THE PERFECTIBILITY OF HUMANITY, MARXISM, AND PSYCHOANALYSIS

During a panel discussion exploring the relationship between Marxism and psychoanalysis, one panelist explained that, for many Marxist psychoanalysts, Marxism provided the necessary optimism that humanity could change.

Meanwhile, I was thinking that Marxism had to believe in the perfectibility of humanity! Without this belief, they would have absolutely no rationale to pursue their bloody utopian ideal, which had cost the lives of 100 million, according to some estimates.

The panelist went on to explain that both psychoanalysis and Marxism deny that we share a basic ego defect, which precludes change. While Marxists believe that we are the product of society, and society is the product of the means of production – and so just change the means of production and humanity is changed – the psychoanalyst believes that when knowledge and insight are changed, humanity is changed.

These observations highlight how a basic difference in worldviews can affect everything else that we believe. If we believe that humanity is basically good and perfectible, this belief exerts a profound effect upon our politics and the way we view life in general. If we believe that we can perfect humanity, then we will disregard the lessons of the past – what has worked and what has failed – and gladly jettison the good things that we have enjoyed in our society for the perfect.

I have met many young idealistic women who believe that love will conquer all. Accordingly, if Stalin, Mao, and Hitler had been adequately loved, they would never have ventured out on their genocidal course. Any conqueror or rapist could have been tamed by a loving ear. This type of thinking has placed many idealists (and those in their path) in harm’s way.

The belief in the perfectibility of humanity has sired many costly and wildly idealistic schemes. Worldviews play themself out in many ways. At the Ethical Culture Society, conversation usually centers on addressing the ills of the world and what can be done about them - having the right government, the right laws, or just the right understanding. Mankind is basically good. If we can only come to understand that we all will benefit if we just work together to do the right thing, we will live in peace and harmony, right? This, of course, will require coercion and our reeducation.

I protested:

·       Sometimes, we benefit more by doing the wrong thing. If we tell a little white lie to protect the boss, we might get the raise or promotion we’ve been seeking. If we don’t, we’ll miss out. I therefore don’t think that these pragmatic solutions will work.

According to the others, I was ignorant, and so I added:

·       Besides, you cannot build a better world on sand. As moral relativists – you believe that there are no higher God-given standards. What reason, then, do you have for doing the “right” thing if the “right” thing is just a matter of socially constructed evolving values?  As a Christian, it is a delight for me to know that  doing the good it a matter of adhering to objective unchanging truths and honoring my Creator.

Their response was thunderous:

·       You have no reason to suggest that we don’t have our own basis for moral thinking.

I agreed with them:

·       Truly, the law is written on the hearts of all of us. We are wired for moral truth, and I am therefore glad that you know the truth. However, you do not have an adequate rationale to do the truth if it’s just a matter of our feelings – the product of chance evolution. Besides, why even try to build a better society if the concept of “better” is no more than an evolving social convention or a biochemical reaction! How then can you fault the one who just wants to look out for #1?

One participant shook his head, “You have a very low view of humanity.” Another began to attack the Christian faith:

·       Your religion is fear-based. If you don’t do what your God wants, he’ll condemn you to hell. What type of God is that!

I responded that serving my God was the greatest joy in my life. However, later I thought of a better answer:

·       I can certainly see why you’d call Christianity “fear-based.” Anyone on the outside should experience fear. In fact, this would be a healthy response, like feeling fear when standing at the edge of a tall building. Besides, your assertion seems to suggest that if there is a Creator, He has no right to judge His creation. But do you have a basis for this assertion?

Once again, this worldview is based upon the belief that humanity is basically good and, therefore, couldn’t possibly deserve eternal punishment. We are just too good for that type of thing. If follows that the only reason that Hitler had not done what was right was either because he wasn’t raised properly or hadn’t received the right understanding – both of which weren’t his fault. In fact, there can be no real fault, because if we have received all the benefits of a proper environment, we would naturally be good and loving. Therefore, subjecting Hitler to eternal consequences would show a gross lack of understanding on the part of God.

Interestingly, this “understanding” is mere philosophy/religion. It rests upon nothing any more substantial than a cultural bias. In fact, all the evidence tends to prove the very opposite thing – the more our needs are satisfied, the less we are concerned about moral living. While absolute power corrupts absolutely, absolute satisfaction also corrupts.

Ironically, what might look like a high view of humanity might not be so. A high view of humanity regards us as moral agents who are fully culpable for the things that we do. We are not merely the result of formative processes. The idea that we are just the result of a combination of genetics and upbringing is demeaning and even de-humanizing.

Instead, we are created in the image of God and now we grow into His likeness “to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephes. 4:24). Consequently, our lives are infused with meaning and purpose.

God does not regard us as another animal, valued for its usefulness, to be discarded when we outgrow our social value. If our value comes from the fact that we are basically good people and are perfectible, what will happen to our value when it is found that we are not perfectible? Likewise, our rights should not depend upon any social evaluation of our worth. Instead, our rights come from the fact that we are beloved by our unchanging Creator, who assigns great penalties to those who victimize other humans.

Furthermore, if we derive our sense of value by thinking that we are good or perfectible, we are then coerced to go to great lengths to defend this source of value by denying whatever data that suggests otherwise. How can we possibly face the extent of our selfishness and nastiness when our value as a person is at stake?

These basic differences in our foundational beliefs about humanity profoundly affect our decisions and psychotherapeutic interventions. These beliefs lead us to ask:

·       How then can we face the truth about ourselves and still live at piece with ourselves?

While some need to attach themselves to a utopian ideal to derive their sense of self-importance, we can attach ourselves to our Savior who will always be there for us:

·       For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

It is only this kind of love that can give us the optimism we require to pursue the good, despite our self-awareness and circumstances.

Besides, what evidence does the idealist have that we are perfectible in this world? All of the evidence runs counter to this belief. Why then are there such idealists? What drives them to believe this way?  Once we reject God and the knowledge that we are beloved, even though we are unworthy of God’s love, we are coerced to fill the vacuum with an alternative self-definition. Many are driven to seek an ideal – any ideal – to which to devote themselves.

The Communistic atheist nations proactively rejected God in pursuit of the “workers’ paradise.” What was the result? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918 – 2008) was a Russian writer, and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in literature. He wrote revealingly about his own nation:

·       “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” (‘Voice from the Gulag’)

There seems to be a connection between our beliefs and the murder of 60 million. There always is. Our actions reflect our beliefs. When we reject God, we also reject our Source of sustenance and are driven to seek our identity, meaning, and purpose elsewhere.

What fuel is a car designed to use? Gasoline! To use a gas substitute might compromise the car. Therefore, our essential question should be, “What type of fuel are we designed to use? What will keep us running efficiently? Can we perfect ourselves without the intervention of our Savior?