Ruggedness and Dependence
Closely related to the contradiction between adjustment and individuality is that between dependence and ruggedness. Viewed psychologically, the actual weakness of the individual in the social setup is concomitant with serious narcissistic losses which have somehow to be made up vicariously by the column. For the purpose, it draws again on some phenomena of reality. The psychological feeling of dependence seems to be on the increase. But giving up one's individuality requires the same effort and investment of libido formerly needed in order to develop individuality – in a way, the same »ruggedness.« Thus the column's task is twofold – in as much as the situation makes for subordination, it has to reassure its readers that they are nevertheless rugged individuals; in as much as the situation calls for real ruggedness, it has to assuage their own feeling of impotence. As to »aggressiveness,« it obviously goes with the ideal of being practical; as to subordination, this seems to be related to conscience and generally to a timid and withdrawn personality structure. A common denominator is sought for both types.
It can easily be seen that the dimension here considered does by no means coincide with those previously stated. No mechanical parallelism between the three main dichotomies analyzed by our study would be adequate. Since the total approach of the column is, as may have crystallized by now, a definite pattern, a structural unit, everything is somehow connected with everything else, and the analytic isolation of various factors has always something of the arbitrary. Yet the isolating operations we have carried through are invited by the nature of the material. The column's model of ruggedness has very little in common with those irrational qualities of the individual it stresses otherwise; and the sense of obedience it promotes is equally distant from the salesman traits of the happy extrovert. The antagonism here under discussion expresses itself frequently in the habit of sometimes advising people to be definite, sometimes to think carefully before they act. The warning not to hesitate33 is probably derived from the pressure of time under which most people have to work together with the impact of the widespread, culturally conditioned taboo of »armchair thinking.« Yet today it is dangerous to practically anyone to act upon his own responsibility. People who make supposedly wrong decisions are rarely in a position to follow up these decisions independently, to make them good or to take subsequent actions by which the previous ones may be justified, but are generally called on the carpet if the decision does not agree with the policy set by higher agencies. This structural change typically involved in the bureaucratization of modern society, is met by the column's advice not to act hastily and irrevocably, particularly not to be led by impulse into actions, but rather to think carefully and particularly to discuss problems with others before acting.
... discuss thoroughly with those familiar with true facts, operating principles.
(November 25, 1952, Cancer)
You see both sides of every question confronting you, are able to convince all colleagues of your stand.
(November 25, 1952, Capricorn)
You feel dynamic, determined to put your plans in effect at all costs. However, do so cleverly without alienating others with big ego who resent other's success.
(December 14, 1952, Scorpio)
Be careful that in haste to do chore and get to church or off on trip you do not damage articles of clothing. In P.M. confer with associate about new big venture.
(January 4, 1953, Libra)
Your determination to spend much on investments and pleasures is all right, but not now; await a better moment for this step – watch these suggestions.
(January 7, 1953, Gemini)
Concomitantly the general tendency of the column to prepare the addressees to act as members of »teams« comes to the fore. It is as though it had been accepted as a major ideological tenet that everything can be settled by majority decisions taken at some »meeting,« a caricature of democracy. At the same time, the continuous encouragement to talk things over with others appeals to the conviction of many people mentioned previously, that others know more about them and their own difficulties than they know themselves – an all-pervasive sense of self-alienation. It is in this connection that the concept of »understanding« crops up in the column. Sociologically the stress on understanding, being understood as well as understanding others, probably reflects social atomization, the reverse and concomitant of collectivization as studied by David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd. The column calculates, probably correctly, that whoever is subject to cold, dehumanized, rigid, and alienated social relationships feels insufficiently understood. Objective estrangement is made up suggestively, synthetically, as it were, by ubiquitous »human interest.« Thus continuous advice is given to seek other persons who understand one and to try to understand others.
Make sure you are most understanding with members of family who are distraught.
(November 22, 1952, Scorpio)
Be most careful with all in authority. Be understanding that they have problems.
Bombastic associate, enemy unable to find personal peace of mind tries to take you also deep into doldrums. Be understanding but don't fall for this dreary line.
(December 30, 1952, Capricorn)
Your personal resentments keep desired – and desirable – favors from you; so smile, see other fellow's view, be kind to officials, then, P.M. bring much happiness.
(January 23, 1953, Capricorn)
The latter advice is sometimes administered under the viewpoint that one is able to overcome one's own difficulties by identifying oneself with someone even worse off. Thus even humaneness is treated as a means rather than an end. It is as though finally the sphere of the internal itself were to be incorporated into the range of externalization by manipulating the active and passive phases of understanding. Inwardness is integrated into the machinery.
While this can be partly explained by the tendency to transform objective problems into subjective and psychological ones, it also means that one should be prepared to give in to the supposedly higher wisdom of those whom one has to obey anyway. Psychological self-reflection is transformed into a tool furthering adjustment. Meekness towards the more powerful seems to do less damage to so-called self-esteem if cloaked as the outcome of higher insight either into oneself or into those whom one obeys.
Not infrequently the bi-phasic admonition appears actually in behavioral terms. Sometimes the addressee as a successful business man has to be »dynamic,« sometimes he has to »give in.« It seems, however, that the advice to be strong and rugged is meted out rather reluctantly. While the veneer of the addressee's independence is guarded, he is advised most of the time to be strong only with people weaker or at least on an equal footing with him, particularly with his family, but also occasionally with the »friends« whose function throughout the column is somewhat ambivalent. On the whole the column takes the idea of »ruggedness« less seriously than its counterpart.
The idea of »giving in« is usually cloaked in such a way that all potentially unpleasant demands to be expected from the outside are presented as though they were well-meaning advice from other people. Here again, adjustment necessitated by stronger conditions is mitigated as an achievement of insight. The soft-pedalling is most of the time brought about by the device of personalization. The requirements of reality are constantly reduced to the human figures who might want or order something. These persons rather than the requirements themselves are continuously characterized. Generally they are well-meaning, experienced, friendly, but at the same time, powerful and somehow authority figures; sometimes, however, provision is made for negative experiences with them.
These negative characteristics are generally stated in a way calling for pity with the strong rather than for their rejection. If it is envisaged that the addressee is being hurt by someone, he is made to understand that he is not to hit back but rather to assume an attitude indicative of his own inner superiority and to yield. The psychiatrically well-known pattern of »identification with the aggressor«34 seems to be one of the column's basic positive ideas on human relationships. Perhaps it can be seen nowhere more clearly than here how the column, and the popular psychology to which it is related, strengthens defenses rather than dissolves them.
Human relationships are viewed in an authoritarian way, organized according to an implicit hierarchy of the strong and the weak, and, accordingly, almost entirely on the ruggedness vs. dependence level.