Cleansing a biography

 

I don’t want to mystify this, but when I experience that several clients, in a short time frame, come to nearly same insigh, one that is fundamentally important for understanding their own behavioral patterns, I think of what Jung referred to as synchronicity. Independent events that cannot be causally explained by one another, yet share the same meaning. Well, perhaps I, as a therapist, am the common element in these clients’ insights, having somehow influenced them to arrive at nearly identical realizations. This sounds less mystical and more psychoanalytical, but to me, it feels unconvincing. 

Nonetheless, whatever it is, let’s get to the point: what they realized, and how they all referred to it almost identically: “cleansing a biography.” I have never used that term when talking about anyone, but I have thought of it concerning certain colleagues, acquaintances, and individuals from whom I know details of their past that they wish to keep hidden. Their behavior and pronounced presentation in front of others, before the public, starkly contrast with what they hide. It’s a classic case of “catch the thieves,” where they play the roles of “moral police” and “purity” as if they bear no sins or guilty conscience…

This is a defense mechanism known as reaction formation or turning to the opposite. Of course, I am not talking about conscious lying or pretending, but rather about an unconscious defense mechanism. 

One of my clients is a scientist, and we started from his immense irritation and anger towards colleagues for their “lack of scientific rigor,” for statements “not grounded in empirical evidence,” and “methodological impurities and irrationality.” He presented himself as a saintly figure, a purist battling pure evil and wrongdoing. Yet, memories flashed through my mind of his drug use, alcoholism, collapsing under tables in bars, dependence on tranquilizers, and two failed marriages. He is hardly an embodiment of rationality, consistency, or protection for either himself or the group he belongs to. 
I pointed out to him the intensity of his feelings toward his “sinner” colleagues, which resembled contempt and hatred, and asked him why they were so strong. Through the process, he realized that he hates and despises in others what he hates and despises in himself, but he projected this onto them, transforming himself into a “scientific saint and moral police of the profession.” “Who else, alongside all this righteousness, could think that there is sinfulness in me… not even I can. It’s as if I have cleansed my biography by doing so…” It was very difficult for him to accept this insight, which “unmasked” himself. This is a brief overview of self-discovery that did not unfold as quickly and easily as it may seem (there were years of preparation and relationship-building involved). 

Another client exaggerated in accusing colleagues from the non-governmental sector, who should be “humanitarians,” claiming they should engage in their work purely out of altruism, with no personal gain whatsoever. Through analyzing his bitterness, we discovered that he was also “cleansing the biography of his father,” who was accused of embezzling funds, leading to a “disgrace” in the town where they lived, and he was seen as “the son of someone who profited…” 

Without further elaboration, I assume the mechanism is clear. In political manipulation, it is used consciously and intentionally, and in that case, it cannot be considered a “defense mechanism,” but rather a mechanism of conscious manipulation. However, when I read various hateful, moralistic, and puritanical posts that sharply condemn and “spit” on others, distributing epithets and calling out “catch the thief,” I wonder, “What is this person trying to cleanse in their own biography?” Are the criticisms aimed at someone’s personality, “argumentum ad hominem,” mostly reactive formations combined with projections of despised parts of themselves onto others? If that is the case, and I believe it mostly is, think a bit before you “spit” on someone. I know that this is “popular” today, that it sometimes “works” in public opinion, that it can gain some “status”… but I also know that the mechanism is very costly for the mental health of both the user and the target. Especially if it becomes a common communication mechanism, if it “takes root” among the youth… the consequences are obvious (if you pay attention). Of course, it is easy to blame others for the consequences…