Eradicating human instinct would be an impossible task

A reader responds to my Aug. 26 column (lvrj.com/living/just-beyond-dystopian-visions-lies-a-place-called-normalcy-167464995.html) ...

Interesting piece, Steven, with which I sort of agree. On the one hand, it is quite true that much of our human history has had to do with the struggle to control our baser, more animal instincts. But I don't think it is fair to suggest that those instincts are ALL evil, and must be ENTIRELY eradicated, as Freud seems to think. If it is true that we are all basically "chimpanzees with language," then it is fair to observe that some of what chimpanzees do is reprehensible, but some of it is not.

And as far as dystopias are concerned, I completely agree; it's a literary genre that has interested me my whole life. The current significance of the genre, I think, is in how it is used. Nowadays we seem to love to scare and goad ourselves into action with dystopic visions of society that say, metaphorically, that "we are all packed into a burning movie theater and nobody but me and my friends seem to notice." In other words, the right's catastrophic decline in American values, as well as the left's imminent collapse of life on earth due to global warming, are BOTH the rhetorical equivalent of biblical Old Testament "voices crying in the wilderness." - T.R., Las Vegas

I am in no way suggesting that human instincts are "all evil," or even a little bit evil. Human instincts are part of the created order. Necessary, from an evolutionary point of view. Inherent and "good," from a Judeo-Christian theological point of view.

What's not the least bit instinctual, on a purely biological level, is morality. Fair to say, for example, that chimpanzees don't have values. Just instincts. It's by instinct (territoriality) that troops of chimpanzees move out into the forest to find and kill chimpanzees from other groups. Kill. Not murder. Because murder is a value judgment. Nothing chimpanzees do is reprehensible. Nor is anything they do indicative of character.

The very crux of the moral life is our ability to have instincts, without instincts having (controlling) us. Again, from a religious viewpoint, the ancient word is "mortification." To mortify an instinct is not - I repeat not - to eradicate the instinct. Rather, to discipline that instinct in service to the individual and wider good. A human being can't not (forgive the double-negative) have sexual instincts. He/she can't not have aggressive instincts. At the end of the day, after all, we are animals. Sentient, self-aware animals, yes; but animals, nonetheless. And animals have instincts.

Neither is Sigmund Freud saying that human instincts are all evil and necessitating eradication. To the contrary, Freud pioneered a nonmoral, objective examination of instincts. He admired human instincts. He believed ignoring instincts (repression) was the cause of human neuroses and much individual unhappiness. Nor, on the other hand, was he suggesting giving license to any and every individual instinctual expression.

His point in this discussion is his only point: Peace, harmony and productivity (being civilized) in social/tribal groups requires the repression of instincts.

Western civilization is replete, for example, with repressive child-rearing practices. Meaning, parents discipline their children for violence/aggression against siblings and classmates. They admonish, scold and punish children who dare to express anger/displeasure at adult authority. Parents have rules about sexual curiosity and restraints which, from a strict biological point of view, artificially delay sexual behavior. As adults, we have rules (taboos) about who is available for sexual partnership and who is strictly forbidden.

Freud accepted the necessity of repression, though he observed that Western child-rearing practices were unnecessarily repressive to the point of cruelty. The traditional focus of psychoanalysis is making repressed, now unconscious instincts conscious. Then to refocus those instincts (sublimation) to something benign, or in some cases good. In psychology, we say "to integrate" the instincts.

I love your political reflections at the end, T.R. And I agree. Our modern political machinery, both left and right, regularly posits dystopia to the electorate as a means of garnering votes by mobilizing fear. Sometimes I think Lyndon Johnson got elected by convincing us Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war, that Bush Jr. got elected for a second term by convincing us we'd all die if gay people could get married. I confess I'm being glib, but you get my point: "The other guy will lead you to dystopia, so vote for me."

The funny thing is, it works. If you tell the story of dystopia well, we'll vote for you. Or we'll buy tickets to see your movie.

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Las Vegas Psychiatry and the author of "Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing" (Stephens Press). His columns appear on Sundays. Contact him at 227-4165 or skalas@reviewjournal.com.