There are few things in life as immutable as the hatred of one's
enemy. Enemy is a ubiquitous designation and phenomenon of our
daily life; we are all so familiar with it. We have learned about
the enemies of our nation in school, and we have all had, and still
have, our childhood, adolescent and adult life enemies. Some of us,
depending on our age and experience, have known enemies on the
battlefield. Our daily politics are full of old and new enemies,
real and imagined ones. I have undertaken the task of addressing
this topic with a great deal of uneasiness. Living in Israel and
the Middle East in these times, and being an Israeli and a Jew,
makes the subject of an enemy uncomfortably close; it is a strain
on one's objectivity and neutrality. To deal with this question
from the point of view of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically
informed group relations, however, has proved even more difficult
than I had anticipated. The question is: does psychoanalysis have
anything of importance to contribute to the understanding of what
an
is and how to deal with him? Can it tell us anything that is unique
and pertinent about this problem? And does it have any course or
solution to offer? The answers to these questions are not easily
forthcoming, nor are they particularly encouraging.
Concerns of Psychoanalysis
Enemies are encountered in the social sphere. An enemy may also
dwell within us; this is indeed one of the aspects highlighted
through psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is deeply concerned with
human motives, conflicts and emotions that contribute to
discovering and maintaining hatreds and enmities. The heart of the
difficulty of understanding and dealing with the notion of an enemy
and enmity is that it is one of the most powerful, not to say
dangerous, emanations of the conjunction of the inner world and the
outside world. I propose that, difficult as that may be, we must
learn to think of enmity as an entity spanning internal and
external reality, the subjective inner world and the objective
environment. Enmity is also a bridge between self and otherness,
and hence also, at another level, between individual and group
phenomena.
Talking with an enemy is usually regarded as a significant advance,
insofar as it provides an alternative to physical fighting and
allows for a symbolic level of discourse. Dialogue with an enemy is
often, however, not possible for a long time, and depends on the
kind of enemy he is perceived to be. A Palestinian leader recently
said, "There are two kinds of enemies: the enemy you talk to, and
the enemy you don't talk to." The dramatic handshake of Rabin and
Arafat, viewed across a shrinking world with hope, disbelief and
astonishment by people far removed from the actual conflict, marked
the instantaneous transformation of the enemy one does not talk to
into an enemy one talks to. What marks the enemy we talk to from
the one we don't talk to? How can we turn an enemy we don't
discourse with into one that we do? The answer to these dilemmas
seems to me to lie in the dynamics of creativity. It is probably as
creative an act as we may ever be able to perform, to regard an
enemy as part of us and yet as also existing separately and in his
own right.
Development of Mature Relationships
In order to develop these ideas, I propose to look at enemy and
enmity from the combined and separate perspectives of
individual-intrapsychic and group relations dynamics. We also need
to delve into the psychoanalytic depths and touch on key concepts
like boundaries, otherness, strangeness, and large group
processes.
The enemy is so often the other who is unfamiliar and unknown. It
is in this sense that he appears at the specific developmental
stage of around eight months of age. At that time, the very
appearance of the other-stranger is always experienced as
surprising and unexpected, and arouses existential fright and
anxiety. The other-stranger who provokes this stranger-anxiety is
so frightening because he appears at the very moment when the
infant feels himself as one, as united with the mother. This
experience of fusion with the mother becomes an almost conscious
source of pleasure and security. The sudden appearance of the
stranger threatens this experience of blissful merger. It provokes
[in the infant] immediate attention, reorganization, mobilization
of forces, and readiness to face danger - in short, an arousal and
anxiety response. The anxiety response to the stranger is
undoubtedly universal. Enlarging on this, we may say that the
actual encounter with the other-stranger brings to the fore the
internal psychic image and fear of the stranger; in this way, the
internal enemy becomes a social reality. The danger we feel is the
same archaic threat to our peace, the potential destruction of the
calm and tranquility that is the essence of our being - of the
experience of simply being alive. History and current events are
full of examples of this great readiness to project onto the
stranger the role of the enemy, the destroyer of the peace.
In the course of development, stranger-anxiety gradually turns into
recognition of the other's separate and independent existence. This
recognition is an important basis for the development and
maintenance of mature relationships. It has, however, an additional
facet. The anxiety in the face of the stranger-enemy is also
primary, an almost reflexive reminder of the limitations and
liabilities of the self. In this sense it fosters the development
of realistic self-definition. Paradoxically, then, the anxiety
stirred in relation to the stranger-enemy provides a catalyst for
the process of self-definition. We may paraphrase a well-known
aphorism and say that if there were no enemy, we would have had to
invent one.
But who is this stranger? The stranger I am talking about is not
necessarily a distant and unknown one. Although he may live within
the society, he is not fully part of it. In many ways he must be
like the others in the social group, yet in some ways, regarded as
crucial, he must be perceived as being different. He may be
described as occupying a boundary position, like the foreign
worker, the leader in the group and the analyst in the
psychoanalytic situation. Taking up this position on the boundary
makes everyone of them a natural target for the projection of
hatred and enmity. A closer look at what the boundary concept
encompasses is therefore important and warranted.
Boundaries
Boundaries occupy a central position both in psychoanalytic
ego¬psychology and in systemic models of group and
organizational behavior. Boundaries involve notions of strength and
permeability, of rigidity and elasticity. There usually are also
some questions about the degree of clarity with which they are set
up and defined. Boundaries between self and other may be drawn up
sharply, contributing to their definition and separateness. They
may, however, encompass both self and other, as in states of merger
and fusion. Boundaries are also important points for joining and
encounter, where different sides can and do meet. Boundaries
sometimes allow, or include, a no-man's land, which is not clearly
under the jurisdiction of any party. Often enough such no-man's
land is precisely the territory in which encounters and the
testing-of-limits take place without the danger and risk of an
all-out war with full responsibility and consequences. In
psychoanalytic terms, this suggests what is known as transitional
space and transitional phenomena. It is extremely helpful to think
of boundaries not as well-defined, razor-thin lines, which cannot
support or contain any life, but as gray areas and no-man's
territories in which a great deal of actual and significant living
takes place. This usually happens through some variety of play -
something that does not lead immediately to real consequences in
well-defined areas of living. Such a boundary-area, or better yet
frontier, has much to offer in terms of elasticity and
permeability. It can give birth to and support positive aspects of
living - what is creative, novel, and psychologically pertinent. It
is also capable, however, of generating negative creations, such as
enmity. It is this area and the kind of life that exists within and
close to it that I have in mind when I speak of the enemy as
created and come to life on the boundary.
Relating to the Enemy
Is it possible to find ways of talking, communicating and
discoursing with an enemy? What is the difference between the enemy
we talk to and the one we don't talk to? Psychologically speaking,
we may distinguish between two kinds of enemies: the Oedipal and
the pre-Oedipal. The Oedipal enemy is the more sophisticated and
advanced enemy with whom we can have a talking discourse.
Relatedness to this enemy is complex and ambivalent, with a mixture
of negative feelings of hatred and rivalry, but also positive
feelings of love, admiration, identification and emulation. The
other kind is the developmentally earlier, pre-Oedipal enemy. The
relationship with this enemy is marked by polarization and
uncompromised evil. The psychological levels mobilized are also
earlier and more primitive; they involve concreteness, lack of
readiness for symbolic treatment, and direct expressions of drives,
like oral rage and cannibalistic wishes and fantasies. These levels
of relatedness render this an enemy we cannot have a talking
discourse with. The ability to have discourse with the Oedipal
enemy is also based on the triangularity of the relationships at
this stage. This recognition of triangular relationships makes it
possible to have not only two parts to the conflict but to include
a third side, which can be either a mediator, a commonly respected
authority figure, or a larger cultural framework which both enemies
share, providing them with a common language and set of symbols.
Freud thought that for some mysterious reason, nations, or large
groups of people, are much more prone to despise, hate and detest
one another. He appealed for greater honesty and openness in
relationships among people, and especially with the authorities,
which he thought would surely improve relationships. Freud felt
that the individual could be approached and understood, while the
group, and particularly the large group, makes human behavior
primitive and irrational.
I do not believe these hopes are any longer simplistically held by
all of us. It has been the bitter lesson of this century to come to
distrust authority and to get to know its irrational and dangerous
sides. But some advances have taken place in our understanding
since Freud's words were written under the impact of the First
World War. I suggest that enmity is indeed an inherent part of the
individual human psyche; but enmity is also on the boundary between
internal and external reality. It takes on its familiar meaning
and
Enmity in the Large Group
If we consider the dynamics that take place in a large group, we
find that enmity occupies a pivotal role in it. One of the
centrally important maneuvers in the large group is to mark the
enemy and relate to him. This is done by splitting the large group
into sub-groups and splinter-systems. Fragmenting of the whole
seems so natural, and occurs so frequently and swiftly, that it is
difficult to notice and follow. This divisiveness is the equivalent
of the intrapsychic splitting of the whole bad object in order to
assimilate and subjugate it. The governing fantasy is of bringing
about peace, or the wished-for state in which this impossible,
difficult and frustrating situation will finally stop - through one
sub-group gaining control over the entire group. Behind the
multiple splits and wars against a shifting variety of enemies is
the wish for final and total submersion in the whole, for a state
in which the individual will cease to be a problem because of his
own separate existence and identity. Enmity within the large group
is thus a tremendously fluctuating, treacherous and diffuse entity.
An identified enemy at one moment may be totally disregarded the
next. Under these conditions, it is impossible to carryon
meaningful discourse with either friend or foe. It is this constant
internal shifting and fluidity that makes the large group so
dangerous. Its inner instability allows it to be tilted suddenly
and irrationally in the direction in which an enemy is identified.
The discovery of an external enemy brings about a momentary
stabilization of the group, and thereby alleviates some of its
tremendous inner tensions. Clearly, this makes the large group
extremely vulnerable to being manipulated into seeking out and
destroying real or imaginary enemies. Once again, the enemy takes
shape on the group's boundary, be it physical, geographical or
ideological. In this boundary-area of the large group we actually
find many different sorts of enemies: barbarian invaders, religious
heretics, false messiahs and political reformers bent on changing
the group. The groups' own leaders are also on the boundary, and
can easily and momentarily be turned into enemies. History is full
of accounts that can substantiate this thesis; recent events in
Europe, Asia and Africa may offer a number of pertinent
examples.
Small Groups Preferred
From all we know about the processes in a large group, even under
the relatively controlled conditions, there can be only one
conclusion: large group processes, and the regressions that take
place in them, are highly lawful and regular, irrespective of the
benefits of previous experience and impressive educational and
cultural achievements. If our aim is irrational, enlightened
political activity, large group settings must be avoided and
prevented as much as possible. It is true, and has again been
recently demonstrated, that large masses of people can be
instrumental in changing the political order. It is equally true,
however, that mass movements and revolutionary upheavals may go in
many directions; they do not necessarily lead to freedom and
democracy. There were large crowds and mobs involved in so many
revolutions - the French, Russian, Nazi Germany, Chinese, the
recent uprisings in Eastern Europe, and so on. This phenomenon is
intertwined with popular visions of democracy; it provides,
however, no assurances whatsoever of the eventual outcome or
against the danger of being manipulated by sinister powers to their
own ends. Wherever possible, and especially where negotiations are
to take place, small groups should be preferred to large groups.
Negotiations between enemy parties to a conflict need not only the
small group format, however, but also the clarity and firmness of
boundaries that guard against premature exposure which throws the
process back into the large group. The presence of a third side,
which both sides trust to some extent and which can symbolize the
larger cultural order they wish to belong to and are identified
with, can also be very helpful in enabling the enemies to come to
talking terms. The small group format in itself is, however, no
guarantee for dialogue. Indeed, the need for dialogue is often
glibly and unthinkingly advanced. Our own professional and personal
biases (and I am speaking as a psychoanalyst) are intertwined here
in ways that may produce complications or even fallacies. We are
trained in dialogue and hold a deep belief in and commitment to
discourse and discussion. We tend to forget the tremendous
importance of the psychoanalytic setting, its combination of strict
boundaries and open-endedness, in enabling, shaping and
contributing to the creation of dialogue, and then only after much
time and tremendous efforts. Having witnessed attempts at dialogue
with labeled enemies in professional group settings, I have been
amazed at the degree and speed with which such confrontational and
coercive. Dialogue is based on the ability to recognize the other's
essential and rightful difference; this is diametrically opposed to
regarding him as an enemy. Where dialogue can occur, the enemy is
essentially no longer an enemy. Where psychological maturity is
insufficient, dialogue will degenerate into mutual accusations and
verbal attack. It is psychological maturity that leads to dialogue,
and not dialogue that brings about maturity.
The Results of Actual Contact
The peace talks between Israel and the Arabs illustrate several of
the points made here. The picture image on the White House lawn is
repeatedly one of a triangle - of the two enemies shaking hands,
while a third power, symbolized by the United States President,
provides the background approval and support, enabling them to be
on speaking terms. Negotiations make progress when a small group
format is employed, and dangerous setbacks erupt when it comes to
the large group level. Most importantly, however, there seems to
have been a slow process of maturation and capacity for realistic
appreciation of the realities concerned. This process required many
years, and is still not finished. Without it, however, it is
doubtful that the current stage of discourse would have been
reached.
The peace talks also provide an example of how actual contact
contributes to the reduction of strangeness and projections. Yet
the actual contact will probably produce new and unforeseen
difficulties. In this sense, contact itself is no guarantee for the
disappearance of enmity and the triumph of reason and peace. There
are many other factors involved which interact with and activate
the psychological ones. Siblings who become enemies over dividing
an inheritance are not strangers, but the loss suddenly revives old
anxieties of shortage, lack of supplies and the fear that there may
not be enough for all. We must be open to the entire range of
realistic possibilities, including the emergence of new and
insurmountable difficulties that will emerge as relationships with
yesterday's enemies develop and deepen. Perhaps the best we can
ever hope for is to change the enemy from a pre-Oedipal position of
total badness and evil to the Oedipal level of rivalry and
competitiveness coupled with love and affection, and thus from the
enemy we do not talk to, to the enemy that we can and do talk
to.
Creative Discourse
A clearer view of the enemy's otherness contributes much to
enhancing the discourse. The acceptance of the enemy's otherness is
a concession of his humanness, of the differences, variability and
individuation of persons and groups; it alone can ensure the
development of creative conflict resolution instead of fighting and
destruction. Otherness provides a basis for a fresh view, and thus
for new and creative contact, replacing fantasy relatedness which
fosters the wish to destroy and assimilate the enemy.
Truly creative discourse with the enemy can only come about with
our willingness to immerse ourselves in the potential space we both
share, where we can discover parts of the enemy and parts of
ourselves that are fused and intermingled. We may then be able to
perceive, however briefly and fleetingly, such joint or common
elements as our common humanity. Probably one of the most creative
acts we may ever be capable of lies in the potential capacity to
experience our enemy as a part of ourselves, while also recognizing
his existence in his own right, as separate and distinct from us.
<