Self Creativit Political Resistance

8/3/2019 Self Creativit Political Resistance

1/17

Self, Creativity, Political ResistanceAuthor(s): Douglas B. EmeryReviewed work(s):Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, Special Issue: Political Theory and PoliticalPsychology (Jun., 1993), pp. 347-362

Published by: International Society of Political PsychologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791415 .

Accessed: 08/02/2012 18:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3791415?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3791415?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp


2/17

Political Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1993

Self, Creativity, Political ResistanceDouglas B. EmeryTempleUniversity

This essay looks at the relationshipbetweenart andpolitical change throughacase study of the Eastern European dissidents, Vaclav Havel and AndreiSakharov.Drawingon Heinz Kohut'saccountof theartist,I arguethatcreativitywas a crucial source of eachfigure's resistance to totalitarianism.KEY WORDS: Havel; Sakharov;Kohut;totalitarianism; rt;intimatecouple; political resistance.

INTRODUCTIONThe importanceof artisticactivity for innerresistanceto groupregressionandtyrannyhaslong beencommenteduponin the Westernradition.Rousseau nhis autobiographicalworks continuallycontrastshis own creative self with thecorruptionof the surroundingsocial order and John StuartMill emphasizesartistic individuationas a key check on the tendencyto conformityof moder

mass society. In recent times no two figureshave more fully exemplifiedsuchcreative resistancethan VaclavHavel, the Czechlosovakianplaywrightand es-sayist, and Andrei Sakharov,the Soviet scientist and writer on humanrights.Both individuals,facedwiththeseveregroupregressionof totalitarianism,main-tained their creativeactivity.Thisessay considersthe natureandpoliticalsignifi-cance of their resistance.Drawingon Heinz Kohut'saccountof thepsychologyof the artist,I suggestthat the key to Havel andSakharov'screativity s found in an innerextensionof

the more idealizing, narcissisticaspectsof the self. This extension allows eachfigure sufficient distance from totalitarianismo clearly make out its politicaloutlines and to thus escape the reigningforces of depersonalization t work inthis setting. What is crucial, however, is thatthey both go beyond simply themoment of inner resistance to an active attemptto strengthenthose broaderaspects of public life which supportpeople's sense of creativityand individua-347

0162-895X/93/X900-OXXX$06.50/1 ? 1993 International ociety of Political PsychologyPublishedby Blackwell Publishers,238 Main Street,Cambridge,MA 02142, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 lJF, UK.


3/17

Emerytion. Their efforts at defendingthe autonomyof a moreprivatecreative-intimatesphere, strengtheningan ongoing realm of artisticdiscourse, and encouraginga broader sense of citizenship bestow upon their biographiesa monumentalquality.

THE SETTING OF TOTALITARIANISMUnder the extreme circumstances of totalitarianism he developmentalmodel of self psychology suggests that the normal advancement nto maturitywill be radically disrupted. As Ernest Wolf has pointed out in summarizingKohut'sdevelopmentalmodel, ordinarily he child's initialexperienceof mater-nal mirroringand identificationwith the perceivedstrengthof parental iguresis

increasinglytransformed ver time into a broadersense of public identity.Indi-viduals move relatively smoothlyfrom a relationshipwithparental iguresto theself-objectsof the adolescentpeer groupand thento the self-objectsof the adultworld with its more general cultural values. (Goldberg, 1980, pp. 117-130)While thereareclearly dangers n such a potentiallyunreflectivedevelopmentalsequence, usually this expandingsense of self leads to a broadersocial matrixwhichencourages ndividuationandresponsibilityn publiclife. As Wolfputsit,"as long as a personis securelyembeddedin a social matrixthatprovideshimwith a field in which he can find the neededmirroring esponsesand the neededavailabilityof idealizablevalues, he will feel comfortablyaffirmed n his totalself with its ambitions and goals. In short, he will feel himself strong and,paradoxically, relatively self-reliant, self-sufficient, and autonomous"(Gold-berg, 1980, p. 128).The totalitarian ettingshatters his congruencebetween the existingsocialmatrix and public individuation. As Havel suggests, totalitarianism elebratesthe pseudolife, the undifferentiatedmergerwith the group:Partof the essence of the post-totalitarian ystem is that it drawseveryoneinto its sphereof power,not so theymayrealizethemselvesas humanbeings, but so theymaysurrendertheirhumanidentityin favourof the identityof the system, thatis, so they may becomeagentsof the system's generalautomatism. .. so they may-with no externalurging-come to treat any non-involvement as an abnormality,as arrogance,as an attackonthemselves, as a form of droppingout of society. By pulling everyone into its powerstructure, hepost-totalitarian ystemmakeseveryone nstruments f a mutual otality, heauto-totalityof society. (1986, p. 52)Sakharovpaintsan equallypessimisticpictureof the groupforces of deper-sonalizationat work. In one instance,forexample,a Gorkynewspaperpublishesa propagandaarticleattackingSakharovandblaminghis wife for his resistanceactivities. The article asks: "Can one really expect simpleSoviet folk to remaincalm andindifferentwhile someonedefames theholy of holies-our Motherland

348


4/17

Self, Creativity, Political Resistanceandpeople . . ." (Sakharov,1990, p. 594). The result is the following terrifyingscene of group depersonalizationand persecutionsufferedby his wife:

I saw her to the trainand then returned o Scherbinki.ForLusia, thetripturnedout to be aterribleordeal. As the trainmovedoff, thepassengers n hercompartment eganyelling ather, insistingshe get off the trainat once-honest Soviet people like themselvescouldn'tpossibly travel with a Zionistwarmonger raitor.Almosteveryoneelse in the car, includ-ing the conductor,joined in. Some of the passengershad read Yakovlev'sarticles, andagreedwith the sentimentsexpressed;others doubtlesswere afraidof standingapart romthe crowd; others simply relishedpogroms. And a pogramit was-complete with hys-tericalscreams and shouts. Lusia tried at first to respond,but then, realizingthat no onewas payingthe slightestattention,she decidedto keep quiet. Theconfinedquarters f thecoach offeredno escape from the ordeal. (Sakharov,1990, p. 595)Hence, the social matrixin the totalitarian ettingbecomes a sourcenot ofindividuationbut the loss of self. Under such circumstanceshaving a genuinesense of identity requiresenduring he feelings of uncertaintywhich come withnot having a secure position in a particularsocial order. Accordingto Wolf,though, most people are capable of acting only in terms of a clearly definedsocial matrix. (Goldberg, 1980, pp. 128-129) While one may question thisgeneralization, there can be little doubt that the totalitariansetting takes thenaturalhumantendencyto desire a public sense of self and uses it againstthevery substance of active citizenship. As Havel and Sakharov'sdescriptionsofgroup depersonalization onclude, most people are inclined to choose, at leastinitially, depersonalizationover the demandsof a more individuated dentity.

THE ARTIST'S INDIVIDUATIONArtistic figures, accordingto Kohut, departfairly significantly from thenorm in terms of their own self-development.Evenwhen the usualdevelopmen-tal sequence describedby Wolf is possible in a particularsocial setting suchindividualsdo notdefinetheir dentitiesexclusivelywithreference o theexistingsocial matrix.As Kohutputs it, "the adultego's strengthrests on its graduallyacquiredstructure, lowly builtup in consequenceof innumerablerustrations f tolerableintensity.This structuredgo serves as stimulusbarrierandbuffer n the interac-tions with inner and outer environment.It provides for the neutralizationofdrives and for ever more complex, varied, and efficient modes of dischargethroughaction"(1978, p. 272). In the case, however,of the creativefiguresuchbuffering structures are far less present: "The great in art and the truly pi-oneeringlycreative in science seem to havepreserved he capacityto experiencereality,at least temporarily,with less of the bufferingstructures hatprotecttheaverageadult:from traumatization-but also fromcreativenessanddiscovery"(1978, p. 273).

349


5/17

The importantpoint is thatif most peopledeal with trauma hrougha flightinto the taken-for-grantedocial matrix,the artistdeals moredirectlywithuncer-tainty throughcreative activity:we learnfrom the biographyof creativepeople that even in childhood the futuregeniuspossesses the capacityfor handlingtraumatic timulationsandtheir traumatic nnerelab-orationsby some creative activity,howeverrudimentaryt might be. A self-reinforcingcycle is thus set up from early on. On the one hand, we see thatgreatcreativecapacityrendersthe buildingup of other forms of tension mastery(the acquisitionof buffering,neutralizing structure)unnecessary. While, on the other hand, the continuation ofcreativity s necessitatedby the absence of reliablebuffering tructures.Or,statedwithoutreference to metapsychologicalconcepts, we can say that the sensitive artistictempera-ment leads to creativity;andpersistentcreativitysafeguards he artist'ssensitivetempera-ment. (1978, p. 274)This dual qualityof an absence of bufferingstructuresandthe responsetotrauma of artistic productivityis seen in the biographiesof both Havel and

Sakharov.First, neither the developmentalexperiencesof Havel or Sakharovallowed for a smooth transitionand consolidation of a more taken-for-grantedidentityovertime. Haveldescribesthefollowingchildhoodexperience hatmadesuch consolidationdifficult:During my childhood, especially when we lived at our countryestate and I went to avillage school, I enjoyeda greatmany advantagesandperks. ... All of thatput,betweenmyself and those aroundme . . . a social barrierwhich, althoughI was still just a littleguy, I was very muchawareof and found hard o deal with. ... I felt aroundme a certainmistrust,a certain distance . . . because I knew that between me and those aroundmetherewas an invisible wall, and because behind thatwall-and this may seem paradox-ical-I felt alone, inferior, ost, ridiculed. . . . Addto that the fact that I was overweightand that the other children, as childrenwill, laughedat my tubbiness, all the more sobecause it was an easy way to exact a kind of unconscioussocial revenge. (1990, p. 5)As Havel concludes,"I believe this childhoodexperienceinfluencedmy entire future ife, includingmy writ-ing. My childhood feeling of exclusion, or of the instability of my place in theworld . . . could notbuthave an influence on the way I viewed theworld-a view whichis in fact a key to my plays. It is a view 'frombelow,' a view fromthe 'outside,' a viewwhich has grownout of the experienceof absurdity.Whatelse but a profound eeling ofbeing excluded can enable a personbetterto see the absurdityof the worldandhis ownexistence or, to put it more soberly, the absurddimensionsof the world and his ownexistence?" (1990, p. 6)Sakharovhad a no less uprootedand uncertainchildhoodexperience:

I grew up in an era markedby tragedy,cruelty,and terror,but it was morecomplicatedthanthat. Manyelements interacted o producean extraordinary tmosphere:he persist-ing revolutionaryelan; hope for the future;fanaticism;all-pervasivepropaganda; nor-mous social and psychological changes;a mass exodus of people from the countryside;and, of course, the hunger, malice, envy, fear, ignorance, and demoralizationbroughtaboutby the seemingly endless war, the brutality,murder,andviolence. (1990, p. 20)Sakharov ost several family members who were executedor died under inter-rogationand in Soviet concentrationcamps.

350 Emery


6/17

Self, Creativity,PoliticalResistanceWhile Sakharov s less open about the innerconsequencesof such experi-ences on his life history (his autobiographyas he puts it is "a memoir, not aconfession" [1990, p. 16]), he does writethatgrowingup "therewas a fermentinsideme, an innerconflict, and moderationwas somethingI could achieveonlywith greateffort, if at all" (1990, p. 15).Second, and this is thekey point, psychologicallyboth individualsas adultsrespondto traumanotby a flight into anunjustsocial matrixbutthroughcreativeproduction. Havel, for example, faced with imprisonmentfor his activities,respondswith an attemptat artisticactivity. Shortlyafterbeing imprisonedhewrites to his wife Olga: "I'm thinkingover the kind of meaningI shouldtry tobreathe nto the years in prisonthat lie ahead. . . . Conceivably,I might beginwritingmore for the theateragain, as an observer of the 'theaterof the world'.It's paradoxicalthat I find the prospectof such a turnaroundn prison, of all

places, where I will no doubtfind it exceptionallyhard to write, but that's notunusual:haven't I always writtenmost when I've had the least time?"(1988, p.50). Havel in the end fails to writeplays in prisonbut does continuallyrespond othe traumaof the experience by writinglettersto his wife on a varietyof topicswhich are subsequently published as a major literarywork, Letters to Olga.Upon his release from prisonthe traumaof readjustment lso leads to theresponseof a suddenburstof creativity:"when I came backfromprison,I had abadcase of nerves:I was constantlydepressedand out of sorts;nothinggave meany pleasure. ... An Austriancritic wrote of one of my plays that it seemed tohavebeen writtenout of theverydepthsof despair,and that it was my attempt osave myself. I laughedat his notion of how plays got written,butnow I feel asthoughI shouldapologize to him:perhapsmy writingthese plays so soon aftercoming home from prison really was an act of self-preservation,an escapefrom despair, or a safety valve throughwhich I sought relief from myself"(1990, p. 63).Sakharov'sresponseto traumas similarto Havel's. Whensent intointernalexile in Gorky, he uses the time to write his memoirs as well as complete avarietyof othercreativeprojects.Accordingto Sakharov, he KGB's reaction sto directly try to thwartsuch effortsby stealinghis work. This is how Sakharovdescribes his own responseto the firsttheftin 1980 of his memoirswhile in exile:"Thetheft of my bag was staggering.I was exasperatedby my carelessness,andbitterlyregretted he loss of documentsandmanuscriptshatwouldbe difficultorimpossibleto replace. . . . WhenLusiareturned romMoscowthatevening, shewas stunned by the news, and she says I was in a state of shock, literallytrembling.All the same our spiritsweren'tbroken and in fact the tempoof myactivitiesactuallyincreasedafterthe theft, althoughI was forced to set scientificwork aside for a time. Looking throughmy papers, I've found six documentswritten between March 13 and March 24, when Lusia left again for Mos-cow . ." (1990, p. 530).

351


7/17

EmeryThe manuscripts stolenagainin 1982 afterSakharovhashandwrittenmorethan 900 new pages. Once againhis responseto such trauma s renewedproduc-tivity: "After the October 1982 robbery,I once again began rewritingthesememoirs.I was forcedto relyon my unaidedmemory,sinceI didn't have thefirstdraft or the two hundredpages of notes I'd used in preparing he edited ver-

sion .... Adding to my worries, the never-endingcomplication with thememoirsexposed Lusia to risk. But despite the sword of Damocles suspendedover the project,I kepton writingbits andpieces in the hopethatthey wouldfitorganicallyinto the manuscript . ." (1990, p. 535).Both Havel and Sakharov seem self-conscious aboutthis artisticcycle ofresponse to traumathrough creativity,that the "sensitive artistictemperamentleads to creativity;andpersistentcreativitysafeguards he artist'ssensitive tem-perament" Kohut, 1978, p. 274). In Havel'swordsconcerninghis own activity,"thedeeperthe experienceof an absenceof meaning-in otherwords,of absur-dity-the moreenergeticallymeaning s sought;withouta vital strugglewiththeexperienceof absurdity,here would be nothingto reachfor;withouta profoundinner longing for sense, there could not then be any woundingby nonsense"(1990, p. 201). As he summarizeshis own biography,"I suspect that some-where, deep down, I find this paradoxical ife of mine terriblyentertaining"(1990, p. 206).Sakharov,on the other hand, expresses this self-consciousness about hisartistictemperament hroughhis choice of the following epigraphtaken fromGoethe's Faust as a guiding principle: "He alone is worthy of life and free-dom / Who each day does battle for them anew!" As Sakharovputs it, "theheroicromanticismof these lines echoes my own sense of life as bothwonderfuland tragic" (1990, p. 283).Given the uprootedartistictemperamentof Havel and Sakharov,a taken-for-granted onnection to theexistingsocial matrixof totalitarianismimplyisn'tan option. Both individualsaretoo inclinedto define theirinitialself-identity nterms of the above form to settle for such depersonalization.

THE ARTISTIC TRANSFERENCEKohutarguesthatthe key to the content of the artist'screativity ies in hiscapacityto producean idealized image of the self:

a leadingpartof the psychologicalequipmentof creativepeople has been shaped hroughtheextensiveelaborationof a transitional ointin libidodevelopment:dealization. 1985,p. 114)The artist s notjust responding o trauma hroughcreativeproduction,he or sheis continuallyrespondingin a very particularway throughthe creationof an

352


8/17

Self, Creativity,PoliticalResistanceimage of self-perfection.It is this capacityto elaboratean idealizedimageof theself that is his principlecontribution o public life.According to Kohut, this tendency toward idealization makes the artistparticularlyprone, especially in the initialphasesof creativework, to a transfer-ence to a charismatic-messianic igure. As Charles Strozier summarizesthisaccount of the artistictransference,"Kohutasks a deceptively simple questionthat has far-reachingmplications.What kindof person serves as an idealized selfobject for the creative person. . . ? Kohut dis-tinguishesbetweenthe endopsychicfactors that createthe transference ituation n analy-sis and the situationof the creativeperson n which the self is enfeebled and drainedof itscohesion maintainingcathexes. These demands on the creative figure weaken his self-cohesion and make him dangerouslyvulnerableto specific idealizing selfobject needs"(Goldberg, 1980, p. 402).Inotherwords, the very strengthof the artist's ackof bufferingstructures s alsoparadoxicallya weakness, a weakness which leads him to look to a particulartype of idealized other in the midst of the creative endeavor.Using the example of Freud's relation to Fliess as a paradigmatic ase ofsuch artistic ransference,Kohutarguesthat the creativefigureidealizes a charis-maticindividual orwhom theego andego ideal havebecomecompletelyas one,who can provide a "messianic" certainty for the artist's uncertainself. AsStrozierconcludes, "Kohut ees these Fliesses as narcissistically ixatedpersons,borderingon the paranoid. They possess an unshakableself-confidence withenormous,if brittle,self-esteem. Lackinganyself-doubts,suchfiguresset them-selves up as leaders. Their absolutecertaintyrisks total failure but also makespossible confident leadership. They possess an all-or-nothing haracter.Alongwith Fliess, one could think of any numberof leaderswho fit nicely into thisnarcissistic framework" Goldberg, 1980, p. 403).The relationshipbetween the artistand the charismatic-messianicigure isnot a genuinely educationalone, in Kohut's view. There is no broadercreativediscourse into which this figuremight self-consciouslyintroduce he artist.Theidealized figure is not a mentor but a mereprojectionof the artist's own innerworld. After the creative workis completed,the artist'ssense of his own geniuscomes to the forefront.As Kohutputsit, "agenius, frightenedby theboldness ofhis pioneering discoveries and yearningto relieve his loneliness, creates forhimself the figment of a vastly overestimatedfigure on whom he leans tem-porarily but whom he discards . . . after his essential work has been achieved.Duringthe transferenceof creativityitself, the genius projectshis own mentalpowers onto someone else" (1985, p. 7).Now therearecertainlyelementsof Kohut'saccountof the artistic ransfer-ence which fit the cases of Havel and Sakharov.Each figure early in his careeridealized a more powerfulcharismatic-messianicndividual. But these relationsappearto have been far more educationalthanis suggested by Kohut'smodel.

353


9/17

Havel and Sakharovdid not simply project their own interiorityonto thesepeople. On the contrary, hese relationsseem to haveprovided hem with a moreexpansive ongoing sense of the significanceof idealizationfor a particular re-ative discourse and for public life in general.Havel was influencedearly in his lifeworkby the exampleof JiriKolar,afamouspoet, visual artist,and memberof the literary "Group42." Therecanbeno doubt that Havel idealized Kolarandthemembersof Group42, who, he says,were forhim at the time "the last living achievementof Czechpoetry,perhapsofCzech art"(1990, p. 26). Kolar,who took Havel and otheryoung writersunderhis wing, was a charismatic-messianicigure with a very strongand inflexibleview of the world. And yet these tendencieswere always balancedby his gen-uine concern with introducingHavel to a broadercreativediscourse andwere infact part and parcel of his concerns with defendingthis discourse. In Havel'swords:These sessions in Kolar's circle opened up to me hithertounknownhorizons of moderart.But, most important f all, theywere a kind of universityof writers'morality, f I mayputit in suchaugustterms. Kolarwas a distinctivepreacherwitha greatunderstandingoryoung authorsand for everythingnew, and he had a spontaneous nterest,in his endear-ingly authoritativeway (thanksto which his ideas often took the form of injunctions), nhelping what was new into the world. He judged the moral and noetic dimensions ofliteratureby his own, rather trict,standards;his is clear, for instance,in his MasterSun,anextensive collection of imperatives hatpoetryheapsuponthepoet. Andalthough aterI began to write, independentlyof his literary nfluence, things thatwere utterlyunlikewhat Kolarexpectedof me, theseeffortsof mine, both in literature nd in the field of civicaffairs,culture,andpolitics, would be unimaginablewithouthis initial lesson in a writer'sresponsibility.(1990, pp. 26-27)

Havel'srelationship o the politicalphilosopherPatockahad a similarmoreexpansive educationalmeaninginexplicablein terms of Kohut'saccount of theartistictransference.Patocka, like Kolar,was a strong-willedpersonalitywhowould fit into Kohut'scategory of the charismatic-messianicigure. As Havelputsit, his approach"resembled hestrategyof trenchwarfare:whereverhe was,he tried to hold out as long as he could withoutcompromise,but he neverwenton the attackhimself. He was utterlydedicatedto philosophyandteaching,andhe nevermodified his opinions,buthe didtryto avoidthingsthatmighthaveputan end to his work" (1990, p. 135).But again Havel received fromthis relationshipa moreexpansivesense ofthe need to actively defend the possibilities of a realm of creative discoursewhich was of no small moment in his self-development.Patocka aughtpoliticalthoughtat the Theateron the Balustride,whereHavelworkedearlyin his career:"Theseunofficialseminarstook us into the world of philosophizing n the true,original sense of the word: not the boredomof the classroom, but rather aninspired,vital searchforthemeaningof thingsandthe illuminationof one's self,of one's situation in the world" (1988, p. 18). And as Paul Wilson pointsout,

354 Emery


10/17

Self, Creativity,PoliticalResistancemuch of Havel's later philosophical reflections can be read as an ongoing di-alogue with Patocka who died under police interrogation after his arrest as the co-leader of Charter 77 (1988, pp. 18-19). Hence, from Kolar and Patocka, Havelreceived both a sense of the existence of a broader realm of discourse and theneed to aggressively defend this sphere.

For Sakharov the key public relation of this sort was to Igor Tamm, afamous theoretical physicist with whom he studied and then completed work onnuclear reactions. Tamm also was strong-willed and opinionated and could fitinto Kohut's characterization of the charismatic-messianic figure. His response,for example, to Sakharov's publication of his first dissident work, Reflections,was not particularly favorable. Tamm"wasscepticalaboutmy ideas, andespeciallythatof 'convergence.'He remained aithfulto the ideals of his youth, to a belief in a pure,undistorted ocialism as the only meansofresolving mankind'sproblemsand ensuring generalhappiness.He held back from anydiscussion of ways to preventa nuclearor ecological catastrophen a dividedworld, buthe did acknowledgethat I'd posed some criticalquestions"(1990, p. 124).Again, as with Havel, this was no mere projection of the artist's inner worldonto a powerful personality but a more expansive relation which gave Sakharov asense of a possible ongoing individuated public discourse. While acknowledgingthe different line of his own creative work, he concludes,"What remains significant for me are the underlyingprinciples by which Tamm wasguided:absolute intellectual ntegrityandcourage,willingnessto reexaminehis ideasforthe sake of truth,andreadiness o take action. Insteadof broodingaboutthe state of affairswithin theconfines of his own circle, he wouldrelentlesslypursuehis goals. Inthoseearlyyears, Tamm'severy word seemed a revelationto me-he alreadyunderstoodso manythings I was just beginningto notice, and he was moreknowledgeableand astuteaboutthem than almost anyone else with whom I could talk freely" (1990, p. 122).

It was this more expansive social sense of aggressively defending a realm ofdiscourse which Sakharov received from him: "Tamm influenced primarily myapproach to social questions" (1990, p. 122).It is only from the vantage point of this alternative conception of the artistictransference that it's possible to fully appreciate the origins of the politicalresistance of Havel and Sakharov. For their first steps into political activity weredirectly connected to the defense of the more individuated realm of discourseassociated with each of these spheres of activity. Havel, for example, stood upand criticized the censorship of the Czech Writers' Association in 1965 and thenled the Independent Writers Circle in 1968. Sakharov likewise entered the politi-cal fray in a major way with the publication abroad of Reflections in 1968, awork principally concerned with defending freedom of thought and a more openand creative discourse on scientific questions. In each case their earlier artistictransferences had prepared the way for such decisive actions in defense of a morecreative realm of discourse.

355


11/17

Emery

THE CREATIVE-INTIMATE REALMThe cases of Havel and Sakharovalso suggest the crucial significanceofanothertype of creative transferencewhich Kohut'saccount simply skips. Inadditionto the above publicartistictransferences, he moreprivaterealmof the

intimatecouple is akeycreativeelement in theirwork.Havel'srelationshipo hiswife, Olga, and Sakharov'srelationshipto his wife, Elena (Lusia), are bothcrucial aspects of their creative identities.Intimacyforboth Havel andSakharovnvolvesan activeconjunctionof nar-cissism with a crossingof the boundariesof the self in terms of the deeperideal-ization of sexual love. As OttoKernberg asargued,"passion nthe realmof sex-uallove . . . is anemotional statethatexpressesthecrossingof boundaries n thesense of bridgingintrapsychic tructureswhich are separatedby dynamicallyorconflictuallydeterminedimits"(1985, p. 289). Suchdesire as the "expressionof(as well as guaranteeof) the active, creative functionsof love" (1985, p. 288)inherently nvolvestheopeningupof a morecreativeprivaterealm. Thisongoingcrossingof theboundariesof the self andmutualrealizationof a creative-intimaterealmare largely inexplicable n terms of Kohut'smodelof artisticactivity.The point is not that thereareno elementsof the artistic ransference n theformdescribedby Kohut n these intimaterelations,butthatthecreative-intimaterealm involves a relationshipwhich cannot be simply understood n terms ofKohut'simage of the transitionalobject. Havel andSakharov, or example, mayeach narcissistically idealize the other of intimacy in terms of an almostfetishizedimageof perfection,but this imageis connectedto a sense of placeandcommitment to the intimate couple. In one of his most importantwritings,Lettersto Olga, Havel writes that "Olga is theirmain hero, thoughadmittedlyhidden. That was why I puther name in the title of thebook. Doesn't thatendlesssearchfora firmpoint, forcertainty, or anabsolutehorizonthatfills thoseletterssay something, in itself, to confirmthat?"(1988, p. 10). Olga is idealizedbutalso a clear sense of a privatecreativerealmor groundis present.Sakharov, oo, clearlyidealizesthe otherof the intimaterelation:"Notlongago after we'd begunourlife together,Lusia told me a storyaboutthewriterYuriOlesha and his wife Olga. Once, in a restaurant,Olesha addressedtheir veryattractivewaitressas 'My queen!'As thewaitress eft theirtable,Olgaasked: 'Ifshe's your queen, who am I?' Oleshastaredat her a moment,caughtoff guard.'You?' And then answeredsolemnly: 'You aremy self.' I am very fond of thisstory,and I believe that afterourshared oys andcares, I too havetherightto sayto Lusia: 'Youaremy self' (and 'my queen'as well)" (1990, p. 576). But againsuch idealization is reconciled with the ongoing work of intimacy,the "sharedjoys and cares" of an intimate life.The intimate couple provides a sense of reassurance n the face of thetremendousuncertaintiesof artisticactivity,but here also it is a mutualrelation

356


12/17

Self, Creativity, Political Resistance

that is involved. As Havelputs it in DisturbingthePeace, "there s one certaintyin my life thatnothing-so far,at least-has beenable to shake. Thatcertainty sOlga. We've known each other for thirty-three ears, we've been togetherforthirty,and for those thirty years we've gone througheverything possible andimpossibletogether"(1990, pp. 155-156). It is the commitment o the creative-intimaterealmitself which is the source of reassurancen the face of the uncer-taintyof life.Or as Sakharovdescribes his experienceof exile in Gorky, "people say thata persondeprivedof connection to the outside world becomes a living corpse. Ifmy surrealistic solation in Gorky did not turn me into a dead man, that wasentirelydue to Lusia. From the firstday to the last, she helpedme set a coursethat preserved my honor and dignity throughall the vicissitudes of fate. Shesustainedcontinuallymy public activity, my science, and my life" (1990, p.551). But again this reassurance onfrontsthe uncertaintyof life and faces it interms of a mutuallycreatedsense of place.This intimate realmhalfwaybetween the purelyinteriorrealm of the artistas describedby Kohut and the public world seems to allow for an extension ofcreativity.Thecouple's private ntimacyencouragesa further iberationof desire,a greaterindividuation rom the unconsciousgroup,and a fuller realizationofartisticactivity.An ongoingcreativerealm exists in partseparate romthepublicworld, a realm in which deeperdesire is confronted. As Kerberg puts it, thematurecouple "is always in openor secretopposition o thegroup; t is by naturenonconventional;t frees thecouplefromparticipationn therestrictionsmposedby the sanctioned sexual norms of its social group, creates an experienceofsexual intimacythat is eminentlyprivateand secret. ... its inclusion of infan-tile features into its sex life, is, paradoxically,more mature han the repressiveand regressivegroup pressuresthatattempt o restrictsexualityunderthe influ-ence of infantilesuperegoremnants" 1985, p. 316).The commitment to this creative-intimate ealmrequiresa defense of thecouple's autonomyfrompoliticalpower. And undertotalitarianism his defenseof the intimatecouple potentially speaks to the broaderpolitical need for anautonomousprivate sphere. No doubt the artistarticulates he privateintimaterealm in much moreidealized terms thanmaybe the rulethroughout ociety;buteven if most people don't experiencethe intimatespherein the same creativesense as the artist, the idealizationof this realmdoes speakto the generalneedfor people to defend theirrightto privacyfrom grouppower.

THE ARTIST AND SOCIETYGiven Kohut's view of the artistictransference,it should come as littlesurprisethat he sees the artist'sbroaderrelation to society not in terms of an

357


13/17

active defense of an individuatedrealm of discourse but simply as the totalprojectionof interiorityonto the public world. The artist over time becomeshimself a charismatic-messianic igure based on a purely inner articulationofidentity.In an interview with CharlesStrozier,Kohutdescribes what he takes to bethe artist's social significancethrougha discussion of the case of Jean-JacquesRousseau. While this account of Rousseau s somewhatbiographicallyquestion-able, it providesa paradigmatic tatementof Kohut'soverall view of the relationof the creativefigureto the social world. Accordingto Kohut,Rousseau "hadavery unsustained life early on and he was always searching. . . . His own deepsense of not belonging was thereforepersonal.It matchedperfectlythe popula-tion at large. Rousseau thus expressedsomething importantat a historicalmo-ment when a major reshuffling of the group was occurring. . . . Rousseau oper-ated on theborderlinebetween severepathologyand thecreativereassemblageofthe self in a way that is characteristic f manysignificantfigures"(Kohut,1985,p. 258). The artist,given his temperament,directlyrecreates he self, reassem-bles the self, and this innerprocessleadsto the creationof a new idealizedimageof identityof potentialsignificanceto others.And this brings us to the crucial importanceof the artistfor a settinglikethat of totalitarianism.Accordingto Kohut,thereareperiods n historywhenthiscreationof a new relationbetweenego andego idealcorresponds o the broaderneeds of the social group for the articulationof a new identity. Duringtheseperiods in which, as we've seen, the existing social matrixfails to encourageactive individuationby people, the artist is in a uniqueposition to respondtothis sense of social trauma. As Kohutconcludes aboutsuch creativefigures ingeneral:

Duringcrucialmomentsof self survival-not just biological survivalbutself survival-somethingfundamental s threatened.At such moments,the gifted andsuccessful leaderexperiences dangeron a personallevel but can realize and express that dangeron thegroup evel. He experiences t ata personal evel because he himself lackedthesustenanceof selfobjects as a child. He is threatenedby disintegrationand goes throughphases ofnearfragmentationrequently n adolescenceorearlyadulthood, henreassembleshimselfwith a set of creative ideas thathappento fit the overall needs of the group.He andthegroupthenbecome each other'sselfobjects.Theycome to form a unit that is exhilaratingand full of vitality.The self thatwas fragmentedclicks firmlyback into place. It is fortheseexperiencesthatpeople will gladlydie. Biologicalsurvival s nothingby comparisonto this experience. (1985, p. 259)The problemwith this view of Kohut's s not only thatit deemphasizes heinherentindividuation rom the groupof artisticactivity and the ongoing self-

creatednatureof this processbut thathe ultimatelymakes the artista contributorto the depersonalizationof the group world. While he speaks of a selfobjectrelationbetween the artistand the world, it is hardlya connectionwhichencour-ages an individuatedpublic realm. The artist elaborates the identity,and the

358 Emery


14/17


individuals in the group adopt it writ large, without critical debate or self-questioning.The artist's nner world becomes the groupidentity,and in the endhe is simply in a dialoguewith a groupthat has itself become depersonalizedatthe same moment it has acquiredan identityfrom him.The artist n this schema becomesa kindof saviorfor the "commonpeople"who are incapableof creatingtheirown public identities.Kohuteven speaksofthe artist's dealizedidentityas takingon the "appearance f a miracle"(1985, p.72). In Kohut'swords, "not all of humanityneeds to change,but anoutstandingleader who has achieved a new internal solution may sweep along the rest.Amalgamationwith mystical modes of thinking may supportdrive control andrationality"(Kohut, 1985, p. 71).It is precisely this abstractand omnipotentconceptionof the world as theartist'sself-objectthat allows Kohutto justify the most extremegroupdeperson-alization so long as it eventuallyleads to such a new creativeconjunction.Kohutcan write, for example, that the historians of the futuremay one day see the"fascistregimes as little bubblesin a transitionalphaseof the renewed self thatman once acquired.Nothingcreative comes withouttrauma,and while what thefascists did-and do-is enormouslyugly andinhuman,yet in a vast overviewthey may very well come to be seen as conditionalphases towardssomethingpositive" (Kohut, 1985, pp. 258-259). In Kohut'sview, any price is worthpaying to create this total conjunctionbetween the artist'sinnerworld and thebroaderpublic world.While there can be little doubt about the presenceof idealizedheroicimag-ery in the cases of Havel andSakharov, heirself-understandingsxplicitly rejectthe kind of hierarchicaland depersonalizedrelationshiparticulatedby Kohutbetween artist andsociety. Both Havel and Sakharovseem to appreciatehe factthatan active artistic discourseand the privatecreative-intimate ealm are bothimperiledso long as the broad mass of potentialcitizens lack their own sense ofpublic individuation. Even if the artist could impose his own identity on thegroupas a whole, such a coursewould be politicallyself-defeating,encouragingsimply a new form of group depersonalizationwhich would in the long runinevitably mitigatean appreciation f creativeindividuation. t is this awarenesswhich seems to lead Havel and Sakharov to not just idealize their own crea-tive individuationbut also to idealize the potentialindividuationof citizens ingeneral.Havel, for example, idealizes a varietyof individuated dentities rangingfromthose "who privatelyteachyoungpeople thingsthat arekeptfromthem inthe state schools" to "clergymenwho . . . tryto carryon a freereligiouslife";from "painters,musicians andsingerswho practise heir workregardlessof howit is lookedupon by official institutions"o "peoplewho are not afraid o call theattentionof officials to cases of injustice."As Havelsuggests, "the list couldgoon" (1986, p. 87).

359


15/17

It's crucial that such individuated iguresexist to countervail he tendencyfor simply passive resignationto tyranny:Even if theyneverspeakof it, peoplehave a veryacuteappreciation f thepricetheyhavepaid for outwardpeace andquiet:the permanenthumiliationof their humandignity.Theless direct resistancethey put up to it-comforting themselvesby driving it from theirmind and deceiving themselves with the thoughtthatit is of no account, or else simplygrittingtheir teeth-the deeperthe experienceetches itself into their emotionalmemo-ry. ... All the fear one has endured,the dissimulationone has been forcedinto, all thepainful and degrading buffoonery,and, worst of all, perhaps, the feeling of displacedcowardice all this settles and accumulates somewhere on the bottom of the socialconsciousness, quietly fermenting.(Havel, 1986, p. 31)A broaderdemocraticmovement is needed which can encourage ndividua-tion by people throughoutsociety. Charter77, which came into existence in1976, in Havel's view, coincided with a sudden increasein people'sdissatisfac-tion with the depersonalizationof their lives. This group involved the activeconjunctionof the interests of creative figures and the aspirations or genuineindividuationby the broadermass of citizens. The trial of some youthfulavant-gardesingersfor their resistant orms of self-expressionsparkeda suddenreturnto meaningful public action throughoutthe citizenry. As Havel concludes,"when the trialtook place, a new mood had begunto surface after the yearsofwaiting, of apathyand of scepticismtowards variousforms of resistance. ...People were inspiredto feel a genuinesense of solidaritywith the young musi-cians and they came to realize that not standing up for the freedom of others,

regardlessof how remote their means of creativityor their attitude o life, meantsurrendering ne's own freedom"(1986, p. 64). Hence, Havel, unlike Kohut'sartist, looks to a quite self-conscious relation between creativityand a moreindividuatedsocial world.Andas withHavel, Sakharov mbraces he creationof anidealized mageofindividuatedcitizenship.He recognizesthepoliticalimportanceof a conjunctionbetween the concerns of artistswith a publiccreativediscourseand the concernsof citizens with democraticindividuation.Sakharovmay, as we've seen, cele-brateGoethe's artisticepigraphon the daily struggle for freedombut he alsoembracesthe truthof AlexanderMezirov'sdictumthat "I lie in a trench underfire. / A manenters his home fromthecold." As he putsit, "struggle,suffering,andheroicexploitsarenotends in themselves,but areworthwhileonly insofarasthey allow otherpeople to lead normal,peacefullives. Not everyoneneed spendtime in the trenches. The meaningof life is life itself: thatdaily routine whichdemandsits own form of unobtrusiveheroism"(Sakharov, 1990, p. 283).Sakharov's ideal society is one which allows a broaderrealization ofcreativityand individuation,a "democraticpluralistsociety free of intoleranceand dogmatism . . ." (1990, p. 282). He speaks regularlyof "proposalsfor aprogramof democratic,pluralisticreforms" 1990, p. 326). He defendsreligiouslibertyin thecontext of the support ora new pluralist ociety: "forme, religious

360 Emery


16/17


libertyis partof the generalissue of freedom of opinion. If I lived in a clericalstate, I would speak out in defense of atheists and heretics"(1990, p. 337).Sakharovexplicitlyrejectsan omnipotentconnectionbetweenthe artistandpublic life when he makes clear his own reluctanceto embracethe more au-thoritarianpolitics of Solzhenitsyn:For all my admirationof Solzhenitsyn, it's just not possible to avoid an open debate,which is all the more necessary inasmuch as some of his fundamental hemes-as ex-poundedin his Letterto the Soviet Leaders andelsewhere-seem to me questionable.Inmy view, he underestimates he need for a global approachto today's most pressingproblems,anddisplaysa distinctanti-Western ias. . . . Inmy article,I cautioned hatthepoliticians who follow in the footsteps of ideologues tend to be more dogmatic andruthless than their mentors. . . . The West's lack of unity is the price it pays for thepluralism,freedom, and respectfor the individualthatconstitutethe sourcesof strengthand flexibility for any society. It makes no sense to sacrifice them for a mechanical,barracksunity which may have a certainutility if one's goal is aggressiveexpansionbuthas otherwiseprovento be a failure. Solzhenitsyn'smistrustof the West, of progress ngeneral, of science and democracy, inclines him to romanticizea patriarchalway oflife. . . . (1990, pp. 407-408)As Sakharovsummarizes his more democraticpolitical approach:"Sol-zhenitsynandI differmost sharplyover the defenseof civil rights-freedom ofconscience, freedom of expression, freedom to choose one's countryof resi-dence, the openness of society. For me, these rightsconstitute the basis for afully humanlife and for international ecurityand trust. I have no doubtwhat-soever as to the value of defending specific individuals. Solzhenitsynassignsonly a secondaryimportanceto humanrights and fears that concentrationonthemmay divertattention romwhathe sees as moreimportantmatters" 1990,p. 409).Thus, Havel andSakharovavoidanycoursethat wouldplacetheartist n theposition of substitutinghis or her own identityfor the more active creationbycitizens of an ongoing democraticsocial matrix.Instead,eachembracesa politi-cal conjunctionthatmaintainsboththe artist's ndividuationand a connectiontothe moredemocraticaspirations or individuationof citizens throughout ociety.

CONCLUSIONThe above case study suggests that while Kohut'sapproach o creativityspeaks to Havel's and Sakharov's ack of bufferingstructuresand responsetotrauma, t overlooksthepossibilityfortheartist o moreself-consciouslyconnecthis or her narcissismto the supportof public individuation.Citizens and artists

potentially share a common concern with the defense of the privaterealm ofintimacy and the creationof a public sphereallowing individuation.This con-junctionhas been of no small moment in the resistanceto EasternEurope otal-itarianismandthe originsof new democraticregimesin Czechlosovakiaandthe

361


17/17

Emery

Soviet Union. Once the revolutionhas succeeded, creative individuationanddemocraticcitizenshipmust to some extent be distinguished.Artists andcitizensdo not necessarilymean exactly the same thing by the concept of public indi-viduation,and only the artist'somnipotencewould allow him to assume other-wise. But unlike the profile of Kohut's creativefigure, the more self-consciousidentitiesof Havel and Sakharovallow for an ongoingrelationbetweenthe artistand democraticpolitics. Their creativeproductionsuggests the possibilityof amore activeconjunctionbetween artistic ndividuation nd democratic ndividua-tion, a relationwhich recognizesboth the distinctivepsychologicalcharacterofthe artistictemperamentand the necessaryconcerns of all citizens with a re-vitalized public world.

REFERENCESGoldberg,Arnold. (1980). Advances in Self Psychology. Madison:InternationalUniversities Press.Havel, Vaclav.(1986). Living in truth(Ed., JanVadislav).London: Faber& Faber.Havel, Vaclav.(1988). Lettersto Olga (Trans.,Paul Wilson). New York:AlfredKnopf.Havel, Vaclav.(1990). Disturbingthepeace (Trans.,Paul Wilson). New York:AlfredKnopf.Kernberg,Otto. (1985). Internal world and externalreality. New York:Jason Aronson.Kohut, Heinz. (1977). Restorationof the self. New York:InternationalUniversitiesPress.Kohut, Heinz. (1978). The searchfor the self (Ed., PaulOrnstein).Madison:InternationalUniver-sities Press.Kohut, Heinz. (1985). Self psychology and the humanities.New York:W. W. Norton.Sakharov,Andrei. (1960). Memoirs(Trans., RichardLourie).New York:AlfredKnopf.

362

Self Creativit Political Resistance

Documents

Transcript of Self Creativit Political Resistance