See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290363779 Psychoanalysis
Journal of Communications Research
ISSN: 1935-3537
Volume 6, Number 3 © Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
PSYCHOANALYSIS AND THE INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM OF NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM: CHALLENGES OF COUCH AND CULTURE
Ryan LaMothe, Ph.D. Professor of Pastoral Counseling, Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology, St. Meinrad, IN, USABSTRACT
In this chapter, I contend that neoliberal capitalism, which has become a dominant social imaginary in the United States, functions as an inverted totalitarian system that fosters psychosocial struggles of many citizens. The prevalence of this social-symbolic system, along with the therapeutic narrative, leads to hermeneutical mystification as to the political-economic sources of psychosocial suffering. I consider the hermeneutical mystification to be a feature of the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism, which I explicate in terms of two psychoanalytic concepts, namely, internalization and weak dissociation. I argue that these concepts help to understand the tendency of citizens (some patients and therapists) to misinterpret their suffering and misidentify the sources of their distress, while unconsciously accepting the dominant narratives and beliefs of neoliberal capitalism. The implications of this argument for psychoanalytically informed therapies follows, in part, Franz Fanon’s view that the aims of psychoanalysis are (a) to ‘consciousnessize’ [the patient’s] unconscious and (b) to enable [the patient] to choose an action with respect to the real source of the conflict, i.e., the social structure.
The psychologist cannot avoid coming to grips with contemporary history, even if his very soul shrinks from the political uproar, the lying propaganda, and the jarring speeches of demagogues. We need not mention his duties as a citizen, which confront him with a similar task. (Carl Jung, in Samuels, 1993, p. 4).
For almost 25 years I have worked with patients who live on the lower economic rungs of society. Many arrived feeling, depressed, weary, stressed, anxious about the future, insecure, shame, guilt, self-blame, and, at times, a critical ruthlessness toward the poor and themselves.
Some of these patients had difficult childhoods (e.g., alcoholic parents, economic stresses, family violence), while others seem to have had good enough parents and childhoods relatively free of loss. Nearly all of these patients construct their struggles in terms of individual failings or the failings of their parents, suggesting that a psychological remedy of their suffering will come as a result of (a) coming to terms with their childhoods and themselves, (b) improving their self-esteem, and (c) finding ways to take charge of their lives. In brief, they see their suffering in terms of developmental struggles and their own psyche, having adopted the therapeutic narrative perspective of the wider culture (Illouz, 2008; Rieff, 1987; Silva, 2013). Largely absent from their interpretive frameworks was a critical eye toward larger systemic political-economic sources of their maladies. Therapists, as well, often overlook or ignore these sources of suffering, which only serves to collude with and obscure the systemic forces that play a significant and clear role in some patients’ psychological struggles. Advertent or inadvertent neglect of these political-economic forces and structures also mystifies patients’ sufferings, thereby reinforcing their conscious and unconscious experiences of helplessness vis-à-vis political-economic realities.
In this chapter, I contend that neoliberal capitalism, which has become a dominant social imaginary in the United States that significantly influences subjectivity and social relations, functions as an inverted totalitarian system that fosters the psychosocial struggles of many citizens. The prevalence of this social-symbolic system, along with the therapeutic narrative, leads to hermeneutical mystification1 as to the political-economic sources of psychosocial suffering. I consider the hermeneutical mystification to be a feature of the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism, which I explicate in terms of two psychoanalytic concepts, namely, internalization and weak dissociation. I argue that these concepts help to understand the tendency of citizens (some patients and therapists) to misinterpret their suffering and misidentify the sources of their distress, while unconsciously accepting the dominant narratives and beliefs of neoliberal capitalism. The implications of this argument for psychoanalytically informed therapies draw, in part, from Franz Fanon’s2 view that the aims of psychoanalysis are (a) “to ‘consciousnessize’ [the patient’s] unconscious, to no longer be tempted by a hallucinatory lactification,” and (b) “to enable [the patient] to choose an action with respect to the real source of the conflict, i.e., the social structure” (Fanon, 2008/1952, p. 80; emphasis mine). I begin with a brief depiction of neoliberal capitalism as a dominant social imaginary and the notion of inverted totalitarianism, which is followed by identifying some of the resulting psychosocial symptoms. This sets the stage for understanding the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism in terms of hermeneutical mystification, which I heuristically interpret using psychoanalytic concepts, namely, internalization and weak dissociation. These concepts account for the prevalence of hermeneutical mystification among some patients and their therapists. I conclude with a brief case illustration that addresses some of the implications of this perspective for working with patients who suffer the effects of the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism’s social imaginary.
1 Hermeneutical mystification refers to the use of interpretive frameworks—used to account for individuals’ suffering and provide meaning—to deflect individuals from noting other very real and powerful sources of their suffering.
2 Franz Fanon (2004, 2008) was a psychiatrist from Algeria who was concerned with the totalitarian system of colonialism and its impact on the psychological maladies of the colonized.
THE INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM OF NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM AND PSYCHOSOCIAL SUFFERING
Before delving into some of the attributes of neoliberal capitalism, it is necessary to acknowledge its roots in classical capitalism. The fathers of classical capitalism were two British subjects, Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1823). They were influential in laying the ground work for the philosophical and legal principles of capitalism. Capitalism, in general, is a complex semiotic system or social imaginary comprising ideas, narratives, treatises, rituals, and other practices for ordering relationships and institutions visà-vis financial exchange. More particularly, this semiotic system is “organized… around the institution of property and the production of commodities” (Bell, 1996, p. 14), which is determined by a “rational” calculus of cost and price—the commodification of goods and services—and the market law of supply and demand.3 The aims and values of capitalism are productivity and profit or the accumulation of capital for the purposes of reinvestment, market expansion, and greater profits. Profit is the central value, motive, and telos that largely motivates “rational” decisions vis-à-vis expanding production, seeking larger markets, wages, hiring, etc. Labor and wages, for instance, are inextricably linked to and ostensibly determined by material production, services, supply and demand, and, naturally, the overarching aim of securing profit (Wolff & Resnick, 2012). Surplus labor is integral to the overall profit and this surplus is kept by those who are considered owners of the business. In addition, the means of production, in classical capitalism, are privately owned, whether by an individual, family, or stockholders (more precisely, socially constructed legal entities or fictions called corporations that have stockholders). Relations between consumers and producers can be described in terms of Adam Smith’s belief in the “invisible hand” of the market, whereby each individual “rationally” maximizes his/her self-interest in a milieu where supply will equal the demand, putatively increasing the wealth of producers and shareholders (Hendricks, 2011).4 In other words, each subject is self-referential, maximizing his/her self-interest, which, it is believed, will lead to an overall “good” for the society.
Classical capitalism gave way to Keynesian style capitalism, which focused on state intervention and regulation to limit the inevitable boom-bust cycles of classical capitalism (Mann, 2013; Wolff & Resnick, 2012). Keynesian capitalism remained dominant in the United States until the economic crises of the 1970s when neoliberal capitalism began its rise to dominance. Neoliberal capitalists, such as Friedman, reinterpreted or reframed some of Adam Smith’s and David Ricardo’s beliefs and overlooked some of their warnings regarding corporate powers. While overlooking these warnings, neoliberal capitalists retained the tenet that “the hidden hand of the market was the best device for mobilizing even the basest of
3 I have placed the term “rational” in quotes to suggest the underlying illusion that the so-called market or those involved in the market make rational, objective decisions. Any casual observer of the rises and falls of the Stock Market notes the presence of greed, fear, hubris, anxiety, and anger that all play a large role in making “rational” decisions, which Alan Greenspan realized only after the financial collapse of 2008 (King, 2013). This socially accepted illusion as truth is also part of the reason that capitalism functions as an inverted totalitarian system. That is, an uncritical acceptance of the illusion means that the market system as a whole remains dominant and unquestioned (Frank, 2000; Nelson, 2001). As Wolin (2008) notes, “inverted totalitarianism is one that professes to be the opposite of what, in fact, it is” (p. 46).
4 Hendricks (2011) points out that John Maynard Keynes dismantled this claim indicating that “supply cannot be counted on to create its own demand” (p. 152).
human instincts such as gluttony, greed, and the desire for wealth and power for the benefit of all” (Harvey, 2005, p. 20, emphasis mine).
For a neoliberal economist, the belief in the hidden hand of the market accompanies the rejection of Keynesian types of government interventions in regulating financial institutions. While there is no clear consensus regarding the attributes of neoliberal capitalism, I nevertheless identify the central tenets of this social imaginary, namely: (1) human wellbeing, understood almost exclusively in economic terms, is best achieved by providing entrepreneurial freedoms so that individual actors (including corporations) can act out of their “rational” self-interests, (2) social goods will be maximized by expanding the reach and frequency of market transactions, (3) anything and anyone can be commodified (Sandel, 2012), (4) the state is not to intervene to control markets or restrict the reach of commodification, (5) the state functions to ensure private property rights and deregulation to foster free markets and free trade, (6) where markets do not exist, entrepreneurs and the state work together to privatize and deregulate (e.g., privatization of public education, prisons, healthcare, etc.), (7) corporations are to inform the state regarding legislation that will enhance profit and market expansion, and (8) greed benefits society (Couldry, 2010; Duménil, & Lévy, 2011; Harvey, 2005).
For a variety of complex reasons,5 the arrival of neoliberal capitalism on the scene accompanied the growing dominance of capitalism as the social imaginary for organizing society. Indeed, Michael Sandel (2012) noted that since the 1970s the United States has become a market society and neoliberal capitalism is the semiotic system that undergirds it. Neoliberal capitalism, then, became the lingua franca of the society, which can be best understood in terms of what political scientist Sheldon Wolin (2008) called an inverted totalitarian system. Wolin differentiated between classic state totalitarian systems (e.g., Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) and what he termed inverted totalitarian systems. Inverted totalitarian systems project power inward by “combining with other forms of power, such as evangelical religion, and most notably encouraging a symbiotic relationship between traditional government and the system of ‘private’ governance represented by the modern corporation” (p. xvi). Wolin argued that inverted totalitarianism makes use of the state to legitimate its dominance, whereas in classic totalitarianism, the state uses business to achieve
5 It is important to point to the rise of capitalism as a dominant social imaginary in the United States. The proliferation of capitalism as a dominant social imaginary has its roots not simply in the ethos of rational ethics of liberal Protestantism (Weber, 1992) and the eclipse of a grand narrative (Lyotard, 1999), but in the Western imperialism and industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries (Stone & Kuznick, 2012; Zinn, 2005). As the United States and other colonial powers used military force and economic coercion to seek greater territory and markets, capitalism became the lingua franca of Western politicians and business leaders in the 19th and 20th centuries. Even the decline of colonialism in the mid-20th century would not stem expansionist aims. For instance, even before the end of World War II, the United States organized a financial conference (Breton Woods) that was instrumental in creating international financial institutions (e.g., World Bank, International Monetary Fund), which would insure the supremacy of capitalism and largely benefit the United States and its European client states. This expansion of capitalism did not remain confined to the creation of global financial institutions. Klein (2007), for instance, painstakingly details the collusion of U.S. government leaders and economic experts (Friedman and other economists from the Chicago School) to destabilize governments and economies (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) during the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s in an effort to install capitalistic systems that favored U.S. and European interests (see also Reich, 2007, pp. 44-45). The creation of international economic institutions and the economic colonization of other countries accompanied an “evangelical” zeal for establishing “free” markets through privatization, de-regulation, and economic treaties. The history of the expansion of capitalism in the United States reveals that the hidden hand of the market accompanied and depended on a not so hidden fist (cf. Maj. General Smedley Butler, in Zinn, 2004, p. 252).
Psychoanalysis and the Inverted Totalitarianism of Neoliberal Capitalism 251 its aims of projecting power outwards. The accumulation of the various forms of power means that there is no clear leader of the system, as there would be in a state totalitarian system (p. 44). In totalitarian states, there is a dictator, while in inverted totalitarian societies there are many leaders from different parts of society (e.g., political, economic, religious) who support and shape the totalitarian system. This makes it difficult for citizens to be able to identify who is responsible. Neoliberal capitalism, as a dominant social imaginary, functions as an inverted totalitarian system in which the state is used to legitimate and extend the power of the market, through legal privatization of previously public institutions, de-regulation, austerity measures, and the expansion of money in the political process. Moreover, non-state institutions such as corporations, think tanks, lobbying groups, etc., work closely with the state in de-regulating and privatizing. Because there is no clear, single organization or person involved in using the state, it becomes impossible to locate the leaders who are responsible, heightening a sense of helplessness and futility among many citizens. I would add that while the center of power is difficult to locate, citizens may continue to believe that the power resides in the traditional government institutions. It is this belief or illusion that screens people from recognizing the other real sources of power, as well as their own helplessness in acting toward that power.
A related feature of an inverted totalitarianism regime is that it constructs and “prefers a citizenry that is uncritically complicit rather than involved” (p. 65). Giroux (2012) similarly argued that the hegemony of neoliberal symbol systems contributes to the construction of acritical subjects who either rabidly support capitalism or who never think to question it. Neoliberal capitalism as an inverted totalitarian system, then, becomes unquestionable (Frank, 2000; Nelson, 2001). Citizens or non-citizens (e.g., Pope Francis) who do question the system become marginalized or attacked as socialists, Marxists, communists, etc., which serves as a warning to others who might deviate from accepting the system as it is. A significant player in the construction of an acritical and complicit citizenry is the corporate media—the market’s cheerleader and apologist. As cheerleader for neoliberal capitalism, the media functions not only to keep critics of capitalism out of the public eye (or attacking them when they do appear), but also to keep citizens from criticizing the system. To be sure there is criticism, but not of the system itself. For example, the media recently gave attention to Senator Paul Ryan’s report critiquing government programs for the poor. While there were some critiques of the report and its dubious use of data and research, there was no critique of the larger systemic forces of neoliberal capitalism and its negative impacts on the poor and working classes (Krugman, 2014).
An acritical and passive citizenry can be achieved in a number of ways. In traditional totalitarian systems, the state uses police and military forces to instill compliance and to brutally repress dissent. Totalitarian states, at the same time, use patriotism to mobilize the masses and to squelch critique. As Wolin (2008) notes, inverted totalitarian systems, however, do not need the brutal tactics of police and military oppression to keep citizens in line. Instead, it establishes itself as an unquestionable and pervasive reality. That is, inverted totalitarian systems, like neoliberal capitalism, involves the use of the state (all three branches of government), groups (e.g., think tanks), and other power centers (e.g., media, religious communities and leaders) to legitimate, if not sacralize (Frank, 2000; Nelson, 2001), the system. Put another way, leaders (political, business, media, religious, etc.) use the cruel, ineluctable, and seemingly unquestionable logic of the market to justify and solidify the status quo. Companies must downsize to survive. Jobs must be transferred to other countries to
improve profitability and to compete on the global stage. The minimum wage must remain flat because to pay a living wage will hurt small business owners (translated, accept your low paying jobs). Companies must obtain financial incentives from states and local communities and retain low wages if they are to remain competitive. The pervasive, ineluctable logic of neoliberal capitalism provides the social-emotional control necessary for keeping the citizenry in line (Illouz, 2008, pp. 75-77; see also Hochschild, 2012; Illouz, 2007). And for those who rise up in dissent, it is not the state that represses through cruelty, but various groups and the media that marginalize critics by refusing to include them in public forums, using coded negative epithets and falsehoods.
While the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism lacks the barbaric tactics of state sanctioned torture and oppression for social control, it still has its own hidden cruelty that silences citizens (Giroux, 2012; Sung, 2007). Wolin (2008) identified four features that contribute to an uncritical and controlled citizenry in an inverted totalitarian system. First, the dominance of neoliberal capitalism leads to “downsizing, reorganization, bubble bursting, unions busted, quickly outdated skills, and transfer of jobs abroad.” This creates “not just but an economy of fear, a system of control whose power feeds uncertainty, yet a system that, according to its analysts, is eminently rational” (p. 67; see also Marris, 1996). Fear for one’s economic survival, especially in a society that lauds individualism, keeps citizens focused on how they are going to meet their basic needs of food, housing, health, etc. When they cannot make ends meet, they often blame themselves (Silva, 2013). Workers may fear organizing lest they lose their jobs and communities may fear advocating for a living wage because corporations threaten to move their jobs to more compliant communities or countries. Anxiety, uncertainty, and fear function as social control, even as many citizens accept the seemingly ineluctable logic of the so-called free market.
Fear is a powerful motivator in persons’ compliance with the demands of any totalitarian system, yet Wolin points to another emotional experience that give rise to a compliant and acritical citizenry. Relying on de Tocqueville, Wolin wrote that the inverted totalitarianism of capitalism “prevents things from being born, it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd” (p. 80). The neoliberal capitalist system enervates much of the population. Citizens are weighed down by economic insecurity, yet are unable to locate its source (except for blaming themselves, see Silva, 2013). Moreover, because of the varied powers using the state, many citizens feel helpless with regard to their political agency. Underlying and ongoing helplessness enervates citizens, leading to resignation about the seemingly implacable realities of a market society. The inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism does not use the violence of the state to instill fear and helplessness. Instead, the hidden hand of the market accompanies the hidden fist of economic cruelty and violence, creating social control through fear and helplessness.
Of course, not all of the compliant citizenry are fearful or helpless. That there are those who uncritically accept or clearly advocate for neoliberal capitalism points to a third form of social control. For Wolin (2008), many citizens unwittingly and uncritically combine capitalism with nationalism and patriotism (p. 112), which functions to maintain the hidden power of inverted totalitarianism system. “Americans,” Wolin noted, “are being successfully ‘kneaded into a citizenry less suited to democratic demands and increasingly more accepting and supportive of the dominant forms of power, not out of Nazi enthusiasm, but from fear and misguided patriotism” (p. 113). To be a good, patriotic American means accepting and
Psychoanalysis and the Inverted Totalitarianism of Neoliberal Capitalism 253
touting capitalism. Indeed, the uncritical and pervasive mantra of United States’ exceptionalism is closely allied with accepting capitalism as our way of life—the reason for our riches. To question capitalism is to question one’s status as an American, which functions as a form of social control and leaves capitalism (and the United States) free from criticism. The fourth feature of social control is noted in what Taylor (2007) called disembedded subjects. The rise of neoliberal capitalism as a dominant social imaginary accompanied the collective embrace of the myths of individualism and self-reliance. In glorifying individualism and self-reliance, many citizens see themselves as wholly responsible for the success or blame vis-à-vis their pursuit and achievement of their financial well-being.6 Citizens are told in countless ways to pursue their “rational” self-interests, their desires, and needs, which fosters the tendency to blame economic “losers” and self-proclaim individual merit for economic success. In addition, citizens view themselves in competition for scarce resources, fostering the perception of Others as obstacles or allies in pursuing their desires. Social capital becomes more fragile (Bellah, et al. 1985; Putnam, 2000) and there is more social fragmentation, making it very difficult to organize against the system. As Wolin (2008) argued, “Classical totalitarianism mobilizes its subjects; inverted totalitarianism…fragments them” (p. 196). People “are encouraged to distrust their government and politicians,; to concentrate upon their own interests; to begrudge their taxes; and to exchange active involvement for symbolic gratification of patriotism, collective self-righteousness, and military prowess” (p. 23). The old rule of divide and conquer is applicable in neoliberal capitalism’s dominance as a social imaginary. Totalitarian systems (e.g., racism, colonialism) have negative impacts on the psyches of people who are marginalized and oppressed (see Baldwin, 1963; Cone, 2011; Fanon, 2004; Nandy, 1983), and so we might expect that this is true for the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism. Deleuze and Guattari (1983) address the connection between capitalism and schizophrenia, while Dufour (2008), more recently, described capitalism’s production of an acritical subject with psychotic tendencies. Echoing Dufour, Giroux (2012) identifies not only the rise of the acritical subject but the cruel reality of disposable youths in neoliberal capitalistic society, evoking a sense of helplessness and worthlessness especially among lower class youths. Cvetkovich (2012) indicates the way capitalism produces depression. Economists, as well, have identified psychosocial impacts of rampant capitalism. Mander (2012) lists numerous studies that point to rising violence, anxiety, depression, and suicide in the United States (pp. 226-234), which he attributes the dominance of capitalism. Stiglitz (2012) charts the rise of economic insecurity as corporate capitalism has come to rule society. Sociologists have also contributed. Bellah (1985), Silva (2012), and Illouz (2007) depict the psychological struggles of citizens who are dealing with the dominant narratives of capitalism and individualism. While there are many socio-economic factors that can contribute to psychological suffering, these writers and others have pointed to the rise of capitalism as a primary source of psychosocial suffering.
6 Illouz (2008) depicts how mental health professionals used therapeutic narratives (self-actualization, family history, self-exploration of memory and desire) to identify successful managers and workers, uncritically adapting to the capitalistic system (see also Cushman, 1995; Hochschild, 2012). This is most clearly seen in Silva’s (2013) recent book where she notes that working class young people have adopted the therapeutic narrative in trying to understand their failures to be financially successful.
INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM OF NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM AND HERMENEUTICAL OF MYSTIFICATION
Wolin’s (2008) view of inverted totalitarianism helps to account for neoliberal capitalism’s dominance as a social imaginary, as well as the resulting construction of an acritical citizenry and social control established through social alienation, fear, anxiety, and helplessness. I wish to add to his perspective relying on psychoanalytic concepts that can aid in understanding not simply the acritical nature of many people vis-à-vis capitalism, but also the psychosocial processes involved in the acceptance of this social imaginary. More importantly, these concepts serve as a heuristic framework for understanding what I call hermeneutical mystification, which involves both the misinterpretation of one’s suffering and the misidentification of the source of that suffering. It is hermeneutical mystification that entails a form of social control by way of misidentifying the sources of people’s suffering.
Internalization
Schafer (1990) rightly argued that the concept of internalization is useful not only for those who seek to understand psychosocial development, but also for social scientists and historians to explicate the process of accepting an ideology and its mode of comprehending the world (p. xi). Indeed, Schafer believed the concept used in social theory can account for how the “oppressed and exploited [come] to accept and even idealize the socioeconomic and ideological system in which they and their oppressors are serving as participant-victims” (pp. xi-xii). I am interested in both the processes of internalization vis-à-vis childhood and neoliberal capitalistic ethos as well as the ongoing internalization of this ethos in adulthood, reinforcing the dominance of this social imaginary and accounting for the relative lack of psychological and social conflict with regard to the adoption of this mode of being in the world.
For Schafer internalization refers to “all those processes by which the subject transforms real or imagined regulatory interactions with his environment, and real or imagined characteristics of his environment, into inner regulations and characteristics” (p. 15).7. A child, for instance, internalizes the parent’s attunements—attunements regulate in that the parent is recognizing and responding to the infant’s assertions thus modifying behavior and emotional experience. The child’s internalization of the object-action is partial and that his/her taking in of the object accompanies some modification the object-action as s/he makes it his/her own. Winnicott’s (1971) notion of transitional objects is a good example of a child’s—having internalized the parent’s mirroring—altering and using the parent’s attunement in relation to an external object that is under his/her omnipotent control—an object taken from the cultural field. Shafer also makes clear that it is not only regulation, but characteristics that are also internalized and made one’s own (e.g., the adoption of the parent’s behavioral trait). So, in the case of a transitional object, the child may adopt a parental characteristic vis-à-vis the TO and/or imagine the object to have the parent’s characteristic.
7 Internalization includes introjection and identification, though I will not use these terms in this chapter, because to do so will create confusion.
Naturally, as a psychoanalyst, Schafer is concerned with the internal world of the individual and his/her conscious and unconscious processes, motivations, as well as self and [part, whole, introjected] object representations—object representations that entail regulatory actions and characteristics of significant figures. Moreover, he considers these features of the psyche and internalization in terms of the child’s learning, imitation, and compliance. This said, children also internalize and make use of the symbol system in which they have been thrown—a symbol system and practices that shape their subjectivities and social relations. Adopting a language and the particular narratives of one’s family and culture means that the child is dependent on particular semiotic system(s) for interpreting or constructing his/her experience, making meaning, understanding social interactions, etc. These narratives and accompanying social practices comprise intersubjectively shared values, beliefs, rules, roles, and expectations that become part of the child’s emerging identity, way of being in the world, and construction of experience. Moreover, the internalized semiotic system helps the child engage in routine, meaningful social interactions. To be sure, the child in adopting and using these narratives makes his/her own unique constructions of experience, though the child’s construction of experience cannot be radically different from the society and culture in which s/he lives.
Similarly, adults internalize the ethos of the group with which they identify. A young woman, for instance, joins the army and over time begins to adopt its ethos. This ethos is used to construct experience, organize social relations, and make sense of the world. If she leaves the army and becomes involved in another group, she retains the military ethos, while also internalizing the new one. If these two symbol systems are at odds, the young woman will have to deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance. In other words, she has two conflicting internalized worldviews that are used to construct experience, interpret reality, and engage in social relations.
Both in childhood and adulthood we are continually faced in countless ways with the capitalistic symbol system. Children and adults are bombarded with advertisements wherever they go and whenever they are engaged in watching TV or using other electronic devices.8 These advertisements induce people to buy products. More importantly, advertisements inform and instruct us that our desires should be met if we are to be happy or fulfilled and to do so costs only this much (Sung, 2007). We internalize these messages and are lulled into becoming acquisitive (Weber, 1992), confusing need with desires and wants. We learn quickly that anything can be commodified (Sandel. 2012), including ourselves. It is not only through advertisements and other media that we internalize the capitalistic ethos. Internalization of this ethos comes about through family expectations and practices. Perhaps in our families as children we learn that by doing household chores we will receive weekly remuneration some of which must be saved. Children may also be enticed to obtain better grades by rewarding them with money. We learn, then, that behaviors and achievements are monetized. In late adolescence and as adults, we are constantly faced with the realities of the economic system and we learn to play by its rules, whether in the course of buying clothes, a car or house, paying rent, utilities, groceries, etc. Moreover, many adults watch or read the
8 Illouz (2008) points out the role of psychologists in relation to the burgeoning effect of advertising on shaping subjectivity and social relations. She wrote, “Psychologists were present in the realm of advertising in two main ways: they served as advisors to the new profession of advertising and helped advertisers package products as bundles of meaning that could tap into the unconscious desires of consumers. Moreover, advertisers used psychological themes to justify the sale of their products” (p. 54).
news daily, a large part of which includes economic information (e.g., Dow, Nasdaq). All of this is to say that as children and adults, we internalize, uncritically, the economic system that pervades our lives. This is the (economic) world in which we were thrown and we necessarily learn or internalize its rules, values, expectations, and beliefs and use them to organize our experience and interpret our social relations.
Much of the time, our internalization of a family-cultural ethos accompanies a belief that this ethos is the way the world is. That is, the ethos we adopt often goes unquestioned. It is the norm that becomes normative and determinative. To be sure, questions and even critiques may be leveled, but generally, the core or fundamental realities of our ethos go unquestioned. I would add that those in power (and the privileged), whether parents or political and cultural leaders, tend to squelch attempts to raise doubts or questions about core narratives that structure subjectivity and social relations. For example, adults who have internalized the capitalistic ethos and who become engaged in questioning and critiquing it often find themselves at the fringe of society. Indeed, capitalism, as Frank (2000) and Nelson (2001) have argued, has taken on the characteristics of religious dogma. As indicated above, the corporate dominated media works to mute the voices of critics, because to raise questions and critiques might interfere with the collective, uncritical internalization and acceptance of capitalism. In general, most Americans, having internalized the neoliberal capitalistic ethos uncritically, interpret their experiences and structure their relations in terms of this system.
Silva’s (2013) recent study of working class young people is an excellent illustration of this internalization and the corresponding interpretations of their experiences. Silva notes that many of these young people have difficulty finding jobs and when they do, they are often underpaid and receive no benefits. Other working class young people have accrued significant debt in obtaining an education, finding themselves still employed in low-wage jobs. Among the people she interviewed, most interpreted their struggles in terms of their own failures (to get an education, work hard enough, etc.), as well as failures associated with their childhood vis-à-vis their parents. That is, these young people have internalized capitalistic tenets such as meritocracy, individualism, self-reliance, the “rational” pursuit of one’s desires, which fits nicely with therapeutic narratives that focus on the individual self and locate the sources of problems in one’s family and psyche. In so doing, they critically interpret their struggles and experiences as emanating from themselves. None of the young people Silva interviewed questioned the economic system that has led to reduced benefits, lack of healthcare, soaring tuition costs, etc. They have accepted the system they internalized and in which they often feel helpless9, but they have also been distracted from critiques by the corporate media.
The process of internalizing the neoliberal capitalistic social imaginary means that citizens use it to interpret their experience and social world. When this semiotic system becomes the dominant social imaginary, it becomes more difficult to imagine an alternative system or to critique it. It becomes analogous to what Nandy (1983) remarked about colonized peoples’ attempts to critique and resist the colonizer. He noted that colonization (totalitarianism) “creates a culture in which the ruled are constantly tempted to fight their rulers within the psychological limits set by the latter” (p. 3). This is because they have internalized the colonizer’s social imaginary. For Fanon (2008), this also means that the
9 I would suggest that they deal with their helplessness by adopting a self-focused agency by which I mean they believe they can make changes in their lives and things will change. I believe a better approach is to experience one’s helpless and adopt a collective agency aimed at using this helplessness to critique and change the system that is the source of their suffering.
Psychoanalysis and the Inverted Totalitarianism of Neoliberal Capitalism 257
colonized misinterpret the sources of their suffering precisely because they have internalized the colonizer’s ethos. Likewise, the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism is understood as citizens’ unwitting internalization of this dominant (and dominating) social imaginary, which is reinforced by social-economic institutions (e.g., media, corporations, etc.). Understandably, people who have internalized this ethos use it to interpret their experience and suffering (anxiety, insecurity, depression—failure). As Silva’s study points out, many people, then, overlook the systemic sources of their suffering. In this way, internalization of this dominant social imaginary leads to hermeneutical mystification whereby the citizen interprets his/her malady such that the hidden fist of the market is overlooked as a source of their distress.
Internalization is a concept that provides one way to understand the psychosocial process of adopting an ethos; at times, it leads people to overlook and misinterpret their experience and the sources of their suffering. The limit of this concept is that internalization refers to a psychosocial process that is common to all human beings and is not a defense. In other words, it simply accounts for how a person comes to adopt a social imaginary and use it to interpret their experience, at times, wrongly. So, for instance, three centuries ago, clergy interpreted postpartum depression in terms of theological concepts and norms that they and their parishioners internalized (Holifield, 1983). This incorrect attribution could not have been otherwise because the modern social imaginary of psychology was absent. Put another way, internalization and use of the dominant social imaginary was not necessarily defensive, though, it is still a form of hermeneutical mystification, because of the lack of social imaginaries that could identify more accurately, in this case, the actual sources of women’s suffering.
Weak Dissociation
To understand the defensive aspects of the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism I rely on Stern’s notion of weak dissociation. Dissociation, in general, refers to a defense whereby a representation and affect “escape the control of consciousness and develop independently” (Ellenberger, 1970, p. 371) and entails “a contraction of the field of consciousness” (Meares, 2000, p. 45). While dissociation represents unformulated experience that escapes consciousness and symbolization, it is important to point out that the person is “organizing his mind in a way that protects the good self and other from persecution and dread of annihilation” (Keylor, 2003, p. 219). It is not uncommon to see dissociation in patients who have suffered a trauma, using this defense to keep horrific (unformulated) experiences from becoming conscious.
Stern (1997) argued for a type of dissociation that is more common and not the result of trauma or an attempt to keep annihilation anxiety at bay. This type of dissociation, Stern argued, followed closely with Fingarette’s (1969) philosophical analysis of routine selfdeception. Fingarette wrote “it is when we judge that there is a purposeful discrepancy between the way the individual really is engaged in the world and the story he tells himself that we have the complex but common form of self-deception in which we are interested” (p. 62). This self-deception, from Fingarette’s perspective, results from not spelling out (narrating) one’s engagement in the world or, better, spelling out one’s engagement such that one does not avow one’s actions or the consequences of these actions. Stern (1997), building
on Fingarette’s analysis of self-deception, argued that some non-pathological forms of spelling out are illustrations of weak dissociation. Weak dissociation, for Stern, involves narrative rigidity, which means that one organizes his/her experience such that one’s actions and consequences are narrowly spelled out, leaving out actions and consequences that do not “fit” the dominant, rigid story. Inflexible narration, in other words, means that those ideas, meanings, values, and affects that are unconsciously perceived to contradict the dominantconscious narrative are excluded or unformulated and therefore outside of awareness. In weak dissociation, Stern argued, we spell out only what “we believe we can tolerate, or that furthers our purpose, or that promises a feeling of safety, satisfaction, and the good things in life; we dissociate the meanings that we believe we will not be able to tolerate, that frighten us and seem to threaten the fulfillment of our deepest intentions” (p. 128). As a result “of so insistently turning our attention elsewhere…we never even notice alternative understandings. Focal attention under these conditions is controlled by the intention to enforce narrative rigidity” (p. 132).
I would add to this notion of weak dissociation in three ways. First, narrative rigidity can also involve the misinterpretation of the sources of a person’s suffering or the suffering of others. In terms of the dominant social imaginary of neoliberal capitalism, weak dissociation is seen in interpreting the suffering of the poor as the result of laziness, lack of motivation, etc. (Ehrenreich, 2011; Macdonald, 2010). This narrative rigidity can include the use of other social imaginaries (e.g., religion, nationalism) to further support the dominant narrative. For example, Michael Novak (1982), a Christian apologist of neoliberal capitalism (see also the Acton Institute), wrote a chapter on a theology of economics, which finds further support in his (1987) later book, A Theology of the Corporation. In these books, Novak asserted the belief that Christians are to accept the world as it is and not pine for some kingdom of God on earth. As an apologist for capitalism, he said “If God so willed his beloved Son to suffer, why would He spare us” (1982, p. 341). What he is referring to are people who are suffering economically. Capitalism, in Novak’s view, provides great wealth and there will always be winners and losers. Losers—the poor—need to accept the reality of capitalism and take up their suffering. Novak’s comment exemplifies not only the underlying sadistic nature of his kind of God—a cruel god fitted to be the deity of capitalism’s hidden fist—but also a clear communication that the poor who suffer are to take up their cross meekly. Narrative rigidity, in this case, involves the use of religion to support the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism, as well as to deflect responsibility vis-à-vis the system that gives rise to the suffering of people who are poor. Worse, it tells the victims to take up and accept their suffering, while failing to identify a primary source of their suffering.
Second, the narrative rigidity of weak dissociation reveals a very strong or adhesive identification with the narrative and its attending meanings, values, and ways of organizing experience and social relations. With regard to neoliberal capitalism’s inverted totalitarianism, strong identification is reinforced when capitalism is mixed with patriotic and nationalistic narratives, which only further strengthens narrative rigidity. As Wolin (2008) argued, the narratives of nationalism and patriotism become intertwined with neoliberal capitalism. To critique capitalism, then, raises questions of whether the person is a true American or patriot. So, one’s manifest identity and identifications are not constructed in terms of capitalism per se, but as patriotic Americans. Nevertheless, the capitalistic social imaginary remains securely in place. Weak dissociation, in this instance, keeps at bay anxiety associated with not belonging to a dominant, privileged group.
Third, the narrative rigidity of weak dissociation is not simply an individual defense it is also a social one. The collective narrative rigidity regarding neoliberal capitalistic beliefs suggests underlying social anxiety and fear related to real and imaginary threats. In exploring the threats, we can also inquire about what is defended—consciously and/or unconsciously. What is peculiar, ironic, and tragic about the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism, is that narrative rigidity reinforces fear and anxiety in the public, which Wolin argued served as a form of social control. For example, individuals and communities are threatened by the specter of a loss of jobs. The weak dissociation of neoliberal capitalism is seen in people and communities rigidly and uncritically accepting the “reality” of capitalism and, thus, acceding to the cruel demands of the market for the sake of keeping or obtaining jobs. The weak dissociation vis-à-vis neoliberal capitalism is also evoked by anxiety and fear over the loss of identity (patriotic capitalistic Americans) and one’s worldview, loss of economic-political power and privilege, and loss of social privilege. For those in economic-political power and who largely benefit from the capitalistic system, their narrative rigidity couples with attacks on anyone who seeks to critique or undermine the very system that provides and sustains their power, privilege, and prestige. The corporate media, for instance, not only lauds neoliberal capitalism daily, it excludes, denies, and ridicules critics who argue that capitalism is flawed and is a source of a great deal of suffering. One may note that people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder also adopt this narrative rigidity, even when the system adversely impacts them. Their weak dissociation is a defense against the imagined loss of their American identity and/or the loss of a possible financial success for themselves and their children—the hope (and for many the wish) for financial security.
The narrative rigidity of weak dissociation, then, is a defense, but more importantly it operates as a hermeneutical mystification. That is, narrative rigidity involves, in this case, the use of neoliberal capitalism’s semiotic system to misinterpret one’s experiences and behaviors. This misinterpretation of one’s (and others) experience and behavior can also result in wrongly attributing the source of one’s suffering or the suffering of others. The wealthy, for instance, may interpret and account for the behaviors of poor people as idleness, overlooking the systemic forces that serve to contribute to crippling poverty and overlooking the consequences not only of this misinterpretation, but also the consequences of their own actions vis-à-vis the poorer classes. Poor and working class people likewise misinterpret the source of their suffering when they blame themselves. In both cases, hermeneutical mystification operates in disguising the actual source of suffering.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY
Psychoanalytically informed therapists adopt and internalize therapeutic interpretive frameworks for working with patients. Like their patients, therapists are also part of the culture and, therefore, internalize the dominant narratives used for ordering and interpreting daily life. In some instances, therapists can unwittingly collude with these dominant narratives by failing to notice how they are implicated in the patient’s suffering and how the patient wrongly attributes the sources and meanings of his/her suffering. In my view, it is incumbent on therapists not to be captive to a) therapeutic interpretive frameworks that simply look for the source of suffering in the person’s psyche or childhood and b) the
dominant and dominating narratives of the culture, in particular, the neoliberal capitalistic social imaginary.
A brief clinical example will illustrate my claims. Fiona, a 35 year-old mother of two (ages 9 and 8), came to therapy because, she suffered from depression and anxiety. Both she and her husband worked full-time, while her mother and father took care of the kids during the week. Fiona made clear in the first session that she grew up in an alcoholic home, though her father had been sober for the last ten years. “He was not a violent drunk, but you could not rely on him,” she remarked. As a child she coped by leaving the house and hanging out with friends. Her parents (like Fiona and her husband) worked hard to raise her and her older brother with whom she was not emotionally close. Also, like her parents, she lived in a working class neighborhood not far from an economically depressed and violent section of the city.
Fiona, at times, expressed regret and anger at herself for not having obtained a college education, though she wondered how she would have paid for it. After high school, she immediately went to work in a factory three miles from home. Working hard, she was able to save some money, but this quickly became her lifeboat when the factory shut down (moving to Mexico). Eventually, after nearly wiping out her savings, Fiona found work, but at a lower wage with no benefits. It was at this job that she met her future husband. Together, with some help from their parents, they were able to purchase a house (a fixer upper, she said) three years ago. Fiona constantly worried about living paycheck to paycheck and hoped that she and/or her husband would advance in the company, though this often seemed doubtful. Not unlike Silva’s (2013) interviewees, Fiona wondered what within her was obstructing her from living a better life, which included wondering if her brain lacked a chemical, causing her depression. Understandably, she began therapy in hopes of finding this out so that she could take more control of her life and advance in her job.
In the first few months of therapy we explored Fiona’s early life and her marriage. While growing up, she was relatively close to her mother and emotionally distant from her father. After a long day at the factory, her father would grab some beers with his friends before coming home, usually late. Her mother and father fought often, but never physically. As a child, she remembered her mother worrying about paying the bills. School, for Fiona, was a place of escape, though she remembered that it was mostly about hanging out with her friends. Neither her parents nor her school emphasized success or college. “I think it was expected,” Fiona said, “that when I graduated from high school I would go to work and not go to college.” One of the bright aspects of her young adult life, which continued in the present, was her marriage. Unlike her father, Fiona’s husband, Daryl, was supportive of her and involved in caring for the children. She was determined that her kids would go to college, even though she never made it.
Fiona’s childhood lacked any significant trauma, though it could be argued that there was cumulative trauma vis-à-vis an absent father and the anxiety of her mother. We certainly addressed her anger, hurt, and disillusionment with regard to her father and she recognized that she had absorbed or internalized her mother’s fear and anxiety about economic security. What Fiona did not initially mention, but was present, was her relatively low self-esteem. When this issue was raised and acknowledged, she understood it to be the result of two parents who also did not possess much self-worth.
Even while Fiona talked about her childhood and current struggles in the first few months, I was aware that she was not considering or identifying other sources of her
Psychoanalysis and the Inverted Totalitarianism of Neoliberal Capitalism 261
suffering. Comparable to Silva’s interviewees, Fiona tended to locate the sources of her suffering in herself and in her family of origin, which in my view represented an example of hermeneutical mystification. That is, Fiona had internalized the dominant neoliberal capitalistic social imaginary and I suggest further used the narrative rigidity of weak dissociation to avoid profound experiences of helplessness and hopelessness vis-à-vis the larger socio-economic-political system—experiences that were also evident in her parents’ growing up. By adopting both the values of the neoliberal capitalist narrative (e.g., individualism, self-reliance, self-reliance) and the therapeutic narrative (self-exploration, individual psyche, childhood development), Fiona could retain a belief that her own agency would lead to advancement and economic success. To let go of weak dissociation as a defense, Fiona would have to encounter an agency that faces the realities of an inverted totalitarian system that undermines agency, giving rise to powerlessness and hopelessness, which, I believed was part of her anxiety and depression. Put differently, in locating the source of her suffering in larger systemic economic and political forces, Fiona would be invited to develop a sense of agency that was not defined or determined by the dominant narrative of neoliberal capitalism.
Introducing interpretations that are outside patients’ narrative constructions is certainly part of the psychoanalytic process and patients frequently adopt psychoanalytic narrative interpretations of their experience. All of this is to say that the therapist’s interpretations are inevitable. Hopefully our interpretations are offered for the patient to consider, correct, emend, and reject. After several months of working with Fiona and after I had a sense that she felt understood, I asked if she had considered other possible sources of her depression and anxiety. Looking puzzled, she said no. “Well, it struck me as you talk about your parents’ growing up and even now that there was and is an air of depression in the household, almost a sense of futility. [She nodded.] I wonder if one source of this is their sense of being trapped in an economic system that has functioned to undermine their efforts in being economically stable.” Fiona responded by asking if I was saying they were victims and I said, yes and no. I took Fiona’s response as a defense to retain her own view of agency, which included blaming her parents for not being more economically successful. That is, she was operating out of neoliberal narratives and concomitant values that she both internalized and used defensively (weak dissociation).
This session began a lengthy process of exploring, at times, her sense of agency and Fiona’s feelings of helplessness and powerlessness over and against the dominant system. At times, Fiona would exclaim, “what’s the use?” This was in reference to her belief that as an individual she could do nothing about these larger forces. Her sense of futility was closely allied with anger (sometimes at me) at the system, and for becoming more aware—more aware of her helplessness. Around the same time, though, Fiona grew more empathic in relation to her parents’ suffering. She understood her mother’s anxiety as emerging in relation to powerful systems that made it difficult to find security and her father’s alcoholism as a way to medicate his own experiences of helplessness.10 As Fiona worked through and with these painful experiences of helplessness and hopelessness, her depression lessened, though she continued to struggle with anxiety. Toward the end of our work (three years), Fiona and her husband became involved in a local community organizing group, which I understood as a
10 This interpretive exploration did not diminish her previous interpretations and narratives regarding her childhood, but it did expand her understanding of herself and her parents.
renewed understanding of her agency—and agency not defined by helplessness and isolation, but rather one founded on using aggression with others in addressing social, political, and economic ills.
It is important to mention that not all of Fiona’ changes were the result of therapy and my inviting her “to choose an action with respect to the real source of the conflict, i.e., the social structure” (Fanon, 2008/1952, p. 80; emphasis mine). Fiona talked with her husband and friends at work. She took an interest in reading more about U.S. history, as well as the history of her city. My point here is that the changes she made were also the result of her personal journey and education outside the consulting room. This said, in my view, if I had not addressed in some fashion these other sources of her suffering I would have colluded with the inverted totalitarianism of neoliberal capitalism and worse, exacerbated Fiona’s suffering by implying it resided simply and solely in her and her family of origin.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I argued that neoliberal capitalism has become a dominant social imaginary, functioning as an inverted totalitarian system that leads to hermeneutical mystification wherein people overlook external and systemic sources of their suffering. Therapists who do not engage in a critical analysis of this dominant social imaginary may unwittingly collude not only with its maintenance but also the patient’s misinterpretation or partial interpretation of the sources of their suffering. Consciousness is not only about becoming aware of unconscious fantasies, memories, etc., it includes becoming conscious of the forces that are implicated in one’s suffering and the suffering of others.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, J. (1963). The fire next time. New York: The Dial Press. Bell, D. (1996). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic Books. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart. New York: Harper and Row.
Cone, J. (2011). The cross and the lynching tree. New York: Orbis. Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. London: Sage Publications.
Cushman, P. (1995). Constructing the self, constructing America. New York: AddisonWesley.
Cvetkovich, A. (2012). Depression: A public feeling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dufour, D. (2008). The art of shrinking heads: On the new servitude of the liberated in the age of total capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2011). The crisis of neoliberalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Psychoanalysis and the Inverted Totalitarianism of Neoliberal Capitalism 263
Ehrenreich, B. (2011). On turning poverty into an American crime. Truthout, 9 August, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2579:barbara-ehrenreich-on-turning-poverty-intoan-american-crime accessed 29 October 2013.
Ellenberger, H. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books. Fanon, F. (2004/1963). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, F. (2008/1952). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press.
Fingarette, H. (1969). Self-deception. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Frank, T. (2000). One market under God: Extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end of economic democracy. New York: Anchor Books.
Freud, S. (1910). Five lectures on psychoanalysis. Standard Edition, 11, 1-56.
Giroux, H. (2012). Disposable youth: Racialized memories and the culture of cruelty London: Routledge Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hendricks, O. (2011). The universe bends toward justice. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Holifield, B. (1983). A history of pastoral care in America. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Illouz, E. (2008). Saving the modern soul: Therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Keylor, R. (2003). Subjectivity, infantile Oedipus, and symbolization in Melanie Klein and Jacques Lacan. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13, pp. 211-242.
Klein, N. (2007). Shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Krugman, P. (2014). The hammock fallacy. New York Times, 7 March, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/opinion/krugman-the-hammock-fallacy.html?emc= eta1&_r=0 accessed 7 March 2014.
Lyotard, J. F. (1999). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
Mander, J. (2012). The capitalism papers: Fatal flaws in an obsolete system. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press.
Mann. G. (2013). Disassembly required: A field guide to actually existing capitalism Edinburgh: AK Press.
Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty. London: Routledge Press.
McDonald, J. (2010). Thieves in the temple: The Christian church and the selling of the American soul. New York: Basic Books.
Meares, R. (2000). Intimacy and alienation: Memory trauma and personal being. London: Routledge Press.
Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. (2001). Economics as religion. University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Novak, M. (1982). The spirit of democratic capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Novak, M. (1987). Toward a theology of the corporation. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Reich, R. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. New York: Vintage Books.
Rieff, P. (1987). Triumph of the therapeutic: Uses of faith after Freud. New York: Harper and Row.
Samuels, A. (1993). The political psyche. London: Routledge Press.
Sandel, M. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Schafer, R. (1990). Aspects of internalization. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. Silva, J. (2013). Coming up short: Working class adulthood in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stern, D. N. (1997). Unformulated experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: W. W. Norton.
Stone, O. & Kuznick, P. (2012). The untold history of the United States. New York: Gallery Books.
Sung, J. (2007). Desire, market, and religion. London: SCM Press.
Weber, M. (1992). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge Press.
Winnicott, D. (1971). Playing and reality. New York; Routledge Press.
Wolff, R. & Resnick, S. (2012). Contending economic theories. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wolin, S. (2008). Democracy incorporated. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zinn, H. (2004). Voices of a people’s history of the United States. New York: Seven Stories Press.
Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States. New York: HarperPerennial.
Copyright Journal Communications Research the property Nova Science and its content may not copied emailed multiple sites posted a listserv without the copyright express written permission. However, users may print, email articles for individual