten

For more than a century, the cultural imagination of psychoanalysis has been assumed and largely continues to be assumed as Western. Although the terroirs of psychoanalysis in South America, France, Italy, England, the United States, and so on have important differences, they all share a strong family resemblance which distinguishes them clearly from the cultural imaginations of Indian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and other non-Western terroirs. Fundamental ideas about human relationships, family, marriage, and gender often remain unexamined and pervade the analytic space as if they are universally valid. Thus, ideas that are historically and culturally only true of and limited to modern Western, specifically European and North American middle-class experience, have been incorporated unquestioningly into psychoanalytic thought. In the intellectual climate of our times, with the rise of relativism in the human sciences and politically with the advent of decolonization, the cultural and historical transcendence of psychoanalytic thought can no longer be taken for granted. Insights from clinical work embedded in the cultural imaginations of non-Western civilizations could help psychoanalysis rethink some of its theories of the human psyche, extending these to cover a fuller range of human experience. These cultural imaginations are an invaluable resource for the move away from a universal psychoanalysis to a more global one that remains aware of but is not limited by its origins in the modern West. This book of essays aims to be a step in that journey, of altering the self-perception of psychoanalysis from 'one size fits all' into a more nuanced enterprise that reflects and is enriched by cultural particularities. The perfect book for psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, cultural psychologists, anthropologists, students of South Asian, cultural, and post-colonial studies, and anyone interested in the current and possible future shape of psychoanalytic thought.

Sudhir Kakar is an Indian psychoanalyst and writer. He has been a lecturer and visiting professor at Harvard University, visiting professor at the universities of Chicago, McGill, Melbourne, Hawaii, and Vienna, fellow at the Institutes of Advanced Study, Princeton, Berlin, and Cologne, and is on the board of the Freud Archives. His many honors include the Kardiner Award of Columbia University, the Boyer Prize for Psychological Anthropology of the American Anthropological Association, the Tagore-Merck Award, the Lotte Köhler Prize for Psychoanalytic Developmental, Cultural and Social Psychology, the Distinguished Service Award of the Indo-American Psychiatric Association, India's Bhabha, Nehru, and ICSSR National Fellowships, Germany's Goethe Medal, McArthur Research Fellowship, and the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, the country's highest civilian honor. As 'the psychoanalyst of civilizations,' the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur listed Kakar in 2005 as one of the world's twenty-five major thinkers. Kakar is the author of fourteen books of non-fiction and six novels. His books have been translated into twenty languages around the world. Learn more at his website: www.sudhirkakar.com.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Kakar, Sudhir

Leseproben

Introduction

What psychoanalysis is possible in a traditional non-Western society like India with its characteristic family system, religious beliefs, and cultural values? Is the mental life of non-Western patients radically different from that of their Western counterparts? Over the years, in my own talks to diverse audiences in India, Europe, and the United States, these two questions have invariably constituted the core of animated discussion.

We have to ask them, because most of our knowledge on how human beings feel, think, act is derived from a small subset of the human population. Since 2010, following psychologist Joseph Heinrich and colleagues, we have called this subset the WEIRD, now famously Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. This small group of statistical outliers are both the producers and subjects of the contemporary psychological knowledge that we have then blithely proceeded to generalize to the rest of humankind.

The WEIRD, for instance, have a distinctive morality. The chasm that divides WEIRD morality from others is observed in a 2012 experiment by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt who studied morality in twelve groups of different social classes in different countries. During his interviews, Haidt would tell the interviewee stories, and he then asks if there is something wrong in how someone acts in the story and, if so, why. One of the stories goes: A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it.

Only one group out of the twelve showed a majority (73 percent) who tolerated the chicken story, finding it acceptable. These were students from the University of Pennsylvania, a liberal, Ivy League college in the United States and certainly the most WEIRD among the twelve selected groups. Their rationale for their tolerance: “It’s his chicken, it’s dead, nobody is getting hurt and it’s being done in private” (Haidt, 2012, loc. 184).

Like other large groups, such as the major non-Western civilizations, the WEIRDs have a distinctive cultural imagination that attended the birth of psychoanalysis and continues to pervade its theories and models.1 Seeded into a network of minds, we absorb our cultural imagination and its worldview from early on in life—not via the logic of the head, but via the emotional stirrings of the heart and body in which this imagination is encoded. Our cultural imagination shapes what Roy Schaefer (1970) called “vision of reality” that is not a set of philosophical doctrines, relevant only for religious and intellectual elites, but beliefs bordering on convictions, many of them unconscious, that are reflected in the lives, songs, and stories of a vast number of people who share a common culture. It is the culture’s vision of reality that interprets central human experiences and answers perennial questions on what is good and what is evil, what is real and what is unreal, what is the essential nature of men and women and the world they live in, and what is a person’s connection to nature, to other human beings, and to the cosmos. A civilization’s vision of reality plays a significant role even in how it organizes knowledge, how it shapes the processes of attention, perception, reasoning, and inference making. For instance, research into cognitive processes since the 1960s (Segall et al., 1966) shows that perception is strongly influenced by cultural differences (Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005). Commenting on cultural variations in perception in the Müller–Lyer illusion where lines of equal length give impressions of different length, an illusion created by the orientation of the arrow caps placed at their ends, Alfred Margulies (2014) observes:

our cultural environment in its everyday structures, practices and aesthetics shapes the way our brains process visual information. And, if this is true for neurobiological non-conscious visual processing, it seems almost certain it would be true for psychoanalytically relevant unconscious processes and the impact of culture. (p. 5)

Indeed, if the ego is a skin ego, dependent upon the physical body to find its mental representation, then does the early life of skin—shaped, after all, by culture—impact how ego gets constructed in different cultural contexts (Kakar & Narayanan, 2023)? We might wonder whether ego formation is different in India where urban-area breastfeeding we are told (UNICEF, 2018) continues for over a year for children of both genders, at a rate of 79 percent, compared to the United States where extended breastfeeding rates are around 6.2 percent. From breastfeeding, the Indian child proceeds not to spoon-feeding but to hand-feeding, less frequently to strollers than to being carried on the mother’s side or back in skin contact, and extended co-sleeping with parents or elder relatives. In this atmosphere of early life, conveyed by visible skin contact over a long period, it would be reasonable to expect that the account of mental life in infancy would not exactly hew to the reigning psychoanalytic models derived from Western experience.

The mental representations of culture, our cultural imagination, has been a relatively unexplored territory in psychoanalytic discourse. Disseminated through myths and legends, proverbs and metaphors, iconic artworks, the stories a society’s members tell each other, enacted in rituals, conveyed through tales told to children, given a modern veneer in films, the cultural imagination is equally glimpsed in admonitions of parents, in the future vistas they hold out to their children, indeed even in the way their children are touched and fed and carried about.

For more than a century, the cultural imagination of psychoanalysis has been assumed and largely continues to be assumed as being Western. Fundamental ideas about human relationships, family, marriage, and gender that are essentially cultural in origin often remain unexamined as if they are shared by analyst and patient alike. Though these fundamental ideas belong to WEIRD culture, they pervade the analytic space as if they were universally valid. Thus ideas that are historically and culturally only true of and limited to modern Western—specifically European and North American middle class—experience are incorporated unquestioned into psychoanalytic theory.

With the rise of relativism in the human sciences and politically with the advent of decolonization in the second half of the twentieth century, human sciences took a sceptic turn, to which psychoanalysis has not been immune. Intellectually, the relativistic position owes much of its impetus to Foucault’s powerful argument on the rootedness of all thought in history and culture—and in the framework of power relations. Adherents of this perspective are not a priori willing to accept why psychoanalysis, a product of early twentieth-century European bourgeois family and social structure, should be an exception to the general rule on the incapacity of thought to transcend its roots. In the intellectual climate of our times, then, the cultural and historical transcendence of psychoanalytic theories can no longer be taken for granted.

For a long time—up to a few decades ago—psychoanalysis was reluctant to accord culture a defining role in the construction of individual subjectivity. In the various phases of its encounter with anthropology, which could conceivably have tempered its Western-cultural orientation, psychoanalysis has taken a privileged, asymmetric position in its relationship with anthropology: there has been psychoanalytical anthropology but not an anthropological psychoanalysis. Analysts have continued to regard ethnographic facts and the methods used to uncover them as belonging to the “surface” of human behavior and hence superficial; they are not considered “deep” enough to merit the respectful attention given to the reports of practicing analysts. The few anthropologists among analysts—especially the pioneers of the psychoanalytic anthropology such as Géza Róheim (1950) and George Devereux—reinforced the privileged position of psychoanalysis by applying psychoanalytic concepts to cultures, almost as if the former were a fixed set of tools, rather than a means of making analysts more culturally sensitive and reflective. According to Devereux (1978), for instance, any doubts about a universal, a-cultural conception of psychoanalysis were to be rigorously combated. For him, analysis was a science independent of all cultural thought models and any efforts to “reculturalize” it were to be strongly resisted; a psychoanalysis with cultural connotations would no longer be a science but merely one of the myths of the occidental world. All that Devereux was willing to grant was the presence of an ethnic unconscious built from a specific constellation of defense mechanisms that a given culture brings to bear on human experience, and through which the necessary renunciation of universal wishes and fantasies can be achieved.

Despite these obstacles, the rise of the multicultural movement in many Western societies has resulted in more and more calls from analysts of varying persuasions in many different countries (Bergeret, 1993; Davidson, 1988; Rendon, 1993; Yampey, 1989) to re-examine the issue of culture in psychoanalysis and not shy away from any...