“Sea voyage of holy Franciscus”. Bonaventura Berlinghieri (13th century).
Introduction
Time and again, the argument is brought forth that the Middle Ages
represents darkness, while the Enlightenment represents a freeing of the mind
from its imprisonment in church dogmas, superstition, and unreason. I am tired of hearing this
argument. In fact, the Middle Ages is the egg from which the Enlightenment
hatched. Medieval times is the Mother of the Enlightenment, and not its antagonist.
The introverted standpoint of the Middle Ages is what has fostered our inner
locus of control, [1] a capacity largely lacking
in non-European ethnicities (cf. Sennels [2]). The concept refers to an individual’s generalized expectations concerning where
control resides, which impacts self-control and impulsiveness.
Medieval people cultivated their soul and mind. They were more
interested in the spirit and less interested in worldly things. This is what underlies our supreme capacity of focusing our minds, our self-control, and our
capacity to withstand impulses. Like no other people on earth, we are passionate about the
intellectual, the systematic, and the conceptual,
especially when compared with the Third World people. Today’s constant deliberations of intellectual matters have their counterpart in the disputations of medieval scholastics and
monks. They have furnished us with this aptitude. It was their work on their souls, and their
efforts in philosophy, theology, science and medicine, that gave rise to the
Enlightenment. It did not appear out of the blue. Enlightenment
came about as the fruit of a long development.
During antiquity, a portion of the people were quite advanced, while
the populace remained with a primitive and quite superstitious worldview. On
average, the antique dweller had a decidedly lower conscious level than
the medieval dweller. Although there were many brilliant philosophers, doctors,
and engineers in ancient antiquity, knowledge did not belong to
everyone. In the Middle Ages knowledge was better distributed, and they
certainly knew that the earth is round and what causes solar and lunar eclipses. However, although such things are often well explained in the encyclopedias of the era, natural events were also perceived as omens. They had this dual view of phenomena, as being invoked by natural causes and divine will, the one as well as the other.
It is an illusion that modern society
would have emerged faster if it weren’t for the Middle Ages. Modern Europeans
are shaped as much by the Middle Ages as classical antiquity. I hold that we are much
different from the antique dweller. On the surface we are similar, but on the
inside modern Europeans have a medieval frame of mind.
The notorious underestimation of the Middle Ages depends on the fact
that we are repressing the medieval aspect of ourselves. We refuse to admit that we are medievals inside. Westerners wish to adjust to modern ideals
of materialistic advancement and success; to say yes to innovation, space
exploration, etc. That’s why we always get to hear this appraisal of the
glorious Enlightenment and all the “good things” that it brought
in its wake. Communism, Nazism, catastrophes like the Holocaust, World Wars,
deforestation, etc., are conveniently forgotten. Our civilisation has opted for
a collective neurosis that builds on the repression of feeling. We aim to be
rational in all quarters of life. We follow principles instead of listening to
our heart.
Accordingly, Canadian author John Ralston Saul explains that society
today suffers from a conflict between democracy as an institution, on the one hand, and “rational”
government on the other. [3] Modern rationalism has been reduced to
a system of management and administration, yet is at bottom incapable of
guiding human affairs. This is something that author David Brooks
has noted, too. He has found that government policy depends on the mistaken view of the citizen as isolated agent, governed by wholly rational motives — a shallow view of human nature that does not reckon with the unconscious. [4] The acute economical crises that
have befallen us, since Saul wrote his book, are facts that bolster his argument. It
is becoming more and more evident that politicians are subordinated to the “market
forces”.
Modern rationalism throws a very long shadow. Political ideologies,
Fascism, Communism, and Nazism, is modernity wreaking havoc. I think it
represents an amputation of the medieval mindset, with a resultant regress to
an antique frame of mind. It means the reawakening of Imperium Romanum. So it
came to pass what all the modern proponents of the antique ideals always longed for, namely the reawakening of ancient antiquity and its marble statues; its
ideals of power and beauty. Out through the window went the medieval ideals of
interiority, [5] and all the Christian
virtues. It is modernity that provokes this development, by its constant
pounding of all the medieval virtues in our psychology and in history.
The calumniation of the medieval epoch
So what is the origin of the modern myth that Christianity and the
Middle Ages have stood in stark opposition to science and development? Historian
of science David C. Lindberg says that two works from the 19th
century are responsible for many of the misconceptions, namely John William Draper, “History of the Conflict between Religion and Science” (1876) and
Andrew Dickson White, “A History of the Warfare of Science
with Theology in Christendom” (1896). Lindberg writes:
Draper and White believed that Christianity waged war on science in two ways. First, the early church fathers denigrated the investigation of nature for its own sake: with the kingdom of heaven just around the corner, there was no time or energy to waste on irrelevancies. Second, any truth that might be discovered through patient observation and reasoning was forced to yield to puerile opinions extracted by dogmatic churchmen from sacred writings […]
The thesis of Draper and White has given way to a spectrum of scholarly opinion in the twentieth century. Some scholars continue to affirm, although (in most cases) somewhat less militantly, the Draper-White view. Others have gone to the opposite extreme, arguing that Christianity was good for science — indeed, that modern science would not have come into existence without it. And some have sought middle ground. But this is scholarship; in popular opinion the Draper-White view still prevails. It frequently appears in books aimed at the general reader; moreover, Draper’s and White’s own works continue to be reprinted, purchased, and presumably read and believed. (Lindberg, 1986, p.20) [6]
Draper and White, foremostly, are responsible for the notorious
disinformation that medievals thought the earth was flat. Since the early 20th
century, a number of books and articles have documented the flat earth myth as
one of a number of widespread misconceptions in popular views of the Middle Ages. [7] These authors created the metaphor of war between science
and faith, and many of the misconceptions that propagate to this day. The
conflict thesis, which proposed an intrinsic intellectual conflict between
religion and science, is today regarded as obsolete by a majority of historians. [8] However, in popular opinion and among proponents of
atheism, the view prevails. By analogy, witch-hunting is predominantly a
pre-medieval and post-medieval phenomenon. Nevertheless, the notion of
witch-hunts sticks to the Middle Ages as chewing gum to the sole of the shoe.
Kepler, Galilei, and the clergyman Copernicus, were indebted to
medieval scientists like John Buridan (ca. 1295-1358), William Heytesbury (ca. 1313-1372), Nikolas Oersme (dead 1382),
Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464), and not least the matematician
Leonardo Fibonacci (ca. 1170-1250). Galileo Galilei,
who was a believing Christian, did not oppose Christianity and the church. He
criticized the theories of the earliest scientist, namely Aristotle. Many
keystones of modern science were created during medieval times, such as
Heytesbury’s description of accelerating objects and Buridan’s impetus theory.
Important inventions made life easier, which increased productivity and improved
the standards of living, such as the iron plough, spectacles, and the horse
shoe. Historian of science Michael H. Shank says:
A short list of accomplishments from the period suggests that the inquiry into nature did not stagnate in medieval Europe. In the late thirteenth century, William of Saint-Cloud pioneered the use of the camera obscura to view solar eclipses. In the early fourteenth century, Dietrich von Freiberg (a Dominican) solved the problem of the primary and secondary rainbows: he appealed, respectively, to one and two internal reflections inside the raindrop, which he modeled using a glass vial filled with water. Meanwhile, at Oxford, natural philosophers were applying mathematical analysis to motion, coming up with theoretical ways of measuring uniformly changing quantities. In mid-fourteenth-century Paris, Jean Buridan used impetus theory to explain projectile motion, the acceleration of free-fall, and even the unceasing rotation of the starry sphere (in the absence of resistance, God’s initial impetus at creation is preserved and requires no further intervention). His younger contemporary Nicole Oresme (later a bishop) offered a nice list of arguments for the possible rotation of the earth: he concluded that no available empirical or rational evidence could determine whether or not it moved. Many more examples could be cited. Like most masters, these individuals benefited from the considerable freedom of thought allowed by the university disputation, which required that arguments pro and contra various positions be advanced and defended on rational grounds alone. It was the scholars’ fellow disputants who regularly sought to give them grief; most of the time, “the Church” did not.
Between 1150 and 1500, more literate Europeans had had access to scientific materials than any of their predecessors in earlier cultures, thanks largely to the emergence, rapid growth, and naturalistic arts curricula of the medieval universities. If the medieval church had intended to suppress the inquiry into nature, it must have been completely powerless, for it utterly failed to reach its goal. (Numbers, 2009, pp.26-27) [9]
Historian of science, James Hannam, argues that the Middle
Ages provided the foundation of modern science. [10] The
university, a medieval invention of the church, played an important role. So did
belief in a rational and faithful God who had created laws of nature that didn’t
change erratically, and which it was possible to study. That’s why the church
has always supported the study of nature. By studying God’s creation we learn
about God’s thoughts. Also
Albert Einstein was fond of this notion. So the ardent belief in
laws of nature derives from Christian theology and its view of God and creation.
What is not generally known is that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic priest and theoretical physicist, Georges Lemaître. [11] He tried to convince Einstein of its validity, who
rejected the theory out of hand, until empirical evidence proved it correct
(Edwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe).
Emancipation of consciousness
An enormous increase in
consciousness was inaugurated by the founding fathers of our civilization. The work of
Plato, St Paul, and St Augustine served to liberate the self-willed capacity of the human soul. It involves the ability to focus
and concentrate, making use of our own heart and head. Christianity emerged on the
scene as people could not bear anymore of the naive and amoral world of
the Graeco-Roman pantheon. In a sense, Christianity stole from the gods and gave the power
to the humans, conferring on them an intellectual and moral power and freedom. During
medieval times occurred a colossal advance in moral capacity. I am above all
referring to moral strength and not merely ethical insight. True chivalry
emerged, and for the first time in history, romantic love. The monks studied
and researched diligently and learned to focus their mind in contemplation.
This historical development has contributed to our superior focusing ability today, which is the
foundation on which our civilization rests. In this manner Christianity has
liberated the human spirit and laid the foundation for science and democracy.
If Western man hadn’t risen above his body-identity, the enormous
increase in consciousness could not have occurred. Especially in their moral
function the medievals made great progress. Introverted contemplative theology
and philosophy promoted the disengagement of the cognitive faculties from their
bond to concrete materiality. Men began to think freely; especially the monks,
because they had learnt that the spirit must be released from its link to
matter and soar high above the world. The aloofness from the world, and the
negation of the body, served the purpose of freeing the powers of
consciousness. This process has led to the modern strong-willed ego, our science
and democracy, which all build on the notion of the free spirit. It has given
rise to hard facts, technology, judicature, and, above all, the ability of a
concentrative effort of mind, that can be maintained for hour upon hour, even
with the lowly engine driver. Since spontaneous impulses are repressed by the strong
conscious mind, the individual can continue focusing on his business. Thus, it is a
capacity of the ego which has created this civilization. To this day, Africans
have not wholly acquired this capacity, and the Arabs still lag behind,
impulse-driven as they tend to be. So this is mind over matter.
I am averse to the idea that our theological concepts, mores, and
cultural inhibitions, can be dismantled. On the contrary, they need to be
revived. Most people cannot live without a “Father” (that is,
supraordinate regulations in some form) as they aren’t capable of introspective insight to
the extent that they can withdraw projections and assume full moral
responsibility for their lives. Arguably, it risks leading to a regression on a grand scale
back to matriarchy; the naive condition in which the weak human ego exists in
serfdom under the unconscious (the “Mother”). A matriarchal
society is a psychosocial sphere where the visible factors govern, such
as beauty, status, riches, titles, etc. In the matriarchal society in southern
India, women have a very high status on account of motherhood. The more children
they beget, the higher status they acquire. To belong to a high caste and to have material wealth
will bring an even higher status. Unlike in the patriarchal
conception, invisible moral and intellectual qualities lack essential value. In the patriarchal
society of the modern era, invisible principles govern, such as
law and right, democracy, and women’s equal rights. People, as far as
possible, must take responsibility for their own life.
The matriarchal and earth-bound
conception is older and more primitive. It is not a society of equal
rights for women. In fact, the notion of equality does
not exist, nor does equality exist among men. It is because egalitarianism and notions of ethics
belong to the “spirit” — the invisible realm, away from everyday existence. That’s why, in
southern India, two high caste persons can walk the road involved in a philosophical
discussion, while at the side of the road a beggar is dying of starvation.
As the moral problem is not at all central, neither of them will react with indignation. To burn a widow is not a moral problem, either. The patriarchal
conception, on the other hand, elevates the spirit — the invisible realm.
Appearances, such as beauty and riches, don’t count for much. Hence, everybody
is equal in the spirit. It is at this point that moral development starts. The
notion of woman’s equal status (not necessarily on earth but in the beyond) was invented by Plato and continued by
St Paul.
Matriarchal culture is truly fascinating as an object of study, but there is
no going back. We must keep to patriarchal tradition, as the moral problem is
very central to modern man. If there is no justice, there is no God. It is what underlies the belief in a Day of Reckoning. We should hold our
history in much higher esteem than we do today. Our patriarchal culture needs
to be nourished and defended. Equality and justice are to be viewed as ideals.
It does not mean to say that it has been wholly implemented. Rather, it is a
never-ending struggle. Before complaining about women’s inequality, people
ought to contemplate the sufferings of women in history, which puts things in
perspective.
Today, a Western woman can develop her
personality, whether she is talented in the realm of arts, mathematics, etc. Contemplate the immense number of women in history who have had no
chance whatsoever to develop their own talents and likings. Instead they were
impelled to fulfil their role as a woman, that is, giving birth, grinding corn all day,
cooking food, etc. To have one’s spirit quenched is agonizing. That’s why we must strive to
safeguard what is good in our civilization, which is the civilization of Plato,
St Paul and the church fathers. We must beware of throwing the
child out with the bathwater, as there is so much in our heritage that is worth
saving. Most importantly, we are in dire need of a common soil where we can dig down
our roots.
Wabi-sabi
The capacity of interiority was cultivated during the
European Middle Ages, when it decidedly took root in the human soul. The
interior psychological perspective has its roots in Antiquity. It seems that it began to take
shape with the introverted ascetic traditions, surfacing around 600 BC. Via
pre-Christian Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Platonism, it blossomed out as
Christianity, as formulated by Jesus, St Paul, St Augustine, et al. In history books, it is again and again pointed out how “inferior”
Europe was during the “Golden Age” of Islam. The “ignorant”
Europeans took recourse in faith while the Muslims successfully cured many ills
thanks to the teachings of Avicenna. It is a correct observation that Europe lagged behind in certain fields of knowledge. Yet, this is a necessary
consequence of the strong focus on interiority. This very capacity, largely an effect
of the strong devotion of the medievals, is what underlies European psychology
today; our internal control locus, our democratic mentality, our capacity of not
rushing to conclusion, but methodically to extract the truth.
The Third World
never underwent a corresponding era of inner perspicacity, which partly explains their
backwardness today. Although medieval Europe is portrayed as inferior, in
reality it was superior in the capacity of personal discernment. While undergoing great sufferings caused by
evils such as the plague and chronic poverty, they learnt to withdraw projections from the world. As a consequence, faith
became firmly rooted in the soul, together with all the other passions. On the other hand, where
there is lack of inner faith, there is pressure to establish it on the outside,
i.e., to institutionalize and regulate faith according to religious law. As
passions grip the ego from outside, there is a call to create a perfectly
regulated and undemocratic society; to take control of the demons.
The Japanese Middle Ages were no less introverted than the European,
to the effect that a garden with a few stones and gravel, or the serving of a
cup of tea, could be experienced as sensational. Accordingly, the Japanese have
learnt to focus their minds, and to exercise self-control, to the utmost. Japanese
have a tendency of working themselves to death, a phenomenon known as karōshi.
The Japanese held out as long as possible against modernity. Still today, many remain
true to the medieval traditions. Paradoxically, Westerners
tend to think that this is the most fascinating aspect of Japan. These traditions are the legacy of
the period when the Zen schools flourished, and the Zen garden, the tea and
archery ceremonies, were developed. Such disciplines represent the inner, or
spiritual, aspect of human life. So why are Westerners so contemptuous about their own
European Middle Ages? I suppose it has to do with indoctrination, such as the
ceaselessly repeated story about Galilei versus the oppressive Catholic church.
Interestingly, the English, much like the Japanese, experience the serving of a
cup of tea as a qualitative moment of self-absorption, which underpins my thesis that they are
like introverted medievals inside. They also devote a lot of time to
gardening.
The notion of
interiority may improve our understanding of political history. For historical
reasons, the Germans and the Japanese lagged behind in modern political development.
Both nations, in an attempt to catch up, “amputated” the medieval
psyche, allowing for a throwback to a stage that was lacking in interiority.
In consequence, shallow ideals of Power, Beauty, and Glory, surfaced.
Such a regressive movement took place already during the era of colonialism and
the WWI. The analysis is also relevant to Stalinist Russia, which also fell
into shallow pre-medieval extraversion, although the deeply introverted Orthodox
Church did much to mollify the situation.
The Japanese concept of wabi-sabi represents a
worldview or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience. [12] The
student of wabi-sabi learns to view the most simple and imperfect objects as interesting,
fascinating and beautiful. This is also relevant to the tradition of writing
haiku poems. Such disciplines represent the inner, or spiritual,
experience of human life. It is antithetical to the antique expansive notion of
Beauty, Power, and Glory. Yet, such ceremonials will lose their sense of
innerness when adopted by extraverts who want to make the impression
of sophistication, much like European extraverts adhering to freemasonry, turning it into a repugnant exercise in group narcissism.
When the standpoint of interiority is eliminated, a regress is inevitable. On
this view, the attacks on China and on Pearl Harbor were predicated on the amputation of the Japanese medieval psychology of inwardness.
Comparatively, the Scandinavians never took part in the outbreaks of
madness that befell Europe in the modern time. Part of the explanation is their feeling for nature.
Similar to the Japanese, they appreciate the beauty of the
little things, the dark meres in the wood, and the breeze that whispers in the trees.
The ‘Neck’ (Näcken) is ever playing his violin in the rapids. Although
Scandinavians are strongly rooted in nature, I am afraid that young people are
losing contact with nature on account of modern developments. As soon as subjective participation is lost, notions similar to Hitlerism, Stalinism, and fundamentalist Islamism, will inevitably surface.
Locus of control
Some people appreciate the freshness of the “naive
realism” of the Africans and the Third World ethnicities. It contrasts
starkly with the restrained persona of the ethnic Swede or Englishman, whose
attitude of reservedness derives from a constant occupation with the inner
world. We are still looking inwards, an attitude which the medievals instilled
in us. However, as I will point out in the following lines, a psychology of naive
realism will cause great social damage, and eventually pose a threat to
the democratic order. Thus, it is imperative that the Western world remains
true to the perspective of interiority, that is, the quality of being focused on one’s inner life and identity. The notorious propaganda against the “Dark
Ages” must cease, and we would come to appreciate the enormous impact of
European Middle Ages in our lives today. In fact, in a sense, we need to go back
to the source, to reawaken the Middle Ages and replenish our inner waterhole.
As Westerners have slowly begun to understand, Muslims moving to the
West have a curiously anti-Western way of looking at things. Sharia (religious law) is very
much about regulating reality. For instance, the curious idea that women must
always hide behind large sheets of fabric — what’s that all about?
The focus on ego-protection is very central at the phallic-narcissistic level of
culture. If women were allowed to show how attractive they are, the male is
gripped by desire — as he wants to own the female passer-by. Since he cannot have her, it is experienced as a violation of his ego. Thus, his ego
must needs suffer constant narcissistic injury in a society which has not been
adjusted according to very strict norms of control. Such a deep feeling of offence
is difficult to comprehend for Westerners who do not themselves suffer from the narcissistic
syndrome. Such a psychic economy has much in common with the chronic
neurotic type in the Western world. By example, the neurotic experiences a violation of ego if there
exists another person in a discussion forum who surpasses him intellectually,
but who refrains from mutual narcissistic reinforcement (vulg. “butt-licking”).
The latter ritual is very common among neurotics, and they seem to enjoy it as
something very gratifying to the ego.
It is relevant to discuss the neurotic type as an atavistic
phenomenon, a throwback to the phallic-narcissistic stage, perhaps influenced by
genetic factors. The phallic-narcissistic mentality is inferior, whereas a
modern psychic economy is more advanced and adaptable to modern society. I
posit the idea that neurotics tend to fall back on the primitive
phallic-narcissistic way of functioning as a form of atavism. The phenomenon could be likened to
an advanced machine, e.g., an airplane, governed by computers
and electric signalling. Should the advanced system malfunction, it could be
steered with mechanical wires. Likewise, a malfunctioning human psyche can fall
back on a more primitive mode of functioning. Psychoanalysts have always
observed that neurotics appear infantile in diverse ways. Accordingly, they have concluded that such patients are stuck in a childhood mentality. Of course, this is
another way of putting it — but what if it represents an atavism, and what really happens is that the
neurotic makes use of the “backup system”? In a sense his illness is
rooted in childhood, yet it is really a throwback to an earlier epoch in our
history.
Arguably, had the neurotic lived in that earlier epoch, he would not
appear neurotic, but his psychic economy would harmonize with the surrounding. There
would be no disruptive modern people around who insist on thinking freely and
questioning things. Society would be wholly regulated and people would keep to
the olden ways. Now and then, every 100 years or so, the priest or medicine man
presents a fresh idea. Society functions like a big Kindergarten, where people
are fitted into their respective roles, and there is really no such thing as
true individuality. Arguably, this is the reason why neurotics are so keen on
creating a regulated Kindergarten society. They want society to follow the olden matriarchal
ways, which harmonize with their own inferior mentality.
In the Muslim world and elsewhere, women who reject their suitor
risk getting acid thrown in their face. This is yet another way of destroying their
attractive power, which helps to heal the ego of the offender. Those individuals who have power of intellect or beauty, for
instance, and who won’t lower themselves to
mutual narcissistic reinforcement, are experienced as noxious threats to the
weak ego. This could help to explain the unthinking nature of
phallocentric civilization, and its cultural inferiority in everything
that concerns the intellect. Arguably, the idea is to remove everything from
society that risks harming the ego, thereby creating a harmonious society. As
people at the phallocentric level are extremely prone to suffer
narcissistic injury, society must be erected around very strict control; rules and yet more rules, control and yet more control. Beautiful women must be imprisoned behind four
walls, alternatively have their faces scorched; and intelligent people must be removed, one way or
the other. It will result in an orderly society without incessant injury to the
ego and accompanying narcissistic explosions of rage.
Arguably, the Islamic ban on iconic representation, especially of the
human form, is predicated on the very same ego defensive tactic; to remove that
which stirs the acquisitiveness of the ego. At this cultural level, the
personality lacks the powers of control present at the Western level. Therefore,
control must remain external, in the way of sharia law. The locus of control is different. To Western man, with
the exception of the neurotic type, feelings like “desire”, “beauty”, and “fear” are experiences that derive from the inside. To the average Third
World dweller, it’s the other way round. Most notably, Africans typically experience
that fear comes from without. If a black man passes a stranger he might
experience a sudden fright. This means that he has been hit by something from
outside, namely a form of evil emitted by that stranger. From this
moment, he knows that the stranger is evil, some way or the other, and he has to
take measures to defend himself. In Europe today, many a black immigrant thinks he can
return the evil spirit, and make it bounce back, by staring at the person who
evoked his fright. The effects of the “evil eye” can be returned in the way of a mirror, by
reflecting the evil arrow. In this way disease can be
avoided, too. The president of the Association of African-Swedes stated publicly
that “I see evil in the eyes of Swedes”. For the same reason
it is common to spit behind the backs of Swedes, similar to the practice of
spitting at black cats.
Interiority and projection
In the psychology of the average Westerner the locus of control is different, as he is
endowed with the capacity of “projection”. A characteristic of
projection is that it can be withdrawn. If something evokes a feeling of fear,
we are capable of withdrawing it immediately. So, yet again it is decided that a
projection has emerged from the inside. As control has thus been internalized,
there is less need for control on the outside. There is no need for the
primitive ritual defenses that are so damaging to the social situation. I
contend that the capacity of interiority is a necessary condition for the
establishment of democratic society. There is an underlying expectation that the
individual can take charge of himself. A Westerner who sees an attractive woman
wearing a short skirt knows, in the general case, that the sexual attraction he
experiences comes from the inside. It is his own sexuality which is stirred and
he can therefore control it.
In fact, his feeling of attraction has nothing to
do with her. She likes to be beautiful and attractive because it
strengthens her well-being. Thus, the motivational factor is highly subjective in that it’s not strongly dependent on the outward relation. It is this introspective attitude, characterized by individual freedom rooted in the subject, that non-Western people have difficulties understanding. To a man lacking in interiority, that woman
has emitted her sexual power which has hit him from the outside, and that’s what
causes his sexual arousal. It is tantamount to a sexual invitation. This very
psychological discrepancy creates immense social problems in Europe, today. It
is also the reason why many an immigrant experiences European women as “whores”.
It is very convenient to have recourse to an ideology or
religion that stigmatizes people of other cultures as kafir (unfaithful)
and haram (unclean). The rationale is to transfer guilt to
the other party, i.e. the person who, by being different, unwittingly and
unwillingly invokes negative feelings, whether it is fear, contempt, or
lustfulness. In this way the phallic-narcissistic personality can rid himself of
feelings of guilt, typically caused by his own racial hatred, thus maintaining
the conceited notion of himself as a morally clean and upstanding citizen.
Critics of Islam tend to view the causal situation as reversed, i.e., that
radical Islam has made people think this way. But it doesn’t generally work that
way. On the contrary, Muslim culture has developed out of the
phallic-narcissistic mindset, thus providing a refuge and a rationale for this
kind of mental functioning. It proffers a way of relieving the mental agony
associated with the psychic economy particular to the followers. Thus, the
Muslim religion has both a therapeutic and a socially stabilizing value, but
not to the Christians or Jews made to suffer. This phenomenon also reflects on
woman’s position in Islamic history. Since woman’s ‘otherness’ has guaranteed her a low
social position she is very suited for the role as scapegoat. As long as she can
be forced into submission, it will contribute greatly to social stability. Although I
do not condone it, I conclude that oppression is functional in a certain psychosocial context.
It is also the underlying rationale behind the ideology of
feminism. The modern female collective is to a high degree infected with
narcissism. A woman who sees ‘otherness’ in manhood, on account of the male being
different than herself, can rationalize her fear and loathing as being wholly
motivated by the feminist account of the evil and oppressive nature of the male species, as
established by misandrous feminist ideology. Men as a collective are viewed as
responsible for the evils that befall women, just as Christians as a collective
are viewed as responsible for the harm that have befallen Muslims, and the Jews
as a collective were believed to be responsible for the misfortunes of the
Germans.
In this context it is relevant to discuss European-American cultural
clashes. A majority of ethnic Europeans can have projections and swiftly withdraw them,
without even noticing that they occurred. They expect this capacity of the
Americans, too. But it seems like the Americans (in very general terms, of
course) are moving away from the perspective of interiority. It could be due to the psychological impact of the partial non-European ancestry of Americans. They
expect other people to make them feel good, i.e. not to brusquely tell them the
truth, but rather to make a false pretence, smiling when you really ought to say what’s
on your heart. Europeans, for their part, like to “tell it to your
face” without much ado. Should the other party experience it as “evil”,
we expect him to withdraw the projection within a second. As a consequence,
Americans can experience Europeans as overly frank and lacking in esteem.
European businessmen, on the other hand, experience the American attitude of
pretence as frustrating. They travel back to Europe and wonder why the
order never arrives. In fact, the Americans only wanted him to feel good; they
never intended to place an order. In fact, this very attitude is very outspoken
among primitives. To the frustration of the anthropologists primitives tend to
say the things they believe that the researcher wants to hear, because they want to make
him happy.
This movement away from interiority is a worrying development. We
begin to see a similar pattern in Europe, today. I have observed that some
people have taken to smiling at every black person they meet, to convince him
that he is not an evil demon, i.e. a racist. Traditionally, this is known as a
false smile as it is just a mask of pretence. However, to the average African
immigrant there is no such thing as false display since reality is what the
outside impresses on you. If a person smiles at you it will make you happy, and
this means that something good has come from the outside. It is a wholly
uncritical and unthinking attitude, completely foreign to the European
mindset. If we are going to handle the looming social problems of society
it is high time to abandon the homogenous view of humanity. A good understanding
of human variety will aid us in confronting future social problems.
Psychological understanding, in itself, will have a good therapeutic effect on
the very many people who are made to suffer due to the changing psychosocial
patterns in society.
© Mats Winther, 2011-2012.
References
1. ‘Locus of control’. Wikipedia article.
(here)
2. Sennels, N. (2010). ‘Muslims and
Westerners: The Psychological Differences’. New English Review. (May 2010) (here).
3. Saul, J.R. (1993). Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. Vintage Books.
4. Brooks, D. (2011). ‘The social animal’. TED Talks (lecture) (here).
5. interiority n (1701) :
interior quality or character; also : inner life or substance (Webster’s Dictionary).
6. Lindberg, D. & Numbers, R.L. (eds.) (1986). God and Nature - Historical essays on the encounter between Christianity and Science. Univ. of California Press.
7. ‘Myth of the Flat Earth’. Wikipedia article. (here)
8. ‘Conflict thesis’. Wikipedia article. (here)
9. Numbers, R.L. (ed.) (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press.
10. Hannam, J. (2011). The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. Regnery Books.
11. ‘Georges Lemaître’. Wikipedia article. (here)
12. ‘Wabi-sabi’. Wikipedia article. (here)
13. Draper, J. W. (1876). History of the Conflict between Religion and Science.
14. White, A. D. (1896). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
See also:
15. Selander, M. (2012). ‘Historisk myt att vetenskap och kristen tro stått i konflikt’. Newsmill.
