Sure, Sigmund Freud has been to some degree, debunked in many areas, or merely found to be innaccurate or incomplete in his theories. However, no one remembered to tell cops about that, because if they did, cops wouldn’t be so easy to understand from a Freudian perspective.
For instance, Freud maintained in “Civilization and its Discontents” written in 1929, that “It is clearly not easy for man to give up the satisfaction of [an inherent] inclination to aggression.”
He believed that men are primarily prone to aggression. That in and of itself is in dispute today, as is the definition of aggression, largely due to the fact that American posturing about ‘peace, justice,’ etc., has been shown to be a false flag that inevitably leads to violence directed FROM America TO other places in the world.
And women, too, are prone to violence, as anyone who has ever watched an episode of Jerry Springer can testify. Manycops today are women, and womens aggression is finally getting the attention it deserves [ and here].
So, men may or may not be prone to violence–as Sigmund believed, but we know that cops are prone to violence. Remember Rodney King ( who was recently pulled over for driving without a license–and the cops were a little more “respectful” than last time) or the thousands of unreported and under reported cases of police brutality
Forget Abraham Mazlows ideas, or Carl Jung: both of these guys believed that there IS a road to understanding the self, and enlightenment that leads to personal growth and happiness, and violence was part of the frustration of these goals–not a way of life.
Freud posited that some people likely got stuck in the libidinal mud somewhere, and that only after many years of psychoanalysis could they be free. And, Freud muddled around in the now discredited ideas of anal retention and anal expulsion–so much so that many say he was full of shit.
But he was right about the suppression of libidinal urges that leads to the repression of whole societies.
In “Civilization and its Discontents” he said that ” The present cultural state of America would give us a good opportunity for studying the damage to civilization,” which is to be feared when individuality is murdered so that heirarchical “group identities” could thrive.
The police are a large group identity.
Warning us against the “psychological poverty of groups,” he posited that the most dangerous thing civilization could face is when people in a community rely on being ‘bonded’–into, and of society, as if they must first be somehow “jumped in”– rather than being individuals respected for difference. In other words, the psychological poverty he was talking about meant essentially that ther core of the group ethos was implicit violence–the law of the jungle.
The police of any breed or species are notoriously a fraternal order, complete with a group identity, a ‘groupthink’ process ( which is a phrase that is under threat of co-option by right wing police thinkers) and procedures associated to that process. Most importantly, they identify themselves as different than you, me, or us.
Freud, in discussing the individual versus the needs of a society, identified a state of affairs where essentially ‘physically stronger men [and now, women] decide the fate of the world based on their own impulses’ until they meet someone stronger. So if this ‘primal state’ of affairs is to change, and a community be developed, a majority must come together and remain united against all separate individuals.
But that didn’t simply mean that all the bullies get together and call themselves a society, did it? According to Freud, real ‘leaders’ fell at the hands of those who band together in such a society.
Here is a statement from the website of the Fraternal Order of Police: “Your job is on the line. Your pension is on the line. Your salary is on the line. Your safety is on the line. You must be on the front line defending your rights against these attacks.”
Did they mention anything in that phrase that applies to you, your rights, or the good of society? No, but they basically wrote the entire bestial motivation structure of the primal police mind. The police mind is always “under attack.” On rare occasions that’s true , but on most occassions it’s not.
And more importantly, when it really counts, we see that police–and there are so many like “officer” Jason Andersen, and they are not here for you and me, but for one another–they cover each others crimes,[ and here], act criminally together, and no matter how many lies they tell–it sells to a willing public. (I will address that anomaly in a later post)
All for one and one for all was cool when it applied to the fictional Three Musketeers–heroes of the people; a nice fantasy of collective possibility, but doesn’t work so well when we look at Sigmunds ideas of a collective based in aggression.
Human actions are not motivated bytruly altruistic behavior, as most biologists know today but some individuals in our society have figured out that if they claim a ‘common good’ intention, and claim the noble cause of ‘assisting the community,’ rewards follow, no matter how deceptive their claims might be. Or, put another way, a wolf wears a sheepskin and claims to be able to tell you about wolves…
But even Freud understood the falsenness of that, and as applied to police psychology, it turns out to be an accurate representation of truth. He posited that man truly followed the creed “Homo homini lupus‘–man is a wolf to man ( quoting from Plautus).
Think back to the last time you were hungry, needed shelter, or other basic needs. Can you even remember one time? Two or more? How about dozens, or hundreds? Relatively 60% of Americans live UNDER the poverty line, with no resources or fraternal orders to speak for them–they are powerless.
It is largely, and almost wholly from these ranks of poor and powerless that the police routinely drag in a face, creates a report, and prosecutes a “criminal. It is from these ranks–ranks of people who never had the opportunity to enjoy even the most basic elements of a sense of “community,” who are “individually” used by the police to justify police salaries, jobs, and careers.
All for one and one for all sounds great and noble, but it isn’t so cool when applied to a secretive, fraternal, quasi-democratic, but entirely[until now] unmonitored group that not only doesn’t play by the same rules as we do, but also has a huge and powerful lobby that mobilizes whenever their food and shelter is threatened.
Freud posited a useful model of aggression that we can follow to understand the police, and police-state minded groups: stuck somewhere in an anally fixated state, they rigidly enforce “order”. They live under the disguise of acting altruistically for the community, while embodying the very archetype of a willingness towards physical violent domination, and a willingness to murder–these wolves will kill you before they report a comrade who does illegal things–“Que messiers les assassins commencent.[sic]”
It is the murderers who shall make the first move, the very people you have relinquished your own power to who will gladly kill for a paycheck–and hopefully you won’t be in their sights.
- The Assault on Freud (time.com)
- This Cop looks like a repressed homosexual (fightthepolice.wordpress.com)