Against Psychologism (was Re: Anti-Eurocentrism: Idealist Diversion from Anti-racism/anti-imperialism)

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Ted wrote:

> This psychological explanation of post-modernism can be generalized.
>
> For instance, self-righteous expressions of contempt for the ideas of others
> can also be explained as a psychological "compensation".
>
> Such an explanation also underpins Keynes's claim that "opportunities for
> money-making and private wealth" provide an "outlet" into which "dangerous
> human proclivities" can be "canalised".  According to him, these are
> proclivities which would otherwise find expression in "cruelty, the reckless
> pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self
> aggrandisement".

Keynes' remarks demonstrate that an explanation of post-modernism (or
anti-anti-Eurocentrism, for that matter) should be neither
psychologized nor generalized.  For instance, such psychologization
allows one to argue that a criticism of post-modernism =
self-righteous expression of contempt = a psychological
"compensation," and, worse yet, that a criticism of capitalism (or
racism, sexism, etc.) = self-righteous expression of contempt = a
psychological "compensation"!  The only people who are against
capitalism are those who are envious of the rich, or so say
apologists for capital.

Keynes above sounds remarkably similar to Freud at his most
anti-communist (besides being simple-minded):

*****   In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of
aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though
certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the
differences in power and influence which are misused by
aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature.
Aggressiveness was not created by property.  It reigned almost
without limit in primitive times, when property was still very
scanty, and it already shows itself in the nursery almost before
property has given up its primal, anal form; it forms the basis of
every relation of affection and love among people (with the single
exception, perhaps, of the mother's relation to her male child). If
we do away with personal rights over material wealth, there still
remains prerogative in the field of sexual relationships, which is
bound to become the source of the strongest dislike and the most
violent hostility among men who in other respects are on an equal
footing.  If we were to remove this factor, by allowing complete
freedom of sexual life and thus abolishing the family, the germ-cell
of civilization, we cannot, it is true, easily foresee what new paths
the development of civilization could take; but one thing we can
expect, and that is that this indestructible feature of human nature
will follow it there.  (Freud, _Civilization and Its Discontents_)
*****

Yoshie