Projective identification and the problem with 'anti-semitism'
Repost of a retracted Daily Kos article, dated November 13, 2023
For posterity and reference purposes, below is a repost of an article that I had originally published at Daily Kos on November 13, 2023 and which was retracted by the administrators November 14, 2023. Everything is as it was in the original.
(Not even a stub of the original article remains, however, as the admins removed every vestige of the piece, an action which incidentally is against their own Code of Ethics.)
Projective identification and the problem with ‘anti-semitism’
I mean to speak about a happenstance that is going on around here, one that many here may not have noticed if they’ve stayed away from the diaries covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Possibly it has leaked into non-I/P diaries as well, however, as it seems to be growing in scope and size. That’s the freely flung allegation of anti-Semitism.
Let me be the first to say that anti-Semitism is a real thing and it really happens. Anti-Semitism is understood as hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people, on the mere grounds of their being Jewish, their background. Much like racism, sexism, homophobia and other scourges of prejudice, it is an attitude that often informs a person’s practice (that is, it turns into active discrimination). This can have devastating effects on the person on the receiving end of the bigotry. And we’ve seen the results of this view of the Other when taken to extremes. This is something we should all fight against.
There is also a newer phenomenon, one that should be separated from what I just mentioned yet is inextricably entwined in the discussion, precisely because the label used is the same label for that pernicious practice to which I just referred. It occurs when someone on very slight evidence (or no evidence at all) simply accuses another person of being anti-Semitic.
Oftentimes this happens when that other person has done something that in other contexts would not be considered bigotry. For example, I have seen several comments here in the context of the I/P debate space characterized as anti-Semitic for criticizing the policies of Israel or scrutinizing what one or more Israeli officials have said. If a similar criticism had been lodged against, say, France, few people would say that that would be anti-Gallic. At the same time, such a label would not contain the same type of insidiousness.
The spurious charge of anti-Semitism is a type of propaganda, known as transfer device propaganda. It’s an associative device whereby the feelings engendered by an image or a phrase is stood side-by-side with the object or target of the propaganda, so that the emotions of the one “rub off” onto the target.
A Lesson in Propaganda and Logical Fallacies (cue to 2:40)
Back in the ‘80s, there was a commercial campaign geared toward selling cars: “What a feeling! Toyota.” It featured a person jumping into the air in excitement. That excitement was meant to be transferred in the viewer’s mind toward the product. And they were supposed to remember that feeling when they went in to buy a car.
The same thing is at work here, though the feeling is a decidedly abysmal one. Again, this is not to say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist or that it isn’t pernicious—it does and it is. But when a critic slings the accusation on the flimsiest or unwarranted of bases (often bringing all discussion to a halt as a non-incidental consequence), the very slur connotes the opprobrium associated with the category. Thus anyone tarred with the slur, even those wrongly or unjustly accused, find themselves stuck with stigma.
That’s how the stigma is operating: by transfer. It’s a device to single out critics and mark them for exclusion due to an (ostensibly) essential property (i.e., that of harboring bigotry). So, in this instance, the fundamental attribution error figures centrally.
The fundamental attribution error, as an aside, is a cognitive bias whereby someone judges that a person is something instead of attributing whatever it is that they did to situational or environmental factors. (The flip side is that, if it is we who have committed an infraction, we tend to see the opposite, attributing our shortcomings to external events and not something that we simply are.) So, for example, if you’re driving and someone in front of you cuts you off, it’s far easier to call that person an idiot than to wonder if they were late for a meeting. It’s a widespread human tendency to locate the apparent fault inside of a person.
So how does projective identification work? Well, most of us are familiar with the concept of projection: it’s when a person, sensing an emotion, thought or idea that they can’t tolerate in themselves, projects that emotion to another person, “sending it out,” as it were, so that it’s seemingly located in the other person. In this way, the projector can dispense with that feeling inside of him- or herself and can deal externally with the threat it represents. This is one of the most basic defense mechanisms.
Defense mechanisms | Behavior | MCAT | Khan Academy (cue to 1:32 for projection)
What happens here in projection is that somebody attributes their own hidden and unconscious thoughts or emotions and actually attributes them to somebody else. So someone who is very, very, very jealous, for example, they could actually project out that jealousy and say, “Oh, that other person actually has problems with jealousy, and it’s not really me.” It’s a way of being able to shift one’s own feelings across to somebody else and identify somebody else as possessing these unacceptable thoughts or feelings.
In projective identification, this process is more complex. As the segment on defense mechanisms explains:
In projective identification, once that person has something attributed to them, projected onto them, like jealousy, for example, that person can actually subsequently start to demonstrate exactly those thoughts or feelings or whatever has been projected onto them, and actually start to feel that way. Like, “Yes, I am a jealous person, and maybe I’m going to act like that.”
So this projection can subsequently, once it’s projected onto this individual, this individual may start acting in that manner, and that’s called projective identification.
Psychology Today describes the phenomenon:
Here is how it works: Person A has a feeling they’d rather avoid, and so they project it, unconsciously, onto Person B. Many times, the projection fails, because the other person refuses to “accept” the projection. However, in some cases, Person B resonates or somehow identifies with Person A’s projection and ends up acting or feeling in ways that combine both Person A’s projection and Person B’s feelings. And then we have Projective Identification.
Another way of understanding projective identification is that it works by exerting a pressure, precisely the emotional pressure that is projected when such accusations are flung. Psychology Concepts states that
Projective identification differs from projection, though, in that the behaviour of the person being projected onto may actually become altered as to make the projected belief true. In this case projective identification validates one’s projection by making the projection real. This takes place during an interpersonal interaction in which the projector pressures the projected into thinking, feeling, and acting in accordance with the projection. The process is often experienced by the person being projected onto as a subtle pressure to behave or believe in a particular way.
The Psychotherapist further illuminates this mechanism, stating,
There is a tendency to induce behavior in the other in an effort to control the other person to absolve themselves. Basically it is an insidious method of inciting emotions, which one cannot come to terms with in oneself, in another person. This [is done] as a means to control the other person.
With regards to the unfounded accusation of anti-Semitism, projective identification also figures into this, as the accuser—angry and suspicious—attempts to provoke an angry response in the accused. If such a response is forthcoming, the accuser feels justified in having lobbed the accusation. They tend to see the reaction as evidence of harbored hatred.
However, under the mechanism of projective identification, we see that it is the pressure exerted by the accuser that precipitates the in-kind response given by the accused. And this will tend to happen irrespective of any essential, “hidden” trait but will instead tend to be determined by the psychodynamics present in the interaction between the persons involved.
Projective Identification Explained | Borderline Defense Mechanisms
The problem with projective identification is that it can bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Psychologenie explains:
When the person identifies with this projection, he goes on to believe in it―as a result of his own insecurities or because the projector dominates the situation to make him believe it―the result of which is, he alters his behavior to fit the projected mannerisms. Such that, ultimately, the projector is able to discard his unwanted, negative aspects onto the projected and have him behave in a manner that the projector can henceforth associate with him alone. The theory therefore includes asserting some form of control over the target and controlling his mannerisms thus.
Because of the mechanics of the phenomenon, the accused could cause the otherwise stoic individual, theretofore free of any bigotry, to introject (i.e., internalize whole) the accusation, either due to confusion or rumination, whereby the idea becomes lodged in the accused and becomes stuck there. That’s one of the unfortunate byproducts of the process.
I have never called someone a racist to their face, even when I had leave. It’s just as well. For those who are genuinely and unapologetically racist, the appellation would not bother them. They could swat it away. (This looks, outwardly, very similar to those who are falsely accused of bigotry but who are introspective enough to perceive the falsity of the charge, which slides right off. These are very different processes, of course, though they share a resemblance to the outside observer.)
But for those unsure of themselves, either of their own identities or motives or even of their security in their own self-image, such an accusation could set up residence where none had existed before. Thus the accusation brings the reality to life and creates an anti-Semite where none had previously been.
By the force and the unjustness of the accusation, the accuser engenders the creation of what he or she abhors most. This is an awful result, as it benefits no one. If the person lodging the accusation does so in order to reduce anti-Semitism or bigotry in the world, the result flies in the face of that. Not only is this a conversationally dishonest and dishonorable tactic, it’s a backfiring one.
If I had to describe this admittedly complex situation, I would say that the initial person comes across a statement that makes them feel a certain way. Those feelings could include cynicism, paranoia, profound hurt, and insecurity, among others.
So those feelings get stirred up, and they’re intolerable. They’re perceived as originating in the other person and attributed to them as an essential flaw through the fundamental attribution error. This feeling is projected with force and often aggression, which for whatever reason is received by the other person and internalized whole, through the pressure of the situation.
Thus the other person’s behaviors start to conform to what the first one communicates. When that happens, the first person feels vindicated and, more importantly, has created a situation that he or she can then more easily predict and control.
That’s my best guess. Again, it’s complex and I do not mean to issue an end-all-be-all description of all of the dynamics involved. But I would say that projective identification is projection with the force of gaslighting, the type of gaslighting that is accepted and that supplants reality for the recipient.
This all goes back to the imperative to focus on behavior instead of essences. Better to describe to someone who is committing (or is appearing to commit) an infraction to explain what is beyond the pale in his or her conduct, why it could be perceived or considered problematic, and what better expression could be said in its place. No, this won’t work in all cases. In fact, the accusation itself may still be unwarranted and thus not reflective or explanatory of the situation. In such cases, the projection will fail as the person rejects the attempt to define and control.
Still, such an approach has the possibility of maintaining avenues of communication. It may even engender change in the person being addressed in terms of his or her approach or in how he or she characterizes a given situation. In that way, we sidestep the use of accusation as stigmatization—the toxic element in this process—and mutual understanding may still be gained.