Weekly Top Five Articles
Political polarization, Foucault, Child Abuse and Marital Struggles, Female Narcissism, and more. . .
Here’s what stood out this week. . .
(1) “The Devouring Mind,” by Kevin Power, Dublin Review of Books (June 2024)
In his review of Maestros & Monsters: Days & Nights with Susan Sontag & George Steiner by Robert Boyers, Kevin Power explores the lives and personas of two towering intellectuals, Susan Sontag and George Steiner. Power uses the psychological framework of DW Winnicott’s True Self/False Self theory to explain how Sontag and Steiner constructed formidable public personas to shield their vulnerable selves.
Power illustrates how Sontag, who showed extraordinary intellectual prowess from a young age, crafted a public image centered around her superior intellect. Her monumental works, such as Against Interpretation and On Photography, established her as a preeminent cultural critic. However, this persona also involved a rejection of vulnerability, stemming from a difficult childhood and an emotionally absent mother. Sontag’s public demeanor was often abrasive and condescending, traits that Boyers recounts with numerous anecdotes of her volatile behavior and lack of social grace.
Similarly, George Steiner, renowned for his contributions to literary criticism and intellectual history, created a persona that thrived on high culture and intellectual rigor. His works, including Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky and After Babel, showcase his polymathic knowledge and disdain for mediocrity. Despite his immense intellectual achievements, Steiner also displayed a brusque and sometimes overbearing demeanor, which Boyers describes in his memoir.
Boyers' book is divided into two parts, each focusing on one of these intellectual giants. Through his close friendships with Sontag and Steiner, Boyers provides a candid look at their personal complexities and professional achievements. He reveals how both figures, despite their brilliance, struggled with the human elements of vulnerability and emotional connection.
Power highlights how Sontag and Steiner, both seen as sacred monsters, maintained their False Selves through relentless intellectual output and a disdain for triviality. They were often at odds with each other and with those around them, as their highly cultivated personas could not tolerate the presence of other False Selves.
In his review, Power underscores the importance of vulnerability and humility, suggesting that while Sontag and Steiner's intellectual contributions are invaluable, their personal struggles serve as a reminder of the dangers of letting the False Self dominate. He emphasizes that true critical insight and human connection require a balance that these figures often lacked.
(2) “The Bleak Genius of Michel Foucault” by Sohrab Ahmari, Compact Magazine (June 25, 2024)
Ahmari marks the 40th anniversary of Michel Foucault's death, highlighting the philosopher’s lasting influence on the humanities. Despite passing away four decades ago due to complications from AIDS, Foucault remains one of the most-cited scholars, much to the dismay of conservatives and orthodox Marxists alike. Conservatives blame him for the perceived moral decay in higher education and modern life, while Marxists critique his shift of focus from class struggles to identity politics.
Ahmari notes that Foucault’s ideas are often misrepresented and diluted in academia and beyond, dominating discussions in various institutions. This widespread but superficial adoption of his concepts exemplifies the power dynamics Foucault analyzed. Known for his refusal to adhere to disciplinary boundaries, Foucault drew on history, theology, literature, and more, making him a truly interdisciplinary thinker. His work, celebrated for its originality and depth, continues to shape new fields of inquiry despite frequent misapplication.
Foucault’s genius lay in his ability to analyze power not as an external force but as immanent in all relationships—economic, sexual, and knowledge-based. His critical insights into power dynamics within institutions like prisons, hospitals, and schools remain influential. However, his work also had a "bleak" aspect, as the absence of normative and metaphysical foundations in his theories allowed for their misappropriation by powerful institutions to perpetuate their dominance.
Ahmari recounts his initial encounter with Foucault during his undergraduate years. Unlike other theorists, Foucault’s focus on micro-histories of power in ordinary life intrigued him. Foucault's reluctance to define concepts like madness or perversion, instead tracing their development through institutional interactions, marked a departure from traditional historiography. His method—critical nominalism—eschewed universal truths in favor of examining how power constructs and enforces norms.
Foucault’s work on biopolitics, explored in his lectures at the Collège de France, examined how liberalism evolved from state-centric to market-centric governance, ultimately culminating in neoliberalism. This progression illustrated the increasing sophistication of power structures, where the market became the primary regulator of freedom. Foucault foresaw the rise of neoliberalism, identifying its deeper implications for society, such as the commodification of human capital and the emergence of eugenic ideologies.
Despite his incisive critiques, Foucault’s work offers limited tools for those seeking to counteract such developments. His nominalism and rejection of enduring norms leave little room for normative resistance. This aspect of his philosophy has led to its use in both critiquing and maintaining institutional power.
Foucault’s exploration of sexuality exemplifies his impact. His thesis in The History of Sexuality argues that modern institutions invented and regulated "sexuality" to exert control. This critique, while originally aimed at oppressive norms, has led to contemporary institutions adopting a similar rhetoric to perpetuate their power, demanding continual confessions of identity.
Ahmari concludes that Foucault’s enduring legacy is complex. His insights into the interplay of power and knowledge remain crucial, yet the appropriation of his ideas by dominant institutions underscores the very dynamics he sought to critique. As we reflect on Foucault's contributions, it is essential to navigate the fine line between understanding and misusing his theories.
(3) "Generation Franchise: Why Writers Are Forced to Become Brands (and Why That’s Bad), by Jess Row, Literary Hub (June 26, 2024)
Row explores the transformation of cultural icons into personal brands and its implications. Reflecting on a Liz Phair concert, Row draws a parallel between the nostalgic appeal of Phair’s 1990s music and her later reinvention as a pop star. This shift, Row argues, exemplifies a broader cultural trend where artists and writers are compelled to brand themselves to remain relevant.
Row traces this phenomenon back to the late 1990s when corporate and pseudo-corporate narratives began to dominate cultural production. He notes the significant cultural shift around 1999, marked by Britney Spears’ rise to fame, which replaced the alternative, rebellious spirit of the early 90s with a new wave of commercially driven pop culture. This shift signaled the beginning of a corporate takeover of culture, where every aspect of human experience is commodified.
The essay explores the rise of "franchising" oneself, a trend seen in celebrities who have successfully monetized their personal brands across multiple platforms. Row laments that this expectation extends to all cultural producers, including writers. He highlights the emergence of autofiction, a genre where authors mine their own lives for content, presenting themselves as brands. This self-franchising is not limited to writing; it permeates social media, where writers cultivate online personas to gain visibility.
Row critiques this trend, arguing that it diminishes the value of art by conflating the artist with their work. He points out that the compulsion to become a brand has led to the decline of genuine artistic expression, with artists feeling pressured to perform and market their lives rather than focus on their craft. This is evident in the literary world, where the promotion of personal narratives often overshadows the work itself.
He also explores the psychological impact of this trend on younger generations, who grow up in an environment where personal branding is ubiquitous. This creates a paradox where artists are both trapped in and critical of the self-promotion economy, leading to a longing for authenticity and a desire to escape the relentless commodification of their identities.
Row calls for a return to privacy and the separation of personal identity from artistic work. He advocates for valuing art for its own sake, without the need for the artist to be an interesting public personality. By emphasizing the intrinsic value of art, Row suggests a healthier approach to cultural production, where the work stands on its own merit, free from the pressures of self-franchising.
(4) “Individuals who were abused as children tend to have worse marital relationships as adults,” by Vladimir Hedrih, PsyPost, June 27, 2024
Hedrih presents findings from a study on Israeli Arabs, revealing that childhood physical abuse correlates with poorer marriage quality in adulthood. Those who experienced higher levels of physical abuse in childhood reported greater psychological distress and insecure attachment styles. Emotional abuse had similar, but weaker, effects.
The study, led by Shireen Sokar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, included 604 married Israeli Arabs, with a diverse religious composition and an average marriage length of eight years. Participants completed surveys assessing childhood maltreatment, romantic attachment styles, psychological distress, and marital relationship quality.
Results indicated that higher levels of childhood physical abuse were associated with more pronounced attachment avoidance and anxiety, increased psychological distress, and lower marital quality. While emotional abuse also showed these associations, they were less strong.
For men, childhood physical abuse led to higher psychological distress and attachment avoidance, negatively impacting marital quality. For women, physical abuse resulted in psychological distress and attachment avoidance, lowering marital quality, while emotional abuse increased attachment anxiety without affecting relationship quality when controlling for other factors.
Sokar concluded that interventions aimed at improving mental health and promoting secure romantic attachments could enhance marital quality for adults with childhood maltreatment experiences.
(5) “Putting the affect into affective polarisation,” by Bert N. Bakker & Yphtach Lelkes, Cognition and Emotion, June 7, 2024
This is critical to understand in an election year. . .
Affective polarization refers to the phenomenon where individuals from different political groups not only disagree on issues but also increasingly dislike and distrust each other. This goes beyond mere ideological differences, encompassing negative emotions and social distance between members of opposing political parties. It involves a deepening of animosity and prejudice, where people view members of the opposing party as fundamentally different, morally inferior, and even threatening.
Key aspects of affective polarization include:
Emotional Distress: Members of different political groups experience strong negative feelings towards each other, such as anger, contempt, and disgust.
Social Distance: Individuals are less likely to form friendships, relationships, or social interactions with members of the opposing party.
Partisan Bias: People are more likely to interpret actions and statements of the opposing party in a negative light, often disregarding facts or evidence.
Identity Reinforcement: Political affiliation becomes a core part of personal identity, reinforcing in-group loyalty and out-group hostility.
Politics and political ideology is tragically dividing Christians. It’s really pathetic.
Bakker and Lelkes discuss the complexity of affective polarization and its implications for democratic stability. The authors argue that the term "affective polarization" is often used inconsistently, leading to conceptual confusion and imprecise measurements. They emphasize the need to distinguish affective polarization—emotional divisions between political groups—from policy-based disagreements.
The paper reviews how emotions play a role in politics, suggesting that affective polarization is more about social identity and emotional reactions than ideological differences. The authors draw on social identity theory to explain how partisan identity influences emotional responses, leading to increased animosity towards political outgroups.
The paper also highlights the importance of understanding the various dimensions of affect, such as valence (positive or negative feelings) and arousal (intensity of emotions), and how these affect political behavior and attitudes. They call for a more nuanced approach to studying affective polarization, including using physiological measures like skin conductance and facial electromyography to capture the full range of emotional responses.
Honorable mention. . .
Female narcissism and domestic abuse: New psychology research reveals dangerous tendencies by Ava Green and Claire Hart, PsyPost, June 27, 2024
Narcissism, traditionally associated with men due to traits like grandiosity and assertiveness, also significantly affects women but manifests differently. Ava Green and Claire Hart's research, published in Sex Roles, explores this phenomenon, revealing that narcissistic women can be just as dangerous and violent as their male counterparts.
Their study, involving 328 adults, found that:
Gender Differences in Narcissism: Men scored higher on grandiose narcissism (self-assuredness, social dominance), while women scored higher on vulnerable narcissism (emotional vulnerability, low self-esteem).
Parenting Influence: Women who recalled having a caring mother during childhood exhibited lower levels of vulnerable narcissism and subsequently less violence toward their partners.
Types of Violence:
Grandiose narcissism in men was linked to psychological violence (controlling, bullying) but not physical violence.
Vulnerable narcissism in women was associated with physical, sexual, and psychological violence.
The study suggests that narcissistic women may use manipulation, rumor-spreading, and passive-aggressive behaviors rather than overt aggression. They might exploit societal expectations of femininity, portraying themselves as nurturing or victims to gain power and control.
Implications:
Narcissistic traits in women, especially vulnerable narcissism, can lead to significant partner violence.
Recognizing these traits is crucial for developing effective interventions and understanding that women can also be perpetrators in abusive relationships.
This balanced view challenges the stereotype of women as only victims, promoting a nuanced understanding of gender roles in intimate relationships.