Taking Back Control - Climate Change and Large Group Anxiety


Last March, Sir James Bevan, chief executive of the Environment Agency predicted that in 20 to 25 years England would be in “the jaws of death” without enough water to supply our needs.

For many of us our expectation of continuing growth and prosperity and limitless natural resources is no longer sustainable. We are having to manage loss on a large scale; loss of resources, loss of industries, loss of traditional social structures. Globalization has created radical shifts in the world economy, resulting in increasing inequality, immigration and erosion of national identities. These shifts are deeply affecting our identity both as individuals and as members of communities.

Climate change is especially threatening because it confronts us with the fact that we cannot control the most elemental forces of nature nor can we stop the earth from its trajectory towards extinction. Every time the weather surprises us with unseasonal extremes we are reminded of not just our human mortality but the earth’s mortality. Paradoxically, the fact that climate change threatens our very existence, makes it harder to take seriously.

Change by its very nature is difficult for most of us to manage even in the best of circumstances. But climate change also challenges our world view that we can rely on a relatively homeostatic environment, albeit subject to the occasional vagaries of hurricanes and plagues of locusts. Galileo’s demonstrations that the earth moves around the sun created huge resistance as did Einstein’s theory of relativity. Both theories challenged the world view of the time and, as Thomas Kuhn was to argue in the 1960’s[i], they also debunked the scientific paradigm based on the notion that scientific progress is based on “development-by-accumulation”. These revolutions in scientific thought call into question our most basic assumptions about how we perceive and understand our world. They radically undermine the idea that knowledge is a conscious and logical process that provides us with some sense of predictability and security, along with our belief that we are the centre of the universe and can shape and control our future.

Climate change fundamentally challenges our ability to predict what is going to happen in the future. Blake Suttle, a climate change scientist at University of California, Berkeley, comments:

“We’re likely to encounter climate regimes that there is no precedent for in modern times of observation (and where there is no past analog data for)….Another (difficulty) is that biological systems don’t tend to behave linearly. …no individual population or organisms or species experiences climate change in a vacuum. Instead, any given species is experiencing climate change amidst all of the surrounding community members that are also experiencing climate change. So what we see are changes in interactions up and down the food web that can really drive predictions into disarray. (Interview with Blake Suttle, in “Predicting Biodiversity” by Julie Gould, January 18, 2013.)

It is increasingly evident that, because of the diverse nature of ecosystems, we have only a relatively limited ability to predict the future and some change is happening faster than we anticipated. We are already experiencing the dramatic effects of climate change in floods, droughts, fires and the extinction of certain species. Only recently in the state of Louisiana, the residents of Isle de Jean Charles are the first “climate refugees” in the US to be given government grants to relocate due to rising waters. But, if this is any consolation, earth has experienced climate change in the past – e.g., between 10-11 thousand years ago, in the Pleistocene epoch, all of the mega fauna in the US went extinct within the span of a few hundred to a thousand years and yet new species evolved. What Suttle describes as the disarray of predictions opens up the possibility of new forms of life just as much as it foretells the destruction of life as we know it. Whether our own species will survive is another matter – and the real issue as far as we’re concerned.

The debate about climate change can be viewed as a conflict about control – how much control we have over our environment and how we negotiate this politically and economically. Territorial power lies at the heart of the conflict with all its attendant anxieties about the survival of the group. The preeminent concern is not so much about the destruction of resources as about who owns what and where – who has control over mother earth. Climate change deniers can be criticized as living under the narcissistic illusion that the earth is our possession, to be used as we wish, and that, like mother’s breast, it will always be available to us without running dry. This is a view of omnipotent control that banishes the anxiety of loss and impotence. At the other extreme are those who argue that we are the culprits who are single-handedly destroying the breast – this argument, unfortunately, views humans as more powerful than we really are. It is similar to the child’s egocentric idea that when mother is in a bad mood, it must be because of something she has done. Although humans can have a destructive impact on Mother Nature, she has a life of her own. When we are frightened of changes that are to some extent beyond our control, we tend to either deny the changes – to wish them away – or to take full responsibility for them in the illusion that we are in total control – e.g. the idea that we can “save the planet.” The reality is somewhere in-between and produces in our psyches what in psycho-jargon we call “depressive anxiety.” This means that we are aware of our own destructiveness and our own limits – a state of mind that for most of us is hard to tolerate.

In the Extinction Rebellion protest in London last month, protestors argued that saving the planet is more important than Brexit and should be given pride of place amongst the woes affecting our lives. As school girl Greta Thunberg, protesting about climate change, dramatically declared outside the Swedish parliament, “Why should we go to school when there’s no future?” On the other hand, some onlookers in London disagreed with the protest, claiming that Brexit and knife crime are more important issues than climate change. What is so striking about these seemingly disparate views is that they come from the same emotional experience of fear and impotence. The zeitgeist in most developed countries is, “everything is changing, nothing can be relied on, there is more competition than ever before, basic survival is not as assured as it seemed to be fifty years ago, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and even if you have all the advantages on offer there is no guarantee of a good life.” At heart the question is, “What kind of future is there for us?” and, even more fundamentally, “Is there a future for us?”

It is no coincidence that climate change deniers are allied with populist movements. But what is the psychology behind this and how is it culture specific?

When immediate economic and political survival is threatened, the issue of climate change needs to be understood through the lens of large group behaviour and the particular anxieties that affect group identity and cohesion and how identity has been shaped historically. A case in point is the US Tea Party position against climate change that followed in the wake of the 2001 twin towers attack and economic recession. The US was militarily invaded for the first time since its independence and this effectively marked a turning point in the American view of itself as an invincible world power. The recession, starting in 2007 that led to the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers the following year, only underscored the vulnerability of the US in relation to the rest of the world. The Tea Party response was to revert to the frontier myth of a rich wilderness offering unlimited resources. Sarah Palin was photographed with her bearskin trophies as the “new” frontier woman. This was the Party’s way of trying to restore some illusion of control and omnipotence through the regressive belief the group could once again possess a wilderness with endless boundaries, like an ever-flowing breast. In this way, a segment of the US population tried to regain a sense of identity and security. Trump’s subsequent ascension to power and his mantra, “Make America Great Again!”, is a response to the wish to turn back the clock to a time when change was not associated with loss but with prosperity.

There is a very similar political dynamic with Brexit in the UK spurred by a sense of disempowerment as our economic landscape changes along with the loss of traditional social structures. Harking back to a time of greatness, the Empire, and viewing dependency on outsiders as more of a restriction than a help, is part of a natural response in the face of loss. We can see very clearly in both the US and the UK (and across Europe) that anxiety about loss of identity is managed by defence mechanisms of splitting and projection. The threat is located outside the group. In this way the group strengthens its moral superiority and identity while demonizing outsiders or those who disagree – creating a destructive and polarized impasse.

Another large group response to instability and loss of identity is to identify with the powerful aggressor. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a tragic example of this where, following Belgium colonization and over a hundred years of theft of the country’s rich resources, recent governments continue to collude with corrupt practices as a way of scrambling their way out of poverty and disempowerment. The entrenched levels of government corruption that are directly impacting on the region’s environment can be viewed as a form of large scale identification with the aggressor that serves to bolster an insecure group identity.

These examples illustrate how the historical and political contexts within different countries have an essential bearing on their views of climate change and their policy-making. Nowhere is this more evident as it is in contemporary China where climate change issues, once largely dismissed, are now assuming prominence in its race for world supremacy. While it is important to acknowledge the basic psychological dynamics of denial and destructiveness that are present in every human interaction, the specific external reality within which these dynamics are played out is also essential to our deeper understanding. As in the case of individuals, group identity carries with it a collective and historical consciousness that profoundly affects our relation to the world around us.

When reality threatens the way we live, our expectations of the future and how we identify ourselves within the world, then, as I have argued, we try to protect ourselves from loss through psychological defences such as regression and denial. And we look for leaders who promise to restore our illusion of omnipotence – and identity – by assuring us that they will take care of us no matter what. We seek the fantasized security of early childhood in which “mother” will take care of everything and we do not have to be aware of the injustices of the world, of inequality, and of changes which we cannot control.

The political scientist, Ronald Inglehart, describes a “tipping point” in democratic societies in which social and economic inequality reaches an intolerable level and creates a backlash that paves the way for authoritarian governance. Although climate change is not usually named as part of this process, it is an important factor. It is the poor who can’t afford rising costs in food, oil, and housing. It is the poor who are vulnerable to becoming climate refugees. It is the poor who can’t escape the path of the hurricane and, if they manage to, can’t rebuild their demolished houses. It is also the poor and for that matter the middle class who will turn to populist leaders who acknowledge their need for a better life. But populism comes with the cost of de-regulation along with the dismantling of legal structures, due process, and checks and balances. And, of course, it is not just democratic institutions that are attacked, it is reality itself in the form of climate change. As climate change affects us more and more, large group anxiety is bound to intensify and, from our experience so far, this is likely to provoke greater authoritarianism. We can, e.g., anticipate an increase in migration due to dwindling habitable land mass. If we are not quick in developing alternative methods of food production, due to climate change and isolationist trade policies, we can also expect much greater competition for food and rising starvation. If we consider these conditions together, they constitute many of the factors that have led in the past to war and genocide – as a means of maintaining group identity in the threat of extinction. In our omnipotent backlash, will we destroy ourselves before the climate does? Or will we find a way to migrate to another planet?


[i] See Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 1st edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1962.

Posted on May 20, 2019 .

The Joke's on Us. A Cautionary Note.


The world listens as Donald Trump, President of the United States, on a state visit to the United Kingdom bemoans the fact that Prime Minister, Theresa May, had “wrecked Brexit” because she had not taken his advice. We then see Trump, standing at a podium at Chequers alongside May, declaring that “Boris Johnson would make a great Prime Minister.” May deftly brushed off Trump’s criticisms, saying, “Don’t worry, it’s only the press.”

Many of us are now used to Trump’s outrageous public statements which he just as readily denies as being “fake news”, but the more we laugh, the more we succumb to a helpless despondency that this is our new reality – a reality ruled by the id and freed from the paternal shackles of the super-ego. This is the justice of the disaffiliated and disempowered Trump electorate who are finally having their say against the elites who are deemed responsible for unfair regulation, job losses, and inequality.

As Trump presses ahead with economic tariffs and the disruption of political stability across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, and as populist movements proliferate across the globe, are the dissenting voices losing traction? Are “we” (liberal elites) only talking to ourselves? Trump’s words and his actions, once shocking to many of us, are now laughed at and at least partly dismissed as the words of a monster. This is eerily reminiscent of the gradual numbing helplessness experienced by many Germans during the onset of the Third Reich.

In his famous memoir of Nazi Germany, Defying Hitler, Sebastian Haffner wrote,

“I felt, intensely, the choking, nauseous character of it all, but I was unable to grasp its constituent parts and place them in an overall order. Each attempt was frustrated and veiled by those endless, useless, vain discussions in which we attempted again and again to fit the events into an obsolete, unsuitable scheme of political ideas….Strangely enough, it was just this automatic continuation of ordinary life that hindered any lively, forceful reaction against the horror.”(pp.113-4)

As the infringements of human rights are increasingly accepted – whether it is the separation of children from their migrant parents or the selected ban on Muslims travelling to the United States – and “normal” life continues for most of us, the “normalization” of these conditions increases. With widespread distrust of what is “real” news, we are also left unable to make judgements and unable to think. Normalization turns into mindlessness.

Haffner warns, “There is a saying ascribed to Hitler: ‘I will press my opponents into service – in the Reichswehr.’”(p.223) We would be wise to heed this warning and to voice as much dissent as we can now before further damage is done to our democratic principles.

History has a tendency to repeat itself. And yet, Timothy Snyder, the Yale historian, also warns us that history is becoming irrelevant in our political view of the world. At our peril, we are being drawn into what Snyder refers to as the “politics of eternity”, an ahistorical totalitarian state of mind, reliant on a saviour/leader to provide security to the group. As therapists we know very well the dangerous consequences of ignoring – or denying – history. The return of the repressed is rearing its head for all of us to see. No joke.

Posted on July 15, 2018 .


download (1).jpg

Cambridge Analytica Uncovered: Secret filming reveals election tricks

UK Chanel 4 News documentary 19/03/2018

“The two fundamental human drivers when it comes to taking information on board effectively are hopes and fears and many of those are unspoken and even unconscious. You didn’t know that was a fear until you saw something that just evoked that reaction from you. And our job is to get, is to drop the bucket further down the well than anybody else, to understand what are those really deep-seated underlying fears, concerns. It’s no good fighting an election campaign on the facts because actually it’s all about emotion. The big mistake political parties make is that they attempt to win the argument rather than locating the emotional center of the issue, the concern, and speaking directly to that.”

Mark Turnbull, Managing Director CA Political Global

Politics is not a rational process, it is, as Mark Turnbull says, not about the facts, “it’s all about emotion.” The liberal left has failed to recognize this with the result that alt-right leaders, focusing on people’s fears, conscious and unconscious, are encouraging voters to seek safety in an all-powerful leader who promises to protect them and to restore power to the people. This is how populism responds to our fear of loss in the face of unemployment, migration, and the demise of communities. Rather than making false promises, why can’t the liberal left address our fear of loss by trying to change the future rather than revert to the past, and by replacing illusion with imagination?

Posted on March 21, 2018 .

A Cold or Hot War Brewing? Trump's Nuclear Deterrence

On Friday 2nd February 2018, Trump defended the recent Pentagon decision to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal. Trump assured Americans as he flexed his muscles at the world, stating,  “As part of our defence we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully, never having to use it but making it so strong and so powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.”  Harking back to the rationale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Trump relies on the threat of omnipotent destruction to bring aggressors to their senses. What he fails to acknowledge is that acts of political aggression are not only multi-causal but most importantly they are not rational decisions; the decision to attack another country is caused by a lust for power fuelled by fear.  It is arguable that armament agreements to date have provided some containment for omnipotent fantasies and fears between political rivals. Mutual agreements can serve the purpose of an overarching superego that enlists the id of each group or nation and creates a brake on acting out destructive impulses.  However, with Trump’s open declaration to surpass the armament capacity of other nations, such as Russia, China, Syria, India and so on, he is breaking any such containment. Instead, the fear that the US could be the perpetrator of this omnipotent fantasy of mass destruction, will only foster huge insecurity amongst US citizens – and increased levels of paranoia against those who challenge US supremacy.

On Friday 2nd February 2018, Trump defended the recent Pentagon decision to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal. Trump assured Americans as he flexed his muscles at the world, stating,

“As part of our defence we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully, never having to use it but making it so strong and so powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.”

Harking back to the rationale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Trump relies on the threat of omnipotent destruction to bring aggressors to their senses. What he fails to acknowledge is that acts of political aggression are not only multi-causal but most importantly they are not rational decisions; the decision to attack another country is caused by a lust for power fuelled by fear.

It is arguable that armament agreements to date have provided some containment for omnipotent fantasies and fears between political rivals. Mutual agreements can serve the purpose of an overarching superego that enlists the id of each group or nation and creates a brake on acting out destructive impulses.

However, with Trump’s open declaration to surpass the armament capacity of other nations, such as Russia, China, Syria, India and so on, he is breaking any such containment. Instead, the fear that the US could be the perpetrator of this omnipotent fantasy of mass destruction, will only foster huge insecurity amongst US citizens – and increased levels of paranoia against those who challenge US supremacy.

Posted on February 6, 2018 .

Einstein and Freud: The Recurring Menace of War



Echoing the words of Truman on the eve of Hiroshima in 1945, Trump promises “fire and fury like the world has never seen," in response to Kim Jong-Un’s threatened preemptive military strikes against the US. Two leaders, striving for omnipotence and struggling with internal political dissent and conflict. By threatening to exterminate North Korea, Trump validates Jong-Un’s paranoia and exposes his own anxiety about remaining in power. Is this the war we’ve been waiting for? And, if so, what are the reasons this is happening now?


A year before Hitler’s rise to power, Einstein writes to Freud from his summer house south of Potsdam, asking two questions about war.

His first question: -

“Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?”

And his second question: -

“Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness?”

Freud responds by arguing that mankind is innately aggressive and that, starting with the primal horde, humans settle conflicts by force and violence. In one form or another, might rules. (Freud/Einstein in Covington et al., 2002) What Freud might also have talked about, but didn’t, is the importance of how we perceive “the other”. This is Freud’s idea of the narcissism of minor differences and it is at the root of all conflict and at the root of our psychological development.

In thinking about our response to the menace of war, it is vitally important to understand the role of the “other” in the unconscious processes that come to life and take hold of large groups and produce what Einstein identified as “the psychoses of hate and destructiveness.”

From the moment of birth, we are faced with the challenge of dealing with the “other”. It is the “other” who threatens our survival and our narcissistic world. However, without the “other” we lose our sense of having a separate identity. If we replace the word “other” with the word “enemy” we can see that, while our enemies threaten us, they also allow us to maintain a distinct identity and, within groups (just as within the individual psyche), to consolidate our sense of who we are.

This leads us to the question of peace and war and how they interplay with the identity of large groups.

There is a strong argument, supported by sociologists, such as Weber and Simmel, and political scientists, such as Michael Desch, that war is the most important factor in establishing “strong, centralized states and cohesive national polities.”(Walt, 2016) The impetus to fight the enemy requires internal unity while it also promotes patriotism and the suppression of internal divisions. But as Simmel points out: “A group’s complete victory over its enemies is….not always fortunate….Victory lowers the energy which guarantees the unity of the group; and the dissolving forces, which are always at work, gain hold.”(Ibid.)

There are numerous examples of the drawbacks to victory and peace throughout history. Two brief examples. In Europe, e.g., the period from 1815 and the Treaty of Versailles until the Crimean War of 1853 was relatively free from external threats. Yet during this same period there was an unprecedented breakdown in state cohesion and a series of internal upheavals across various European states. In the US, by 1850 external threats were inconsequential and yet by 1860 the American civil war was about to erupt.

In contrast, the Cold War gave birth to the American federal state and strengthened national unity. Desch describes the Cold War as the “perfect type of threat”. (Ibid.) It did not escalate to a state of war but it served to unify the states under threat and to enhance their alliance with one another. Since the end of the Cold War, the level of conflict in the world has generally been declining. While there is greater stability internally, this also allows for internal conflicts to surface and become more divisive.

Desch argues, “The longer the period of reduced international security competition, the more likely are developed states to be plagued by the rise of narrow sectoral, rather than broad encompassing, interest groups.” (Ibid.)

The lesson here is that reducing external dangers has a downside. Stephen Walt, Prof of International Relations at Harvard, argues: “The less threatened we are by the outside world, the more prone we are to ugly quarrels at home. Even worse, peace may contain the seeds of its own destruction. As we are now seeing in the Middle East, the collapse of unity and state authority can easily trigger violent internal conflicts that eventually drag outside powers back in.”(Ibid.)

Is this what we are in fact witnessing now in the US and in other parts of the world?

Demonization has been a prominent tactic of Trump’s presidential campaign and an underlying psychological lever in his bid for autocracy. First it was the Mexicans, then the Muslims, now the North Koreans.  The problematic “other” is no longer within our borders but is threatening to control us from outside. The new “wall” is not only between the US and Mexico but it is being constructed around the borders of an increasingly isolationist US. The unconscious narrative is that, by externalizing our own conflict, we can restore unity within the US and return to the long-lost glory of our past – the most powerful country in the world. This is a regressive fantasy to re-create the narcissism of our early childhood.

The tipping point may be upon us. Trump’s successive governmental failures and glaring incompetencies are not only personally threatening but are fuelling the divisiveness that already exists amongst political and social groups within the US.

Restoring internal unity by identifying an external enemy and acting on our fantasies is a very dangerous thing to do. We need to remind ourselves that this was how WW2 began and that, unless we are careful, this current upheaval may well lead to another war.

So is war an inevitable outcome of peace? And, if it is, to go back to Einstein’s question, can we do anything about it?

Both Einstein and Freud agree on one thing. In his letter, Freud writes: “Wars will only be prevented with certainty if mankind unites in setting up a central authority to which the right of giving judgement upon all conflicts of interest shall be handed over.” (Covington et al., 2002, p.195) Einstein echoes this: “As long as nations demand unrestricted sovereignty we shall undoubtedly be faced with still bigger wars, fought with bigger and technologically more advanced weapons.” (To Robert Hutchins, September 10, 1945) Both warn against the dangers of nationalistic and psychologically narcissistic political positions.

Freud offers some hope that we can mitigate conflict through psychological insight into the unconscious processes that give rise to political violence. How we think about ourselves and how we understand our actions and our fantasies, can make a difference to our future.

As Einstein said: “A new kind of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels.”(From an address at the fifth Nobel anniversary dinner in New York, December 10, 1945.)



Freud and Einstein’s call for nations to unite within a central authority came to fruition in the birth of the United Nations. As its members, most notably the US, claw back national sovereignty, the central authority that the UN was meant to have is increasingly restricted and made impotent. Is Trump’s quest for power over others leading us into an ever-more frightening vulnerability?

Einstein’s warnings about the dangers of “unrestricted sovereignty” are as relevant today as they were in 1945.




“Freud/Einstein Correspondence” in Covington, C.; Williams, P.; Arundale, J.; Knox, J. eds. (2002). Terrorism and War: Unconscious Dynamics of Political Violence. Karnac: London.

Walt, S.M. June 17, 2016. “The Case Against Peace.” In Foreign Policy.

Posted on August 10, 2017 .

In the Land of Make-Believe: The New Truth That Gets Rid of Loss


A patient in her early thirties recently admitted that she hadn’t voted, yet again, in the UK elections because she felt overwhelmed by information, tweets, Facebook messages and instagrams giving her bits of information that she couldn’t make sense of. And, worst of all, she didn’t know what was true and wasn’t.

At least 40% of the American public turn to social media as their only source of news. Social media, in all its multifarious forms, has overtaken full sentences and live voice contact as a way of communicating, whether it be directions, experience, self-importance, or the condemnation or praise of public figures. The success of electioneering is increasingly dependent on sound bite slogans, one line mantras, or 140 characters.

If we are surprised – now rather frequently – of the results of recent elections; e.g. Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK, Corbyn’s rise and May’s slump in the UK, and Macron in France[1] – what is going on? The polls that we relied on in the past have notably failed to predict outcomes. In fact, the traditional analysis of voting trends, breaking down groups according to age, ethnic origin, sex, economic class and type of employment, marital status, and so on, are increasingly failing to show any predictable pattern at all.

Even though we may like to believe voting is a rational process that reflects the interests of particular groups, like many other decisions in our lives, it is highly emotional. In the past the press has prided itself on delivering the “facts”, albeit not without inevitable bias. Now the “facts” are also becoming emotional.

The upsurge in “fake news” surrounding elections around the world in the last two years or so has coincided with rising populist movements. It is a marker not only of political manipulation but of how the meaning of truth itself is morphing from factual events occurring in external reality to the emotional reality we are all in different ways facing as globalization changes our economies and how we see ourselves - and our fear of being left behind. As my patient put it, “For me and my friends, our future is like riding a surf-board, the object is to stay standing as long as possible and to avoid tipping over into the waves.” They are the lucky ones. “If I voted, I’d vote for those who are the most passionate, who have our backs, who promise the good life.”

Although my patient is well-educated and has a good job, beneath the surface of her braggadocio is the fear of being swept away by waves of loss that are beyond her control. These are not just the inevitable losses that come with growing up, it is the anxiety of not being able to have a more or less predictable future with the ability to take care of oneself and one’s children. This anxiety now colours our emotional reality and is at the fulcrum of how we see the truth.

Voters in the US – on all sides – are especially driven by the fear of loss. On one hand there is Trump’s nostalgic vision of “Make America Great Again” for those who have already lost the futures they expected to have and on the other hand, the threat perceived by the liberal elite that if we are pulled by the sirens of the past, we will flounder and be shipwrecked. Leaders are sought, as my patient expressed, according to their promises, not by their abilities to captain the ship in choppy waters.

As inequality grows and the sea gets rougher, Trump’s genius has been to resurrect the promise of the American Dream. Like the Wizard of Oz, Trump sits behind his curtain, tweeting the American public almost daily the new reality and the new truth. Anyone who disagrees is relegated to the realm of the untrue. In her observations on totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt points out that when unquestioning adherence to the party line is expected, regardless of what is true or not, then nothing is trustworthy and no one can make up their minds. It deprives the group of being able to think and judge – and ultimately to act. This is the plight of my patient. As the Serbian scholar, Dzihic, comments, the leader who shapes his own reality “throws dust in the eyes of the public.” When the truth is shrouded, only promises matter.


[1] Macron is notable as one of the few new leaders who have successfully resisted a regressive pull to the past in his political manifesto.

Posted on July 13, 2017 .