…“do our political beliefs truly stem from conscious and thorough assessment, or are there perhaps hidden psychical forces, exerting influence over us all?”
—
Exploring the Brexit phenomenon in relation to this question may offer preliminary insight into some of the complex, psychical mechanisms at play here. Brexit achieved a certain notoriety for its status as a topic not many understood, and when initial public polling suggested that the Remain camp was in front, the Vote Leave campaign realised it needed a change in tactic in order to win. Advocating for new trade policies and potential economic benefits was failing to persuade; they needed something spicier, more engaging, yet simple enough to rally the masses. Thus the politicians, consultants, and strategists behind the Vote Leave campaign decided to shift its focus away from arguments of substance, to something they knew has been and will always be perhaps the most sensitive chord of public sentiment - immigration.
Not only is immigration an intriguing topic from a psychoanalytic perspective, but what made Brexit even more fascinating was the fact that the EU does not, and never did determine Britain’s law on immigration. The only exception was the freedom of movement of workers, which allowed EU citizens to live and work in the UK without a visa. However, the UK was a sovereign member state and could have opted out of this freedom of movement if it had wanted to, regardless of the outcome of Brexit. But despite the experts and scholars pointing this out many times during the debate, it failed to resonate with much of the public. The emotive language and propaganda implemented by the pro-Brexit campaign made it seem like the UK had at somehow lost its sovereignty, and that it needed to “take back control” - making Brexit seem like the only way to regain it. Intra-EU migration began to dominate as the single most important issue in the referendum’s discourse, eclipsing its factual relevance and ultimately swaying the outcome in favour of leaving.
The question we must ask ourselves here: How and why did Brexit cunningly transform from a complex & multi-faceted political debate, into a simple struggle for nationalism?
No matter what the validities of staying in the EU were, everything else became secondary to the question of controlling borders. But this change in tactic was by no means some novel strategy; it’s one which has proven to be one of the most potent forms of mobilising (and dividing) voters on a global scale. Today, we see it in the form of Trump’s appeal to voters by building a wall, or Farage’s 2016 Brexit poster symbolising brown people as a national danger. Yet, as history attests, there is a long historical parallel of politicians weaponising the issue of immigration as a means of tapping into a person’s anxieties, fears, and questions of identity, in turn helping buck national voting trends. This is accomplished not just through policy, but also through a fear-mongering type of rhetoric that can be traced all the way back, at least in this country, to the days of Thatcher publicly claiming that the country was being “swamped” by different cultures, or even before her, with Peter Griffith’s unofficial campaign slogan that helped him win the Smethwick seat in 1964:
From a psychoanalytic perspective, forming a particular view on immigration can be used as a means of resolving some inner problem. One may be inclined to make certain, obvious conclusions at this point, but if Lacan taught Freudians anything, it was the enhanced emphasis on the individual’s individuality, and that it is not for the Analyst to directly tell us what’s inside, but rather, for us to draw the conclusions ourselves. Having said that, for the sake of this piece and due to the obvious difficulties in analysing the psyche of over 30 million voters, examining the collective psyche, which politics often exploits, is preferable. In its most basic interpretation, open borders can signal change, and change taps into a plethora of risks and dangers for us in different ways. One of the most common anxieties we see in the consulting room is the fear of losing control. We need to have control over our bodies, our environment, our successes, our autonomy…or perhaps a more-suited synonym in the case of Brexit, our sovereignty.
Identifying with the nationalist ideology can thus become a useful outlet for many. Feeling proud (British), wanting to feel like the chosen one, wanting to finally feel prioritised, wishing to be put first by those in charge. To most of us, these ideas seem sufficient enough in their own right to not dig further, but anyone who’s worked in or read about child development cannot help but connect these ideas back to our early desires as children. One of the core tenets of Psychoanalysis, in its simplest terms, is the concept of understanding what our value is for “The Other” - how we are perceived or wish to be perceived, by the ones we love most.
As adults, we often tend to forget the world of a child, that is, the world we were once part of. As babies, we are born into complete dependency and for all those years, our mother fed us, bathed us, nurtured, and took care of us. Almost every wish, every desire we had as kids, our parents were able to fulfill and attend to - an imperative idea behind the popularity of Superhero movies (not only just for children but many adults too). It would serve well to remember that our parents, at one point, seemed like our superheroes, people in our little worlds who would prioritise and love us, above anything and anyone. What’s most crucial is that the bond that’s created between the child and caregiver during our earliest interactions is then crystallized into our very being, in turn making our parents forever irreplaceable.
But through this bond, an internalised dilemma emerges: if a child’s self-worth is largely derived from the love, attention, and emotional responses of their parent(s), thereby developing a sense of being valuable and worthy, what happens when there is a change in investment? What happens if the love and attention are withdrawn or diminished, due to either something internal like a child getting into trouble, or due to external factors, such as the birth of another sibling, a parents job, the death of a parent, or their unattended emotional problems?
For those of us who felt a sort of innate magnetisation towards leaving the EU, it may have, on some level, touched on a similar chord. We don’t want our value or our identity to feel threatened, in this case, by something external: People coming from abroad, migrating upon our territory and the perception of them taking our jobs represents a danger to our value for, in this case, society and our worlds. We don’t want to feel insecure and needy by those in charge, so we identify with the political group or with the people in charge whose ideology allows us to feel needed and secure. This in turn gives room to express anger and blame, so often resulting in the scapegoating of immigrants. The ability to shift blame can be a child’s most powerful asset, helping them to get out of trouble, or helping avoid negative emotions as a whole. Blaming the parent, the sibling, someone or something else… our early troubles with rivalry is what often creates the desire to feel superior to and exclude others - a fundamental tenant of Nationalist ideology. In Psychoanalytic therapy, it is the Analyst’s job to help redirect these emotions back to the people who we really feel is to blame - whether it’s towards others, or even ourselves.
People are often quick to dismiss Psychoanalysis based on their perception of Freud’s Oedipal complex. Whilst it is a somewhat unpalatable idea, something which Freud wanted most to consider his ideas as, it is worthwhile to note that not only has the theory been plenty revised over successive generations of Analysts, but when we refer to the Oedipal in therapy today, we are not inferring that all children want to have sex with their parents. Those who’ve typically not read the works of Freud or his successors often mistake his reference to a child’s sexual desire as that of an adult’s, that is, genital sex. Rather, we are referring to the desire to be close to our mothers (or fathers) as children - to be embraced, hugged, nurtured, and all the different forms of maternal intimacy that are so crucial to us in childhood. In terms of Brexit, for many, the desire to regain one’s sense of self and value was latched onto the political desire to take pride in being British and “take back what’s ours” – an idea which, in part, may echo some oedipal components. All children want to be what’s most important for their mother/father, whether it’s fighting with other siblings, or even their (most often) same-sex parent to take back what’s theirs.
Brexit thus became a useful tool for many of us to externalize our inner conflicts and desires, allowing us to feel we were taking back control over an aspect of our lives, safeguarding our inherent worth and identity. We wanted to demonstrate our own independence, and the right to have control over ourselves and our destiny - something that all children, at one point, wish to show their parents. Given the profoundly polarising divide that arose from political debate renowned for its obscurity, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the idea that our underlying emotions, most often evading conscious acknowledgment, can not only influence, but in fact coalesce and mould our, in this case, political beliefs.
What we inherently feel transcends the realm of politics, and is perhaps transferred into the realm of our politics.
COMING SOON…
PART 2: BEING LIED TO - FOREIGN POLICY
Great article! Recommended your column to my audiences!
Great article! Both fascinating and frightening how psychology underpins today's anti-immigrant/racist politics in Britain but also totally applicable to other European countries and the U.S.