When it comes to repression, most often it’s spoken of in the realm of the libidinal. While useful in the exploration of Freudian theory, I believe the mechanisms of repression can speak to all the worst travails of postmodern society. Fundamentally, all repression stems from a place of self-preservation where if the repressed object or memory were to surface, fear prevents its circulation into consciousness. Practically, this transforms what begins as a fear of the alien, the foreign into direct antagonism or hatred for what is unfamiliar and unknown, though its manifestations can take on more disguised forms of exoticism, commodification, fetishization.

If we apply this process of repressive logics to any of our currently studied sociological spheres, we find at the root of racism, political polarization, war exists the same drive: to repress the unknown in fear of upturning what has come define the self. Maybe rather unshockingly, the primary manifestation of hatred is violence — physical, intellectual, spiritual or otherwise — for the sake of self-preservation, the human mind is predisposed to eliminating all sources of otherness whether through abjection, shame, or outright destruction. Where Freudian theory is limited is in proposing any solutions to managing these automatic mechanisms of repression beyond how they function within the individual. By its very nature, psychoanalysis can only provide liberation of an individual’s mind, as one’s psyche is only in control of one’s own body, not the body’s relationship to others.

Freud suggests that repressions operate by applying “continuous pressure” towards consciousness, and in reaction to the danger posed by unwanted ideation, the mind applies a cauterizing counter-pressure to keep a desire, thought, or memory at a distance. In this way, the mind must always stay active in the presence of a repressed desire, so as to not upset the normal mode of consciousness one wishes to maintain. In the libidinal, this hyperactivity of mind actually can be cause for the repressed object to remain at the forefront of consciousness, seeping deeper into the subconscious and being expressed in dreams/fantasy projections. A trained psychoanalyst might prescribe one to simply accept the presence of the desire for what it is, managing the symptoms to a level that allows one to function in a “normal” fashion. However, when we take this principle and attempt to apply it at the scale of interpersonal relationships and society at large, the combined energies required to maintain a sustained repression lead to harmful ends: over-policing or permitting the release of the repression. In either case, communities act in accord in order to satisfy these demands, multiplying the strain on collective consciousness where there should instead be efforts to alleviate the strain.

Any sort of rehabilitative practice requires intense focus, time, and energy. But modern capitalist society has conditioned our thinking to seek methodologies that produce immediate results, and in the case of strain on a collective consciousness, many groups find solutions in sloganeering, quick judgments, and alienation. One might argue that no alternative exists to policing or permitting; this is true to the extent that one expects immediate results. However, for sustained, transformative change that occurs over time, we must consider methods that do not expend energy on mechanisms of repression, but rather transcend the repressed thought itself, building protections around the sub- and unconscious to prevent the costly spread of repressed energies throughout the consciousness.

If repression begins as a form of self-preservation — maintaining the “normal” self in the presence of an abject or unwanted thought — how might we reconfigure consciousness from a mode of self-preservation to self-sacrifice? In this sort of reversal, I believe consciousness, individual or collective, can be liberated from the dooming cycle of sustained repression. How this might look practically is to accept others unconditionally, despite one’s preference to be around a certain type of person, and to dedicate time to seeking goodness on behalf of anyone within a community — this requires a complete sacrifice of the ego in order to obtain a greater common good, self-sacrifice made with time, care, dedication, and consideration. This entire concept can be summed up rhetorically in the Biblical wisdom “Love thy neighbor,” a syntactically simple phrase but infinitely powerful in its ability to subvert even the most complex logical knots tied by systems of repression over collective consciousness. I should note, that this precept is not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity — many world religions hold the same practice as fundamental to the sustenance and growth of a community, which I believe points to its primordial, transcendent wisdom.

Breaking down the phrase for analysis, we see an imperative command to “love” directed at “thy neighbor.” If we’re to take either portion literally, it’s a simple demand. But pulling our field of view to postmodern society, we encounter all the complexities and nuances that must be addressed. First, there must be some sort of common definition of what it is to “love,” rarely considered in academic circles outside of humane studies; and second, in our interconnected globalized world of online communities, is it possible that everyone we encounter should be considered our neighbor? I don’t wish to posit an answer here, but would like to suggest that in order to heal our world of its divisive ideologies, this is where I believe we must begin: with questions that threaten our own self-preservation for the sake of a greater good. Is it even possible to work so radically towards love and community building that we’ll all arrive to a point of agreement re: these definitions? I can’t answer with certainty but seeing the world in its current condition of reactionary thinking, I see a large void available for us to fill with revolutionary thinking.

Sincerely yours,
–