Regression in service of the ego
In our regression within a group or crowd setting, there can be regression that is clearly not in the service of the ego. All three forms of regression can be present, when collectively confronted wit threat. First, there can be regression in time. Old grievances can be brought up (as in the case of the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s). One of us witnesses this form of regression when working in the country of Estonia during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under conditions of stress and threat, I talked with many Estonians about the troubles in their life. They often did not mention the political collapse that was occurring all around them. Rather, they identified a problem they were having with their neighbor. They identified a whole list of grievances. When I inquired about the occurrence of these grievances, the dates were often quite far in the distant past. The Estonian’s grandfather had lost land to their ^&*%&#$ neighbor, or their great grandmother had been jilted after being promised in wedlock to a member of the now despised and mis-trusted family. It was often hard to identify what was recent and what was historical in this distressed country.
Regression under conditions of collective threat and stress often is evident in the symbolic representations being used to identify and portray the threat or source of stress. Representations are often in the form of monsters, evil people and powerful threatening forces. The Nuremburg rallies were particularly illustrative of primitive representations (many references to the evil forces threatening the homelands), much as the Herbert Philbrick stories were dramatic and highly fictionalized (as presented not only at the rally, but also in the book and during the televised version of the book).
We similarly see these primitive representations in the comic books and super-heroes of each era. There are the “slant-eyed Japs” in the Terry and the Pirates comic strips of World War II, as well as the menacing Black men in the jungle fantasies of Tarzan (in the novels, serialized accounts and movies). These compelling fantasies were widely consumed during the days when Black power was only a menacing possibility. The Black man in America was often viewed as menacing if he was not portrayed as a fool, gambler or drunk.
Finally, we find regression is often dis-serving the individual ego and the collective well-being when it assumes the form of violence—as it did during the Philbrick rally. When powerful images are conveyed of the threatening Other than violence is waiting in the wings. It is important to note that the threat can take one of three forms, and each of these three forms precipitates a different kind of violent response. Based on the semantic differential proposed by Charles Osgood (1957), we propose that someone or something is threatening if it is evil (not interested in our welfare), strong (not weak) and active (not inactive or passive). Furthermore, we propose that this template of threat is embedded deeply and emotionally in our Amygdala. So, the template can be easily triggered and is hard to extinguish. We might even find that Amygdala activation is related to the emissions or reception of pheromones.
When we are confronted with a person, group or institution that is evil, strong and active, then we are likely not to find violence as a viable choice, for we are likely to lose the battle. This is the condition found in the lives of many minority groups in America and elsewhere in the world. Humor might be a “safe” form of verbal violence; however, the violence is more likely to be turned inward, leading to an overall sense of helplessness and hopelessness (Seligman, 1992), and to accompanying substance abuse and depression.
Violence is more likely to be a viable option if the threatening person, group or institution is viewed as weak or inactive, even while being evil. For the Nazis, Jews, Gypsies and Gays were considered fair targets since they were perceived as both weak and passive. They could “take” the abuse without fighting back. “So, let’s get them!” In other cases, we might find the threatening person, group or institution to be menacing (evil and strong) but not active. This often requires a cautionary and non-regressive response: often “wait-and-see” or a form of preemptive violence (an option too-often selected by American governments). Finally, there are the “big bluffs.” These are the people, groups or institutions that are evil and active, but not very strong. Those who are threatened often have to “call the bluff” of these threateners. Once again, this may call for the thinking and acting of those who are thoughtful and not operating in a regressed state. Creativity and innovation should not be the focus of this discernment about intentions, strength and weakness; these forms of regression are fine when there is no threat waiting in the wings. Effective management of the Amygdala should be the focus.
