Understanding today’s political trends has become a challenging undertaking. Invoking Freudian psychology will strike some as not the most promising method. But Howard Schwartz has written a book of considerable importance and depth, where he endeavors to explain the roots of “political correctness” in terms of how we connect at a young age with our respective parents and what happens when this development is altered, arrested, distorted, and manipulated in various ways.
As issues like the family, fatherhood, parental authority, and relations between the sexes become politicized, the psychoanalytic approach that seeks explanations for rebellion in early childhood opens myriad possibilities.
The child gains unconditional love from the mother
Schwartz argues that in the healthy “Oedipal model,” the child gains unconditional love from the mother during the early years, but acquires an ambivalent relationship with the father, whom he both fears and wants to eliminate as a rival for the mother’s love.
The mother’s love for the father allows the child to overcome his fear and hatred for the father and instead imitate the father by breaking out of the maternal cocoon and gaining the love of a woman by striving for accomplishment.
What happens if the mother hates the father
The twist we see today is what happens if the mother hates the father. Then the child follows her lead and likewise develops an attitude of “contempt, hatred, and resentment.” “Father has not gained mother’s love by his accomplishments; they cannot be worth anything. He must have gained his presence with her through the commission of fraud and violence.” So the child seeks to retreat from the masculine world of striving and accomplishment into the feminine world of “primary narcissism.”
According to Schwartz, “the attack upon the father in the name of the omnipotent, primordial mother is the core of political correctness.”
The father = rules and limits
The father replaces unconditional love and acceptance with rules and limits and is therefore the archetypal oppressor.
Liberation is defined by his destruction and rebellion against his rules. “Political correctness is a bid for hegemony in the name of this primitive mother, expelling the father and undermining the paternal function.”
Getting rid of him will realize the ego ideal. We will be free of the demands and expectations placed upon us by our mutual acceptance of objective self-consciousness. We will not be subordinate to any roles, rules, or obligations, but will be able to do what we want, act on our whim, in perfect safety, to the accompaniment of mother’s love.
Schwartz calls this “the dynamic of political correctness.” Another way of saying it is that it is the dynamic driving modern political ideology.
The father stole mother’s love from all of us children, but most massively from those who have been specifically deprived of her love through what are seen as the modalities of oppression. It is therefore righteous to hate him for his theft and to love those who have been oppressed, in compensation.
“The premise of anti-Oedipal psychology is that we begin with everything, and if there is anything that we do not have it is because someone took it away from us.” Gratitude is thus displaced by resentment, the emotion that feeds all violent political ideologies.
In addition to Schwartz’s own applications of the theory, the argument explains many trends that increasingly dominate the front pages, especially those that have marked the gradual unfolding of the “politics of sex”:
The politics of sex
(1) First, it explains why the absence of a father constitutes the strongest predictor of almost all social pathologies (usually petty rebellions) in the young today: violent crime, substance abuse, truancy, and out-of-wedlock births themselves. Fatherlessness, not race and not poverty, leads to dysfunctional and destructive behavior in adolescents.
(2) It also explains the almost irrational defense of sole mother custody in the divorce courts—along with the vilification of fathers—that creates the condition and cycle of fatherlessness in the first place.
(3) It predicts the highly irrational and intense hatred of the father in the children of divorce, where Schwartz’s scenario is played out most starkly, where the child holds the father responsible for the destruction of his home and everything else, even when the matter is entirely beyond the father’s control.
(4) It further explains the equally irrational and similar blame placed on fathers by the society at large for family breakdown and by pundits from the left to the right, along with the virtual impossibility of assigning culpability to mothers who unilaterally divorce without any legally recognized grounds or who bear children out of wedlock, or of assigning any status to single mothers other than that of “victim.”
(5) Finally, it helps explain why concocted accusations of “domestic violence” and “child abuse” are presumed to be true, even when everyone knows that they are false. (Schwartz describes “accusations supported by nothing more than the feelings of the accuser.”) Likewise, as we now see daily on the front pages, it may explain why—following the exposure of hoax after hoax—accusations of rape, “domestic violence,” child abuse, sexual assault, “sexual harassment,” sexual this and sexual that, continue to be taken seriously and why no amount of crying wolf seems ever to produce the proverbial consequences.
Homosexual attraction results from an underdeveloped relationship with the father and incomplete emancipation from the maternal world
Schwartz’s approach has some similarities with that of the late Joseph Nicolosi, whose starting point and purposes are very different. Nicolosi was a therapist concerned with the origins and effects of homosexual attraction. His thesis, succinctly conveyed in the title of one essay, was that “masculinity is an achievement”: The female role is the default status, and to be a man requires accomplishment and breaking free from an assortment of female supports to a masculine realm of self-reliance. Homosexual attraction typically results from a relationship with the father that is underdeveloped and where this emancipation from the maternal world is incomplete.
Unlike Schwartz, seeking to explain “political correctness,” Nicolosi was not at all concerned with politics (and further, Schwartz is a secularist, whereas Nicolosi was a Christian). Yet not only do they independently arrive at parallel conclusions; by juxtaposing them, one might well be tempted to see an explanation for today’s militant “homosexualism”—homosexuality as a political ideology, including a common hatred of all things masculine, that now likewise dominates the front pages—as originating in a dysfunctional hatred of the father.
This congruence suggests something remarkable about the origin of today’s radical sexual ideology. It suggests that radical homosexual militancy may be the purest form yet of political radicalism, or at least the logical conclusion of the radicalism that has dominated modern history.
The cutting edge of “political correctness” today is not race but sex or “gender”
Schwartz suggests in The Revolt of the Primitive, the ideology on the cutting edge of “political correctness” today is not race but sex or “gender.” Indeed, for many conservatives nowadays, it sometimes seems like overemphasizing the politics of race serves as cover to avoid having to confront the far more hazardous and dangerous politics of sex. (If any males were the first to be emasculated in our society, after all, it was black and other minority ones, through the welfare and divorce system. How many young black criminals are acting out the predictable behavior of being deprived of fathers by the single-mother homes institutionalized in the welfare and divorce machinery?) Schwartz’s psychoanalytic approach would seem to suit the politics of sex even more than those of race.