Awakening Osiris McCutchan

AWAKENING OSIRIS: THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF ANGER

 by ICHARD DAVID MCCUTCHAN R ICHARD

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

PSYCHOLOGY

I NSTITUTE OF IMAGINAL STUDIES 2000

Copyright by

R ICHARD ICHARD DAVID MCCUTCHAN 2000

AWAKENING OSIRIS: THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF ANGER

 by ICHARD DAVID MCCUTCHAN R ICHARD

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY I N PSYCHOLOGY

I NSTITUTE OF IMAGINAL STUDIES 2000 This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of the Institute of Imaginal Studies by:  __________________________ ____   ______________________________  Aftab Omer, Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor   __________________________ ____   ______________________________  Richard Carolan, Ed.D. Dissertation Director   __________________________ ____   ______________________________  Gregory Max Vogt, Ph.D. External Reader   __________________________ ____   ______________________________  Melissa Schwartz, Ph.D. Academic Dean

ABSTRACT

AWAKENING OSIRIS: THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF ANGER

 by Richard David McCutchan

This dissertation proposes a new perspective for understanding the expression of  anger. Drawing from depth psychology, affect-theory, affect-theory, and mythology, it attempts to free the understanding of anger from its problematized conceptualization by exploring the role of reflexivity and its transformative potentials. The dissertation presents a typology of  the ways in which anger is experienced. The research investigates the reported  experience of five men men who had physically abused their partners. The investigation focuses on their anger and the role of reflexivity in tapping the transformative potential inherent to the experience of anger. Identifying and engaging with the imaginal structures associated with these anger experiences is viewed as a catalyst for  transformation. The typology categorizes four constellations of how anger is experienced. It focuses on the interaction between self- and other-focused anger and the role of  reflexivity. The four constellations are reflexive/self-focused reflexive/self-focused anger (watching mode), mode), reflexive/other-focused anger (participating mode), non-reflexive/self-focused anger  (numbing mode), and non-reflexive/self-focused anger (reacting mode). Guided by the typology, interviews were conducted with five men convicted of  spousal abuse. The taped interviews were then subjected subjected to a narrative analysis utilizing iv

v co-researchers. In a second round of interviews, interviews, these men were introduced to the the typology along with its its associated mythic imagery. They were encouraged to identify identify and engage the imaginal structures associated with their anger experience as identified by the co-researchers. It is hypothesized that this type of reflexivity may may catalyze transformation of identity and relationship. Through theory and application, the research presents an in-depth perspective of  the potential of identifying and engaging eng aging with the imaginal structures associated with anger as a catalyst for transformative transformative change. The response to the typology by the  participants shows potential for its use in working with with domestic violence abusers,  particularly for the purpose of increasing self-awareness.

Illustration 1− The Awakening of Osiris

The above painting is the work of Richard D. McCutchan. The painting is a 5 x 6 foot acrylic on canvas. It is one of a pair, the other painting is shown on page 300. Both were  painted at the time of completion of this dissertation.

xi

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

Chapter  1. INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Theoretical Overview The Myth of Osiris A Proposed Typology of Anger  Personal History Participatory Research Four Masters 2. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

Anger Research Reflexivity Anger and Reflexivity 3. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

From the Literature Review The Research 4. LEARNINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis vii

106

viii

Plurality of Meaning 5. REFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150

Domestic Violence Anger, Self, and Other  Conclusion Appendix 1. SEGMENTS OF TRANSCRIPTS TEXT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173

2. INTERVIEW REFLECTIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND SUMMARY

211

3. CONSENT AND DISCLOSURE FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

244

4. RATING SCALE OF REFLEXIVITY SCALE

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

245

 NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

248

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

275

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES 1. Four Primary Quadrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

2. A Typology of Anger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

3. High and Low Reflexivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

100

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

For those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right  persons. 1  — Aristotle Aristotle professed an ideology of moderation toward the expression of anger, contrary to his contemporaries such as Plato or Protagoras. In Rhetoric he acknowledged  2

its virtue being found in a balance between excess and defect. Silvan Tomkins, whose research focuses on the primary role of the affects, takes a similar view. His research 3

notes that not all anger turns to aggression, nor does all aggression become de structive. He also says that there are characteristics of anger and aggression, which sensitize all society to inherent danger and therefore prompt a universal vigilance along with 4

sanctions against its free expression. Stephen A. Diamond wrote that the destructive manifestations of anger and rage are seen in such forms as hostility, hatred, narcissistic 5

rage, violently explosive tempers, as well as implosive suicidal self-loathing.

In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud wrote that the survival of our world  might depend on mankind’s ability to come to terms with the forces of aggression and the 6

resulting conflicts between nations, races, religions, communities, and individuals.

Psychology has only more recently, with the development of affect research, begun to understand the relationship between human aggression and the affect of anger. In his  book, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions, Otto Kernberg uses affect 7

research to argue that at the core of Freud’s aggression drive resides the affect of an ger. 1

2 As yet psychology as well as humankind has not been able to come to terms with anger's destructive nature. As a result, Stephen Diamond says, most "respectable" Americans habitually suppress, repress, or deny their anger—inadvertently rendering it doubly dangerous. He wrote, “the chronic suppression of anger and rage can and does sow the evil seeds of psychopathology, hatred, and violence.”

8

If we listen to Aristotle, his words challenge us to look beyond the lens of   psychology to find a different image of anger. From Shakespeare to mythology to historical writings we find tales in which anger and rage are not only destructive but also transformative. Anger has been the catalyst that has built empires, and the fuel that has sustained revolutions, both violent and non-violent. It has been the impetus toward many humanitarian pursuits of justice and liberty. Recently, three Nobel laureates, in a news 9

interview, acknowledged that their anger was a motivator in their efforts toward peace.

Their stories suggest that when one’s desires or dreams have been blocked or restricted it is the powerful forces of anger that can provide the passion, ardor, strength, en durance, and courage that moves one toward action. The mythology of anger from the earliest times attests to its tie to Eros (love and  desire). From the Homeric creation myths we learn that chaos gives birth to Eros that  brings forth not only love and desire but also terror, anger, strife, and fear. Earlier  Egyptian myths similarly present anger and rage as a response to chaos, emptiness, and  confusion. It is anger and rage that bring birth to the world. That very anger is the spark  that says I am alive, I will not stand for this, even if I can do nothing I will yell out. As James Hillman describes it, our scream of rage is the v oice of the self waking up, passion 10

 being ignited, opening the door for Eros to enter.

Hillman’s interpretation argues that

the human psyche continually returns to a place of emptiness and chaos to once again act

3 out an awakening that brings new life (Eros) back. As Aristophanes writes, in its search for reunification of the psyche, Eros will attempt again and again to create dark nights and confusion by returning to its origins in chaos.

11

I have found that anger in the men in

my therapeutic practice resonates with ancient mythology. They scream in desperation, crying out for love and passion to return to their lives. However, the anger or rage by itself is not a formula that brings back Eros, in fact it often keeps it away. This research moves toward a re-imaging of anger that allows light to be shed on how anger both repels and attracts Eros. Benedictus Figulus points us in the direction with his words, “Visit the center of the earth, there you will find the global fire. Rectify it of all dirt, drive it out with love and ire. . . .”

12

Theoretical Overview

The contention of this research study is that there is a transformative potential inherent to the experience of anger. This challenges the dominant view in psychology that has held to a problematized understanding of anger and its expression. Psychology, along with contemporary culture, has taken the position that expressions of anger are to  be generally regarded as inappropriate and destructive to individuals, the community and  culture at large. As Rollo May wrote, “our culture requires that we repress most of our  anger, and, therefore, we are repressed in most of our creativity.”

13

At best, anger 

expressions are considered productive only as a release or catharsis. Fully acknowledging the powerful destructive nature of the emotion anger, this research explores both the effect of its suppression along with its potential for growth. I explore these areas in this research by investigating the experience of men whose anger resulted  in marital violence.

4 I contend that the expression of anger has the potential for positively impacting the development of the “self,” as well as one’s relationship with others. I further contend  that confrontation with significant others is a normal and necessary component for human development. This confrontation with otherness starts in childhood and continues throughout life. Heinz Kohut et al., suggest that the primary affect aroused by this 14

confrontation with otherness is anger.

How one expresses that anger becomes critical

for both the internal development of a sense of self and the external development of  intimate relationships. When anger is expressed with self-awareness it has the potential of creating experiences that can be transformative of identity as well as deepening relationships. The following theoretical frames support the contentions of this study: affect theory, Jungian archetypal theory, and self-psychology along with intersubjectivity theory. The key assumptions of this dissertation that are based on these theories are the following: As Otto Kernberg argues, the basic building blocks for the development of the self lies in the affects.

15

Daniel Stern tells us that affects such as joy, surprise, fear, and 

anger become directly associated with and organize one’s primary experiences with others in the world.

16

This starts with one’s primary caregivers as represented in object-

relation theory. In early childhood the development of the self depends on empathic reception from the primary caregiver. The child's development of a self-structure is dependent on the caregiver’s ability to respond to the affects experienced by the child. Initially there is an identification of the child with the caregiver, particularly exemplified   by the mirroring that takes place between child and caregiver. In order for a separate, independent self-structure to emerge, a breaking away from the identification with the

5  primary caregiver must take place. Mahler’s rapprochement stage of development that 17

addresses separation-individuation is indicative of this process.

Winnicott describes this process as the destruction of the early internal object that enables the child to go beyond relating to the primary caregiver through identification, 18

 projection, and other intrapsychic processes.

It is only by the process of coming into

confrontation with difference from the other that the child is able to develop an independent healthy self-structure. This process, according to Winnicott, is not a onetime experience but rather a life-long process. It is my contention, supported by the works of Kohut, Kernberg, Benjamin and Winnicott, as referenced on the previous pages, that one of the primary associated affects related to this experience is anger. Their works suggest that anger pushes for differentiation. It is anger that lets us know that our needs, desires, yearnings are not being met or are being negated by another who has different needs. There is much that can go wrong with this confrontation with otherness. Kohut’s essay on narcissistic rage vivifies what can hap pen to the development of the self when 19

 parent and child are unable to negotiate the conflict between self and otherness.

Kohut

argues that man’s rage is a narcissistic problem that leads to alienation from him or her  self, caused by the breakdown of an endangered or fragmented self. Jessica Benjamin describes the successful negotiation of the confrontation as a 20

stage when the anger and rage damages neither parent nor the self.

The impact of such

a successful negotiation brings with it a new experience of external reality that is in distinct contrast to the inter-fantasy world. In intersubjective theory, this contrast shows that an internal structure exists that is cognizant of one’s own experience of the world as

6 well as the experience of others who experience it differently. This eventually leads to what intersubjective theorists refer to as subjective and objective self-awareness. It is my contention, based on the works mentioned in this section, and my own research and practice that the confrontation, which has its roots connected to the affect anger is necessary for the continuing process of psychological growth to take place. An individual development of and capacity for subjective and objective self-awareness in moments of confrontation with others increases their potential for transformation of  identity. By transformation of identity I mean a change of the internalized self-structure that takes into account both the intrapsychic and the intersubjective. Such confrontations  become creative and productive for the individual and relationship. Like Winnicott, I see this as a vital and important life-long process, where relatedness is characterized not by continuous harmony but rather by disruption and repair. Jung referred to the psychological process of de veloping self-awareness as 21

reflection.

Jung saw reflection as a “cultural instinct par excellence,” which gives 22

men/women the capacity to transform their emotions.

He wrote, “ Reflexio is a turning

inwards, with the result that, instead of an instinctive action, there ensues a succession of  derivative contents or states which may be termed reflection or deliberation.”

23

He

further states, “reflection re-enacts the process of excitation and carries the stimulus over  into a series of images which, if the impetus is strong enough, are reproduced in some form of expression.”

24

He says that it is the awareness of those images tha t gives a

 person the capacity to transform the compulsive act into a conscious and creative one. The more common term for this is self-awareness. W. R. Torbert conceptualizes  phenomena that is not just an internal process of reflection and deliberation but rather one that the person is “conscious in the midst of action.”

25

Torbert’s conceptualization is

7 further developed by John Heron and Peter Reason as a critical component in research to denote a “self-reflexive attention to the ground we stand on.”

26

Sheldon Bach and John

Auerbach have used the terms “reflexive self-awareness” and “self-reflexivity” to describe similar processes of self–awareness in the midst of action.

27

This research will use the term reflexivity to describe a phenomenon that includes  both a reflective process and active participation in the world. Aftab Omer has been instrumental in developing a conceptualization of reflexivity that includes both reflection and participation. He defines reflexive participation “as the practice of surrendering through creative action to the necessities, meanings, and possibilities inherent in the  present moment.”

28

He further says reflexivity involves “. . . the capacity to engage and 

 be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience.” He defines imaginal structures as: . . . assemblies of sensory, affective, and cognitive aspects of experience constellated into images; they both mediate and constitute experience. The specifics of an imaginal structure are determined by an interaction of personal, cultural, and archetypal influences. These influences may be teased apart by attention to the stories that form personal character and the myths that shape cultural life. During the individuation process, imaginal structures are transmuted  into emergent and enhanced capacities as well as transformed identity. Any enduring and substantive change in individual or group behavior requires a transmuting of imaginal structures. This transmutation depends upon an 29 affirmative turn toward the passionate nature of the soul.

In this research I contend that reflexivity, when coupled with the anger experience, can tap the transformative potentials inherent to the experience of anger. The research study investigates the reported experience of five men who have physically abused their   partners. The investigation focuses on their anger in context of a relationship and how reflexivity interfaces with that anger. The potential role of identifying and engaging with the imaginal structures associated with these anger experiences are investigated as being

8 the catalyst for transformation. For the purpose of this investigation I present a typology of how anger is experienced. This typology of anger is presented as a model for working with and  understanding therapeutic issues involving anger. Moreover, it is presented to expand the dimensions of how we talk about anger. The lens that I look through has its origins in depth psychology. However, the typology, as addressed in the literature review, is grounded in multiple fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, domestic violence research, affect theory as well as depth psychology. Any typology is reductionistic by definition, since it directs us toward a process o f simplification of our  experiences. Yet it is only through simplification, by use of abstractions, that we make sense of those experiences. My typology is therefore a simplification. However, the abstractions that it uses are presented in order to create images that expand the awareness of the topic. In keeping with this, I will start with images from mythology that carry the abstract concepts that delineate my typology.

The Myth Of Osiris

Man today stripped of myth, stands famished among all his pasts and must dig frantically for roots, be it among the most remote antiquities. 30  — Friedrich Nietzsche

Since its early development, psychology has drawn from ancient myths to name the abstractions of psychological concepts such as narcissism or the Oedipus complex. For Jung, myths have meaning for everyone because they represent in story fashion “archetypes,” that is, patterns of life that are universally valid. By using these myths we

9 add life, meaning, and depth to our understanding of the human condition. In Jung’s words, In describing the living processes of the psyche, I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic mythological way of thinking and speaking, because this is not only more expressive but also more e xact than an abstract scientific terminology, which is wont to toy with the notion that its theoretic formulations 31 may one fine day be resolved into algebraic equations. There are many myths that could contribute toward the understanding of anger. For example, Ares, the Greek god of war, evokes the image of anger and rage. However, I looked for a myth that would show how anger transforms into creative en ergy while also showing an awareness of the destructive forms anger takes, a myth that gives light to the various manifestations of anger, transcends its destructive qualities, and shows us how it might be transformed into a creative life force. The myth that spoke to me as I struggled with my understanding of anger comes from an ancient body of literature inscribed on the walls of pyramids more than 4000 years ago. These writings are most commonly known as the pyramid texts or the 32

 Egyptian Book of the Dead .

The primary myth that comes out of these writings is that

of Osiris. As in so many ancient myths, there is no one version of Osiris. The telling has changed over many thousands of years. Osiris’ various forms changed even within the ancient texts that spanned centuries of Egyptian history. Early writings by the Greeks were collections of oral stories and it was not until the nineteenth century that the hieroglyphs were actually decoded. I rely primarily on the version of E. A. Wallis Budge, originally published in 1911, as well as Sir James George Frazer’s, The New 33

Golden Bough.

Also helpful has been the more recent texts including Normandi Ellis’

 poetic translation Awakening Osiris and Jean Houston's book The Passion of Isis and  34

Osiris.

10 The myth of Osiris begins with the creation of the universe. Nut, mother sky, has  been impregnated by Geb, the life force of earth. They had previously given birth to Ra and Thoth, the sun and moon respectively. In Nut's womb lived five children: Osiris, Set, Horus, Isis, and Nephthys. Ra the sun, Nut's first-born child, was jealous of sharing the world with his siblings. As Frazer writes, Ra in his anger cursed the goddess, saying that she “should give birth to the offspring neither in any month nor in any year.”

35

For 

16,000 years the five waited to be born. Thoth, the moon god, using trickery in a game similar to checkers, won five days of the year from Ra. Thoth only agreed to return the days to Ra if he allowed the five brothers and sisters to be born. Ra became enraged but in the end agreed. Thus Osiris and his four brothers and sisters were born in anger. Lots were chosen to see who would be born first. Although Osiris won, Set argued that he should be first for he wanted to go out and do battle with Ra for preventing their birth for  so long. According to Houston’s translation, the following words are spoken: Set shouted, “Could I but see him face to face, I'd poke out his eye.” Horus intervened  saying, “the lots are cast as they are cast. There are those of us who would prefer not to  be born at all. It is an endless striving, full of unfilled desire and regret.”

36

In the end it

was agreed that Osiris would go first and make peace with Ra. Horus was born second, Set third, and then Isis and Nephthys. Osiris made peace with Ra and proceeded to build agricultural communities along the Nile of Egypt. Horus, unlike his brothers, feared life on earth. In Houston’s words “He climbed to the belly of the sky, a hawk of gold, whose claws never pressed against the earth. Keen were his eyes and wide his vision. . . . From the heights he observed  how the laws of Heaven and Earth were formed, how deep the night, how bright the noon, how cool the shade, how beautiful the dusk and dawn.”

37

11 Set, malformed by his rage, was born with the head of an ass. He became the warrior leading his band of men through the rugged mountains, hunting in order to survive the desolate areas of Egypt. Isis, Osiris’ twin in the womb, became Osiris’ wife on earth and likewise Nephthys became Set’s wife. Thus, our story begins on earth with three man-gods and two women-gods. Osiris travels from village to village, worked hard to teach the art of agriculture along the Nile. Isis, his partner, practiced the art of medicine and midwifery using herbs, and was often away helping with births throughout the land. As legend has it, a great feast was held to celebrate the twenty-eighth year of their  arrival and the abundance of the harvest. Set, jealous of Osiris’ accomplishments on earth, devised a plan of revenge, for he blamed Osiris for his harsh life in the wilderness. He built a beautiful cedar box the size of a man. It was carved and decorated with jewels and ornamentation. With his group of 72 men, he arrived at the feast. Osiris, unsuspecting, was pleased to see his brother and welcomed him and his men. Well into the night, when all were in good spirits, Set playfully announced that he would give his  beautiful box to any man who fit into it. One by one with great rivalry and laughter each man got into the box, but none fit for it was very large. In the end only Osiris was left; when he laid himself down in the box it was a perfect fit. At that moment Set’s men ran forward and nailed the box shut. The box, now a coffin, was quickly carried to the Nile and set adrift. Set thus took over Osiris’ position of ruler of the land. In her grief, Isis searches for Osiris to bring him home for a proper burial. Through much trial she eventually finds Osiris in the coffin and secretly brings him back. She leaves him hidden in a cave, but by chance Set finds the cave and discovers Osiris in the coffin. Overcome  by rage, Set dismembers the body of Osiris into 14 pieces and throws them into the Nile.

12 When Isis discovers what has happened, she is again overcome by grief and once again goes after Osiris’ body, eventually retrieving all but one of the 14 pieces. Osiris’ phallus has been eaten by the fish and is not recoverable. Isis puts Osiris’ body back together and  carves a phallus to replace his. According to the myth, she uses her powers and becomes impregnated by Osiris and a son is born. The son is named Horus after his uncle and is referred to as Horus twice born. This Horus is raised in seclusion to protect him from the wrath of Set. As he grows up he is instructed by his father, who now resides in the underworld. When Horus reaches adulthood he goes forth to challenge Set as ruler of the land. They fight for many days and nights in a terrible battle. It is so horrible that even the gods want it to stop. Isis is overcome and tries to offer compassion to Set. Horus, consumed by the battle, cuts off  his mother’s head. Thoth restores it with his powers. Horus loses one eye during the  battle, which is healed by the spit of Thoth. His eye thus returned to him brings new sight and the ability not to be blinded by battle. Eventually, the fighting stops with Horus the supposed victor. However, Set goes to the supreme court of the gods in the great hall at Heliopolis and makes a claim that Horus is a bastard and therefore unfit to rule. Not content at having murdered his brother, Set carries his rage beyond the grave accusing the dead Osiris of high crimes and  misdemeanors. In one version of the myth, Horus is pronounced the true-begotten son of  his father and given the crown and power over all the land. Frazer tells us that in another  version the victory of Horus is not so decisive, and it ends in a compromise by which Horus reigns over the Delta, while Set becomes king of the Upper Valley of the Nile. Either way, the accession to the throne of Horus begins, for Egyptians, the modern period  38

of the world. Horus is the first of the Pharaohs to rule Egypt.

13 In my search for what transforms anger, the myth o f Osiris offers a story that exhibits four forms of anger, each with their own dynamics related to transformation. These four forms match up with the four quadrants of my typology, given the descriptions of watching, numbing, reacting, and participating. The three brothers born as god-men represent the four personifications: Horus the Hawk (watching), Osiris (numbing), Set (reacting), and Osiris’ son Horus twice born (participating) who beco mes first Pharaoh of Egypt. Set is most easily identified by his anger and rage. Nathan Schwartz-Salant writes of the mythological importance of this connection as it relates to transformation.

39

He

 begins by “reacting” with anger to Ra the sun, perhaps rightly so, for his mother’s suffering. His rage is so great he is born malformed with the head of an ass, an image well suited to describe how some individuals act when overcome by rage. As the myth  progresses we find Set blaming Osiris for his fate, which eventually leads to killing his  brother and the dismemberment of his body. Horus the Hawk, unlike Set, responds to Ra’s anger at his mother not with more anger, but with fear, retreating to the safety of the sky where he can spend his time “watching” the laws of heaven and earth. He escapes into the sky in an attempt to free himself from involvement with earthly conflicts and  emotions. I will refer to him as the one who is always “watching” for his ability to see what others cannot. Osiris, without the keen eye of his brother Horus, proceeds diligently. He is a hard worker who brings abundance and prosperity to the land, but then becomes a victim of his brother’s anger. He becomes trapped by his brother in a coffin and dismembered. According to the legend, he then becomes ruler of the underworld. The anger and rage of 

14 his brother traps Osiris and takes away his power, leaving him impotent. I represent Osiris with the attribute of “numbing.” Last comes Osiris’ son Horus, seen by Jung as a transformation of Osiris by  bringing the unconscious to light. In fact, the myth gives the impression that twice-born Horus has the qualities of all three god-men. As with the first Horus, he shares his name and the symbol of the hawk, one who can see what others cannot. Twice-born Horus needs to fight his uncle, Set, to show that he has the spirit of a warrior before he can rightly take his place as ruler of Egypt. In that battle Horus loses an eye that is returned  and healed by the spit of Thoth, who represents wisdom. Significantly, this symbolizes Horus having gained the capacity for self-awareness and thus the heat of battle no longer   blinds him. According to Normandi Ellis, Osiris is always represented as the spiritual 40

warrior.

Throughout this dissertation I will represent Horus by his quality of 

“participating,” indicating the ability to act with c larity and compassion.

A Proposed Typology Of Anger

The human rage reaction has not been adequately evaluated from a psychiatric or   psychological point of view, even though it is a central phenomenon in violence. 41  — Robert Zaslow This typology has been developed based on my fieldwork as well as theory and  research in the area of anger. Originally, I did not start my inquiry into anger with a typology in mind. My interest was to explore the psychological benefits of anger as an emotion and how it contributed to the growth of the individual. My clinical work over  the past seven years has entailed facilitating groups where anger, often involving violence, has been a central issue. During this same period, I have also been working with a wide range of men in personal growth groups. Consistently, I found anger to be a

15 central theme in men’s lives. I also found there to be a disturbing lack of continuity among the multiple disciplines of psychology with regard to understanding and working with the varied experiences of anger. Although all areas of psychology have theoretical controversy, with anger there was something even more disturbing to me as a clinician and researcher. As I observed  the men with whom I worked, I would find myself moving from one clinical approach to another as I worked with different men. My theoretical frames of reference were rooted  in social cognitive research, affect theory, and depth psychology. One or more of these would have significant relevance and applicability to any particular situation. However, each seemed to have limitations in understanding the spectrum of the experiences of  anger. Even more troublesome was the contradictory research data between theorists. As a result of struggling with the contradictions in the research combined with the experience of men dealing with anger, a typology began to emerge. It focused on several dominant attributes of anger that presented themselves in research, theory, and in the field. The first of these is anger’s instinctive nature, what Jung calls the autonomic nature of the affects. In common language, this represents how anger can take hold of us to the point where our behavior is “out of control.” Common language uses phrases like “in a fit of anger,” or “possessed by anger.” The second attribute that the typology addresses is the intersubjective nature of anger. Anger is most typically relationship  based. We get angry with someone. More often than not that someone is close to us, such as a friend, a spouse, or our child. The intersubjective nature of anger deeply affects the internal self, giving a feeling of validation or rejection of who we think we are. This validation or rejection of the self is closely related to how one deals with their anger. The individual struggles between expression and non-expression of anger.

16 Due to personal and societal values, sanctions, and fears, anger is, most likely, the most suppressed and repressed of the emotions in Western culture. The last aspect that the typology addresses is anger’s potential for transformation, that which changes the destructive potential of anger to creative acts that are life affirming. Keeping these aspects in mind, my typology focuses on four ways that anger is experienced: reflexive/self-focused anger (watching), reflexive/other-focused anger (participating), non-reflexive/self-focused anger (numbing), and non-reflexive/other-focused anger  (reacting).

Table 1: Four Primary Quadrants Reflexive Mode1 Watching

Mode 4 Participating

Self-focused

Other-focused 

Mode 2 Numbing

Mode 3 Reacting Pre-reflexive

As Table 1 shows, there are four primary quadrants to the typology. The horizontal axis relates to self-focused anger on the left side and other-focused anger on the right side. The vertical axis relating to high-reflexivity at the top and low-reflexivity or pre-reflexive at the bottom. Consequently, the quadrants moving counter clockwise starting at the upper left corner are: 1) high-reflexivity and self-focused anger  (Watching); 2) low-reflexivity self-focused anger (Numbing); 3) low-reflexivity otherfocused anger (Reacting); 4) high-reflexivity other-focused anger (Participating). The four quadrants can be conceptually tied to the myth of Osiris. Correspondingly, the

17 quadrants represent the experiential modes as follows: 1) Horus the Hawk, watching; 2) Osiris, numbing; 3) Set, reacting; 4) Horus Son of Osiris, participating. Before addressing the key constructs in the typology I will give a behavioral description of what sets the stage for an anger experience to take place. The sequence is consistent with Silvan Tomkins’ affect theory, Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson’s affect research, the work of Keith Oatley, and the neo-associative theory of Leonard  42

Berkowitz.

A stimulus happens in the external world. Then there is a reaction to it.

For the anger experience to happen, an internal sensory stimulation must be activated  unique to the affect anger (see the “affect system,” Literature Review). This internal stimulation comes in the form of bodily changes and feelings (biologically based). This internal sensory stimulation has the same attention-grabbing power as the external stimuli. It is this internal sensory stimulus that generates an impulse to action along with a network of messages. As is true for the external stimulus, the greater the intensity of an internally generated stimulus, the more completely it commands attention and redirects the processing of one’s personal resources such as images, defenses, cognition, motor   processes, scripts, etc. (The body reacts initially much the same as a response to pain, such as touching a hot stove.) At this point if anger is evoked we may begin to have what is called an anger experience. If the system were “in balance” we would assume that the intensity of the internal stimulus would be proportional and appropriate to the external stimulus. For anger this could range from mild irritability to rage. A multitude of  influences affects the intensity. A person may be tired, happy, or depressed, for example, any of which conditions will affect the internal intensity of how they experience the external event. Other variables affecting the intensity include past experiences with similar situations and affects extending back to primary experiences with caregiver 

18 43

related to anger.

Despite the multitude of variables that impact how anger is evoked,

there are relatively few forms that anger takes and can still be called anger. I have chosen two specific variables that are dominant in determining those forms. Those variables are the relationship between self-focused anger and other-focused  anger as it is impacted by the capacity of reflexivity.

Self- And Other-Focused Anger

To avoid a reductive typology of anger that separates the emotion from behavior, my typology attempts to make sense out of anger by including the behavior that anger  elicits. The affect theorists describe emotions, and anger in particular, as having action tendencies that when activated elicit a behavior. They consider the function of the emotions to provide information: 1) to inform the organism of how it values the stimulus that has affected it, 2) to communicate to others one’s internal experience (via facial expressions and action). I use the term “other-focused” to describe the multiple ways that anger shows itself in behavior directed toward another. It may be aggressive, destructive, expressive, verbal, nonverbal, coherent, non-coherent, artistic, violent, funny, or  irritating, as well a combination of these behaviors. The polarity of this is self-focused  anger—anger that is held or focused on oneself, wherein the experience primarily takes  place within the person’s internal world. The anger or rage is turned against the self. Little or no expression of self-focused anger is used with the intent to directly penetrate the outer world of others, although it may have an impact. For example, as I become aware of my anger, I leave the situation to be by myself till I can “get over it.” When other-focused anger can have a wide range of expressions that can include violent destructive acts as well as creative constructive ones. By definition the form it

19 takes has the component of having impact on others, while self-focused anger primarily refers to a limited internal experience of ang er that is not shared, communicated, or  demonstrated to the world outside oneself. C. D. Spielberger makes this same distinction in his anger expression inventory, focusing on the health effects of self-directed versus 44

other-directed anger.

Reflexive/Pre-Reflexive

The second variable (vertical axis) ranges from pre-reflexive to reflexive. The 45

term pre-reflexive is based on J. P. Sartre’s definition.

He uses the term to denote the

lack of cognitive capacity to reflect on the meaning of one’s experiences. He compares it 46

to animals in that they are not aware of being aware.

An example would be that of a

tired and frustrated parent who yells at or slaps their child “without thinking.” In his research on “being angry,” Stevick also uses this term where he describes the experience of anger as “pre-reflexive.”

47

For my purpose, the term pre-reflexive refers to the

experience of acting without thought or awareness. On the other end of this axis in my typology is reflexivity. I use this term to denote a high degree of awareness of one’s self and one’s experiencing of the anger  affect. “To feel one’s angry feelings, to think one’s thoughts.” Jung writes of this  phenomena as a reflective instinct ( Reflexio) that gives man the ability to transform the 48

otherwise “compulsive act” into a conscious content.

I use Omer’s definition of 

reflexivity as “the capacity to engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience.”

49

Omer’s definition contains not only the reflective

aspect spoken of by Jung but also an engagement or participation with otherness.

20 Trudy Mills and Sherryl Kleinman formulate that there are four primary ways that an individual may respond to a situation: reflexive and emotional, unreflexive and  50

emotional, reflexive and without feeling, and neither reflexive nor emotional.

They

emphasize that “humans do not simply respond to the environment, but interpret what is going on around them including their own actions.” This process of “self-reflexivity” goes into decision-making and, when combined with peak emotion, can bring both insight and what they call “felt action.” Mills and Kleinman’s sociological perspective on how people experience their thoughts and feelings is similar to the Jungian understanding of the interplay between reflexivity and emotion. It is important to emphasize that reflexivity is not entirely an internal process. The process is first initiated by stimulus from the external world. Second, to be aware of  the internal as well as external images in our world means a continual interchange with those images. We might imagine the reflexive process to be dialectic in nature. For it to work, there must be a continual exchange with “otherness.” As Omer points out “the task  of experiencing the other demands that we recognize and relate to differences.”

51

It is

important to emphasize that pre-reflexive/reflexive is not either/or but on a continuum from non-awareness to a reflexive consciousness. Using the two primary axes of self- and other-focused and reflexive/pre-reflexive (see Table 1) I will now describe the four primary modes of experiencing anger. This typology is an adaptation of the four modes of experiencing typology proposed by Omer  in writing about the importance of engaging and recognizing differences.”

52

21 Table 2: A Typology of Anger  HIGH-REFLEXIVITY MODE 1: WATCHING

MODE 4: PARTICIPATING

holding suppression alienation 53 symbiotic mode

compassionate involvement reflexive participation art, social movement empowerment embodiment

Self-focused anger (Non-participatory)

Other-focused anger (Highly participatory)

MODE 2: NUMBING repression  psychic numbing chronic, depression irritability schizoid 

MODE 3: REACTING  blaming, revenge regression, projection splitting violent rage

PRE-REFLEXIVITY

Mode 1: Reflexive/Self-Focused (Watching)

The process of reflecting on one’s awareness o f his or her anger and inhibiting any outward expression or acknowledgement of it to others exemplifies this category. Though normally we find the process of reflexivity to be transformative, from clinical experience I find that anger become transformative for individuals only when there is some outward expression of it. In Omer’s description of reflexivity, “the capacity to engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our  experience,” the word “engage” becomes the critical issue.

54

Within our culture,

engagement denotes doing or action. In this context engagement would imply involvement with another. Within that context a mode of experiencing anger that is fully reflexive and self-focused is in general incongruent. There may be a more viable form in Eastern thought in such disciplines as meditation. However, staying with the

22  phenomenology that is exhibited in our culture, this quadrant addresses the mode of  experiencing that falls short of a full reflexivity but at the same time involves the experiencer with awareness of their anger. This area is discussed here. This limiting of action (inhibiting the communication of the emotion to another) can distinguish itself by the defense mechanism of suppression: “I know I am angry, but it is best not to show it, for that will only make things worse.” The common term used  here is holding. In general this mode is initiated out of fear, either the fear of  abandonment, retribution, or fear of hurting someone that is close to them. In general, in this mode one chooses an internal solution, one “watches” rather than “participates” with the “other.” (It should be noted that the “other” could potentially be a substitute [therapist, friend, or expressive process, in which case the mode of experiencing moves out of Mode 1]. This would be other-focused and move the experience into or toward the  participating mode.) I find Mode 1, common in codependent/symbiotic relationships, to be a form of   protecting the relationship at all costs. Omer suggests that in such symbiotic relationships, when anger is forbidden, the energy to differentiate is not there. He also says “under the constraints of symbiosis, the not e ntirely deadened urge to differentiate surfaces as withholding.”

55

In the long run it contributes to an emotional alienation from

the “other.” When it is the mode of preference it often goes with a symbiotic character   behavior described in the writings of Stephen Johnson as dependent, clinging, 56

complaining, and afraid of separation.

Script Decisions and Pathogenic Beliefs: The less conflict the better. I am nothing without you, and I am afraid my anger  will chase you away. I am responsible for protecting you from my anger. If I really love you, I wouldn’t be angry with you. I cannot tolerate difference

23  between us. I have to control myself or I will totally lose control. Do not rock the  boat.  Defenses: Suppression, merger, denial, identification, omnipotent responsibility, introjection.

Horus the Hawk: In order to bring life and substance to the abstraction of “self  and other-focused anger and reflexivity” I will return to our guiding metaphor of the myth of Osiris. Our interest here is in the phenomenon of anger when it is turned inward  and while the individual is still reflexive. Osiris’ brother, “Horus the Hawk,” best represents awareness without outwardly showing or acting on it. In the mythology, Horus the Hawk is reluctant even to being born, fearing the rage of Ra the sun god. In Houston’s translation Horus said about life, “it is an endless striving, full of unfilled  desire and regret.” But the particular image that stands out about this Horus is that once  born “he clung to the belly of the sky, a hawk of gold whose clawed feet never pressed  against the earth. Keen were his eyes and wide his vision.”

57

In psychological terms,

Horus brings to us a constellation ruled by fear. He indicates that it is far better to rise above conflict than to embrace it. Rising above means to have a keen eye so that one can spot danger in order to avoid it. However, as the myth tells us, the Hawk’s feet never  touch the ground. This symbolizes the shadow side of Horus, the hawk, for he is left ungrounded and unconnected to life in a state of alienation. He makes every attempt to suppress negative emotions such as anger for fear of what it might bring.

Mode 2: Pre-Reflexive/Self-Focused (Numbing)

This mode, in contrast to the prior one, is characterized by the defense of  repression. In extreme forms it is denoted by a schizoid state. This mode of experiencing involves the denying of internal reaction to the stimulus. Unable to handle the

24 experiencing of the anger or conflict, the person essentially numbs out his or h er  awareness of it. In psychoanalytic terms this is represented by the concept of repression. Omer points out the importance of Robert Lifton’s shift from “repression” to “psychic numbing.”

58

Lifton’s “psychic numbing,” which he found in both the survivors of Nazi

concentration camps and the survivors of the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb, characterizes this mode well. He says “[psychic numbing] refers to an incapacity to feel or confront certain kinds of experience, due to the blocking or absence of inner forms of imagery that can connect with such experience. . .”

59

In extreme form it manifests as a pervasive

tendency toward sluggish despair, diminished vitality, chronic depression, and constricted  life space which covers over the rage and mistrust that is just beneath the surface.

60

Irritability is also a manifestation of this mode. The most extreme of this mode would be a psychotic state. Script Decisions and Pathogenic Beliefs: I do not need you. You cannot hurt me. I’m not angry. My happiness, success, and survival do not depend on you. I can punish you by withholding from both of  us. I do not feel anything. It is better to deaden oneself than to risk being killed. I’ll kill myself rather than experience the anger and the hurt that goes with it. Just leave me alone.  Defenses: denial, repression, dissociation, projection, identification, turning against the self, chronic holding back of unacceptable or distrusted impulses. Rule-bound  living, addictions, rituals, anything that wards off anger-related content. Osiris: The Egyptian god of the underworld best represents this constellation that

is dominated by repression. As we remember in Egyptian mythology, Osiris was first  born of the god-human incarnations. Osiris represented fertility; as a young man he  brought stability and growth to Egypt. Then in the prime of his youth and the height of  his reign, his brother, Set, took his kingd om from him by trickery and left Osiris nailed  inside a coffin, sentenced to eternal life in the underworld. The images of the Osiris’

25 myth hold the psychological dynamics of entrapment, abandonment, and powerlessness. The myth describes Osiris’ despair as he finds himself trapped and powerless in the underworld. There is a similarity with what Lifton describes as the numbing of modern life that can bring despair, diminished vitality, and depression, all of which hover over  the rage and mistrust that are beneath the surface. The Egyptian myth of Osiris also speaks to the phenomenon of anger within relationships. It is his wife, Isis, who eventually finds Osiris dead and tries to bring him  back to the living. In psychological terms she is trying to wake Osiris up from his inert and numb state. We could liken Osiris to the hard-working husband who comes home and collapses on the couch in front of the TV, or the young man out of work, feeling defeated, or the middle-aged man who has lost his energy and drive for work and finds little meaning in his life. The spouse of any one of these men may find herself living with an emotionally unavailable partner. Much like Isis, she finds herself trying to awaken Osiris from his inert state, looking for the passion she once knew.

Mode 3: Pre-Reflexive/Other-Focused (Reacting)

This category is exemplified by highly explosive reactions. We often experience the person in this mode as regressing to an infantile temper tantrum. We see little selfawareness. Clinically, it is common to see splitting in this pre-reflexive state which fosters little awareness of self and other. Not only does the intent seem to be to blame the other for one’s upsetness, but also to make the other angry as well. Blame and revenge  become the key focus of energy in this mode. In a higher functioning individual (as one moves up toward awareness) this mode is e xemplified by criticality, demandingness, dominance, and stinging aggressiveness.

26 Script Decisions and Pathogenic Beliefs: I would not be angry if it wasn’t for you. It’s all your fault. I will make you pay for my suffering. Do not dare to challenge me. Social authority is the enemy and  one should act on one’s impulses to protect oneself. Neediness or helplessness is repulsive and should be avoided at all cost.  Defenses: splitting, omnipotent responsibility or grandiosity, projection, identification,  primitive regression, denial, reaction formation, aggression and hostility, narcissistic rage, repression, acting out. Set : The metaphor that carries this constellation is Set, Osiris’ brother and enemy.

Set, born second as a god-human in Egyptian mythology, carries the archetype of the warrior, later seen in Greek mythology as Ares. Set’s birth typifies his essence, he argues (but fails) to be born first so that he can do combat with Ra the sun god who has  prevented his and that of his brothers and sisters birth for 16,000 years. Houston translates that while still in the womb, Set shouts, “Could I but see him face to face, I'd   poke out his eye.”

61

Set can be equated with the more primitive Hunter archetype.

While Osiris was building his kingdom based on a griculture, Set led his band of men through the woods teaching them to be hunters. In this constellation, numbness or fear is not the problem. Set instinctively responds with anger or rage turning it into action directed outward. In the mythology, when Set finds Osiris’ coffin, brought back by Isis to Egypt, he is instantly consumed by rage. Even though Osiris is dead in the coffin, Set is so enraged that he dismembers the body of Osiris into 14 pieces and throws them into the Nile. Also inherent in Set is his orientation toward blame. In the mythology the blame starts with Ra, the sun god, for causing his mother’s suffering, then he blames Osiris for  his unhappiness with his wife, and later his blame is directed toward Osiris’ son, Horus.

27 Mode 4: Reflexive/Other-Focused (Participating)

This category is best exemplified by reflexive participation within the heat of the anger. Omer uses the term, reflexive participation to refer to both a mode of being and as a transformative practice. He describes reflexive participation as “the practice of  surrendering through creative action to the necessities, meanings, and possibilities inherent in the present moment.”

62

Further, the term reflexive participation describes the

capacity to experience differences from the other while neither being merged with nor  63

alienated from the other.

Compassionate involvement also might describe this mode of 

experiencing. What we see in this mode is the transforming of anger into imagining and   bringing forth a world that is different. In the long term, this may take the form of a social movement or art. In the immediate experience, reflexive participation would  include a mode that is willing to experience intersubjectivity. Operating in this mode means that the individual is willing to confront the differentness between one’s self and  the “other.” Within the context of the clinical relationship, Nathan Schwartz-Salant addresses the importance of this mode of expression in Narcissism and Character  Transformation. He writes: “Anger and rage are catalysts that are the driving force for 

the transformation . . . denial of rage can result in a stalemate in which little transformation occurs.”

64

This mode of experiencing does not mean that the immediate

response to anger involves direct confrontation. The reflexivity process may bring one to delay the type of action to be taken or to redirect it elsewhere. However, this mode holds to an awareness of oneself and the other “in the midst of action” as one responds to the anger reaction. In order for the anger to become transformative, the mode of  experiencing must embrace the emotional state, while simultaneously recognizing and 

28 relating to differences. This combined stance, as described by Andrew Samuels, though 65

unpredictable, opens the way for new images, possibilities, and beingness.

Script Decisions and Pathogenic Beliefs: My anger is about you and me. I’m sharing my anger because I care about us and  I want you to know what is going on for me. I am angry because I have been hurt, both by you and by others in the past. I do not know where my anger will lead us, and that scares me.  Defenses: Unlike the other three modes, this one risks being in a non-defended position. That does not mean that defenses are not present. However, the mode by its definition means that one is on the outlook for those defenses via a reflexive stance while confronting the other. Sublimation, as originally presented by  Nietzsche, would typify the psyche’s defense in this mode. However, calling it a defense is somewhat inappropriate since, as both Nietzsche and Freud presented  it, it serves the psyche by moving it toward growth.  Horus, Son of Osiris: the metaphor that carries this constellation is Horus twice

 born, son of Osiris. Jung equates this Horus with the transformation or rebirth of Osiris. In the mythology, this Horus becomes the first Pharaoh of Egypt, his lineage coming from the gods. In terms of our typology, Horus holds qualities of all the other  constellations. Horus the Hawk represents his first birth, with his keen vision (in  psychological terms representing awareness or consciousness) but without the ability to act or relate. In the myth, Osiris from the underworld instructs his son Horus based on the knowledge that he has acquired in that realm. In Egyptian mythology, Horus  becomes a warrior to do battle with Set to avenge his father's death and to show that he has the courage and strength to be ruler before he takes his rightful place as the Pharaoh of Egypt. In this way, Horus twice-born inhabits the full range of man’s instinctive and  autonomic processes as well as having self-awareness, which gives him the capacity to fully participate in the world with both reflection and action.

29 Personal History

My research addresses the concept of reflexivity as it relates to anger and the men in my study. It would be incongruent if I, the researcher, was not reflexive about my own experience as well as revealing to my audience my reflective process. As Jung wrote “I know well enough that every word I utter carries with it something of myself. . . .”

66

With that in mind, the following is an overview of what brought me to do this research. I have early childhood memories of my father’s rage echoing through the house. I remember cowering in a corner or hiding under the covers. Later, I attended schools in the inner city where too often anger was accompanied by the use of guns and knives. I remember sitting at lunch time on the steps of my high school spouting off to my companions about a particular group of kids who, that morning, had beaten up one of our  friends, sending him to the hospital. After I stopped talking, one of my friends looked at me and said with a sarcastic tone “What are you going to do, whip his butt?” His words silenced not only me, but all of us, because we all knew there was nothing we could do! We carried no knives or guns and in the world we lived in that meant we had no power. Any anger we felt was useless, and was best left buried or forgotten. Needless to say, the concept of using our anger toward constructive transformation was non-existent for us during those years. During my late teens I had a significant argument with my dad. Looking back, I realized that it was the first time I really stood up to him. I was brutal in my verbal attack, and when it was over I could see he was crushed. We never let our anger rise up  between us like that again, for we had gone to a place too hurtful for either of us. That day I believe my anger changed me, but it was not without a price. The potential for us

30 as father and son to learn more about ourselves from our differences was lost due to fear  of the hurtful and destructive quality of the anger that engulfed us that day. In many ways, my therapeutic practice today is about going back to those early experiences of anger. I work with a diverse population of men. Whether working with doctors or with construction workers, I see that anger has an effect on their lives. Those who end up in our judicial system for violent crimes particularly exemplify the destructive nature of anger. Their struggles with anger turned to violence were quite different than my own. However, working with these men has increased my insight into the nature of my own anger.

Participatory Research

This dissertation is a product of those men who shared their lives and suffering with me. The symbolization that took the form of a typology came from the images that they engaged and brought awareness to in hundreds of hours of therapy. In this research, I collaborated with five men, each with his own unique story of domestic violence. The focus of the interviews was to bring understanding to the experience of anger through a mutual investigation and reflection. The participants brought with them their stories. In turn I brought images and experiences of the men I had worked with over the years. First, I listened to their stories. Then, through dialectical exchange and an Imaginal Psychology orientation, I encouraged and facilitated a reflexive dialogue about their  experience. I was not looking for facts about what actually happened during the abuse,  but rather what was occurring for the research participant as related to the phenomenon of  anger. Catherine Riessman emphasizes the importance of the interviewer as a significant contributor to the direction of the narrative. She says that the interviewer brings in his or 

31 her theoretical/epistemological positions, values and more often than not, his or her   personal biography. Close analysis of the narrative derives legitimization of these types 67

of interpretative or hermeneutic methods.

The strategy adopted for this research

investigation was a qualitative research design using the in-depth interview with a narrative approach.

Four Masters

I have already stated that the multi-perspectival lens I look through comes from Imaginal Psychology. This dissertation is being written for the Institute of Imaginal Studies, which has a distinct orientation toward the imaginal world that undoubtedly has influenced my research. Pertinent to the approach that I have taken in this dissertation is the lineage that gives the school its name and situates itself in Imaginal Psychology, a discipline that draws from a number of domains of knowledge. These domains include spiritual traditions, somatic practices, creative arts, mythology, indigenous wisdom, deep 68

ecology, and social critique.

The Institute of Imaginal Studies hosts an Imaginal Psychology that reclaims soul as psychology’s primary concern. Imaginal Psychology distinguishes itself from other  orientations in psychology such as humanistic, transpersonal, and depth. In the Institute’s catalog, Omer describes Imaginal Psychology in the following way: Imaginal Psychology has its roots in the transformative practices that are at the core of many spiritual traditions and creative arts. In the last one hundred years modern depth psychology has rediscovered these sacred potentials. Imaginal Psychology traces this vein of gold through its ancient and modern manifestations in ways relevant to our contemporary lives, enabling a distinctly post-modern 69  psychology to emerge.

32 Hence, Imaginal Psychology moves us out of the clinical inquiry of the consulting room and psychology laboratories. In fact Imaginal Psychology is larger than what is normally considered psychology. Robert D. Romanyshyn writes, “the term psychology might be too small to encompass the range of the imaginal realm, because psychology as it generally exists today is too small for the reality of soul.”

70

Therefore the necessity to

draw on knowledge domains outside of psychology. “Imaginal Studies, as an approach to disciplined inquiry, recognizes that our  experience and our actions in the world depend upon the images we inhabit.”

71

Research

in the realm of Imaginal Psychology calls for a search for knowledge that not only contributes to academia but also embraces the community that the research is addressing. This dissertation data collection has focused on the domestic violence abuser. In so doing, a variety of images are evoked, not the least of which is the pain and suffering  perpetrated on spouses and children by the acts of domestic abusers. Since this dissertation identifies itself with a “psychology of the soul” acknowledging that suffering must be part of it. This is but one image that was evoked by our topic. I have chosen four primary archetypal representations to give voice to some of the key images that concern this dissertation. They include the poet, the therapist, the judge, and the researcher. These voices have had their influence on my thoughts, my writing, and my interchanges with participants and co-researchers. I present them here to make their   presence explicit to the reader. They will appear throughout the dissertation with the intention of bringing a plurality of understanding to the topic. The poet will have his eye tuned to the myths that are carried within each participant, myself, as well as the culture. The therapist is keenly aware that the participants of this research are real people with suffering and pain that cannot be ignored. In contrast, the judge reminds me that this

33 research is situated in the realm of violence that is so destructive to human life. Finally, the researcher who carries the weight of the academic community seeks clarity and  meaning by means of its own rules and traditions.

NOTES Chapter 1 1.

Aristotle, “Rhetoric,” The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941), par.

2.

Ibid.

1380.

3. Silvan Tomkins, Affect/Imagery/Consciousness, vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and  Fear (New York: Springer, 1991), 249. 4.

Ibid., 121-22.

5. Stephen A. Diamond,  Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of  Violence, Evil, and Creativity . SUNY Series (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), 13. 6.

Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: Norton & Co., 1961), 111.

7. Otto Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions (New Haven and  London: Yale University Press, 1992), 3-20. 8.

Stephen Diamond, Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic, 7.

9.  Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, “Festival 98 interview with Peace Prize Laureates Bobby Muller, Betty Williams, Rigoberta Menchu,” interview by Lynn Neary, Weekend All Things Considered ,  National Public Radio, Nov. 7, 1998. 10. James Hillman, The Myth of Analysis: Three Essays in Psychoanalysis (New York: Harper  & Row Publishers, 1972), 98-99. 11. Ibid., 99. 12. Benedictus Figulus, “Rosarium Novum Olympicum,” Pars. I, p. 71. Enoch is the “son of  man” (Book of Enoch, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 2. P.237). Quoted in Carl G. Jung,  Alchemical Studies, vol. 13 , The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series XX (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968), par. 186. 13. Rollo May, “Man and Philosophy,” Perspectives: Humanistic Psychology Institute, special issue 2, no. 1 (Summer 1981). 14. Heinz Kohut, “Self Psychology,” Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts , (New Haven: Yale University Press 1990). Kohut speaks of the development of the self in relation to experiences with selfobjects. Those experiences involve both optimal frustration as well as less-than-optimal frustration, the latter of which engenders anger. Inherent in this concept is Kohut’s expectation that all development includes experiences of both optimal and less-than-optimal frustration. Similarly, Jessica Benjamin speaks of the role of anger and aggression during Mahler’s rapprochement conflict stage of development in “Recognition and Destruction: An Outline of Intersubjectivity,” Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis, eds. Susan C. Warshaw and Neil J. Skolnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, Inc, 1992), 43-60.

248

249 15. Otto F. Kernberg, “Sexual Excitement and Rage: Building Blocks of the Drives,” Sigmund  Freud Lecture (Vienna, Austria, 1990), Sigmund Freud House Bulletin, 1991 Summer, vol. 15. Also,  Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 4-20. 16. Daniel Stern, The Interpersonal World of the Infant  (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 261. 17. Margaret S. Mahler, Fred Pine, and Anni Bergman, The Psychological Birth of the Human  Infant: Symbiosis and Individuation (New York: Basic Books, 1975). 18. Donald W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Tavistock Publishers, 1971). Though Winnicott does not specifically talk about reflexivity, his writing discusses the importance of the child’s development to include the emotional identification with the other’s position. This differentiation of the child thus depends on the child knowing that his experience is different from the parent and that both he and the parent know what the other feels. This experience primarily comes out of conflict. 19. Heinz Kohut and Paul H. Ornstein, The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978 (New York: International Universities Press, 1978). Kohut divides aggression into normal aggression and destructive aggression. The former he sees as the outcome of the experiences of  optimal frustration that teaches one to do for oneself what has been done by others. Destructive aggression he sees as the result of a different line of development where there is an extreme of less-than-optimal frustration. Here the self becomes endangered or fragmented. When this is experienced we see what he calls narcissistic rage, a reaction to narcissistic injury that suffuses the individual with unforgiving hatred, cruelty, and the need to hurt. 20. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 43-60. 21. Carl G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche . vol. 8 , Collected Works of C. G.  Jung, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960; 2d ed., 1969), par. 241-43. 22. Ibid., par. 243. 23. Ibid., par. 241. 24. Ibid. 25. William R. Torbert, The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific  Inquiry, quoted in Peter Reason and John Heron, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” in Qualitative  Inquiry, (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1997), 282. 26. Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” 282. 27. Sheldon Bach, “Perspectives on Self and Object,” Psychoanalytic Review, (Spring 71, no. 1 1984): 145-68; John Auerbach, “Dualism, Self-reflexivity, and Intersubjectivity: Commentary on paper by Sheldon Bach,” Psychoanalytic Dialogues 8, no. 5 (1998): 675-83. 28. Aftab Omer has developed the definition for reflexivity at the Institute of Imaginal Studies, Petaluma, California, 1997. 29. Ibid. At the Institute of Imaginal Studies Aftab Omer has defined “imaginal structures” as “assemblies of sensory, affective, and cognitive aspects of experience constellated into images; they both mediate and constitute experience. The specifics of an imaginal structure are determined by an interaction of personal, cultural, and archetypal influences. These influences may be teased apart by attention to the stories that form personal character and the myths that shape cultural life. During the individuation  process, imaginal structures are transmuted into emergent and enhanced capacities as well as transformed 

250 identity. Any enduring and substantive change in individual or group behavior requires a transmuting of  imaginal structures. This transmutation depends upon an affirmative turn toward the passionate nature of  the soul.” 30. Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music.” In The Philosophy of   Nietzsche. Translated by Clifton P. Fadiman (New York: Random House, 1909). 31. Carl G. Jung,  Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self . vol. 9, Pt. 2, 2nd ed., The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., 1959 1968), quoted in Stephen A Diamond, Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of  Violence, Evil, and Creativity (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), 87. 32. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead : The Papyrus of Ani (New York, Dover, 1967). 33. Ibid.; Sir James George Frazer, The New Golden Bough, ed. Dr. Theodor H. Gaster (New York: Criterion Books, 1959). 34.  Normandi Ellis, Awakening Osiris: A New Translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead  (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988); Jean Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris (New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 1995). 35. Frazer, The New Golden Bough, 563. 36. Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris, 33-34. 37. Ibid., 34. 38. Frazer, The New Golden Bough, 328 39.  Nathan Schwartz-Salant uses the mythology of Set in relationship to narcissistic rage as related to Kohut’s works. Nathan Schwartz-Salant, Narcissism and Character Transformation: The Psychology of Narcissistic Character Disorders (Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books. 1982). In his book, The Borderline Personality, he again uses the myth of Osiris this time relating Osiris being dismembered to the borderline personality. Nathan Schwartz-Salant, Archetypal Factors Underlying Sexual Acting-Out in the Transference/Counter-transference Process (Wilmette, IL: Chiron, 1984), 1-30. The two prevalent character disorders related to domestic violence are narcissistic and borderline disorders. Susan E. Hanks, “Translating Theory into Practice: A Conceptual Framework for Clinical Assessment, Differential Diagnosis,” and “Multi-Modal Treatment of Maritally Violent Individuals, Couples, and Families.” In  Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives , ed. Emilio C. Viano: 157-176 (Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Co., 1992), 169. 40. Ellis, Awakening Osiris, 22. 41. Robert Zaslow and Marilyn Menta.  Rage, Resistance, and Holding: Z-Process Approach (San Jose, CA: Spartan Bookstore, San Jose State University, 1977). 42. Tomkins, Affect/Imagery/Consciousness, vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and Fear ; Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson, ed. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions: Series in Affective Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Keith Oatley, “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done,” Perspectives on Anger and Emotion, Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 6, ed. Robert Wyer and  Thomas K. Srull (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1993), 159-66; Leonard  Berkowitz, “Towards a General Theory of Anger and Emotional Aggression,” Perspectives on Anger and   Emotion, Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 6, ed. Robert Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1993).

251

43. Clinically, the intensity of the anger reaction adapts to fulfill a psychological function, such as to assert autonomy, to eliminate an obstacle or barrier, or to eliminate or destroy a source of profound pain or frustration. Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions. 44. Charles D. Spielberger, G. A. Jacobs, S. F. Russell and R. S Crane, “Assessment of Anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale,”  Advances in Personality Assessment, vol. 2. ed. J. N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983). 45. Jean P. Sartre, The Emotions: Outline of a Theory, trans. B. Fechtman. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1948). 46. Theoretically, many have challenged the concept of pre-reflexivity, as all emotion has an appraisal element. However, from a phenomenological approach, the term as defined by J. P. Sartre describes the common man’s descriptive experience. It also has been used in a similar way in the  phenomenological research of E. L. Stevick, “An Empirical Investigation of the Experience of Anger,” eds. A. Giorgi, W. F. Fischer, and R. von Eckarsberg, Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology: vol. 1 (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press., 1971). 47. Stevick, “An Empirical Investigation of the Experience of Anger,” 132-48. 48. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche , vol. 8, par. 241-3. 49. Omer, definition for reflexivity, 1997. 50. Trudy Mills and Sherryl Kleinman, “Emotions, Reflexivity, and Action: An Interactionist Analysis,” Social Forces, 66 no. 4 (June 1988): 1009-1027. 51. This Dissertation, in chapter three, titled “Experiencing the Other,” examines the significance of reflexive participation via a thorough examination of narcissism and man’s search for the missing other. Aftab Omer, Experience and Otherness: On the Undermining of Learning in Educational Organizations (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1990), 109. 52. Ibid., 163. 53. Ibid., 85-7. 54. Omer, definition for reflexivity, 1997. 55. Omer, “Experience and Otherness,” 189-190. 56. Stephen Johnson in his book, Character Styles elaborates on the symbiotic character style as it applies to this mode of anger. Stephen M. Johnson, Character Styles (New York: W. W. Norton and Co, Inc., 1994), 36-40 57. Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris, 34. 58. Omer, “Experience and Otherness,” 83. quoted in Robert Jay Lifton, The Life of the Self , (NY: Basic Books, 1976), 27. 59. Ibid., 83. 60. Robert J Lifton, Death in Life (New York: Random House, 1967), 504. 61. Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris, 33.

252

62. Omer, definition for reflexive participation, 1997. 63. Omer, “Experience and Otherness,” 110. 64. Schwartz-Salant, Narcissism and Character Transformation, 54-6. 65. Andrew Samuels, A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis (Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc. 1986), 128. 66. Carl G. Jung, Freud and Psychoanalysis . vol. 4. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), par. 774. 67. Catherine Riessman, Narrative Analysis (Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc., 1993), 61. 68. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche . 69. Aftab Omer, in the Institute of Imaginal Studies Course Catalog, 1997-98. 70. Robert D. Romanyshyn, Ways of the Heart: Essays Toward an Imaginal Psychology (Pittsburgh: Trivium Publications, 2002), 23. 71. Omer, in the Institute of Imaginal Studies Course Catalog, 1997-98.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The overall literature review for this dissertation is divided into three primary  parts. Part one is a review of literature on anger, part two on reflexivity, and part three on research that combines anger and reflexivity. Part one, on anger, is reviewed in four  segments designated as: Social Cognition Theory and Anger, Domestic Violence, Affect Theory and Anger, and Depth Psychology and Anger.

Anger Research

Social Cognitive Theory and Anger

Oedipus’ tragic flaw is his wrath against his own reality.

− Rollo May1 A social cognitive view of anger has been the predominant perspective in  psychological research over the last 50 years. It has taken its lead from early Western cultural views of anger. Aristotle wrote in his work, Rhetoric, “Anger may be defined as a belief that we, or our friends, have been unfairly slighted, which causes in us both  painful feelings and a desire or impulse for revenge.”

2

This definition closely resembles that of James R. Averill in his renowned book, 3

 Anger and Aggression: an Essay on Emotion. He wrote, “Anger ensues primarily when

the frustration is occasioned by the actions of another person, actions, which are appraised by the angry individual as unjustified or at least avoidable.”

34

4

35 More recently Leonard Berkowitz acknowledges that this definition is entirely 5

consistent with the underlying assumptions of conventional cognitive social psychology. As Lee Ross and Richard E. Nisbett indicate, the dominant theoretical perspective in the field supposes that virtually everything people do and feel in a given situation is 6

determined by how one construes what is happening. This position is consistent with Schachter-Singer’s 1962 social psychological theory of the emotion. Stanley Schachter  and Jerome Singer presumed that bodily and neural biological responses to an event do not in themselves stimulate a given form of behavior or even cause the production of  7

qualitatively specific feelings. This theory, which has dominated the field of social cognitive psychology, specifies that specific feelings are experienced and actions are taken only when the afflicted person has made an interpretation of their internal sensations and that those internal sensations, at best, only create a diffuse and  8

undifferentiated arousal state.

This theoretical framework for understanding anger came from the e arly work of  9

William James. James counters what he calls the common man's view that an event happens, one feels an emotion, and then one acts on it, with the assumption … that bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are 10 sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be. Thus, James, in his writings on emotion, predominantly sees emotion as an end product. Keith Oatley describes the sequence as being an event occurs, which is followed by a 11

 bodily reaction, and then followed by the emotion as a perception of the bodily reaction. This line of thought deems that bodily sensations caused by an event are not in

themselves emotions. They only become emotions such as anger as a result of how they

36 are construed by the individual. Schachter and Singer’s conventional formulations suggest that the unhappy occurrence, however it arises, does not in itself produce motor  reactions having particular aims. The individual thus acts in a certain way because of a decision, reached consciously or unconsciously, as to how to act. B. Weiner, Dolf  Zillmann, et al. give empirical support for this reasoning, based on reports of individual 12

experiences as well as laboratory research.

This formulation has contributed to the

general social cognitive argument that cognition must be present for any emotion to take  place. One of the most outspoken cognitive theorists on the emotion and anger is Richard Lazarus. He strongly argues the importance of the interpreted subjectivity of the experiencer in deciding whether an event is arbitrary or malevolent on the part of the offender’s intentions. Lazarus points out that present-day cognitive motivational relational ideas restate Aristotle's concept of anger as the reaction to a personal slight or  insult that in effect is an assault on one's ego identity. He sees provocation as the element of what makes adult anger different from other negative emotional states all of which are derived from harm, loss, or threat.

13

A complication in understanding anger is that often the terms “anger” and  “aggression” have been used interchangeably. As noted by Averill, the relation between 14

anger and aggression is not clear.

He distinguishes anger as a passion, not an action.

Elizabeth Lemerise and Kenneth Dodge elaborate on Averill’s position suggesting that sometimes aggression can be an expression of anger, but in other cases it may serve 15

dominance and instrumental functions.

In general it is accepted that anger does not

inevitably lead to aggression. In the more recent article, “Advances In Social Cognition Perspectives On Anger and Emotion,” Berkowitz notes that few experimental social

37  psychologists have tried to spell out in any detail the possible relationship between 16

aggression and the less fairly specific emotional state co mmonly termed anger.

Berkowitz himself makes the distinction that “aggression has to do with behavior that deliberately attempts to achieve a particular goal, i.e., injuring another person. This action is thus goal directed. By contrast, anger doesn't necessarily have any particular  goal and refers only to a particular set of feelings, the feelings we usually label ‘anger.’ ”

17

Some are only hostile responses, classified as “instrumental aggression” are

 prompted largely by the hope of gaining some benefit other than injuring the victim. Lemerise and Dodge suggest that there are “emotional aggressive actions,” which are 18

 presumably impelled largely by specific emotional reactions within the body.

Berkowitz and Dodge are among the growing number of social cognitive researchers that have made use of affect theory research. These will be discussed in the section on affect theory. In contrast to Berkowitz’s definition that limits anger to a set of particular  feelings, many social cognitive theorists have actually expanded on the functional significance of anger. A mixture of social cognitive and affect theorists see anger as serving a variety of adaptive functions. According to Lemerise and Dodge, these include the organization and regulation of internal physiological and psychological processes that are related to self-defense and mastery as well as the regulation of social and interpretive 19

 behaviors.

They see anger as both an energizer and an organizer of behavior and as a

social signal that regulates interpersonal behaviors. Averill particularly emphasizes the context of the function of anger coming through socialization by caregivers and the larger  20

social context.

Carol Malatesta says, from a social developmental context, the child from very

38 21

early on needs to learn how to express anger in culturally acceptable ways.

Developmental social psychologists Lemerise and Dodge see problems in the modulation and expression of anger in children implicated in failures of social interaction 22

development.

They argue that anger has been shown to bias social information

 processing. This makes reactive aggressive responses to others more likely. They also associate problems in the modulation of anger on individuals with maladaptive internal regulation. If this condition is chronic, Carroll E. Izard and Rogers R. Kobak, as well as Kenneth Dodge and John D. Coie, say it becomes reflected in the development of  23

 psychopathology.

Dodge and Coie indicate that reactive or angry aggression is a major 

correlate of social rejection by one’s peer group.

24

The research of John Gottman and 

Lynn Katz gives evidence that exposure to chronic high levels of anger and arousal has 25

 been linked to inappropriate social behavior both with parents and with peers.

In conclusion, the general agreement among social cognitive theorists is that anger is a socially construed response that requires some level of cognition. For the emotion of anger to be experienced one must appraise the situation either consciously or  unconsciously, then conclude that the actions of another person were unjustified or at least avoidable. It is also generally agreed that reason becomes the remedy, through the  process of socialization that protects man from using his anger in a hurtful or destructive manner. Aggression, although often coupled with anger, can be experienced independent of anger and in general is not considered the same as anger. Social cognitive theory in general sequences the experience of anger in a Jamesian model. An event happens, there are diffuse bodily reactions, those bodily reactions are interpreted. It is that interpretation that distinguishes one negative emotion from another, the emotion being the endpoint.

39 Most recent controversies among social cognitive theorists involve distinctions  between anger and aggression, the role of cognition as related to anger, action tendencies as a part of the diffuse bodily reactions, and the sequence of events that leads to an anger  experience. These controversies in part have been influenced by affect theory during the last decade and thus will be discussed in the section on affect theory.

Domestic Violence

Our challenge, then, is not to suppress violence but to fulfill it and, once it has been liberated from its repression, to discover its charms. − Thomas Moore26 Research in the area of domestic violence as a social problem is relatively new. As seen in the writing of M. Faulk, early research viewed wife assault as a phenomenon 27

 produced by individual pathology.

In contrast to this, during the 1970s, wife assault

 broadened to include sociological causes. R. Emerson Dobash and M. Bogart assert that a particularly strong influence came from the feminist perspective that holds that spousal abuse basically is the result of attitudes held in a patriarchal society that supports the 28

inequality of women.

 Early Psychological Explanations of Domestic Violence

Faulk notes that in early psychiatric explanations wife assault was described as 29

rare and the men who committed it as unusual, atypical, and pathological.

Studies by

Frank Elliott and John Snell et al. explained wife assault as caused by neural mechanisms or by the victim herself.

30

These studies have been highly criticized by those taking a

feminist perspective, like Dobash and Dobash, a s well as by more recent pathological31

oriented researchers like Donald G. Dutton.

In particular Dutton has criticized 

explanations emphasizing psychiatric disorder by such researchers as Roger Bland and 

40 Helene Orn as reductionistic and having the orientation toward inserting diagnostic labels 32

in lieu of etiology.

Dutton argues that such studies never developed ideological models

that explained the abuse, focusing instead on association of abuse with established  diagnostic categories. A good example of this is Elliott's research positing Intermittent Explosive Disorder (caused by head trauma) as a cause for wife assault.

33

As Dutton

indicates, such analysis overlooks the specifics of the manifestation of violence 34

exclusively in intimate relationships.

Feminist Perspective on Domestic Violence

According to Dobash and Dobash, in the feminist perspective, domestic violence is a natural outcome of a patriarchal society, a point of view that provides an antidote for  the reductionistic approach of the early psychiatric view (generated by a social context 35

that supported male dominance of women) that assault was a common event.

They

state that spousal abuse is essentially a "normal" result of a male socialization process in 36

which domination of women is overtly reinforced in our society.

According to

Goldner, the feminist social cultural emphasis of the causes of spousal abuse includes a 37

disavowal of psychological causes of male violence.

As Daniel O'Leary indicates, the patriarchal society explanation is critical to understanding spousal abuse. However, he argues that it is insufficient in explaining the  phenomenon. "That is, wife abuse will exist as a significant problem only in societies in which males learned that domination of females is appropriate. However, even with these conditions many young men never slap or hit their partners.”

38

Dutton is also

critical of the feminist perspective, pointing to a nu mber of studies that bring into question the validity of solely attributing spousal abuse in relationships to a patriarchal system. For example, the research of Gwat-yong Lie et al. shows empirical findings:

41 that all abuse rates such as physical, verbal, and sexual are higher in lesbian relationships 39

than in heterosexual relationships.

Also contradictory to the feminist perspective are

the studies of Susan Sorenson and Cynthia Telles as well as that of Jacquelyn Campbell that show abuse rates are lower in more patriarchal cultures.

40

Also, Kersti Yllo and 

Murray Staus’ study shows that there is no linear correlation between didactic power and  wife assault. Also tests of structural patriarchy and patriarchal beliefs yield a near zero 41

correlation between the two measures.

Furthermore, in conflict with the feminist perspective is evidence indicating at least three subcategories of wife abusers: over controlled (avoidant), psychopathic, and  emotionally volatile. Daniel G. Saunders and Dutton support this view.

42

The

emotionally volatile group is described as angry, jealous and depressed, and only violent with their spouse.

43

These groups are believed to comprise thirty to forty percent of all 44

wife assaulters according to Dutton.

Combining the studies gives strong evidence of 

the feminist theory as being inadequate by itself for explaining spousal abuse. Paralleling the feminist approach to understanding domestic violence has been a  broader social learning theory approach. From this perspective, both Dutton and Anne L. Ganley see spousal abuse as a learned response to stress supported by the immediate rewards gained through its use.

45

Crucial to this approach have been studies by such

researchers as Murray A. Straus, R. J. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz who found that males who had observed parents attack each other were three times more likely to have assaulted their wives and that thirty-five percent of men who had seen such attacks had  hit their own wives during the year of the study, compared to ten percent of men who had  not witnessed such events.

46

However, in contrast to the feminist perspective, Debra 47

Kalmuss found that such modeling was not sex specific.

Kalmuss also showed that the

42 childhood experience of seeing fathers hitting mothers increases the likelihood of both husband-wife and wife-husband aggression in the next generation and both sons and  daughters are more likely to be both victims as well as perpetrators of violence a gainst their mates. This gives the indication that something more than sex role behavioral modeling is occurring. Contributing to social learning theory on domestic violence has been Dutton's work on instigated use of aggression. aggression. Similar to the affect affect theory concept of antecedents, Dutton has shown perceived abandonment and control of intimacy as two primary instigators of wife assault.

48

Assaultive males in treatment groups frequently mention

these two stimuli. Empirically testing this theory, Dutton and James J. Browning found  that spousal abusers responded with more ange r in control groups to a video scenario 49

depicting uncontrollable abandonment of a male by his female partner.

One primary

criticism of social learning theory as well as feminist theory is found in research gathering descriptive features of batterers batterers by their victims. victims. Lenore E. Walker reports that these victims repeatedly described men as appearing to respond primarily to internal stimuli, which seemed to increase over time and to disappear temporarily upon 50

catharsis.

“There's no systematic explanation for the development of these apparently 51

cyclical internal states within a social learning framework” according to Dutton.

Walker's "cycle of violence" description of domestic violence has become a 52

dominant model in working with both domestic violence victims and perpetrators.

Her 

model describes three phases of spousal violence involving tension building, acute  battering, and contrition. The first stage is characterized by escalating tension, anger, and  outbursts on the part of the men accompanied by recognition that his behavior is wrong, fear of the women leaving, jealousy, and possessiveness. Stage two is characterized by

43 the uncontrollable discharge of tension that that has built up during phase one. This stage  produces rage that generates into acute battering until the batterer becomes “exhausted  and emotionally depleted.”

53

Walker describes the third phase as characterizing

contrition, confession, promises of reform, and attempts to convince the victim and others that the abuse will not occur again. Donald Dutton argues that existing existing theories of wife assault (psychiatric, sociological, sociobiological, and social learning) fail to support the research data of the last two decades. He believes that the cyclical behavior of so many spousal abusers can be explained ex plained by the clinical characteristics of the borderline 54

 personality.

John G. Gunderson has described the clinical category as being

characterized by intense, unstable interpersonal relationships, and unstable sense of self, intense anger, and impulsivity, labeling it BPO (borderline personality organization and  55

assaultiveness).

According to Kernberg it represents a less severe form of borderline 56

 personality disorder and is exhibited by about 15 percent of the general population.

Susan Hanks argues that any staunch adherence to either “political philosophies or rigid clinical paradigms does disservice to the men, women, and children who suffer  the emotional and physical pain of domestic violence.”

57

Hanks to date has presented 

the most comprehensive multi-model multi-model treatment approach to domestic violence. violence. Her  model emphasizes psychodynamic theories of object relations, sociocultural, and feminist  perspectives. She proposes that each of these are necessary but insufficient by themselves to explain adequately the phenomena of domestic violence. In summary, it is evident in the literature that psychopa thology theory, feminist theory, and social cognitive theory the ory all contribute to the current understanding of domestic violence. Recent works by Susan Hanks as well as Current Controversies on Family Violence by Richard J.Gelles and Donileen R. Loseke encourage the cross-pollination

44 58

and critical challenging of these distinctly different paradigms.

The three paradigms

mentioned currently dominate the field of domestic violence. Non-dominant areas of  exploration include affect theory theory and depth psychology. These areas will be covered in their respective sections of this dissertation.

Affect Theory and Anger

As stated in the introduction, the challenge of this research is to present a model of the anger experience that can incorporate multiple theoretical perspectives. perspectives. In many ways the social cognitive theorists have dominated the field of anger in the discipline d iscipline of   psychology. More recently the affect theorists have become significant contributors to the understanding of anger. Although the initiation of affect affect theory came with Silvan Tomkins’s 1962 book, Affect Imagery and Consciousness, it was not until the 1980s that 59

affect theory was accepted into mainstream psychology.

This section of the literature

review will present the significant contributions of affect theory to the understanding of  emotion and, specifically, anger. It will then show how that research has affected social social cognitive theory. Included in this section on affect affect theory will be some some research on the neurobiological aspects of anger. Since the emphasis of this research is the experience of  anger, only a minimal amount of reference reference will be made to its neurobiological basis. It is appropriate to combine this research with that of the affect theorists since both systems are biologically based. Silvan Tomkins explains a biological affect system, distinct from but co mparable to the sensory, motor, memory, cognitive, pain, and drive mechanisms in the same way that the heart, circulation, respiration, liver, kidney, are parts of the general homeostatic 60

system.

He saw affect mechanisms as no less biological than drive mechanisms.

45  Neurobiological researchers Richard Davidson, Jaak Panksepp, at al are currently finding 61 62

more and more evidence substantiating Tomkins’s concepts.

Robert Emde’s research

indicates a central biological function of inbo rn affective patterns with behavioral, communicative, and psychophysiological manifestations that signal the infant’s needs to 63

the mother, marking the beginning of intrapsychic life.

Though not fully substantiated,

Kernberg says there is general agreement in neuropsychological research that affective memory is stored in the limbic cortex.

64

Affect theory has grown out of the work of Silvan Tomkins who saw the affect 65

mechanism as a distinct system no less biological than drive mechanisms.

As such, he

has identified nine primary affects (interest, enjoyment, surprise, fear, anger, distress, shame, dissmell, and disgust). disgust). He argues that distinct sets sets of facial, vocal, respiratory, respiratory, skin, and muscle responses can distinguish distinguish these. And that “decisive evidence for this will, I think, require conjoint, specific, patterned brain stimulation with moving and  thermographic pictures of the face.”

66

He called this group of mechanisms mechan isms the affect

system. Other researchers like Paul Ekman believe there are other primary affects such 67

as embarrassment, awe, contempt, and sadness.

Jaak Panksepp says most affect

theorists regard an affect as the biological portion of emotion and the affect system to 68

include feeling, emotion, mood, temperament, as well as other constructs.

Since Tomkins’s original publication of Volumes One and Two of   Affect/Imagery/ Consciousness, a shift has occurred in the science of emotion. Prior to

Tomkins, work with emotion had almost bee n dismissed as an illegitimate subject for  theory and research. During the 1960s and 1970s the cognitive theorist dominated the the literature, interpreting emotions as dependent on self-awareness and cognitive 69

evaluation.

Despite the breakthrough of Tomkins, it was not until the 1980s that affect

46 theory became a major focus of the life sciences it is gradually influencing  psychoanalytic and cognitive theories about emotion as well as integrating them with  biological theories. The term Affective Science in itself comes out of n ot only the inability to understand and differentiate what is meant by emotion but by the increased ability of the science to make clearer distinctions. Though there is still much controversy, the field has developed a more refined language of understanding that transcends barriers between the neurobiological research on emotions and social cognitive research. Silvan Tomkins, upon recognizing that there were primary affects, went on to develop the concept of an “Affect System” for the understanding of the emotions based  on these affects. William James tried to make sense out of the emotions describing them as basic feelings of the bodily changes. Today this would be considered the bodily reactions or somatic responses such as muscle tension, emptiness, agitation, shakiness, or  nausea. In contrast to William William James, for Carl Jung emotional feelings are essentially 70

value judgments, or how one interprets or evaluates a situation.

Affect theorists like

Richard Shweder and Shweder and James D. Laird combine both of these views to understand emotion along with a third referred to as instrumental responses (evaluation of actual or potential 71

outcomes).

In summary, affect theory incorporates bodily reactions, cognitive

appraisals, and instrumental responses. As mentioned above, affect is referred to as the biological portion of the affect system. When one writes, “affect has been triggered,” it means that some some definable stimulus has activated a mechanism, which then releases a known pattern of biological responses. After affect is triggered, Michael Basch uses the term “feeling” to indicate 72

that the organism has become aware of an affect.

There is an implied consciousness

47 that goes with the awareness of feeling. Donald Nathanson wrote “The move from affect to feeling involves a leap from biology to psychology” and that the next leap is to 73

emotion, which includes memory.

One feels the activation of an affect, one then

evaluates the feeling based on memory. The next distinction is made between emotion and mood. However, the criterion varies from theorist to theorist. For many affect 74

75

theorists, including Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson, Jerome Kagan, Carroll Izard  76

77

and Kobak, David Watson and Lee Anna Clark, emotion contains components such as (1) distinctive physiology of autonomic changes (including facial changes), (2) brief  duration, (3) commonalties in antecedent events, (4) quick onset, and 5) a distinct subjective feeling state. In effect, recognizing emotion and affect as one and the same.  Nico H. Frijda, however, is more interested in distinguishing between different processes rather than categories or states, such as emotion being the processes of object-focused, intentional affective activity and mood being non-object-focused. Frijda wrote “every emotion tends to prolong itself into a mood or, more properly perhaps, that every emotion tends to entail consequences of diffuse, global responsiveness—that is, tends to entail a mood change.”

78

Lazarus takes a similar stance saying that emotions are concerned with

immediate adaptational business while moods are products of appraisals of the “existential background of our lives.”

79

In general, there is an agreement that the

distinction between emotion and mood is that emotions are concerned with action readiness and are directed at a subject or object. A primary consideration of some affect theorists is that emotions are an evolutionary adaptation that helps determine behavioral reaction to the environment and  hence contribute to the survival of the species. Clark and Watson see emotional functions as falling into three categories including signal systems, resource mobilization,

48 80

and resource conservation.

Influential in affect theory is the concept of action

tendencies. These action tendencies are generally considered to be phylogenetically 81

 preprogrammed scripts for each or most emotions, according to Klause R. Scherer. 82

Gerald Clore questions this way of thinking in regards to action tendencies.

He

suggests that emotions provide information. “Emotions supply information to others through distinctive facial and vocal expressions and to oneself through distinctive thoughts and feelings.”

83

These distinctive thoughts and feelings tell the person ho w the

situation has been appraised. Clore proposes “that emotions change our motivations, and  what goals we seek.” This conflict of the origin and definition of action tendencies is significant to the understanding of emotion. Scherer wrote “emotion seems to be centrally involved in determining the behavioral reaction to environmental, often social, events of major significance for the needs and goals of the organism.”

84

In addition to

other non-emotional reactive systems (e.g., reflexes or rational problem-solving) emotion carries the special role of evaluating what is of importance to the organism. In this way, 85

Tomkins describes emotions as amplifiers of motives.

He also states that “The affect

system is therefore the primary motivational system because without its amplification nothing else matters−and with its amplification anything else can matter. It thus combines urgency and generality. It lends its power to memory, to perception, to thought, and to action no less than to the drives.”

86

Affect theory of emotion in itself is vital to our und erstanding of anger precisely  because of its biological roots. A phenomenological perspective points to anger as an experience of the body. Whether it is within seconds, hours, or not even until the anger  episode is over that we become aware that we have been angry, we know it is anger   because our body tells us so. We know the affect of anger has been activated because of 

49 the combination of physiological changes such as a red face, increased blood pressure, increase in volume of voice, clenched jaw, narrowed eyes, etc. It is the affect theorists that have best explored this dimension of anger. As Tomkins informs us, “The function of anger is like the function of any affect: to amplify and increase the urgency of any possibility, in an abstract way. It conjoins urgency with generality and with abstractness.”

87

The urgency to do something,

anything, is communicated by the intensity of the neural firing and its especially 88

 punishing quality of sensory stimulation.

The function of anger on a physiological level

is quite clear, it is telling us that our experience is too much, too dense, and too  punishing. Tomkins indicates that with its abstractness anger becomes flexible and  adaptable to work in relation to other major mechanisms. Also anger’s generalizability allows it to impact its urgency and lend its power to memory, perception, thought, and  89

action.

By abstractness Tomkins means that the anger itself does not inform us of the

 particularities of its activator. In fact, one might not even know why one is angry. The abstractness tells us that our experience is too much, too dense, and too punishing. This allows anger to be flexible and adaptable to work in relation to other major mechanisms such as motor, cognitive, drive, and perceptual. Tomkins also emphasizes the social toxicity of anger and rage and the impact on society. Anger and aggression have the potential of activating murder, assassination, rioting, rebellion, revolution, and war which sen sitize all societies to the inherent dangers of this affect and which therefore prompt universal vigilance and sanctions against its 90

free expression.

He further states:

In part our differential resistance to such simple causal explanations of anger, compared with distress, arises from the greater social toxicity of anger and  therefore its greater threat both to society and to our image of human nature. To

50 the extent that we may be angered whenever the density of neural firing exceeds an optimal level, independent of our values, independent of our reason, we appear  91 to diminish the stature of the human being. The significance of the need for society to oppress the expression of anger and thus repress the emotion of anger is overwhelming in its implications for the psychological 92

development of individuals, as seen in the writings of Heinz Kohut.

Once the stimulus has activated the anger, the response system needs to find a way to deal with it. Affect theorists, including Tomkins, tell us that the system develops scripts in order to respond. Scripts are patterns of behavior. For example, when I get angry I might leave the situation as quickly as possible. Tomkins explores the many scripts used to deal with anger. Significantly he indicates in most cases that scripts are self-validating vs. self-fulfilling.

93

In other words, script development is not so much an

ego function that moves one toward conscious goals, as it is a psyche process of  validating the psyche (my interpretation). This is of particular significance when we observe that most anger scripts are much more focused on validating the self more than they are for achieving something. For example, when I am expressing my anger at you, I seem to be more interested in you knowing I am angry than in actually reaching a resolution to the problem. Donald Nathanson, working closely with Tomkins’s affect theory, develops the 94

concept of affect overload.

He shows how any affect when it reaches an overload will

make use of another affect. For example, “she laughed so hard she cried,” or “his terror  turned to rage.” He goes on to say that when all else fails, an overload in affect will cause a shift in consciousness (such as dissociation). Both the functions of scripts and the  principles of affect overload become significant in understanding the relationship  between intensity of an anger response and its expression.

51 Affect theory gives us a clear model for the basis of anger as an affect (distinguishing it from an emotion or mood). Simply stated, something causes discomfort to the individual, this discomfort activates the affect of anger that sends energy through the system, amplifying itself until something is done about it. The system then grabs at any tools it might have (motor, cognitive, psychological defenses, etc.) using the anger’s affective energy to put them to use in eliminating the discomfort. This would also explain why some research shows that anger can be activated purely by physical discomfort. At this point what we have is a fire alarm that goes off and continues to amplify itself until something happens. Congruent with this, Gerald L. Clore sees the 95

 basic function of emotions as providing information.

Along with Schwarz, Clore states

“Emotions supply information to others through distinctive facial and vocal expressions and to oneself through distinctive thoughts and feelings.”

96

These distinctive thoughts

and feelings tell the person how the situation has been appraised. Clore proposes that 97

emotions change our motivations and what goals we seek.

Klaus Scherer wrote

“emotion seems to be centrally involved in determining the behavioral reaction to environmental, often social, events of major significance for the needs and goals of the organism.”

98

Anger thus tells the organism as well as others that something is wrong

while giving the organism energy to do something about it. However, there is something more to anger than what I have just described. Tomkins shows us that anger, though similar, is also quite different from affects such as disgust, sadness, and fear, which all could fit the above attributes. Descriptively, he tells us that the primary function of anger is to make bad matters worse and to further increase 99

the probability of an angry response.

If he means this, and I assume he does, we cannot

help but ask the question “why?” What purpose does this serve?

52 This is a particularly important question if we are going to address the function of  anger. As presented earlier, William James’ concept of how an emotional sequence takes 100

 place was that an event occurs and is followed by a reaction to it.

An emotion is the

 perception of the bodily processes of this reaction, emotion being an endpoint. As elaborated in section one, the research of neo-Jamesians, Schachter and Singer, essentially puts emotion, or affect, secondary to cognition, thus supporting a cognitive 101

theoretical emphasis on understanding emotion.

Following the line of thinking of 

social cognitive theorists like Averill, Lazarus has argued that cognition is the initial 102

activator of emotion.

As such, we can make little sense out of the aspect of anger that

tends to make things worse, other than to see it as pathological. However, during the past decade, even among many cognitive theorists, there has been more of a shift toward a Darwinian understanding. Charles Darwin saw that emotional expressions could be elicited by stimuli that had diffusely activating properties. He thought that these expressions and the actions that result from them are largely involuntary and primitive, derived from patterns that had a function early in evolution or individual development. They are also “primitive” in that they occur in humans whether or not they have any  practical use. Darwin, speaking in general terms, even referred to the term repression for  the attempt man makes at inhibiting the emotions. Unlike William James, Darwin suggested that when an event happens, a bodily and an emotional response is activated  103

and then cognition or other mechanisms are activated.

Researchers, such as Leonard Berkowitz, a cognitive-neoassociationist, take a 104

similar stance perceiving anger and aggression to be largely antisocial and primitive.

As Berkowitz explains it, an event happens which elicits an emotion (anger) and this in turn has two main effects: it generates an impulse to action and it activates an emotion-

53 105

coded semantic response.

The move toward a Darwinian model can even be seen in

strict cognitive theorists like Lazarus. Lazarus, who maintains a strict allegiance to the concept that cognition must be present in all emotion, now distinguishes types of  cognition. These include automatic cognitive processes that include preconscious or  106

unconscious modes of appraising.

Lazarus goes so far as to say that appraisal in itself  107

is cognitive. He qualifies Heidegger’s beingness as an appraisal process.

Carroll Izard 

challenges Lazarus’s broad definition of cognition, which includes all appraisal 108

 processes.

Izard, based on a cross section of research, separates the appraisal process 109

into four types: cellular, organismic, biopsychological, and cognitive.

Significantly,

all of these researchers make the distinction that the appraisal process is a part of an emotion. Therefore, even the more primitive emotional reactions are not just releases of  energy but are also appraised and action-oriented responses. In recent debates on emotions (between social cognitive, affect, and  neoassociative theorists) a primary question arises as to how much is anger an evolutionary by-product of the primitive instinct to fight and protect oneself, as presented  110

 by Averill, versus anger having gone through an evolutionary development?

Keith

Oatley and other researchers (social cognitive and affect), who parallel Darwin’s thinking and expand on his ideas, see an evolutionary development of the affects, including anger. As Oatley wrote: It would be strange indeed if all of these affects were mere vestiges of obsolete mechanisms.… If we accept the theory of natural selection, it strains credulity to suppose that emotional behavior has somehow been shielded from selective  pressures. I think among most theorists of emotions−human emotions have 111 current adaptive functions. The general consensus of affect researchers is that the function of anger is to let the organism know that something is wrong as well as informing others of it. Oatley

54  proposes that in our individualistic society, any pain, any frustration, any infringement, is liable to be seen as a threat to our individuality, to our autonomy, to our control over  events, and that anger and aggression are usually means for adjusting the relations 112

 between autonomous individuals.

This interpersonal aspect of anger is supported by

Averill’s study showing that in most incidents of anger there was an individual involved  113

that the subject knew and liked.

For 63 percent of the incidents, the motive was to

assert authority or independence, or to improve the subject’s self-image. Also, surprisingly, 70 percent of subjects who had been targets of someone’s anger rated the angry incident as having been beneficial to their relationship. This study, as well as others, suggests the function of anger to be primarily interpersonal. However, these studies and explanations do not address directly the aspect of  anger that fosters “making bad matters worse and provoking the other to anger.” Tomkins gives some direction here via his script theory. Once the stimulus has activated  the anger response system, that system needs to find a way to deal with it. Tomkins tells us that the system develops scripts in order to respond. As mentioned earlier, he 114

indicates in most cases those scripts are self-validating vs. self-fulfilling.

Thus, the

scripts that a person develops are not as much an ego function that moves one toward  conscious goals (such as readjusting the relationship) as a process through which the  psyche validates itself. What we see here in the anger affect is an inter/intra psyche relational aspect that cannot be discounted. When one is angry, one wants the “other” to know that he is angry and often inflicts his anger on the “other” until they both are angry. Though certainly this is not the only way anger is experienced, it is common enough to suggest that it has a function. Staying with the paradigm of most affect research and  social cognitive research, there is no presumable ex planation other than seeing it as

55  pathological, presuming that the function of anger is to both energize and to organize one’s behavior and is also a social signaler that regulates interpersonal behavior (based  on primitive evolutionary processes). This is exemplified in the works of Berkowitz, 115

Averill, and Izard.

In order to make further sense of Tomkins’s observations of an ger,

in a non-pathological way, we must turn to depth psychology and particularly self psychology. Primarily under consideration is that anger is a response to an immediate condition of the self that is in some way endangered. I will look at this inter/intra psyche aspect of anger in the following section.

Depth Psychology and Anger

Visit the center of the earth, there you will find the global fire. Rectify it of all dirt, drive it out with love and ire. . .  — Benedictus Figulus 1608 As we have seen in the affect section of the literature review, one of the functions of anger is to produce action tendencies. Averill defined these action tendencies as man’s 116

aggression.

This section of the literature review will explore the importance of anger’s

relationship to aggression in the area of depth psychology. The relationship between aggression and anger will be sorted out as we review the literature of the analytic theorists into the last three decades. This section will focus on depth psychology and  anger starting with Freud’s aggression theory, and the n move to current relational theories of self as described by Norris E. Eagle and Stephen A. Mitchell.

117

Also

included will be Carl Jung’s archetypal and transformation theories. When we look to depth psychology, there are a number of reasons Freud has to be our entry point in understanding the expression of anger. First, he not only led   psychology into the field of aggression, but his work still influences how both the

56 common man and researchers relate to it today. Second, though he knew little of what we know today about affect theory, much of his approach came from a biological model, 118

as does affect theory. This biological model is the basis for his theory on aggression. Freud acknowledges the lack of information in regards to the process that would 

transform the biological sources into psychic motivation. However, he starts with the  premise that there are two forces in nature: a life force and a death force. His early instinct theory is based on the life force, which is connected to the sexual drive, later to  be expanded to all life instinct (libido). In order to make sense of man’s aggressiveness and destructiveness, Freud added to his libido instinct an opposing death instinct (Thanatos). In Civilization and Its Discontents, he puts forth the struggle between Eros 119

and Thanatos as the greatest challenge for mankind’s survival.

Freud also says that aggression is one way that man expresses his outrage to his suffering. In Civilization and Its Discontents Freud divides man’s suffering into three sources: “the superior power of nature, the feebleness of our own bodies and the inadequacy of the regulations which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings in the family, the state and society.”

120

He focuses on the third as the one that man refuses

to accept and onto which he turns his aggression. To Freud, then, aggression becomes a relationship issue where man’s inner psyche is played out in the world through his expressions. Freud challenges us by saying that if we are to make sense of man’s  behavior we need to understand the inherent universal inner struggles of the psyche. For  Freud this battle took place between man’s instinct (i.e., drives) for life (Eros) and his 121

instinct toward death (Thanatos).

Whether or not depth psychology holds to this

theory, Freud’s refusal to depart from it has forced his predecessors to deal with his

57  premises (that man has an inclination toward destruction and aggression) either by acceptance or by replacement with other hypotheses. It is important to note Freud’s emphasis that Eros’ (libidinal energy) and Thanatos (aggression instinct) “seldom, perhaps never, appear in isolation from each other, but are allied with each other in varying and very different proportions.”

122

This is a key point

in making sense of what is referred to as aggressive behavior. If we follow Freud’s assumption that Eros and Thanatos are two basic instincts always present in man, then the question of behavior revolves around the “varying and very different proportions.” By its libidinal nature Eros calls for action. Freud suggests that a portion of the instinct is diverted towards the external world, comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness and  destructiveness, and thus enters the service of Eros. Accordingly, for Freud this marriage of the life instinct with the death instinct saves man from the innate self-destructive tendency of the death instinct by extroverting it into a desire to kill and replacing the desire to die. Norman Brown interprets the phenomenon that Freud describes in a different way. He suggests that what Freud is describing is man’s peculiar problem “of  what to do with its own innate biological dying, what to do with its own repressed death.” 123

He goes on to say that despite the seemingly unresolvable conflict between these

instincts, that Freud himself is suggesting a way out when he speaks of the fusion of the two. As Brown sees it, Freud assigns this task to the ego, in particular the conscious self, attributing it to a tendency to “synthesize,” “harmonize,” “reconcile,” “organize” the conflicts and divisions in mental life.

124

The questions that arise as we contemplate the fusion between Eros and Thanatos widen and deepen our inquiry. For example, one may have an angry internal reaction, the expression of which may be destructive and aggressive or non-destructive and aggressive,

58 or neither. Much of the literature distinguishes between non-destructive aggression and  destructive aggression. However, if we follow Freud’s thinking, this separation becomes  problematic since the same internal psychic process (the libidinal drive and aggression drive) is occurring for both. We are now thrown into a wide range of aggressive  behavior, some destructive and some allied with assertiveness and life-enhancing forces. It is here that Freud gives us an important ingredient to understanding aggression. Though he sees man as having an aggressive (destructive) drive at odds with a libido drive, the expression is always a combination; even when the expression is destructive it is still using libido energy. If this is the case, the major question becomes, what causes aggression to become either destructive or constructive in a life-fostering way? Primarily this question will be addressed later in the section on reflexivity. However, for Freud, certain mechanisms are integral to how the psyche expresses itself outwardly based on the internal drama between Eros and Thanatos. Psyche mechanisms such as repression, suppression, splitting, sublimation, and others play a role whether the aggression  becomes destructive or not. Either way we continue to have a picture of aggression as an external expression of an internal conflict. We get a somewhat different picture of expressiveness if we look to those who followed Freud and attempted to deal with the same problems of aggression. For W. Fairbairn and H. Kohut, aggression is a reaction to “frustration” of the libidinal drive. Thus, Freud’s libidinal or life instinct takes precedent and is always object-seeking. Fairbairn describes the libido as always object-seeking rather tha n seeking discharge: libido is the energy to search for good objects, which makes ego differentiation and  125

growth possible.

This perspective indicates that expressiveness and participation is

59 inherent to the presence of libido, whether the expression is or is not successful in its attempts toward good object. Kohut can be of great help to us in understanding the connection between humankind’s rage in relationship to the development of the self. In his paper, “Thoughts on Narcissism and Narcissistic Rage,”

126

Kohut argues that man’s rage is a narcissistic

 problem: humankind’s alienation from him or herself via the development of a false self. He is particularly influential in his contributions in the use of the concept of libido to explain exhibitionism, narcissism, idealization, and object instinctual desires. He emphasized that for children to manifest healthy affects or emotions they need empathic reception from important self-objects. He says this is true not only in childhood but also throughout adolescence and adult life. If so, participation with others becomes critical throughout life for the service of the self. That is to say, the psyche has a preference 127

toward expressive or participatory showing of itself vs. non-expressive isolation.

This

is an extremely important point. It indicates that for the psyche to grow, change, and  develop it will always move toward expression and participation. Kohut’s “narcissistic” rage is the outcome of what happens when the self cannot grow and then seeks to destroy what is in its way. Otto Kernberg contributes further to the understanding of anger. He explores anger and rage as related to the integration of primitive internal object relations: When normal anger and rage engendered by frustration and threats to internal security are transformed into hatred, conditions of pathological self and object representations and relations result, with powerful consequences for further affect regulation and intrapsychic structuralization: pathological affect and  representational structures create severe character disorders that rely on primitive 128 defenses and potential explosive action.

60 We find here a similarity to Kohut’s description of what h appens with the development of  a false self and Kernberg’s affect regulation and intrapsychic structuralization. This also  parallels what happens with “repetition compulsion” so well elaborated by Alice 129

Miller.

Kernberg ties affect theory to object relations and self-psychology as well as to

classical psychoanalytic theory. He proposes that libido and aggression should be considered a hierarchical, supraordinate motivational system that is constituted by the organization of affects as “building blocks” of these drives. This puts the affects at the center of motivation. He replaces Freud’s erotogenic zones as the “source” of libido by  peak affect states that include all physiologically activated functions and bodily zones 130

involved in the interactions of the infant and child with mother.

Thus, he proposes that

anger and rage (in contrast to libido) are the essential affects around which clusters the affect constellation of aggression as a drive. Kernberg questions the extent that aggression is inborn as an instinct or drive as opposed to being the result of early experiences that effect intrapsychic structuralization and later effect regulation. This is significant in that Kernberg is giving importance to the affects and a way of integrating their role in psychoanalytic theory. Those are the same affects and emotions that Freud  in Delusion and Dream addressed in the following passage: We remain on the surface so long as we treat only memories and ideas. The only valuable things in psychic life are, rather, the emotions. All psychic powers are significant only through their fitness to awaken emotions. Ideas are repressed  only because they are connected with liberation of emotions, which are not to come to light; it would be more correct to say that repression deals with the 131 emotions, but these are comprehensible to us only in connection with ideas. Kernberg’s integration of affect theory, Freud’s drive theory and object relations takes shape in the following way: empirical research defines affect as “psychophysiological behavior patterns that include a specific cognitive appraisal, a

61 specific facial pattern, a subjective experience of a pleasurable and rewarding or painful and aversive nature, and a muscular and neurovegetative discharge pattern.”

132

Kernberg

emphasizes that affects, from their origin, have a cognitive aspect. They contain at least 133

an appraisal of the goodness or badness of a situation.

This appraisal determines a

motivation for action either toward or away from the stimulus or situation (as previously mentioned, this is a move away from William James’ theory of emotion). In terms of  development, Kernberg agrees with the affect theories of R. Emede and C. E. Izard that  primitive forms of affects show themselves from the earliest weeks and months of an 134

infant’s life and are primary motivational forces of psychic development.

Kernberg

sees affects going through a transformation and an integration process that is connected  to internalized object relations. Thus develops a dichotomy of pleasurable affects that  builds up the libidinal drive and painful affects of the aggressive drive. For Kernberg, affect states related to experiences with the primary caregiver  135

 become intimately linked with memory of an internal world of object relations.

Here

Kernberg establishes the link between anger and rage as an affect and agrees with Freud’s theory of mankind’s natural propensity for aggression and destruction. Unpleasant and   painful experiences during development of internal symbols of object and self are directly linked to affect states. Kernberg additionally distinguishes between peak affect states and  low-level affect states. When the infant is in low-level affect states, Kernberg says, memory structures will be largely of a cognitive, discriminatory nature and will contribute to ego development: “Ordinary learning thus occurs under conditions in which alertness is focused on the immediate situation and tasks with little distortion derived  from affective arousal and no particular defense mechanism interfering with it.”

136

However, peak-affect experiences activate an internalized primitive object-relations

62 memory of aversion for all-bad objects. Thus, the experience of self and object under the impact of extreme affect activation acquire an intensity that reactivates intrapsychic 137

structures of the symbiotic stage of development add ressed by Mahler.

This is also

similar to the origins of Kohut’s narcissistic rage. Kernberg takes a new step in psychoanalytic thought by proposing that peakaffect states and the beginning of symbolization characterize the first stage of  consciousness. His assumption is that subjectivity implies experiencing and should  138

logically be maximal under conditions of peak affect.

This would have the effect of 

 breaking the chain of conditioned associations and bringing forth a higher level of  consciousness. Thus, he sees peak affect states (pleasurable and painful) as initiating the construction of an internal world of object-relations symbolization. For Kernberg, peak affect states of pleasure a nd pain give birth to an internal structure of intersubjectivity via the earliest identification with an object of love (an introjective identification) and the earliest identification with an object of hatred  (projective identification), setting the framework of a dual drive system (Freud’s libidinal and aggressive drives). Kernberg argues that the subjective experience in peak affect states initiates the construction of a deep internal world that becomes the psychological structure for what is encompassed in object relations theory. Parallel to this deep structure, a more superficial structure is formed from low-level affect states when the infant is in alert exp loration. For Kernberg, painful affects such as anger become the building blocks of Freud’s aggressive drive. Whether incorporated by the self-experiences or rejected by projective mechanisms, intersubjectivity becomes an aspect of the development of normal identity. The preceding evidence shows that with the progression of psychoanalysis, Fairbairn,

63 Mahler and, more recently, Kernberg, there is a direct tie between object relations and the affect anger and rage and the constellation of aggression. The importance of relationship  between intersubjectivity and the expression of anger will be further explored in the section “Anger and Reflexivity.”

Reflexivity

Men do not understand how that which draws apart agrees with itself: harmony lies in the bending back, as for instance of the bow and of the lyre. − Heraclitus139 Carl Jung tells us that man’s ability for reflection is what transforms an otherwise 140

compulsive act into one of conscious awareness.

Jung uses the term reflexio for this

 phenomenological process that he says exists in man.

141

He describes it as the psyche’s

 process of bringing internalized, intrapsychic images to awareness prior to one’s taking action, thus moving the individual toward conscious participation in the world. In  philosophy, psychology, literature, and spiritual traditions we find descriptions of   phenomena that parallel Jung’s reflexio. Currently the term reflexivity has been used to describe related phenomena. In this section I will give an overview of reflexivity, reflection, self-awareness and other terms that describe phenomena parallel to Jung’s reflexio.

Reflexivity holds significance as a concept in philosophy and literature as well as  psychology. The general approach of this dissertation has been to look synoptically at key terms such as “reflexivity” across various fields of study in order to synthesize a coherent set of concepts and principles. Reflexivity originates from the physical definition of reflection, which indicates that what is reflected back is the same as what is being reflected, for example, light

64 reflecting off a surface. However, when applied to human activity, in literature,  philosophy, or psychology, what is reflected back distinctly changes from what is being reflected. Runes Dictionary of Philosophy says the term “reflection” as used by early  philosophers, was defined as a bending back or turning inward to where the mind has an awareness of itself and its operations, and thus reflects back something more than what is 142

 being reflected.

For example, “our reflection in a mirror” is not the same as what it

reflects. It is smaller, it is reversed, and, even more important, it impacts the person  being reflected. He or she might grimace or push their hair back. That which is reflected  on becomes changed by the reflection. Literature can be of help to us here. The term “reflexive novel” is used when the author shows himself as the writer within the text of  the novel. I am not, however, referring here to writing in the first person. Reflexive novels involve the author showing himself as creator. Particularly well known for this are the writings of James Joyce, Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar, and Italo Calvino. Within the context of the story these writers turn bac kwards toward the creator of the story, themselves. At this point the story becomes aware of itself and the author is not only the creator but also the creation. In philosophical thought this is the equivalent o f Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.” With the theory of the cogito, the thinking subject reflects on itself and provides the 143

 basis for modernity as well as depth psychology. in our modern world to be reflexive.

144

This sets the stage for what it means

The one experiencing becomes aware of himself 

or herself as experiencer. Without this reflexivity, Jung says we are like an actor who is 145

not aware or has forgotten he is acting.

Jung describes a process of reflection, which he terms “ Reflexio,” as a “cultural instinct par excellence,” that which gives men/women the capacity to transform their 

65 146

emotions.

He wrote, “ Reflexio is a turning inwards, with the result that, instead of an

instinctive action, there ensues a succession of derivative contents or states which may be termed reflection or deliberation.”

147

He further states that “reflection re-enacts the

 process of excitation and carries the stimulus over into a series of images which, if the impetus is strong enough, are reproduced in some form of expression.” It is the awareness of those images that gives a person the capacity to transform the compulsive act into a conscious and creative one. Jung goes on to say, “This may take place directly, for instance in speech, or may appear in the form of abstract thought, dramatic representation, or ethical conduct; or again, in a scientific achievement or a work of art.” 148

Andrew Samuel emphasizes the point that “Such deliberation is unpredictable and, as

a consequence of the freedom to reflect, individualized and relativized responses are  possible.”

149

The bending backwards of reflection connects one with intrapsychic images creating psychic content. Here we see that reflection involves symbol and image. Not only does the reflection bring the unconscious to consciousness (along with its affect),  but also it facilitates new images and possibilities. Jung’s concept of reflection parallels the development of Western philosophical thought as it progresses into post-modernity. Prior to Descartes the human psyche was 150

not considered an object of investigation. God, matter, or ideal forms. 152

human subject.

151

The center of our thought system was with

But with Descartes the center became located within the

The one “I” is both the subject and the knower. With the coming of 

modernity it was presumed that it would be possible to know “oneself.” However, the twentieth century moving into post-modernity challenges Descartes’ “I” as the knower  (or the “ego” in psychological language). Depth psychology along with philosophy and 

66 literature continues the search. Post Jungians, such as Hillman, declare that Descartes’ subject is not there; whether the subject is in the form of archetypes or images (for  Hillman) it is not the thinking conscious “I.”

153

Hillman goes so far as to say that

therapy has a natural propensity for ego-consciousness reflecting that results in narcissism, and that if the reflecting is looking at the subject as “I” it is essentially limited   by the mode of perceiving. Jung, Samuels, and Hillman expand the self that is being reflected onto images of  the psyche both conscious and unconscious. Descartes’ “I” is no longer the subject. Paul Kugler argues that Nietzsche’s declaration of “God is dead!” is now progressing to “the self is dead!”

154

The self in this case refers to ego consciousness. This idea becomes

extreme in the post-structuralist thought of Jacques Derrida, where the subject only comes into being within language, and does not exist outside the context of language and  155

image.

Paul Kugler addresses this by re-imaging the Jungian use of “imago.”

156

For  157

Jung the “imago” is not a reflection of the thing that it reflects but has its own essence. Kugler says that there is a similarity between Derrida’s use of language as context and 

Jung’s use of “imago.” Kugler exemplifies this by referring to “imago” as “psychic text.” 158

The process of reflexivity in this context is no t modeled after the physical concept of 

reflecting, in which the mirror image would b e a reflection of the ego-consciousness, but is rather a reflection of “imago” or “psychic text.” According to Kugler, his mirror  reflects back the face of the Other. To this, Kugler proposes the question “who is this Other to whom I am more attached than to my own ego-identity?”

159

Reflexivity, as

described by Kugler, is the continuing process of reflecting on the images present, and, with that reflecting, on how those images change and how new images are created. Therapeutically, Kugler suggests that this takes place when the patient is able to view the

67 imago as the representative of some aspect of their personality, but not necessarily to feel that their identity is the same as the imago. He wrote that this is possible “only when the individual views the “imagos” as Other, thus allowing the ego to hold the imago at enough psychic distance so as not to over identify with its contents.”

160

Aftab Omer sheds light on reflexivity and its relationship to otherness in h is exploration of the myth of Narcissus.

161

This is a myth about reflection and relationship.

The importance of the role of reflection with and without participation with the world is a significant theme here. Omer writes that the myth of Narcissus warns us of the danger of  reflecting without another. He argues that Narcissus’ hope seems to lie not with giving up his reflecting, but with a reflecting that necessitates the “other.” inherent in this move is the call for “reflexive participation.”

163

162

Omer adds that

He defines reflexive

 participation as “the practice of surrendering through creative action to the necessities, meanings, and possibilities inherent in the present moment.”

164

This is supported by Morris Eagle in Recent Developments in Psychoanalysis when he says there is growing evidence (and a significant direction in depth psychology) to support intersubjective nature of the self.

165

Jessica Benjamin builds on object relation 166

theory to show that one only knows and discovers oneself by discovering the other. W. R. Torbert proposes a similar form of “reflexivity,” a state in which a person is conscious in the midst of action.

167

In the context of research, Heron and Reason refer to

this as “critical subjectivity” wherein one is involved in a “self-reflexive attention to the ground on which one is standing.”

168

They quote Torbert in describing this self-reflexive

 process as “a reframing mind that continually overcomes itself, divesting itself of its own  presuppositions.”

169

A more common term used in the everyday conversation would be

self-awareness. Psychoanalytic theorists often use self-awareness to denote similar 

68 170

 phenomena. For example, Sheldon Bach uses the phrase reflective self-awareness.

He

also distinguishes between subjective and objective self-awareness. He describes both types of awareness as developmental achievements, and relates their integration to the 171

development of self-constancy and the sense of reality and identity.

John Auerbach

argues that the reflexive self-awareness discussed by Bach emerges only within the 172

context of intersubjectivity.

This is similar to the above writers in that there is a need 

for participation with another person. Though attention to phenomena that exemplify reflexivity has a long history in  psychology, it has become more prevalent in recent years. Reason and Heron are notable examples of research theorists who emphasize the importance of what they call “critical subjectivity.” Their conceptualization adds another dimension to the phenomena described above by the term reflexivity. Also, books like Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman emphasize the importance of the link between emotions and  173

awareness.

These moves are contrary to the dominant paradigm since the 1960s within

which cognition is seen as the transformer of the emotion. Silvan Tomkins was  particularly significant in establishing the importance of the emotions to conscious 174

awareness.

Many, like Mills and Kleinman, using an interactional analysis of emotion,

have challenged the cognitive paradigm by looking at the interaction between emotions, 175

reflexivity, and actions.

They conceptualize experience as reflexive/emotional, non-

reflexive/emotional, reflexive/non-emotional, non-reflexive/non-emotional. In describing a reflexive/emotional experience, they introduced the term “felt action” where “emotional insight” can be triggered. The research done by Morris Rosenberg also supports the 176

connection between emotion and reflexivity.

He argues that reflexivity transforms the

69 nature of the emotions in three primary ways: emotional identification, emotional display, and emotional experience. The above researchers, with their various conceptualizations of reflexivity, point to an inherent link between one’s emotionality and their nature to be reflexive. Further, this section has pointed to the link between the reflexive process and necessity of the 177

“other,” particularly as demonstrated in the writings of Omer.

This research will use

Omer’s description of reflexivity as “the capacity to eng age and be aware of those Imaginal Structures that shape and constitute our experience.” By structures he is referring to personal, cultural, and archetypal themes that have an underlying influence on how a person experiences and responds to situations. The potential role of identifying 178

and engaging with the imaginal structures is viewed as a catalyst for transformation.

Omer defines “reflexive participation” as “the practice of surrendering through creative 179

action to the necessities, meanings, and possibilities inherent in the present moment.”

Anger And Reflexivity

The test of a therapist is to conjure up the devils rather than put them to sleep. − Rollo May180 This segment of the literature review will focus on research theory that addresses  both anger and reflexivity. There has been relatively little attention to the role that reflexivity plays in regards to the emotions and specifically to anger. Once again the  predominant research, which has come from social cognitive psychology, has focused on cognition as the instrumental transformer of the emotions. The primary exception to this has been in the field of depth psychology theory. The particular practitioner theorists in the areas that have addressed the emotion of anger and its relationship to reflexivity

70 include Winnicott and Benjamin in self psychology and intersubjectivity, Kernberg in  psychoanalysis/affect theory, and Jung, Hillman, Stewart, Schwartz-Salant and Martin in 181

Jungian archetypal theory.

As I presented in the earlier sections with the theories of psychoanalysts Fairbairn, Mahler, and, more recently, Kernberg, we see a direct tie between object relations and the affect anger and rage and the constellation of aggression. Kernberg is not alone in his move from affect and object relations toward the intersubjectivity initiated by early development. Diverse psychoanalytic approaches converge in an area of relational theories of self. These schools of thought challenge the “object” of object relation theory as one-sided. They are looking at development of the psyche as occurring  between subjects (intersubjectivity) as well as within the individual (intra-psyche). Thus, the “other” develops as a subject rather than simply an object. Jessica Benjamin points this out in her paper, “Recognition and Destruction,” in which she proposes that the individual no longer reigns absolute and must confront the difficulty that each subject has in recognizing the other as an equivalent center of experience. She describes this move 182

as a reflexive one.

It is beyond the parameters of this paper to address all the implications of a change in orientation from object relations or self psychology to intersubjective  psychology orientation, however, what is relevant to this dissertation is that self   psychology sees the need to make use of appropriate self objects as the primary motivating force of an individual. Whereas intersubjectivity views the primary motivating principle as the human need to organize and make sense of experience, it also  postulates that the “other” must be recognized as another subject in order for the self to fully experience his or her own subjectivity. This implies that we have both a need for 

71 recognition as individuals and that we have the capacity to recognize others in return. As Omer writes, it is through this capacity to recognize the other that we find ourselves.

183

The myth of Narcissus shows the struggle with this phenomenon. Omer explores the dilemma of Narcissus being caught up in his own reflection exemplifying the need for the “other.”

184

Benjamin finds a philosophical basis to intersubjectivity in the writings of Georg Hegel with his insistence on a dialectical approach to truth and the problem of  185

recognition in The Phenomenology of Spirit .

Most significant to us is his emphasis on

“holding fast the positive in the negative” which for him is the essence of the dialectic. Hegel’s dialectical approach has significance for the understanding of anger and  rage. As I have shown, anger and rage have a primary function of communication. There are strong indicators with the move toward a relational psychology (such as intersubjective theory) that anger and rage have a positive effect on the development of the individual. Mahler proposes that the self needs a rapprochement period of development 186

for separation and differentiation.

During this time there is a need for tension. Kohut

describes the need for optimum frustration and its corollary impact lead ing to “narcissistic rage.”

187

The work of Kernberg and Mahler indicates that, at best, the

rapprochement conflict is resolved through the internalization process that resolves the good-object, bad-object split; for example, when a child can separate from the mother or   be angry with her, and still be able to contact her goodness. All of this takes place as intra-psyche process. Benjamin suggests that from an intersubjective approach this sets the goal of development too low. What is missing for Benjamin is a focus on the development of the child’s awareness of the mother as a different center in her own right;

72 in other words, mutual recognition where the child starts seeing the mother as having 188

needs of her own.

Social cognitive and affect theory research supports the importance of this time  period in relationship to anger and aggression. The research of Lemerise and Dodge 189

indicates that angry outbursts have been noted to peak during the second year.

Further,

W. W. Hartup’s research shows that aggressive behavior toward oth er children increases 190

up until four years of age, after which such behavior declines.

Kernberg’s assertion is that the initial peak affect starts during the first weeks and  months of life help to develop an intrapsyche object/self structure. That structure 191

separates the experiencing self from the external experiencing other.

Winnicott’s idea

of destroying the object becomes important in conjunction with Mahler’s rapprochement 192

crisis.

Winnicott says it is the destruction of the internal object that enables the subject

to go beyond relating to the object through identification, projection, and other  intrapsychic processes. The implication here is that the child needs to destroy or negate the “image” of the mother in order to find that a real “other” exists. That is, if she survives without retaliating or withdrawing under the attack, then the child knows she exists and is not just a mental product. As Benjamin puts it, “The collision Winnicott has in mind, however, is not one in which aggression occurs reactive to the encounter with the reality principle, but one in which aggression creates the quality of externality.”

193

When the destructiveness of anger and rage damages neither the parent nor the self, external reality comes into view as a sharp, distinct contrast to the inner fantasy world. The outcome of this process is not simply reparation or restoration of the good object, but 194

also love, the sense of discovering the other according to Eigen and Ghent.

This is

73 likely to be a life-long venture. However, this is the start of the child's awareness of  himself, a reflexive process. There is another side of Winnicott’s need for destruction of the internal object and  survival of the external subject. When the reality of the other does not come into view, a defensive process of internalization takes place. Instead of development of the other as a subject, the intra-psyche process locks in with defense mechanisms. Consequently, the intra-psyche structure keeps development from continuing (see earlier section on narcissistic rage, Kohut). Benjamin is not making a one-sided argument here. Benjamin quotes Winnicott as saying “discovering that fantasy and fact, both important, are nevertheless different from each other.”

195

Intersubjectivity and intra-psychic process both have their role.

Benjamin emphasizes that what is important in unde rstanding anger and aggression is that the early object relation dyad is ideally not seen as harmonious, but rather that of  continuous disruption and conflict . . . and that repair is what fosters development.

196

She

says this is an ongoing tension between self and other and becomes reflexive as if to say, “I know you know what I feel.”

197

What we see from theorists like Jessica Benjamin is that anger is a n important and  integral part of development. Her theory supports anger as a necessary component in the development of the self. Supported by Winnicott, Benjamin directs us toward an embrace with anger both internally and with the other. Knowing full well “no perfect environment can take the sting from the encounter with otherness.”

198

Carl Jung's writings on alchemy and transformation along with his archetypal theory address the subject of anger. I will first look at the literature that examines the archetypal aspect of anger, starting with literature that connects to the earlier-discussed 

74 autonomic nature of anger in affect theory. Tomkins and other affect researchers have explored in great detail the autonomic response nature of anger, calling it a primary instinctive response system. As presented earlier, the affect of anger can take possession of a person. This is in contrast to theories of cognitive researchers like Richard  199

Lazarus.

However, his automatic modes of appraising is similar to this instinctive

response system and he acknowledges this primary response system must “either as a part of species inheritance or learned, these perceptual processes result in the rapid appraisals of harm or benefit that emotion theory must take into account.”

200

Scherer, whose

research overlaps the fields of social psychology, affect theory, and cross-cultural studies, speaks of this autonomic nature as action tendencies and considers them to be 201

 phylogenetically preprogrammed scripts for each or most emotions.

Affects not only

seem to have an autonomic nature but each affect seems to have a specific selection of  scripts unique to the affect. Jung uses the term “affect” early on in his writing and speaking of the autonomous nature of the affects and their capacity to overwhelm the conscious ego. Jung attributes this process to the human instincts of ideation and action: All conscious ideation and action have developed on the basis of these unconscious archetypal patterns and always remain dependent on them. This is especially the case when consciousness has not attained any high degree of  clarity, when in all its functions it is more dependent on the instincts than on the conscious will, more governed by affect than by rational judgment. This ensures a primitive state of psychic health, but it immediately becomes lack of adaptation 202 when circumstances arise that call for a higher moral effort. Here Jung is constructing a context for understanding the autonomic nature of a n affect. Jung’s shift from using affect to using archetype comes from observing affect when the conscious mind is not able to assimilate what is happening. When this occurs the individual’s energy flows into an instinctual sphere. This produces outbursts of affect,

75 irritation, bad moods, and sexual excitement, thoroughly disorienting consciousness. At this point the affect takes on an autonomous character, placing the person under its 203

 power.

Thus, its visible manifestation has a “character” which is more than affect. In

 psychological terms, Jung is saying that mankind has common instincts of ideation and  action. These are similar to Tomkins’s scripts. Louis H. Stewart has also explored this parallel thinking of archetype and affect 204

theory.

Stewart theorizes that ego functions and cultural attitudes are structured by the

interaction of the libido energy from the affects (archetypes) with the world and the self. Stewart writes: Briefly stated, the archetypal affects may be thought of as an innate, regulatory system of the psyche which functions as an unconscious energetic, orientating and  apperceptive/response system that has evolved to replace an earlier system of  205  programmed instinct. In this way Stewart describes anger as originating from a survival instinct when one is threatened by attack (animal or human). In which case, anger “gives strength to the muscles and at the same time energy to the will.” At this primitive, instinctual level, to solve the problem means to kill it. For Stewart, the evolutionary development of the 206

affect anger has become a stimulus for reflecting and thinking.

Anger lets us know

that something is terribly wrong, that things are in chaos. He writes about anger as giving us the strength and will to do something about it. Even at the most primitive level he sees anger as the first stage of awareness and thinking. That is, identification and engagement with a problem. The development of instinctive archetypal patterns ensures a primitive state of psychic health when higher levels of thinking and reflecting are not available. Jung gave great importance to the archetypal patterns in man, not only for  assuring his psychic health when higher levels of thinking and reflecting are not present,

76 207

 but also as a means of transformation.

He describes being possessed by an archetype

as the result of the repressive attitude of the c onscious mind where the unconscious is driven into indirect, unruly, and symptomatic manifestations, mostly of the emotional type, at moments of peak affectivity, where the ego momentarily identifies with the archetype. Despite the obvious dangers of this possession, Jung counsels us to cultivate the art of conversing with oneself in the setting provided by the affect as though the affect itself was speaking. Jung speaks of anger from an archetypal orientation when he describes the qualities of the moon. “The moon as if less powerful than the sun and the stars has an appetite ( potentiaae sensuales) for anger (ira) and desire (libido) in one word  208

concupiscentia.”

Here Jung makes the association that we all know but tend to want

to ignore: the connection between the passion that comes with desire ( pothos) and the 209

 passion of anger.

Often it is anger that ignites our passion for life when that life is

threatened. Though the writings are meager, the predominant theme among Jungians is the transformational qualities of the emotion anger. Schwartz-Salant addressed the importance of anger in the clinical relationship when he wrote “anger and rage are catalysts that are the driving force for the transformation … denial of rage can result in a stalemate in which little transformation occurs.”

210

Steven Martin reiterates this theme in his article, “Anger as Inner  Transformation.”

211

He notes that Jungian literature lacks depth in the assessment and 

appreciation of anger’s vital role in the process of inner transformation called  individuation, and goes back to the extensive writings on anger found in the works of  Seneca and Plutarch. Martin’s article discusses two manifestations of anger, the first  being rage as represented by Ares the Greek god of war, an instinctive reaction that

77 happens automatically and unconsciously, typically in response to a perceived threat. The other is anger represented by Hephaestus, a slow deliberate reaction involving imagery and fantasy, often with the purpose of revenge. Martin honors both these gods: Ares brings passion and libido to help man confront the world, and Hephaestus brings image and creativity through the slow burning internal process. Jungians like Hillman, Thomas Moore, and Gregory M. Vogt, have re-established  the importance of pothos and anger as related to us from ancient myths.

212

The Greek 

gods were particularly known for their anger and rage. In the Iliad Homer elaborates on the beauty of anger: “Sweeter wrath is by far the honeycomb dripping with sweetener, and spreads through the hearts of men.”

213

The Greeks did not banish anger to the dark 

unconscious, but gave it a place of honor. In the Renaissance we find anger elevated in the form of Mars, one of the celestial  bodies. In The Planets Within Thomas Moore says that although writers like Ficino are quick to caution against the danger of Mars’ manifestations of anger, violence, hatred, war, and aggression, they also give anger its due. Ficino wrote, “Mars warms the coldest things and energizes the sluggish … and inflames the fervent spirit.”

214

Moore suggests

that it takes the forcefulness of Mars to affirm the fundamental pluralism of the psyche. The importance of the relationship between the anger (aggression and conflict) and reflexivity is established early on by Jung.

215

In Psychology and Alchemy and 

 Mysterium Coniunctionis Jung shows the importance of the emotions (and in particular, 216

anger) in activating transformation and the role of reflexivity.

He tells us that it is the

heat of anger that both causes combustion and the creation of light. Here he is referring to nothing less than anger being the catalyst for transformation and consciousness. Interestingly, this matches with the importance of anger described by Winnicott and 

78  presented by Benjamin significant to the rapprochement phase of development, as I described previously. The current research of Morris Rosenberg also supports the 217

connection between emotion and reflexivity.

He argues that reflexivity transforms the

nature of the emotions in three primary ways: emotional identification, emotional display, and emotional experience. Also supporting the direction my model takes is the interactional analysis of emotion done by Mills and Kleinman, whose study shows four  ways that an individual may respond to a situation: reflexive and emotional, unreflexive 218

and emotional, reflexive and without feeling, and neither reflexive nor emotional.

What we find is that there is an inherent link between man’s emotionality and  their nature to be reflexive. As Jung indicates, it is man’s/woman’s reflexivity in relationship to their emotions that brings consciousness. Significantly, we find similar  conclusions coming from diverse fields of exploration: social psychologists like Rosenberg as well interactionists like Mills and Kleinman. If we are going to move forward in our understanding of anger there is a need for further understanding of this connection. I started this section with a quote from Heraclitus that addresses the  paradoxical nature of our inquiry. On a similar note he challenges our aversion to anger  and conflict by writing, “Opposition unites. From what draws apart results the most  beautiful harmony. All things take place by strife.”

219

79

Chapter 2

1.

Rollo May, The Cry for Myth (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.,

1991). 2.  par. 1380.

Aristotle, “Rhetoric.” In The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, House, 1941),

3. James R. Averill,  Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1982). 4.

Ibid., 128.

5. Leonard Berkowitz, “Towards a General Theory of Anger and Emotional Aggression,” Perspectives on Anger and Emotion, Advances Emotion, Advances in Social Cognition, vol. VI, ed. Robert Wyer, and Thomas K. Srull (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Associates, Publishers, 1993), 4-5. 6. Lee Ross and Richard E. Nisbett, The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Social Psychology (Philadelphia: Temple University University Press, 1991). 7. Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer, “Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of  Emotional State,” Psychological Review 69, no. 5 (1962): 379-99. 8.

Ibid.

9.

William James, The Principles of Psychology (Cambridge: Harvard University University Press, 1981).

10. Ibid., 1065-6.

253

11. Keith Oatley, “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done,” Perspectives on Anger and Emotion,  Advances in Social Cognition, ed. Robert Wyer and Thomas K. Srull, vol. VI (New (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993), 161-62. 12. Bernard Weiner, “The Emotional Consequences of Causal Ascriptions,”  Affect and  Cognition, ed. M. S. Clark and S. T. Fisk (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Associates, 1982), 185-210; Dolf Zillmann, Aaron Katcher & Barry Milavsky, “Excitation Transfer From Physical Exercise to Subsequent Aggressive Behavior,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Psychology 8 (1972): 247-59. 13. Richard S. Lazarus,  Emotion and Adaptation (New York: Oxford University University Press, 1991), 219-20. 14. James R. Averill, “Putting the Social in Social Cognition, with Special Reference to Emotion.” In Perspectives on Anger and Emotion, Advances Emotion,  Advances in Social Cognition, vol. VI, ed. Robert Wyer  and Thomas K. Srull (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Associates, Publishers, 1993), 52. 15. Elizabeth Lemerise and Kenneth A. Dodge, “The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions,” Handbook of Emotions, ed. Michael Lewis and and Jeannett Haviland (New (New York: Guilford  Press, 1993), 537. 16. Berkowitz, “Towards a General Theory of Anger and Emotional Aggression,” 1-46. 17. Leonard Berkowitz, Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1993), 20. 18. Lemerise and Dodge, “The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions,” 537-38. 19. Ibid. 20. James R. Averill,  Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. 21. Carol Malatesta, “The Expression Expression and Regulation of Emotion: A Life Span Perspective,”  Emotion and Early Interaction, ed. Tiffany Field and Alan Alan Fogel (Hillsdale, (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982). 22. Lemerise and Dodge, “The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions,” 537-42. 23. Carroll E. Izard and Rogers R. Kobak, “Emotions System Functioning and Emotion Regulation,” The Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation. Cambridge Studies. In Social and Emotional Development , ed. Kenneth A. Dodge and Judy Judy Garber (New York: Cambridge University University Press, 1991), 303-2; Kenneth A. Dodge and Judy Garber, “Domains of Emotion Regulation,” The  Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation Dysregulation, ed. Judy Garber & Kenneth A. Dodge (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 3-11. 24. Kenneth A. Dodge and John D. Coie, “Social-Information-Processing “Social-Information-Processing Factors in Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children's Peer Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Social Psychology 53 (1987): 1146-58; Kenneth A. Dodge, “The Structure and Function Function of Reactive and Proactive Aggression,” The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, ed. Kenneth H. Rubin and Debra J. Pepler  (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Associates, 1991), 201-18; Kenneth A. Dodge, “Emotion “Emotion and Social Information Processing,” The Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation, ed. Judy Garber and  Kenneth A. Dodge (New York: York: Cambridge University University Press, 1991b), 159159-81. 81. 25. John M. Gottman and Lynn F. Katz, “Effects of Marital Discord on Young Children's Peer  Interaction and Health,” Developmental Psychology 25, no. 3 (1989): 373-81.

254 26. Thomas Moore, The Re-Enchantment of Everyday Life (New York: Harper Collins Collins Publisher, 1996). 27. M. Faulk, “Men Who Assault Their Wives,” Medicine: Science and The Law 14 (1974): 180-83. 28. R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, Violence Against Wives: Wives: A Case Against the the Patriarchy (New York: Free Press, Press, 1979).; M. Bogard, “Feminist “Feminist Perspective Perspective on Wife Abuse: Abuse: An Introduction,” Feminist Perspective on Wife Abuse , ed. Kersti A. Yllo and Michele Bograd (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988), 1988), 11-26. 11-26. 29. Faulk, “Men Who Assault Their Wives,” 180-83. 30. Frank Elliott, “The Neurology Neurology of Explosive Rage: The Episodic Dyscontrol Syndrome,” Syndrome,”  Battered Women: A Psychological Study of Domestic Violence Violence , ed. Marie Roy (New York: York: Van Nostrand, 1977); John E. Snell, Richard J. Rosenwald, and Ames Robey, “The Wifebeater's Wife,” Wife,”  Archives of  General Psychiatry 11, no. 2 (1964): 107-12; George C. Rosenwald Rosenwald and Richard L. Ochberg, Ochberg, Storied   Lives: The Cultural Politics of Self-Understanding Self-Understanding (New Haven: Yale University University Press, 1992). 1992). 31. Dobash and Dobash, Violence Against Wives: Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy Patriarchy ; Donald G. Dutton, “Male Abusiveness in Intimate Relationships,” Clinical Psychology Review 15, no. 6 (1995): 567581. 32. Roger C. Bland and Helene Orn, “Family Violence and Psychiatric Disorder,” Canadian  Journal of Psychiatry 31, no. 2 (1986): 129-37. 33. Elliott, “The Neurology of Explosive Rage.” 34. Dutton, “Male Abusiveness in Intimate Relationships,” 568. 35. R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, “Wives: “Wives: The Appropriate Victims Victims of Marital Violence,” Victimology 2, no. 3-4 (1978): 426-42. 36. Dobash and Dobash, Violence Against Wives: Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy. Patriarchy. 37. Virginia Goldner et al., “Love and Violence: Gender Paradoxes in Volatile Attachments,” Attachments,” Family Process 29, no. 4 (1990): 343-64. 38. Daniel O'Leary, “Through a Psychological Lens: Personality Traits, Personality Disorders, and Levels of Violence,” Current Controversies on Family Violence , ed. Richard J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Newbury Park, Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993), 1993), 7-30. 39. Gwat-yong Lie et al., “Lesbians in Currently Currently Aggressive Relationships: Relationships: How Frequently do they Report Aggressive Past Relationships?” Relationships?” Violence and Victims 6, no. 2 (1991): 121-35. 40. Susan B. Sorenson and Cynthia A. Telles, “Self-Reports of Spousal Violence in a MexicanAmerican and Non-Hispanic White Population,” Violence & Victims 6, no. 1 (1991): 3-15; Jacquelyn C. Campbell, “Prevention “Prevention of Wife Battering: Insights from Cultural Analysis,” Analysis,”  Response to the Victimization Victimization of Women & Children 14, no. 3 (1992): 18-24. 41. Kersti Yllo and Murray Straus, “Patriarchy “Patriarchy and Violence Against Wives: The Impact of  Structural and Normative Factors,” Physical Violence in American Families , ed. M. Straus & R. Gelles (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, Publishers, 1990), 383-99.

255 42. Donald G. Dutton, “Profiling “Profiling of Wife Assaulters: Preliminary Evidence Evidence for a Trimodal Analysis,” Special Special Issue: Wife Assaulters, Assaulters, Violence & Victims 3, no. 1 (1988): 5-29. Daniel G. Saunders, Saunders, “A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from Cluster Cluster Analysis,” American Journal of  Orthopsychiatry 62, no. 2 (1992): 264-75. 43. Ibid. 44. Dutton, “Male Abusiveness in Intimate Relationships,” 569. 45. Ibid.; Anne L. Ganley, “Integrating Feminist and Social Learning Analyses of Aggression: Creating Multiple Models for Intervention with Men Who Batter,” Treating Men Men Who Batter: Theory, Practice, and Programs. Springer series: Focus on Men, vol. 5, ed. L. Kevin Hamberger and P. Lynn Lynn Caesar (New York: Springer Publishing Co., Co., Inc., 1989), 196-235. 46. Murray A. Straus, Gelles, R. J. & Steinmetz, S.,  Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Family (Garden City, NY: NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, Press/Doubleday, 1980). 47. Debra Kalmuss, “The Intergenerational Transmission Transmission of Marital Aggression,” Journal of   Marriage and the Family 46, no. 1 (1984): 11-19. 48. Donald G. Dutton, “A Scale for Measuring Propensity for Abusiveness,” Journal of Family Violence 10, no. 2 (1995): 203-21. 49. Donald G. Dutton and James J. Browning, “Power Struggles Struggles and Intimacy Anxieties as Causative Factors of Wife Assault,” Violence in Intimate Relationships, ed. Gordon W. Russell (Costa Mesa, CA: PMA Publishing Publishing Corp., 1988), 163-75. 50. Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman (New York: Harper and Row, 1979). 51. Dutton, “Male Abusiveness in Intimate Relationships,” 568-70. 52. Walker, The Battered Woman . 53. Ibid., 59-61. 54. Dutton, “Male Abusiveness in Intimate Relationships,” 568-70. Personality Disorder  (Washington, DC: American 55. John G. Gunderson, Borderline Personality Psychiatric Press, 1984).

56. Otto Kernberg, “The Structural Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Organization,”  Borderline Personality Disorders: Disorders: The Concept, The Syndrome, The Patient, ed. P. Hartocollis (New York: International University University Press, Press, 1977), 87-121. 57. Susan E. Hanks, “Translating “Translating Theory into Practice: A Conceptual Framework for Clinical Clinical Assessment, Differential Differential Diagnosis, and Multi-Modal Treatment of Maritally Violent Individuals, Couples, and Families,” Families,” Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Perspectives, ed. Emilio C. Viano (Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1992), 157-76. 58. Ibid.; Richard J. Gelles, and Donileen R. Loseke. Current Controversies on Family Violence (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Publications, 1993). 59. Silvan S. Tomkins,  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 1: The Positive Affects (New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1962).

256 60. Silvan S. Tomkins,  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and  Fear (New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1991), 48. 61. Richard J. Davidson, “On Emotion, Mood, and Related Affective Constructs,” The Nature of   Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science , ed. Paul Ekman and Richard J. Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 20-31. 62. Jaak Panksepp, “A Critical Role for ‘Affective Neuroscience’ in Resolving What is Basic About Basic Emotions: Response to Ortony and Turner,” Psychological Review , no. 99 (1992): 554-60. 63. Robert C. Emde, D. H. Kligman, J. H. Reich and T. C. Wade, “Emotional Expression in Infancy: I: Initial Studies of Social Signaling and an Emergent Model,” The Development of Affect , ed. Michael Lewis and Leonard Rosenblum (New York: Plenum Press, 1978). 64. Kernberg, Neuropsychological theorizing now assumes that affective memory is stored in the limbic cortex: as direct brain-stimulation experiments indicate, this permits the reactivation of not only the cognitive aspects of past experience but also the affective aspects, particularly the subjective, affective coloring of that experience (Arnold 1970a) in  Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 15. 65. Silvan S. Tomkins’s collected works include four volumes under the title of  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness, published by New York: Springer Pub. Co. 66. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and Fear , 50. 67. Paul Ekman and Richard J. Davidson. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions . Series in Affective Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 68. Jaak Panksepp, “Basic Emotions Ramify Widely in the Brain,” The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science , ed. Paul Ekman and Richard J. Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 86-88. 69. The research of Michael Lewis and J. Brooks, on the ontogenesis of emotions and emotionalcognition relationships in infancy, established precise scientific evidence of an affect system not dependent on self-awareness and cognitive evaluation. In Michael Lewis and Leonard Rosenblum (eds.), The  Development of Affect (New York: Plenum Press, 1978). 70. Carl G. Jung, Psychological Types, vol. 6 , trans. R.F.C. Hull , Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton,  NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971), par. 900. 71. Richard A. Shweder writes, “a somatic or affective experience (a “feeling” of body or soul, e.g., muscle tension, emptiness, agitation, shakiness, a pain in the chest, nausea) when physical, social, and  moral events (loss of control, violations of expectations, success at goal attainment, insult, ethical failure, community censure, a challenge from an unworthy inferior, vulnerability to danger, transgressions of the natural order of things) psychosomatically reach in and touch one’s feelings in ways that implicate the self.” “Emotion as an Interpretive System,” The Nature of Emotion, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 39; Instrumental responses discussed as a part of behavioral theory, see James D. Laird and Charles Bresler, “The Process of Emotional Experience: A Self-Perception Theory,” Review of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 13 Emotion: (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1992): 213-34. 72. Michael F. Basch, “The Concept of Affect: A Re-Examination,”  Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, no. 24 (1976): 759-75. 73. Donald L. Nathanson, Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self (New York:  Norton and Co., 1992), 50.

257

74. Ekman and Davidson, The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions . 94-96. 75. Jerome A. Kagan, “Conceptual Analysis of The Affects,” Journal of The American Psychoanalytic Association , no. 39, suppl. (1991): 109-29. 76. Izard and Kobak, “Emotions System Functioning and Emotion Regulation,” 303-21. 77. David Watson and Lee Ann Clark, “Emotions, Moods, Traits, and Temperaments: Conceptual Distinctions and Empirical Findings,” The Nature of Emotion, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard  Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 89-102. 78.  Nico H. Frijda, “Varieties of Affects: Emotions and Episodes, Moods and Sentiments,” The  Nature of Emotion, Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 63. 79. Richard J. Davidson, “Afterward,” The Nature of Emotion, Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard J. Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 95. 80. Lee A. Clark, and David Watson, “Distinguishing Functional from Dysfunctional Affective Responses,” The Nature of Emotion, Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 131-36. 81. Klaus R. Scherer, “Emotion Serves to Decouple Stimulus and Response,” The Nature of   Emotion, Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 127-30. 82. Gerald L. Clore, “Why Emotions Require Cognition,” The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Richard J. Davidson and Paul Ekman (New York: Oxford  University Press, 1994), 181-90. 83.  Norbert Schwarz, and Gerald L. Clore, “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of WellBeing: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 45, no. 3 (1983): 513-23. 84. Scherer, “Emotion Serves to Decouple Stimulus and Response,” 127-30. 85. Silvan S. Tomkins, “Script Theory: Differential Magnification of Affects,” Richard A. Dienstbier   , Nebraska Symposium 26 (1979): 201-36. 86. Tomkins and Karon. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects, 6. 87. Ibid., 115. Tomkins’s research also indicates that anger is the most urgent of all affects since it combines the highest level of sustained neural firing of the activator of anger with its analogous, equally high and toxic, level of neural firing of anger itself, plus an especially punishing quality of sensory stimulation. He says that by virtue of its structurally based generality of space and time, anger can readily co-assemble with and therefore impart its urgency and lend its power to memory, perception, thought, and  action no less than to the drives. Anger is abstract in that it does not inform us of the particularities of its activator, since these may be very different from each other and one may not even know why one is angry. In its abstractness it tells us primarily that our experience is too much, too dense, and too punishing, whatever else it may be in its particulars, be it the stimulus to anger or the response of anger. p.117. In the event that the stimulus is not perceived and there is not further response to anger, we are nonetheless made aware of the abstract and urgent fact that we are being bombarded with too much punishing stimulation from anger alone, no matter what else of a more particular and less abstract nature is going on. In anger we

258 need not know its activator to know that something is toxically stimulating, no matter whatever else is happening. 88. Ibid., 115. 89. Ibid., 117. 90. Ibid., 120-23. 91. Ibid., 127. 92. Heinz Kohut and Paul H. Ornstein, The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978 (New York: International Universities Press, 1978). Also see references on Kohut’s self-development and narcissistic rage in section on Freud and Aggression. Another author who addresses this is Erich Fromm in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973). 93. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness vol. 3: The Negative Affects, 85. Also in Tomkins, Script Theory: Differential Magnification of Affects , 201-36. 94.  Nathanson, Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self, 360-6, 414-30. 95. Clore, “Why Emotions Require Cognition,” 181-89. 96. Gerald L. Clore, “Why Emotions are Felt,” The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Richard J. Davidson and Paul Ekman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 103. 97. Ibid., 105. 98. Scherer, “Emotion Serves to Decouple Stimulus and Response,” 127. 99. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects , 115. 100. William James, “What is an Emotion?” Mind  9: (1884): 188-205. Also Principals of  Psychology (New York, Dover, 1981). James’ writings on emotions have influenced thinking in  psychology for over 100 years. The complexity of his thinking leads to contradictory interpretations. In fact, different approaches and contradictory claims are based on the same text. This author’s interpretations are based on a combination of the original text, writings of James Hillman,  Emotions, A Comprehensive Phenomenology of Theories and their Meanings for Therapy (Evanston, IL: Routledge and Paul, 1960). Also Keith Oatley, Those to Whom Evil Is Done , 159-66. 101. Schachter and Singer, “Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants,” 379-99. 102. Averill, Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion; Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation, 219-20. 103. Charles Darwin, The Expression of Emotions in Man and the Animals (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965). 104. Berkowitz, “Towards a General Theory of Anger and Emotional Aggression,” 9-41. 105. Ibid., 9-41.

259 106. Richard S. Lazarus, “Cognition and Motivation in Emotion,” 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award,  American Psychologist  46, no. 4 (1991): 357-61. 107. Ibid., 357. 108. Izard, “Cognition is One of Four Types of Emotion Activating Systems,” 203-7. 109. Ibid., 203-7. Izard distinguishes four levels of appraisal. At the cellular level, information  processing is genetic. He hypothesizes that cellular/genetic information processing is responsible for the emotion that constitutes a person’s characteristic mood. Organismic information processing also involves genetically coded data. Such biologically based data can lead to emotion, or at least emotion expression without cognition. This level would explain pain as an activator of anger. Biopsychological information  processing is based on interactions between genetic codes and acquired knowledge. Cognitive information  processing consists of mental processes that produce some form of memory and the processes that depend  on such learning or experienced-based learning. 110. Averill, Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. 111. Oatley, “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done,” 162. 112. Ibid., 159-64. 113. Averill, Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. 114. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vol. 3: The Negative Affects, 85. 115. Leonard Berkowitz, “On the Formation and Regulation of Anger and Aggression: A Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Analysis,” American Psychological Association: Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology Address, 1989, New Orleans, Louisiana,  American Psychologist  45, no. 4 (1990): 494-503; Averill, Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion; Izard and Kobak, “Emotions System Functioning and Emotion Regulation.” 116. Averill, Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. 117. Morris N. Eagle,  Recent Developments in Psychoanalysis: A Critical Evaluation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); Stephen A. Mitchell, Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis: An Integration (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). 118. Sigmund Freud, An Outline of Psycho-Analysis (London: Hogarth Press, 1949). In  biological functions the two basic instincts operate against each other or combine with each other. Thus, the act of eating is a destruction of the object with the final aim of incorporating it, and the sexual act is an act of aggression with the purpose of the most intimate union. This concurrent and mutually opposing action of the two basic instincts gives rise to the whole variegation of the phenomena of life. The analogy of our two basic instincts extends from the sphere of living things to the pair of opposing forces −attraction and repulsion−which rule in the inorganic world. 119. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton, 1961). 120. Ibid., 37. 121. A number of authors have pointed out that the English translation of instinct combined two terms used by Freud (Trieb and Instink ). The latter according to Lacan more accurately means the  biological. Jacque Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1973). Kernberg further emphasizes this distinction seeing Trieb as denoting psychological

260 drives, a supraordinate integration of various affect states. Otto F. Kernberg, Aggression in Personality  Disorders and Perversions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 4. 122. Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, 78. 123.  Norman Oliver Brown, Life Against Death; The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. (Middletown CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1959), 101. 124. Ibid., 85. 125. William Fairbairn and Ronald Dodds,  An Object-Relations Theory of the Personality (New York: Basic Books, 1954). 126. Heinz Kohut and Paul H. Ornstein, The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978 (New York: International Universities Press, 1978). 127. Ibid., Kohut divides aggression into normal aggression and destructive aggression. The former he sees as the outcome of the experiences of optimal frustration that teaches one to do for oneself  what has been done by others. Destructive aggression he sees as the result of a different line of  development where there is an extreme of less-than-optimal frustration. Here the self becomes endangered  or fragmented. When this is experienced we see what he calls narcissistic rage, a reaction to narcissistic injury that suffuses the individual with unforgiving hatred, cruelty, and the n eed to hurt. 128. Otto F. Kernberg, “The Psychopathology of Hatred,” Rage, power, and aggression, ed. Robert A. Glick, Steven P. Roose, et al., (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 61-79. 129. Alice Miller, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of  Violence (New York: Noonday Press: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1990). 130. Otto F. Kernberg, “Sexual Excitement and Rage: Building Blocks of the Drives,” Sigmund  Freud Lecture (1990,Vienna, Austria). Sigmund Freud House Bulletin, 1991 Summer, vol. 15. 131. Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Jensen, and Helen M. Downey,  Delusion and dream: An interpretation in the light of psychoanalysis of Gradiva, a novel by Wilhelm Jensen, which is here reprinted  (New York: New Republic, 1927), 159. 132. Kernberg, Aggression In Personality Disorders and Perversions, 5. 133. Ibid., 6. 134. Research that supports this includes: Emde, et al. “Emotional Expression in Infancy,” Carrol E. Izard, “On the Ontogenesis of Emotions and Emotion-Cognition Relationships in Infancy,” in The  Development of Affect , ed. Michael Lewis and Leonard A. Rosenblum (New York: Plenum Press, 1978), 389-413. 135. Otto F. Kernberg, Object-Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis (New York: J. Aronson. 1976). 136. Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions, 16. 137. Margaret S. Mahler, Fred Pine, and Anni Bergman. The Psychological Birth of the Human  Infant: Symbiosis and Individuation (New York: Basic Books, 1975). 138. Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions, 17.

261 139. Heraclitus, Rule number 45, in Selections from Early Greek Philosophy , ed. Milton C.  Nahm (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1947), 91. 140. Carl G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche . vol. 8 , trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960; 2nd ed., 1969), par. 243. 141. Ibid., par. 241. 142. A particular kind of reflection by which the intellect retraces its steps until it reaches the  phantasm from which it originally derived the universal; this is, according to Aquinas, the way the intellect comes to know the particular which, because material, is otherwise inaccessible to it in material faculty. Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy: Ancient-Medieval-Modern (1962), 15th ed., s.v. “reflection.” 143. “The Cartesian theory of the thinking subject contains the beginning of the Modern  philosophical project to provide an anthropological foundation for our psychology and metaphysics. No longer are ideal forms (Plato), matter (Aristotle), or god (Medieval Philosophy) at the center of o ur system of thought. For at the center, Descartes locates the human subject. The subject of Modernity is a conception of the human psyche as an actively knowing agent. The study of this subject and the process through which thought is constantly interwoven with the unthought has in the 20th century led to the development of depth  psychology.” Paul Kugler, “The ‘Subject’ of Dreams,” C. G. Jung, Analytical Psychology, and Culture: Study of Dreams vol. 3, no, 2. (1993), par 3. 144. Ibid., par. 1-4. 145. Ibid., par. 24. 146. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche , vol. 8, par. 243. 147. Ibid., par. 241. 148. Ibid., par. 242. 149. Andrew Samuels in A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis (London, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986) gives the following definition of Reflection: “Jung identified various areas of instinctive activity (ARCHETYPE; LIFE INSTINCT; TRANSFORMATION). Among them was reflection, a bending backwards or turning inward from consciousness so that instead of an immediate and  unpremeditated reaction to objective stimuli, psychological deliberation intervenes. The effect of such deliberation is unpredictable and, as a consequence of the freedom to reflect, individualized and relativized  responses are possible. Reflection re-enacts the process of excitation, referring the impetus to a series of  internalized, intrapsychic images before action is taken. By way of the reflective instinct, a stimulus  becomes a psychic content, an experience through which a natural or automatic process may be transformed into a conscious and creative one. Jung also advanced the hypothesis that reflection, though consciously oriented, has its subliminal counterpart in the unconscious as well since all experience is reflected by way of psychic imagery. Such a hypothesis follows logically from his theory of ARCHETYPE and COMPLEX. However, the reflective process itself, though instinctive, is mainly a conscious one that involves bringing imagery (with its attendant affect) to the threshold of decision and action. Psychologically speaking, reflection is the act of ‘producing consciousness.’ Jung speaks of it as ‘the cultural instinct par excellence’ its strength being shown in the power of CULTURE to manifest itself as superior to nature and to maintain itself in face of it (CW 8 par. 243). Left alone at the near instinctual level, however, reflection is automatic. Early researches using the WORD ASSOCIATION TEST corroborated this. When raised to conscious awareness, however, reflection transforms an otherwise compulsive act into one that is both purposive and individually oriented. It is reflection that makes possible the balancing of opposites. But, for this to happen, consciousness has to be recognized as more than

262 knowledge and the reflective process accepted as ‘seeing within.’ Here our individual freedom is manifested most strikingly. Reflection involves one with DREAM, SYMBOL, and FANTASY. Just as Jung identified the anima as giving relatedness to a man’s consciousness, he stated that the ANIMUS gives to a woman’s consciousness the capacity for reflection, deliberation and self-knowledge. The tension  between these two principles is not an either/or but would appear to require confrontation and integration that will manifest itself creatively in a TRANSFORMATION of the relationship between them. Jung expressed this himself when writing near the end of his life: ‘At this point the fact forces itself on my attention that beside the field of reflection there is another equally broad if not broader area in which rational understanding and rational modes of representation find scarcely anything they are able to grasp. This is the realm of Eros’ ( Memories, 1963 p. 353).” 150. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things; An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage Books, 1970). 151. Aristotle centered the investigation of meaning toward matter while Plato looked toward  ideal forms. Aristotle and Richard Peter McKeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle. Plato, The Republic of  Plato (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). 152. With Descartes we can follow a new line of philosophical thought orienting itself to the knowledge that the mind has of itself and its operations. Locke, Spinoza and Leibniz use reflection in this sense. However there is value in tracing the use of reflection back further to more fully grasp its essence. In Scholasticism, “reflexion is a property of spiritual or immaterial substances only. It is, therefore, a capacity of the human intellect, which not only operates, but knows of its operating and may turn back on itself to know itself and its performances ( reditio completa). A particular kind of reflexion is, in Thomism, the reflexio super phantasma , by which the intellect retraces its steps until it reaches the phantasm from which it originally derived the universal; this is, according to Aquinas, the way the intellect comes to know the  particular which, because material, is otherwise inaccessible to an immaterial faculty,” Runes,  Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. “reflection.” 153. James Hillman, From Mirror to Window: Curing Psychoanalysis of its Narcissism (Dallas: Spring Publication: 1989). 154. Paul Kugler, “The ‘Subject’ of Dreams,” par. 6. 155. Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomena, and other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs .  Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 8-14. 156. Paul Kugler, “The ‘Subject’ of Dreams,” par. 12. 157. Carl G. Jung, Freud and Psychoanalysis, vol. 4, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), par. 305. 158. Kugler writes that Jung’s concept of Self falls some place between the modernist notion of  subject and the post modernist notion of discourse. Though Jung designates the Self as the agency responsible for “creating,” “holding together” and “individuating” all the disparate imagos, complexes,  part-objects, and emotional experiences, he also says, “I have found no stable or definite center in the unconscious and I don’t believe such a center exists. I believe that the thing which I call the Self is an ideal center. . .that dream of totality.” Jung in interview (Serrano, 1968). From: Paul Kugler, “The ‘Subject’ of  Dreams,” par. 8-14. 159. Ibid., par. 14. 160. Ibid., par. 35.

263

161. This Dissertation, in chapter three, titled “Experiencing the Other,” examines the significance of reflexive participation via a thorough examination of narcissism and man’s search for the missing other. Aftab Omer,  Experience and Otherness: On the Undermining of Learning in Educational Organizations (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1990), 108-155. 162. Ibid., 125. 163. Reflexive participation is a term used by Aftab Omer to designate a way of being with the other that is neither merged or alienated and reflects a way out of the narcissus dilemma. Aftab Omer,  Experience and Otherness: On the Undermining of Learning in Educational Organizations, 108-56. 164. Aftab Omer has developed this definition for reflexivity at the Institute of Imaginal Studies, Petaluma, California, 1997. 165. Eagle, Recent Developments in Psychoanalysis. 166. Jessica Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction: An Outline of Intersubjectivity,”  Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis , ed. Susan C. Warshaw and Neil J. Skolnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, Inc, 1992), 43-60. 167. William R. Torbert, The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific  Inquiry, quoted in John Heron and Peter Reason, A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm. In Qualitative Inquiry , (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1997), 282. 168. John Heron & Peter Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” Qualitative Inquiry , (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1997), 282. 169. Ibid., 282-83. 170. Sheldon Bach, “Perspectives on Self and Object,” Psychoanalytic Review Spring 71, no. 1 (1984): 145-68. 171. Bach, “Two ways of Being,” Psychoanalytic Dialogues . 8, no. 5 (1998): 657-73. 172. John Auerbach, “Dualism, Self-reflexivity, and Intersubjectivity: Commentary on paper by Sheldon Bach,” Psychoanalytic Dialogues . 8, no. 5 (1998): p. 675-83. 173. Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books. 1995). 174. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness vol.1-4. 175. Trudy Mills and Sherryl Kleinman “Emotions, Reflexivity, and Action: An Interactionist Analysis,” Social Forces 66, no. 4 (1988): 1009-27. 176. Morris Rosenberg argues that the foundation of the emotions is basically organismic but that human reflexivity transforms the nature of the emotions radically in three primary ways: emotional identification, emotional display and emotional experience. He indicates that display serves as an important means for the attainment of one’s ends. Morris Rosenberg, “Reflexivity and Emotions,” Social Psychology Quarterly 53, no. 1 (1990): 3-12. 177. Omer, 108-155.

264 178. At the Institute of Imaginal Studies Aftab Omer has defined “Imaginal Structures” as “assemblies of sensory, affective, and cognitive aspects of experience constellated into images; they both mediate and constitute experience. The specifics of an imaginal structure are determined by an interaction of personal, cultural, and archetypal influences. These influences may be teased apart by attention to the stories that form personal character and the myths that shape cultural life. During the individuation  process, imaginal structures are transmuted into emergent and enhanced capacities as well as transformed  identity. Any enduring and substantive change in individual or group behavior requires a transmuting of  imaginal structures. This transmutation depends upon an affirmative turn toward the passionate nature of  the soul.” 179. Ibid. 180. Rollo May, “Psychotherapy and the Daimonic,”  Myths, Dreams, and Religion, ed. Joseph Campbell (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1970). 181. Donald W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London, Tavistock Publishers, 1971). Though Winnicott does not specifically talk about reflexivity, his writing discusses the importance of the child’s development to include the emotional identification with the other’s position. This differentiation of the child thus depends on the child knowing that his experience is different from the parent and that both he and the parent know what the other feels. This experience primarily comes out of conflict; Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 43-60; Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions; Carl G. Jung,  Alchemical Studies, vol. 13 , trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967); James Hillman, The Thought of the Heart; and, The Soul of the World (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1992); Louis H. Stewart, “A Brief Report: Affect and Archetype,” Journal of   Analytical Psychology 32, no. 1 (1987): 35-46; Nathan Schwartz-Salant, Narcissism and Character  Transformation: The Psychology of Narcissistic Character Disorders (Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books. 1982); Stephen A. Martin, “Anger as Inner Transformation,” Quadrant 19, no. 1 (1986): 31-45. 182. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 54. 183. Aftab Omer in his dissertation explores the myth of Narcissus (chapter 3) and examines the significance of reflexive participation as related to man's search for the missing other. Aftab Omer,  Experience and Otherness: On the Undermining of Learning in Educational Organizations, 124. 184. Ibid. , 108-56. 185. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 49. 186. Mahler, Pine, and Bergman. The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant.. 187. Kohut and Ornstein, The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut. 188. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 51. 189. Lemerise and Dodge, “The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions,” 537-46. 190. Willard W. Hartup, “Peer Relations.” Handbook of Child Psychology, ed. E. Mavis Hetherington, 4: (New York: Wiley, 1983), 103-96. 191. Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions, 3-35. 192. Winnicott, Playing and Reality . 193. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 53.

265

194. Michael Eigen, “The Area of Faith in Winnicott, Lacan and Bion,”  International Journal of  Psycho-Analysis 62, no. 4 (1981): 413-33. Emmanuel Ghent, “Credo: The Dialectics of One-Person and  Two-Person Psychologies,” Contemporary Psychoanalysis 25 (1989): 169-211. 195. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 52. 196. Ibid., 51. Benjamin in her article uses the unpublished works of Beebe and Lachmann to support the importance of disruption and repair in development over continuous harmony. 197. Ibid., 54. 198. Ibid., 58. 199. Lazarus, “Cognition and Motivation in Emotion,” 357-61. 200. Ibid., 358. Lazarus’s descriptions are very similar to Merleau-Ponty’s embodied  intelligence. 201. Scherer, “Emotion Serves to Decouple Stimulus and Response.” 202. Jung, Alchemical Studies vol. 13, par. 12. 203. Ibid., par. 58. “Affective states are immediate experiences. Why then speak of the anima and not simply of moods? The reason is that affects have an autonomous character, and therefore most  people are under their power. But affects are delimitable contents of consciousness, parts of the personality. As such, they partake of its character and can easily be personified −a process that still continues today, as I have shown. The personification is not an idle invention, since a person roused by affect does not show a neutral character but a quite distinct one, entirely different from his ordinary character.” 204. Louis H. Stewart, “A Brief Report: Affect and Archetype,” 35-46. Stewart presents a hypothesis on the nature and functions of affects incorporating viewpoints of J. L. Henderson who saw affects in relation to other functions of the psyche, and Jung (1912,1921)−who refers to the innate, autonomous nature of the affects and their capacity to overwhelm the conscious ego. It is noted that Jung’s interest shifted from affect to archetype, which appears in consciousness as an image/idea. The relationship of the affects to play and imagination and the contemporary affect theory of S. Tomkins are discussed. It is suggested that ego functions and cultural attitudes are structured by the interaction of the libido with the world and the self. 205. Ibid., 239. This is similar evolutionary to Darwin’s perspective as discussed in the section on Affect Theory and Social Cognitive Theory. 206. Ibid., 141. 207. Carl G. Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, vol. 7. trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953; 2nd ed., 1966). par. 323. “As a result of the repressive attitude of the conscious mind, the other side is driven into indirect and purely symptomatic manifestations, mostly of an emotional kind, and only in moments of overwhelming affectivity can fragments of the unconscious come to the surface in the form of thoughts or images. The inevitable accompanying symptom is that the ego momentarily identifies with these utterances, only to revoke them in the same breath. And, indeed, the things one says when in the grip of an affect sometimes seem very strange and daring . . . Starting from the fact that in a state of affect one often surrenders involuntarily to the truths of the other side, would it not be far better to make use of an affect so as to give the other side an opportunity to speak? It could therefore be said just as truly that one should cultivate the art of conversing

266 with oneself in the setting provided by an affect, as though the affect itself were speaking without regard to our rational criticism. So long as the affect is speaking, criticism must be withheld. But once it has  presented its case, we should begin criticizing as conscientiously as though a real person closely connected  with us were our interlocutor.” 208. Carl G. Jung,  Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of  Psychic Opposites in Alchemy, vol. 14, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963; 2nd ed., 1970), par. 171. 209. Ibid. The Western origin of desire as is used in this context comes from the Greek myth about a companion of Aphrodite, regarded as the personification of desire and longing (pothos). 210. Schwartz-Salant, Narcissism and Character Transformation, 54-6. 211. Martin, “Anger as Inner Transformation.” 212. James Hillman and Thomas Moore. A Blue Fire: Selected Writings (New York: Harper & Row. 1989). James Hillman, The Thought of the Heart and Soul of the World . (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1992). James Hillman, Facing the Gods (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1994); Thomas Moore, The Planets Within: Marsilio Ficino's Astrological Psychology. Studies in Jungian Thought  (Lewisburg, London: Bucknell University Press; Associated University Press, 1982). Thomas Moore,  Dark Eros: The Imagination of Sadism (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1990). Thomas Moore, The Re Enchantment of Everyday Life (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1996); Gregory Max Vogt, Return to Father: Archetypal Dimensions of the Patriarch (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1991); Eugene Monick, Castration and Male Rage: The Phallic Wound (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991). Stephen A. Diamond,  Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of Violence, Evil, and Creativity. SUNY Series. In The Philosophy of Psychology (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996). 213. Homer, The Iliad , trans. I. V. Rieu (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1950). 214. Moore, The Planets Within: Marsilio Ficino's Astrological Psychology, 186-89. 215. “The stirring up of conflict is a Luciferian virtue in the true sense of the word. Conflict engenders fire, the fire of affects and emotions, and like every other fire it has two aspects, that of  combustion and that of creating light. On the one hand, emotion is the alchemical fire whose warmth brings everything into existence and whose heat burns all superfluities to ashes (omnes superfluitates comburit). But on the other hand, emotion is the moment when steel meets flint and a spark is struck forth, for emotion is the chief source of consciousness. (italics mine.) There is no change from darkness to light or from inertia to movement without emotion.” Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious . vol. 9, pt. I., trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 1959; 2nd ed., 1968), par. 179. 216. In Jung’s treatises on the Prima Materia (par. 439-446) we are given a formula for the transformational element of anger. The wolf eats the King; the Nous is swallowed up by Physis. “That is to say, the body and the psychic representations of the organs gain mastery over the conscious mind.” In the heat of anger the ego loses control. “The heat is so intense that the hero loses his hair” Frobenius par. 440. This is the incubation period for transformation “equivalent to self-incubating or brooding state of  meditation” par. 440. Also see the myth of Achilles: his anger at Agamemnon, brooding in his tent, then clarity and movement in embracing love and transforming into immortality. Carl G. Jung, Psychology and   Alchemy, vol. 12, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953; 2nd ed., 1968). 217. Morris Rosenberg argues that the foundation of the emotions is basically organismic but that human reflexivity transforms the nature of the emotions radically, in three primary ways: emotional identification, emotional display and emotional experience. He indicates that display serves as an important

267 means for the attainment of one’s ends. Morris Rosenberg, “Reflexivity and Emotions,” Social Psychology Quarterly 53, no. 1 (1990): 3-12. 218. Mills and Kleinman, “Emotions, Reflexivity, and Action,” 1009-1027. This study shows four ways an individual may respond to a situation: reflexive and emotional, unreflexive and emotional, reflexive and without feeling, and neither reflexive nor emotional. 219. Heraclitus, Rule number 46, in Selections from Early Greek Philosophy , ed. Milton C. Nahm (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1947), 91.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

From The Literature Review

The literature review showed the significance of three key factors in the  phenomenon of anger and it's expression. The first factor is the autonomic nature of  anger and how it can overwhelm the conscious ego. This view of the nature of anger is recognized across psychological paradigms as seen in the works of Silvan Tomkins, C. G. Jung, John Gunderson, Elizabeth Lemerise and Kenneth Dodge.1 The second factor is the significant role that anger plays in the ongoing development of the self and the importance of others in that process. As seen in the last section, this concept originates in object relations theory and is most developed by the field of self-psychology and  intersubjective theory. Conceptualization of the interplay of anger and object relation theory is seen in the works of D. W. Winnicott, Heinz Kohut and Jessica Benjamin.2 The third factor presented is the potential role of reflexivity in transforming anger into a creative process. As seen in the last section, this concept is elaborated by Jung, though more recently it is addressed as social interaction theory and psychoanalytic theory in the writings of Trudy Mills, Sherryl Kleinman and Sheldon Bach.3 In order to explore these three key factors, this research chose to focus on the experiences of domestic violence abusers. This population is particularly appropriate in addressing the three key factors mentioned above. First, their anger and its expression demonstrate how the autonomic nature of anger can overwhelm the conscious ego. 79

80 Second, their anger and its expression is focused on a significant other and therefore encompasses aspects of self and intersubjectivity. Third, if, as our last section suggests, reflexivity has the potential for transformation, then the question b ecomes what role did it  play with these men and what possible role could it play?

Coherence and Justification

I have chosen in-depth narrative interview and analysis as the form of exploration and understanding. The reason for this choice was the need for a methodology that has the potential of focusing on reflexivity as it is related to the anger experience. This involves uncovering internal structural processes related to that expe rience of anger. Using Riessman’s definition, narrative refers to "talk organized around  consequential events.” 4 The event in the case of my study is the act of domestic violence  perpetrated by the participant. According to Riessman’s interpretation of narrative, the  participant, or teller, takes a listener to a moment in past time and recapitulates what happened at that time in order to make a point. The teller does not mirror back some “real world” out there, but rather constructs a story that lends unity and meaning to an otherwise disordered experience.5 A narrative approach is situated in the general category of “qualitative research” with its roots in “phenomenological” philosophy. Each  puts its focus on the individual’s experience as the basis of knowledge according to Edmund Husserl. Donald Polkinghorne paraphrases Husserl as saying there is no viewpoint outside of consciousness from which to view things as they exist independently of our experience of them.6 He wrote that one’s “consciousness” of the experience is observed or seen through language (words, symbols, gestures, and other  expressions). With the topic of domestic violence, we start with the event of violence.

81 Certain things unquestionably take place. If we had five observers and participants each would have his own account of “what happened.” Each would undeniably remember, describe and make sense out of the events in his own way. Each would distort, emphasize, not recall, exaggerate, and recollect the events differently. My research investigates the experience of anger in the perpetrator. The focus becomes how he puts these events together and makes sense of them. Like Husserl, Merleau-Ponty also emphasizes that language is “uncommunicative of anything other than itself.” 7 However he extends Husserl’s consciousness to include subconscious bodily behaviors. Ricoeur adds the unconscious structures of volition and  action.8 With this extension in mind I have shifted my approach from a straight  phenomenological research to a narrative approach that uses a depth interview to explore those unconscious (imaginal) structures along with the conscious experience of the  participants. The narrative interview approach to my topic is an appropriate investigative tool as it enables the researcher to focus on and to draw out underlying structures of the experience of anger. I am not looking for truth in the sense of what actually happened,  but rather what was and is going on for the participant, both consciously and  unconsciously, in turning the events into experiences that have meaning. Catherine Riessman tells us that in the qualitative interview “typically most of the talk is not narrative but question-and-answer exchanges, arguments, and other forms of discourse.” 9 Importantly, she brings forward the interviewer as the significant contributor to the direction of the narrative. The interviewer will bring in, hopefully with awareness, his or  her theoretical/epistemological positions, values and more often than not his or her 

82  personal biography, making interpretative or hermeneutic methods essential to the overall investigation and analysis. Phenomenological research in psychology, like that of  Amedeo Giorgi, attempts to bracket the interviewer’s presuppositions and assumptions he  brings to the investigation in order remove its influence on the interview.10 Elliot Mishler  contrasts this by describing research wherein the interviewer’s preset positions, assumptions and prior knowledge contributes to the unfolding of the participant’s story.11 In particular the interviewer uses his knowledge of the subject to help the interviewee to describe in depth the affect, cognitive and evaluative meaning of the situation. Mishler  notes Paget's research for taking into consideration the recognition and analysis of the interviewer’s participation in the story’s production.12 Holstein and Gubrium, in their book, The Active Interview, argue that the traditional form of interview research, where information is transmitted from a passive  participant to an omnipotent researcher, is problematic.13 They present the “active interview” where the interviewer and interviewee are equal partners in constructing meaning around an interview event. Heron and Reason refer to this as cooperative inquiry. They emphasize “epistemic participation” meaning that any propositional knowledge that is the outcome of the research is grounded by the researcher in their own experiential knowledge.14 With this in mind, I approach the experience of anger as it is storied by the participants. For all of the participants of my research, an event has taken place that has had an impact on their lives. This event is the perpetration of domestic violence on their   partners. Minimally, the impact of this event has brought them into the judicial system with the charge of domestic violence and conviction. For many, this also means time in

83  jail, fines, public humiliation, divorce, and other unpleasant consequences. In talking to dozens of men who have committed domestic violence, I know that each participant has spent at least a minimum of time trying to make sense of their experience. In Riessman’s terms we might say that minimally, in the case of our participants, all have already “attended” to their experience: reflecting, remembering, recollecting them into observations. The internal narrative essentially begins during the experience itself and  continues afterward. As Riesman says, this is the way man makes sense out of his experience.15 It is likely that, in the case of our participants, they have also started  verbally sharing their stories with others (friends, spouse, jail cellmates, and others). The story most likely changes from listener to listener. For the spouse it may be a defensive or apologetic narrative; with the jail mate it could include some bravado about letting the wife know who is boss. Does this mean that one story is more real or less real to the teller? Not necessarily, as Riessman says: narratives are created in collaboration with the listener. The narrative is influenced by both the conscious agenda of the teller as well as unconscious structures influencing the teller. For example, if our participant is telling the story to a jail mate of whom he is afraid, he may avoid seeming weak or vulnerable in order to emphasize his “machismo.” Again, our interest in the research interview is not  primarily about the facts associated with the event. Rather, it is a search to deepen understanding of the experience itself, to reveal the underlying structures of an anger  experience that leads to behavior such as spousal abuse. Certainly it would be helpful if  we had recordings of the various narratives each participant has given of his experience. Obviously, this is not possible. However, our design invites the participant into the research as a collaborator. The agenda that is established between perpetrator and 

84 investigator is distinct from one he might have with the victim, jail mate, lawyer, or   judge. The invitation is for both participant and listener to see if they can learn something about the experience of anger via the telling of the story. The extent to which a collaborative exploration happens will be dependent on the skill of the investigator in developing the agenda with the participant. This is a move toward what John Heron and  Peter Reason refer to as political participation in which the participant becomes coresearcher.16 Hence, our interview has a definite focus to be shared between interviewer and  interviewee. By using the act of domestic violence as a frame, both become cocollaborators in seeking to better understand the dynamics of anger as related to the specific act or acts. The goal for the interviewer is to deepen the process that the interviewee has already begun by reflecting, remembering, recollecting his experience via the “telling of their story.” The interviewer is first of all focusing on the events of the story that give information about the anger experienced. Secondly, the interviewer is looking to maximize the amount of reflexive thinking by the participant in order to make underlying structures more visible. Making sense out of the participants’ experience of  anger becomes the goal for both researcher and participant. The second orientation is what defines our approach as a depth interview. This is not an ethnographic study looking for a realistic description of an event. Our approach, as Riessman stipulates, is to understand that our “informant’s stories do not mirror a world ‘out there.’ They are constructed, creatively authored, rhetorical, replete with assumptions, and interpretive.” 17

85 Categorizing: Reflexivity and Self/Other Focused Anger 

In any qualitative analysis, categorizing data is essential. Phenomenologists like Amedeo Giorgi argue that the categorizing and finding meaning comes after the interviews.18 Their point is well taken. However, it is significant to note that up front  phenomenologists tend to limit their exploration to participants who have the ability to reflect. As summarized by Donald Polkinghorne in “Existential Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology,” some phenomenologists suggest minimal criteria, as Colaizzi who states, “. . . experience with the investigated topic and articulateness suffice as criteria for selecting subjects.” 19 Adrian van Kaam has proposed that this capacity requires participants to have six important skills.20 These include the ability to sense and  to express inner feelings and emotions without shame and inhibition, and to express the organic experiences that accompany these feelings. Though it is understandable that they make this distinction, it is surprising that there is not more discussion on the significance of the data they collect. What is the “life world” like of those participants deleted from their studies for lacking a minimal capacity to reflect? The capacity or lack of capacity to reflect is of particular significance to the topic of my research. If we accept the definition of language as the way in which those we study make sense out of events in their world, and the way researchers interpret that analysis, then the limitations of an individual’s language becomes a part of their experience of the world, both as it is remembered and as it affects future behaviors. The capacity to, or not to, reflect on experience becomes critical to how one makes sense of one’s experience and consequently affects how one reacts to future events.

86 Consequently, it is exactly the variable of reflexivity that I plan to embrace by an in-depth interview and narrative analysis. From a Jungian perspective, a person’s capacity to reflect has a direct relationship to any experience including that of anger. In the phrase “in a fit of anger . . .” exemplifies the common man's awareness that his actions are not always a reflective response. As noted earlier, a key aspect of anger is its ability to overwhelm the conscious ego. The capacity for reflexivity not only can be addressed but needs to be addressed. In my research, the variability of reflexivity will be actively engaged from the start. The interviewer will encourage and direct the participant to reflect about his experience of domestic violence, as well as encourage him to differentiate his levels of reflecting (reflexivity) before, during, and after the episode. Appendix D is a detailed scale for interpreting levels of reflexivity. Such questions as “were you aware of that at the moment of . . .” can give input to levels of reflexivity. Any lack of ability to be reflexive will not be reason to disqualify a participant but will  become observable material for understanding the dynamics of the anger experience both  by participant and investigator. Likewise, the interviewer’s level of reflexivity will also contribute to the discovery of the participant’s “life world.” Past experiences of the interviewer, for example, will enhance his capacity to ask questions relevant to the  participant’s lived experience and thereby elicit a wide range of stimulus elements that were present in the original situation. Mishler cites Merton, Fiske, and Kendall as saying a primary distinctive prerequisite of the depth interview is to “bring out the attributes and   prior experience of the interviewee's which endow the situation with their distinctive meanings.” 21

87 For the interviewer who takes a reflexive approach in the interview and  encourages the participant to do likewise, new understanding of the experience can be achieved for both participant and interviewer. In traditional research, this move is very  problematic in regards to the validity of what we are measuring. If the experience is changing even during the interview, not to mention because of the interview, then how can we make sense of the anger experienced by the domestic violence abuser? In fact, all experience is always changing and thus narratives that give meaning to events in the past do not remain constant over time. The very process of the domestic violence abuser's sense-making of his experience is what can give us insight into that experience. Through the depth interview approach we are able to explore the influence of the interview itself,  both conscious and unconscious, on the process of making sense of the experience. However, as Mishler wrote, “In a word, traditional notions of reliability simply do not apply to narrative studies, and validity must be radically reconceptualized.” 22 A standard approach to narrative analysis will be used to categorize the interviews into narrative and non-narrative segments for further analysis. Those segments will then  be reflected upon using the typology introduced in the introduction. The typology focusing on the role of reflexivity in relationship to anger focused at oneself virus focused at another. The evaluating of reflexivity will be done in relationship to the context of the narrative. For example, a statement like “I was so upset in that moment I could not see how much I hurt her by what I said” would be scored as showing reflexivity, but for  measuring “that moment” the interviewee is giving himself a low-reflexivity rating. The question of validity relates to the trustworthiness of our information, which is affected by

88 any number of possibilities. The participant may be lying to give us a good impression; his memory may be flawed. If we use traditional methods of looking at validity, our data  becomes problematic. However, if we follow qualitative researchers like Mishler and  Riessman and focus on validity as trustworthiness, we can check the accuracy of our  information and data in four different ways: persuasiveness, correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic use. 23 The analysis of my methodology is qualitative and falls into the category of   participatory research. As Steinar Kvale argues, the standard construction of validity used in the social sciences, validity, reliability, and generalizability, become inadequate in verifying knowledge that would be produced from qualitative research.24 Although Kvale along with M. Rosnau rejects the notion of objective universal truth, he “accepts the possibility of specific local, personal, and community forms of truth, with the focus on daily life and local narrative.” 25 Kvale thus approaches reliability, validity, and  generalizability from what he calls a moderate postmodern perspective. I will address the various issues of “knowing” as they specifically relate to my research methodology and  analysis using Kvale’s concepts along with Peter Reason, John Heron, Elliot Mishler, and  other qualitative research theorists.26 Pragmatic. For my data, the primary pragmatic validation comes through making

my interpretive moves visible to the reader. If the raters in my research see an experience as high or low on the reflexive scale, or if they see anger as self-directed vs. otherdirected, would the reader see how it was done? And, would they concur? Transcripts of  the interviews are also available to verify that the categorizing of data was done. Overall, the steps that moved the researcher to his conclusions will be made clear to the reader.

89 Persuasiveness. Persuasiveness, quite simply, is answering the question “Is the

interpretation reasonable and convincing?” In the case of my research, can the theoretical claims be supported with evidence from the informants’ accounts, even when alternative interpretations of the data are considered? In my research design, I focus my attention on theoretical evidence that supports reflexivity and self- and other-focused anger as elements that influence the experience of anger. I use in-depth narrative interview as the means to show if the stories of men, who have experienced anger, give evidence that would support the theoretical claims. I do this by looking at the content of those stories in the form of “narrative segments.” Depending on the school of thought, “narrative clauses” can be seen as the raw substance of scripts, imaginal structures, themes, frames, schema, or underlying psychological structures. Applying Riessman’s approach to trustworthiness, if the “narrative clauses” have coherence and independent distinctiveness, it is the researcher’s responsibility to present the material to the reader in a plausible manner that takes the reader through the reflexive  process of the investigator, thus allowing the reader to judge the quality and plausibility of the investigator’s hermeneutic interpretive moves.27 This process in particular needs to address the following two questions. Do the participants’ narrated stories and the data  produced by depth interview convincingly support the investigator’s interpretation as well as the theoretical claims? Does the investigator do a thorough job of reflecting on other plausible explanations and interpretations of the data? It is within this reflexive narrative analysis that the researcher establishes the level of trustworthiness of his conclusions.

90 Correspondence. According to Riessman, the criterion of correspondence is

 brought to qualitative research in the form of returning, with the results, to those studied.28 In the case of my research, there is also an element of correspondence throughout the research interview. Similar to the Marianne Paget research, a dialectic approach to understanding between interviewer and interviewee calls for a conversational approach in order to establish mutual understanding of the topic.29 By the interviewer  checking with the interviewee to see if he, the interviewer, understands the experience that is being narrated, the interviewer builds trustworthiness into his interpretations, to be used later for analysis. This checking in on information being shared is not about the facts but about the experience. For example, my understanding of what you are saying is that . . . does that sound right? In this way the researcher builds into the interview a check on how well he is understanding and interpreting the participant’s experience. The Research

The topic of this dissertation is the transformative potential of anger. The research investigates that potential by taking an in-depth look at how anger was experienced by men who committed specific acts of violence. The assumption is that the extreme nature of their actions and the intensity of their anger amplify the dynamics of an anger experience, thus allowing for insight into the topic of research. The investigation focused on the reported experience of five men who had physically abused their partners. Using a collaborative approach, the research examines their storied experience of the incident of domestic violence as it related to their anger.

91 The typology presented in chapter one along with its accompanying mythology is used as a frame to direct the investigation. The typology categorizes four constellations of how anger is experienced. It focuses on the interaction between self- and otherfocused anger and the role of reflexivity. The four constellations are reflexive/selffocused anger (the experience manifested as a watching mode), reflexive/other-focused  anger (participating mode), non-reflexive/ self-focused anger (numbing mode), and nonreflexive/self-focused anger (reacting mode). I have adopted Aftab Omer’s definition of reflexivity as “the capacity to engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience.” 30 By imaginal structures he is referring to personal, cultural, and archetypal themes that have an underlying influence on how a person experiences and responds to situations.31 These processes are similar to other constructs in psychology such as scripts,  psychological structures, intra-psychic images, internalized structures, and archetypal structures. Guided by the typology, interviews were conducted with five men convicted of  spousal abuse. Each participant was encouraged to join in a search for new and deeper  understanding of his experience of marital violence. The taped interviews were then subjected to a narrative analysis utilizing co-researchers. In a second round of  interviews, these men were introduced to the typology along with its associated mythic imagery. They were encouraged to identify and engage the imaginal structures associated with their anger experience. It is hypothesized that this type of reflexivity may catalyze transformation of identity and relationship.

92 The interview transcripts were subjected to a narrative analysis that included the researcher’s reflections and interpretations, the co-researchers' reflections and  interpretations, and the participants' responses to the interpretations through a reinterview. The research interview and analysis is designed to foster an in-depth exploration of the potential of identifying and engaging with the imaginal structures associated with anger as a catalyst for transformative change.

Data Collection and Analysis

The standard dissertation approach would not include analysis within this chapter, however, as this study is situated in the research category of a participatory paradigm, it is important to note that each step of the process included an element of analysis. There are eight procedural steps involved in the data collection and analysis: the interview, follow up to the interview, transcription, initial analysis of text, segment selection  procedure, co-researcher session, reflections and analysis by researcher, re-interview of   participants, and final reflection and analysis by researcher. In the primary interview, interviewer and interviewee collaborate in understanding the interviewee’s experience. Concurrently, the researcher is making his first steps toward understanding and interpretation, which continues throughout the entire research. In the sixth step co-researchers listen to taped segments with the purpose of  furthering the process of understanding and interpretation. Following this, the researcher  refines his understanding and puts it into a form that can be given back to the interviewee in a re-interview. Here again, the re-interview involves analysis by eliciting further  understanding and interpretation through collaboration of researcher and interviewee. Consequently, sections on procedure will describe the approach toward analysis that is

93 included with the procedures themselves. This process is constructed in concurrence with Kvale’s Six Steps of Analysis.32 Participants: Population And Selection Process

Participants were referred by the County Courts over a three-month period. The  presiding judge informed the men charged and convicted of spousal abuse of the research study. This information, given by the judge, took place at the time of sentencing. Each of the convicted men was given a flyer describing the research. The researcher then followed up by making contact with the men who had been sentenced. Their names were retrieved from court records once a week for a period of three months. Those men who could be reached by phone were invited by the researcher to participate. To encourage  participation, the men contacted were offered one session credit toward the mandatory 52-week spousal abuse program, along with a $25 stipend. During the three-month  period, approximately 50 men were convicted of spousal abuse in the County chosen for  this research. Forty-three of those men were eliminated from the study due to an inability to reach them by phone (they moved from County, were not listed, did not return phone calls, or were currently incarcerated in jail) others did not meet the qualifications to be in the study.33 The qualifications included: 1) a minimum time period of six months since the domestic violence occurred, 2) that no participant had already participated in a domestic violence program or counseling for domestic violence, 3) that no participant had a police report of the incident indicating alcohol or drug use being a factor in the violence. Of the remaining six men, four chose to participate. Of the other two, one directly declined giving no reason and the other agreed to participate, however, did not show up at the time of his appointment. In follow-up phone contact he indicated he had 

94 changed his mind due to his experiences of being unfairly treated in all his contacts with the judicial system. The fifth participant was referred from the local domestic violence coalition. His referral was based on the staff’s evaluation of his excessive anger and rage during court mediation meetings. Though he had not been charged with spousal abuse, he was used in the study on the basis of the domestic violence counselor evaluation of  him as “emotionally abusive and threatening to his wife.” Consistent with participatory research, the participants were informed by telephone, that the research was based on a cooperative model. They were told that they would become co-participants in research that was interested in understanding their anger  as it related to their domestic violence. The researcher's efforts to convince the  participants of the potential value and relevance of the interview were crucial toward  achieving the goal of collaborative understanding. The men who chose to participate were given appointments at the time of the telephone conversation. Procedure The Interview. At the beginning of each interview, I introduced myself and then

asked their permission to turn on the recorder. I then explained the purpose of the interview. The explanation used was a statement given to each participant in a similar  form. The first purpose of this statement was to encourage a collaborative exploration of  the participant’s experience of his actions (i.e., spousal abuse, emotional or physical) and  the subsequent effects. The participant was informed that the purpose of the research was to investigate his experience of anger as it related to domestic violence. The participant was told that the approach would be one that would hopefully provide the participant with a better understanding of his experience that would benefit him in the future.

95 Secondly, the statement disclosed to the participant the conditions and possible impact of  his participation, particularly as it related to issues of confidentiality. With the verbal statement each participant was given a consent and disclosure form to read (Appendix C). At this time, the participant was asked if he had any questions. If he had no questions he was requested to sign the consent and disclosure form. One of the five participants had  concerns about revealing information related to child abuse. Since his concerns involved  the potential for filing a child abuse report, the recorder was turned off while the issue was discussed. It was determined that no report would be necessary since it had been  previously reported to the County and all participants were currently in County supervised counseling. I informed him that unless he was providing new information that had not been previously reported by him to California Child Protective Services, it would  not be necessary for me to make a report. I also informed him that if at any time during the interview he had a related question or a concern he should let me know. I also said  that if I felt he was in any way speaking about a situation that would require reporting, I would interrupt and let him know. There was no information that became revealed  during the interview that would have required the consideration of reporting. Following the signing of the consent and disclosure form, the researcher initiated  the interview by asking each participant to “story” the incident of domestic violence that led him to the court. In the case of the one participant who was not charged, he was asked what led to his court mediation and his wife’s request for assistance from the local domestic violence agency. Questions and dialogue were oriented toward storying the event that led to domestic violence. As interviewer, I focused my attention on discovering how the participant experienced the event and asked questions to do with his

96 story that would help me to see his experience through his eyes. This included asking question related to his awareness of emotions, feelings and bodily sensations of the  participant and his partner or others present. The second segment of the interview focused on the weeks following the event up to the present. During this phase, I focused my inquiry on how he had reflected on the event and what had gone on between him and his partner since the event. My primary interest was to understand how he made sense of what happened in his mind. As Riessman suggests, a narrative, that is, talk organized around a consequential event, recapitulates what happened to make a point. As she says, “respondents narrativize  particular experiences in their lives, often where there has been a breach between ideal and real, self and society.” Again my interest during this segment was to understand each man’s own “sense making” of his experience, as defined by Riessman.34 The third period of the interview was the most collaborative. Here I returned my attention to the actual incident, asking questions in a dialogue approach that allowed for  the creation of new understanding by both researcher and participant. During this phase I encouraged the maximum level of reflexivity for each participant. Examples of this include questions such as “Was there a point in the violent episode that you were aware that you were losing control? Other men have described moments where they felt terrified, was it that way for you?” In this third phase I encouraged each participant to look beyond what he thought he knew toward uncovering images, thoughts, and feelings that have remained hidden or repressed. This was done by focusing on moments of their  story that involved intense emotion, such as anger. I asked the participants to re-imagine those moments and describe their experience. I encouraged them to relate images or past

97 experience where they had similar feelings. At this stage the approach was one of depth interviewing. My focus was on joining with the participant in an exploration for new understanding of his experience. I was concurrently checking for the “rightness,” as defined by Reason and Rowan, of any presumed understandings that I might be developing in my mind about the participant’s experience.35 During all three periods, I asked questions that would distinguish levels of  reflexivity and self and other-focused anger as shared by the participants. This involved  asking questions that validated or negated the interviewer’s understanding. For example, questions like: Do you mean . . .? My understanding of what you are saying is . . .? At the end of the interview, I assessed the emotional state of the participant for  any indication of aroused anger, anxiety, or other painful emotions, that had been activated by the interview. None of the participants showed any indication that they would be at risk to themselves or others. However, all participants were given my office  phone number, the Mental Health crisis number, and the local domestic violence center’s number. All were told that if they had questions concerning the interview they may contact me at no cost. Each was also informed that they would be contacted to arrange for a re-interview where they would be given the results of the researcher's analysis.

98 Following the Interview. At this point, following each interview, I reflected and 

took notes on my reactions, impressions and thoughts. (See Appendix A) Transcribing. All five interviews were transcribed into written form. The

transcribing process was done in detail, including notations such as short pauses, verbal emphasis, as well as short responses of the interviewer such as “uh-huh.”  Initial Analysis of Text. After the transcribing, as a standard within narrative

analysis, all narrative segments were separated from other types of dialogue in the interview. All sections of the text that are narrative information were bracketed for  further analysis. The sections included dialogue that may be considered non-narrative by Riessman, such as question and answer exchanges not connected to the story being told.36 The narrative sections were then separated into narrative segments. Using Riessman’s approach, the narrative segments were determined based on how well they orient the listener, carry the complicating action, evaluate its meaning, and resulting action.37 By using this approach I was able to distinguish both the primary narrative segments and  secondary narrative segments. With all five participants there was one primary narrative and multiple secondary narratives. Since the narrative is placed in the context of the in-depth interview, I gave attention to the relations among episodes within the story told; relations between stories in the same interview; and the effects of the story structure due to the shifting relationship of interviewee and interviewer. Also I looked at what Riessman refers to as the poetic structures and meaning of the narrative. The steps taken toward analysis of the data up to this point included rigorous transcribing of narrative that includes pauses, voice changes,

99 etc.; parsing it into lines (clauses); delineating stanzas and parts; and examining its organizing metaphors. After I thoroughly examined the transcripts using the above steps, I engaged the material from the perspective of the typology. This entailed the process of looking at each segment to see how it applied to the four primary categories of the typology, which is differentiated by reflexivity and anger self- and other-focus. I was looking to see if the segments revealed personal, cultural, or archetypal themes that influenced a part of their  anger experience. The primary groupings examined were those narrative segments, stanzas, and  metaphors that show high or low-reflexivity and self- or other-focused anger.

Self-focused anger Reflexive Self-focused anger  Non-reflexive

Other-focused anger  Reflexive Other-focused anger  Non-reflexive

Having established for myself that there was coherence and distinctive patterns, the next step was to select narrative sections of the interviews to be played for two coresearchers. Segment Selection Procedure. The following criteria was used in selecting

 portions of interviews to be used with the reflective team: 1. Primary narrative storying of domestic violence incident as told by participant at  beginning of interview. Length 5 to 10 minutes. (To be included for all five interviews) 2. Between one and three secondary narrative stories from each interview. Chosen from the following:

100

•

•

•

•

Stories that repeat the primary story but with more depth and complexity giving the listener deeper understanding of the lived experience of the  participant. Stories that are similar to the primary story but based on a different event and  that also give more depth and complexity to the primary story. Stories that are interrelated, and are naturally linked to the primary story. The relationship being obvious to narrator and listener. Stories that are spontaneous, sparked by the primary story in the dialogue  between client, and myself but initially seem to rise out of nowhere. These stories often give the impression of being irrelevant to the topic.

The criteria for choosing the secondary narrative story include: intensity of  emotion, complexity, and completeness of narrative, and impact on researcher. The primary interest in this phase of analysis was to encourage a pluralistic approach to understanding the text. The researcher here was not looking for confirmation of his interpretation but, in fact, was looking for interpretations of the text from multiple  perspectives. I had started my own process, examining how the participants made sense of their experience of anger in domestic violence. His approach to interpretation included  the ways that participants gave meaning to their experience. These included expressed  meaning, intended meaning, and latent meaning or depth hermeneutics. The coresearchers were to serve two purposes: One to concur with the researcher’s interpretations of these meaning segments (intersubjective reliability) and second to add  different interpretation and understanding to the meaning segments (perspectival subjectivity). The approach to choosing segments allowed the co-researchers to hear   both the details and the diversity of each participant's storying of their experience of  anger. From a narrative perspective each interview can be seen as one story as well as multiple stories or episodes held together by a central theme. For purposes of analysis, I used Riessman's approach for breaking the interview into multiple stories. Each

101 interview was segmented by distinguishing the types of exchanges that included  narrative, question-and-answer exchanges, arguments, explanatory, interpretive, and  other forms of discourse. Riessman's definition of narrative is talk organized around  consequential events where the teller takes the listener into a past time and recapitulates what happened in order to make a point. As I listened to the interviews, much of the dialogue involved questions and answers and cognitive, almost programmed responses that did not seem to lead anywhere. It was as if the interviewer as well as the interviewee was struggling to find something but did not know where to look. However, I observed  that now and then we connected and a story emerged. These stories that hung together  around a specific event forced the teller to confront what Riessman sees as a “breach  between the ideal and real, self and society.” I would interpret Riessman’s “self and  society” as including “self and other.” Each interview started with what I will refer to as the “primary story.” The primary story focuses on the event that resulted in domestic violence. This was then followed by dialectical exchange between the participant and  interviewer. I involved questions and answers that elicited a variety of other narrative stories interspersed by other forms of discourse. Identifying these stories became key to the analysis of each interview. Some of these stories were clearly identifiable with  beginnings and ends while others were less defined. Each of the five interviews elicited a minimum of five stories to a maximum of 15 stories. Segments of the interview to be  played to the co-researchers were selected from these stories. For each interview the primary story was defined as the initial telling of the event that led to the domestic violence occurrence. In each of the five interviews the initial telling took between five and ten minutes. There was one exception to this with the

102  participant identified as David. David’s primary story went on for forty-five minutes and  included multiple other stories. Rather than segment out all sub-stories and focuse on the details of the domestic violence, I decided to include complete sections of his primary story so that the co-researcher would get more of an accurate sense of David and how he related his experiences. These initial narrative stories were used as the primary selection to be played to the co-researcher team for each of the five interviews. By using these initial stories, the co-researchers are presented with the primary  presentation, initiated by the researcher in a similar manner for each of the five  participants. This allowed the co-researchers to hear the participant’s story prior to being significantly affected by the dialectical process that followed. It also avoided the effect of conscious and unconscious biases I might have in making this primary selection. From the remaining selections, I eliminated most of the brief or incomplete stories that did not have the framework developed by William Labov.38 Essentially, each story would ideally provide an orientation for the listener, a complicating action, an evaluative aspect, and a resulting action. This process narrowed the selections down to two-to-five stories including the primary one. The next criterion used was to eliminate stories that were repeated. For example, in each interview, segments of the primary story were retold  in varying ways or with a different event but with a similar theme. As each of these stories was examined, they were differentiated by the degree that they showed depth, complexity, and affective content. Thus, where the theme was repeated in different stories, the story that provided the listener with the most complete experience of the teller  was chosen. The same criterion was used in selecting the secondary and spontaneous stories. Only in two interviews were there multiple stories that exceeded the time limit of 

103 15 minutes. In the case of those two, stories were chosen on the criteria based on complexity, depth, and affective content. It should be noted that awareness of potential imaginal structures within story segments was not used as a criterion. However, as would   be expected, the stories that revealed the most complexity, depth, and affective content had the most potential for revealing imaginal structures. Co-Researcher Session. I selected co-researchers who had therapeutic experience

and a background in depth psychology. The role of the co-researchers was to reflect on the recorded segments of the interview. The purpose of this procedure was to test my own interpretations and to produce multiple perspectival interpretations. Kvale describes the importance of this step in his book,  InterViews.39 The co-researchers were asked not only to reflect on the participant’s narrative but also on my participation and influence on the selected segments of each narrative. At the time of these interview sessions, which were recorded, the co-researchers were unaware of my interpretations as well as having limited knowledge of my typology and theoretical model. The session started with a one-hour orientation structured to evoke personal and  collective themes that were related to the agenda reflected on the tapes. This process was initiated by role playing the population being researched, focusing on the question “Who are these researchers who want us to tell our story? Another role play involved taking on the voices of the victims of domestic violence. The session was then directed toward the playing of the taped “primary narrative story” of the first of the five participants. Following that narrative segment, the tape was stopped and the two co-researchers responded to what they had heard. First they dialogued between themselves while I facilitated, encouraging both clarity of what was

104 expressed in the text as well as expanding the text to include new perspectives of the  phenomenon. One by one each selected segment was played and discussed. When all segments for a participant had been played, I asked them what imaginal structures were  present for that participant. I defined imaginal structures to them as personal, cultural, and archetypal themes that have an underlying influence on how a person experiences and responds to situations. I also directed questions toward distinguishing between the self- and other-focused anger and levels of reflexivity of the participants (the reflexivity scale developed by the researcher served as a guide, see Appendix D). Facilitation

included the co-researchers entering into dialogue with the text by having an imaginal conversation with the participant. This same procedure was followed for all five  participants.  Reflections and Analysis of Researcher (Plurality of Seeing). Once again I

returned to my own reflections, this time incorporating the material and input of the  participant, my own first reflections, along with the co-researchers’ reflections and input. The culmination of this process ended with a written summary for each participant. (See summary section of appendix B.) That summary thus became the primary material  presented back to each participant at his second interview.  Re-Interview of Participants. I then returned to the population from whom I

gathered the information. I presented my conclusions to each participant in individual interviews. In these interviews, the men were introduced to the typology and the mythic imagery associated with it. They were supported in identifying and engaging the imaginal structures associated with their anger experiences. The purpose of this reinterview was threefold. Firstly, the interviews served the purpose of reciprocity. The

105 collaborative approach of the research was designed to not only further the understanding of the researcher and the academic community, but to also serve the participants by enhancing their understanding. Secondly, the re-interview was designed to get  participant feedback. I thus presented to the participants my analysis and interpretations along with those of the co-researchers. By doing so, the participants were able to comment on those interpretations as well as to elaborate on their own original statements and include current reflections.40 Their comments and reflections were encouraged by supporting them in a process of identifying and engaging in the imaginal structures associated with their anger experience. Thirdly, the re-interview served as a continued   process of information gathering, adding further to my understanding and interpretations. The re-interview was recorded and the information gathered was added as part of the research. Final Reflection and Analysis of Researcher. For the final time I returned to my

own reflections, this time incorporating the material and input of the re-interview with the  participant. At this point I directed myself toward looking at how the participants’ responses supported or negated the interpretations that had been made. I also looked for  ways that the re-interview added to my understanding of their experience of anger.

Chapter 3 1. Silvan S. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and  Fear (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1991), 115; Carl G. Jung, Alchemical Studies, vol. 13 , trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), par. 58; John G. Gunderson, Borderline Personality Disorder  (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1984); Elizabeth Lemerise and Kenneth A. Dodge, “The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions,”  Handbook of Emotions, ed. Micheal Lewis and Jeannette Haviland (New York: Guilford Press, 1993), 537. 2. Donald W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London, Tavistock Pub., 1971); Heinz Kohut and  Paul H. Ornstein, The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978  (New York: International Universities Press, 1978); Jessica Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction: An Outline of  Intersubjectivity,” Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis, ed. Susan C. Warshaw and Neil J. Skolnick  (Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, 1992), 43-60. 3. Carl G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche . vol. 8 , trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960; 2nd ed., 1969), par. 243; Trudy Mills and  Sherryl Kleinman, “Emotions, Reflexivity, and Action: An Interactionist Analysis,” Social Forces 66, no. 4 (1988): 1009-27; Sheldon Bach, “Perspectives on Self and Object,” Psychoanalytic Review Spring 71, no. 1 (1984): 145-168. Psychoanalyst Sheldon Bach uses the phrase reflective self-awareness in the way I am using the term reflexivity. 4.

Catherine K. Riessman, Narrative Analysis (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,

5.

Ibid., 3-4.

1993), 3.

6. Donald E. Polkinghorne, “Phenomenological Research Methods,” Existential phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology: Exploring the Breadth of Human Experience , ed. Steen Halling and Ronald S. Valle: 41-60. (New York: Plenum Press, 1989), 45. 7.

Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 10-11.

8.

Polkinghorne, “Phenomenological Research Methods,” 45.

9.

Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 3.

10. Polkinghorne, “Phenomenological Research Methods,” 45.

268 11. Elliot George Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1986), 96-105. 12. Ibid., 96 13. Holstein and Gubrium, The Active Interview , 14. John Heron and Peter Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” Qualitative Inquiry , vol. 3, (1997), 284. 15. Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 4. 16. Heron and Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” 284. 17. Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 5. 18. Amedeo Giorgi, Phenomenology and Psychological Research (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesn University Press), 1-8. 19. Polkinghorne, “Phenomenological Research Methods,” 47-48; P. F. Colaizzi, “Psychological Research as the Phenomenologist Views It,” Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology , ed. R. S. Valle and M. King (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 49. 20. A. van Kaam, Existential Foundation of Psychology (New York: Image Books, 1969), 51. 21. Mishler, Research interviewing: Context and narrative, 99. 22. Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 65. 23. Mishler, Research interviewing: Context and Narrative; Riessman, Narrative Analysis . 24. Steinar Kvale, InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing (Thousand  Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1996), 230-31. 25. Ibid., 231. 26. Ibid., 229-252. Heron and Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” 283. Mishler,  Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, 96-105. 27. Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 66-7. 28. Ibid., 67. 29. Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, 97. 30. Aftab Omer has developed the following definition for reflexivity at the Institute of Imaginal Studies, Petaluma California, 1997. “Reflexivity is the capacity to engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience.” By structures he is referring to personal, cultural, and  archetypal themes that have an underlying influence on how a person experiences. 31. At the Institute of Imaginal Studies Aftab Omer has defined “Imaginal Structures” as “assemblies of sensory, affective, and cognitive aspects of experience constellated into images; they both mediate and constitute experience. The specifics of an imaginal structure are determined by an interaction of personal, cultural, and archetypal influences. These influences may be teased apart by attention to the stories that form personal character and the myths that shape cultural life. During the individuation

269  process, imaginal structures are transmuted into emergent and enhanced capacities as well as transformed  identity. Any enduring and substantive change in individual or group behavior requires a transmuting of  imaginal structures. This transmutation depends upon an affirmative turn toward the passionate nature of  the soul.” 32. Kvale, InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, 188-190. 33. Criteria for disqualification: 1) A participant will be disqualified if the actual domestic violence incident took place more than six months prior to the court sentencing. The reason for this is that the longer period of time after the offense occurred would influence the participant’s ability to recall the lived experience, especially the emotional aspects. This could be problematic to a representative  population of domestic violence abusers. Men who elect to go to trial will in some cases be excluded from my sampling due to the period of time it takes to try a case in this county. This will be discussed in more detail in the section on limitations. 2) Individuals who were intoxicated at the time of the incident will also  be disqualified. This interview method relies on the participants remembered experience, which is mildly to extremely affected by any form or intoxication. Intoxication will be operationally defined as any individual whose intoxication is noted in the police report of the incident. Hence, my study will not attempt to address the areas of spousal abuse and intoxication. 3) As previously mentioned, those  participants, who after having been informed of the purpose of the research and wish not to participate, will  be allowed to decline without penalty from the judi cial system. Each participant will be given this choice  both verbally and in writing, and those choosing to participate will be asked to sign the written document. The researcher will document the reasons for the men who decline, as well noting differences in those men who do participate. Such differences we might watch for would be previous spousal abuse convictions, or  a criminal record, type of profession, degree of abuse, and mental health history. All of the information collected will be kept confidential. 34. Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 3. 35. Reason and Rowan speak of the rightness of interpretation to be found in the intersubjective. In this study a continued process of the researcher feeding back his understanding and interpretive moves to the participant becomes a way of checking the “rightness” of his understanding. Peter Reason and John Rowan, Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (New York: J. Wiley, 1994), 243. 36. Riessman, Narrative Analysis, 58. Non-narrative exchanges include, e.g., question and  answer exchanges, arguments, chronicles, and other forms of discourse. 37. Ibid., 59. 38. William Labov, Speech Actions and Reactions in Personal Narrative. In Analyzing  Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. Deborah Tannen (Washington, DC: Georgetown University of Washington Press, 1982), 219-247. 39. Kvale, InterViews, 210-217. 40. Ibid., p. 190.

CHAPTER 4

LEARNINGS

Philosophical criticism has helped me to see that every psychology−my own included −has the character of a subjective confession. . . . I know well enough that every word I utter carries with it something of myself −of my special and unique self with its  particular history in its own particular world. Even when I deal with empirical data I am 1 necessarily speaking about myself. − Carl G. Jung Carl Jung’s words are daunting to every researcher who dedicates years to a  particular topic of inquiry. Any possibility of a nonbiased presentation must be abandoned. I am thus left with trusting that my special and unique self carries with it some universality that applies to others. To address the implication of Jung’s words, I approached my findings and analysis with vigilant self-awareness and maximum disclosure to the reader. With this in mind, I have organized the results into sections that include reflections and plurality of perspectives. Section one begins by presenting a  picture of the men who participated in the research. I refer often to appendices A and B. To give the reader access to each participant’s own words, Appendix A includes selected   portions of the transcripts from each of the five participants. Appendix B is a chronological summary showing the process of my own reflections in coming to understand and analyze each man’s experience. Appendices A and B orient the reader to my progressive steps of analysis and understanding. Following a brief description of the participants, section one presents the imaginal structures that were considered to have influenced these men. The typology will be used 

106

107 as a framework for presenting and making sense of the interview material. Included are reflections and analysis of the process as well as participants’ responses to the results. Section two, “Plurality of Meaning,” is presented in the four personified voices that have carried this dissertation. The first will be the “researcher” who critically examines the results based on a qualitative and narrative approach to research. The second is the “poet” who looks at the mythic, archetypal, and cultural elements of the results. The third is the “therapist” who examines the impact on the participants and  addresses the data in terms of the more dominant diagnostic perspectives used in  psychology. The fourth, the “judge” challenges the research data as to how it did or did  not address the violence as related to the victims.

Data Collection And Analysis

The Interview and The Participants

Using the typology presented in chapter one, the researcher investigated the reported experiences of five men who had physically abused their partners. The investigation focused on their anger and the role of reflexivity as a potential for tapping the transformative aspects inherent in the experience of anger. As indicated in chapter  three, reflexivity has been defined as “the capacity to engage in and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience.”

2

As presented in the methodology chapter, this research used the typology to examine how the behavior of the participants might be determined by the images that momentarily gain dominance. The research used an approach that included a narrative component that solicited conversations from the participants that wou ld access the images that might have influenced their behavior. The interest of the researcher was in

108 how such imaginal structures may have influenced the participant as well as the  participant’s awareness and engagement with those structures. The primary story told by the participants was examined to see both what images arose, as well as the participants’ depth of awareness of them. As the interview  progressed, I encouraged each participant to reflect on his experience. I was looking for  images that would contribute to a deeper understanding of his behavior. This included  encouraging the man to relate stories from his past. Following that interview, coresearchers, Molly and Greg, met and listened to portions of the participants’ stories with the intent to uncover imaginal structures that they thought might be influencing each  participant. These images and reflections, along with my own, were then presented back  to the participants for further reflection and comment. In Appendix B a detailed  description of this process is given for each participant. Using Kvale’s approach to the “context of interpretation and communities of  validation” I present the imaginal structures that presented themselves. Kvale’s first level 3

is validation via the self-understanding of the interviewed participant. In the case of this research, I started with each participants’ initial telling of his story (referred to as Primary  Narrative Story) and how he constructed meaning out of the events that happened to him involving domestic violence. In each of the five client cases, the primary story ranged  from five to forty-five minutes. The transcripts of each these primary stories are included  in Appendix A. For one participant’s primary story, segments were excluded due to length and digression, primarily to make it adaptable and comparable to the other stories for the co-researchers’ analytical segment.

109 Each of the primary stories included some form of explanation for as to why the incident of domestic violence had occurred. The primary reason given in each case involved a situation either immediate or ongoing, created by their spouse or other  external outside conditions. Included in their definition of the problem were the following: wife’s hormonal disorder, wife’s smoking in front of kids, wife’s inability to discipline her child or not allowing him to do so, participant had too many beers,  participant felt manipulated and controlled by wife, wife being lazy, influences by the church, lack of communication, and financial problems. All explanations were based on external situations or blamed another person for their violence. Only a few of the men even hinted at self or relationship patterns of behavior as possible causes of the incidents. From the standpoint of reflexivity as defined in this study, none of the primary stories showed signs of awareness or engagement of underlying structures. There appeared to be no awareness that personal, cultural, and archetypal themes might have an underlying influence on how a person experiences and responds to a situation. Using the reflexivity scale provided in Appendix D, the participants’ descriptions were consistently at the middle and low end. The Five Participants

The following is a brief description of each of the five interviewees. Their names and identifiable features have been changed to maintain their privacy. The information given primarily comes from Appendix A, which includes each man’s initial description of himself and the incident of domestic violence.  Jack: Jack describes himself as a 31-year-old truck driver an d mover who works long

hours. He is a tall, muscular man with a reserved but friendly presence. He was raised   by conservative religious parents. He describes his wife as the opposite of himself. In

110 his words, “she is a melodramatic Italian.” He describes his life as stressful, but says he handles it better than his father who now suffers from high blood pressure and other   physical ailments. Jack and his wife have three small children, the oldest of which is five. His arrest for domestic violence resulted from his slapping a cigarette out of his wife’s mouth. He described two other physical altercations with his wife. The cause he gave for all the incidents was his wife’s “hormones” which cause her to h ave emotional mood swings. In the latest incident, where he was charged with domestic violence, he additionally considered her smoking in front of the kids as a cause for his violent response.  Mark: Mark is in his early forties. He has two children, a boy and a girl, both

approaching their teens. His wife left him a few months before this interview. The reason he gave for the marriage ending was financial problems related to buying a house and interference by his wife’s church. Mark is a “farm boy” who grew up in the woods. He was involved in a major car accident four years ago, which almost took his life and  left him disabled. Mark was referred to the local Domestic Violence Center due to excessive verbal rage that occurred during court mediation over the custody of his children. Mark was not charged with domestic violence.  Norman:  Norman is a 23 year-old young man who works for a grocery store. Norman

tells us that he was adopted as a child and was raised by caring parents though, as he puts it, his father has a problem with yelling. Norman had been living for two years with a young woman named Dawn. She is 20-years-old and has a one-and-a-half-year-old  daughter. Their relationship ended on the night that Norman was arrested for domestic violence. He relates that during an argument about his remaining in the relationship

111 Dawn went wild and began to hit him. He held her against the wall, giving her bruises on her arms, for which he was arrested and charged with spousal abuse. The reason he gave for the incident was her laziness and her “going wild.” Norman also described his “first love,” the mother of his son who left him before his son was born. This happened two years ago.  David: David is a 37 year-old energetic man. He is currently back in school, at a junior 

college. He has been married for two years to his second wife. Before that he had not  been in a relationship for 15 years. He has one son who just graduated from high school and a two-year-old son with his current wife. The domestic violence incident that  brought him into this study involved an intense argument with his wife about the  behavior of a four-your-old stepchild. It led to a physical altercation between them that left her with a nosebleed. She subsequently left with their son and his stepchild, charged  David with spousal abuse, and filed for divorce. Though the argument was about his disciplining the stepchild, David believed his wife set him up so she could call the police. Conrad: Conrad is a forty-one-year-old self-employed landscape contractor. He has

three children who are mostly grown and has been married to the same woman for over  20 years. He describes the relationship as generally great but at times frustrating. He said that in years past his wife has physically abused him; in one case, she knocked him semi-unconscious. Conrad says that prior to his arrest for domestic violence there had  never been an incident where he physically assaulted his wife. In the incident that caused  his arrest, he pushed her down, slapped her and twisted her nose. He related being surprised and very embarrassed by his actions. Conrad believed that his having a few  beers contributed to his violent behavior but he did not consider it to be the cause. He

112  primarily blamed the incident on his reaction to her trying to control him and tell him what to do. Uncovering Possible Underlying Structures

Potential underlying structures were identified and investigated in each of the five  participants’ stories through collaborative dialogue with each participant in the first session. The structures materialized as a co-creation of myself as interviewer, the  participants, and the co-researchers (Molly and Greg). These imaginal structures, explored with each participant during the first and second interviews, exhibited long-term themes in their lives, such as betrayal, abandonment, being manipulated or controlled, humiliation, and being emotionally overwhelmed. During the first 30 minutes of the interview none of the men communicated a conscious awareness of these structures as having a primary influence on the domestic violence episode in their primary narrative story. Three men, however, made some indirect references that indicated some awareness that the feelings that might have been related to potential underlying structures. Later in the interviews themes gradually emerged in each man’s story that contributed to the co-creation of possible imaginal structures identifiable by both researcher and participant as being linked to their anger and violence. When the men returned for a second interview, each responded affirmatively when given a description of the researcher’s perceptions of the imaginal structures that contributed to the act of  domestic violence. Input for developing these structures came from the participants’ reflections in the first interviews, the observations of the co-researchers and from my own reflections. In most cases their affirmation included an amplification and building of the

113 significance of those imaginal structures. I will address issues concerning their  affirmations in the Reflections and Description of Process section. Appendix B, INTERVIEW REFLECTIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND SUMMARIES, details the researcher’s process with each participant as he reflected on what imaginal structures might be influencing them. The content reflects the input of   participant and co-researchers, Molly and Greg. Appendix B also includes a brief  description of the five participants, followed by a review of the imaginal structures  presented along with the participants’ responses and collaboration during the follow-up interview where they are given the summary interpretations.

Analysis of Self- and Other-Focused Anger and Reflexivity

In order to examine the interplay of self- and other-focused anger and reflexivity, I return to the constructs that define my field of inquiry. I have been investigating the “experience of anger” of five participants as related to events that involve a cts of  domestic violence (four physical and one emotional). By definition, these acts involved  anger that was other-focused. Also, these acts are theoretically non-reflexive, as defined  in the methodology section and in the Rating Scale for Reflexivity (Appendix D). Hence,  by definition, the act of physical or verbal aggression by each of our five participants is other- focused anger that is non-reflexive. The research thus becomes not a question of  the act but rather a more complex question of whether these designations of self- and  other- focused anger and reflexivity allow us to distinguish patterns that give us (participant, researcher, and the reader of this study) an enhanced understanding of  meaning that might ultimately influence behavior. Operationally, by using the typology as framework, we can see that identifying and engaging with the imaginal structures

114 associated with the participants’ anger experience has potential as catalyst for  transformation. I now look at the stories told from the four perspectives of self-focused  and reflexive, self-focused and non-reflexive, other-focused and non-reflexive and otherfocused and reflexive. The Four Constellations Of Self/Other-Focused Anger And Reflexivity Self-Focused Anger and Reflexivity (Horus the Hawk). In order to address the

relationship of self- and other-focused anger and reflexivity, I return to our guiding metaphor of the myth of Osiris. Our interest is in the phenomenon of anger turned  inward where the individual is still reflexive, able to reflect on and be aware of his or her  anger, while inhibiting any outward expression or acknowledgement of it to others. This  process generally involves psychological suppression. Osiris’ brother “Horus the Hawk”  best represents the awareness of one’s anger without outwardly showing or acting on it. In the mythology, Horus the Hawk was reluctant even to be born. According to Jean Houston’s translation, he said of life, “it is an endless striving, full of unfilled desire and  regret.” But the particular image that stands out about this Horus is that once born “he clung to the belly of the sky, a hawk of gold whose clawed feet never pressed against the earth. Keen were his eyes and wide his vision.”

4

In psychological terms, Horus brings

us a constellation ruled by fear. He indicates that it is far better to rise above conflict than to embrace it. In this example, rising above means to have a keen eye so that one can spot danger in order to avoid it. However, as the myth tells us, the hawk’s feet never  touch the ground. This symbolizes the shadow side of Horus the Hawk, for he is ungrounded and unconnected, avoiding the emotionality that comes with life.

115 As we look at our five participants in relationship to their anger, none seem to fully carry this dynamic of Horus. For the most part, when confronted by anger, our   participants either strike out or retreat down to the underworld as represented by Set and  Osiris. However, one is seldom driven solely by one archetype. Our participants’ stories show signs that these men at times struggle to escape the conflict by following Horus’ flight to the belly of the sky. Norman, particularly, did not want to engage in conflict with his girlfriend. He spent months avoiding any discussion with her or about his dissatisfaction with their relationship. During that time, however, he did give the relationship much thought. Even after the conflict was over, he regretted it and wished  that it could have been avoided. Significantly, he was not saying he wanted to be with her, but rather that they could have parted without conflict. Jack, too, would prefer to avoid conflict. Though he attempts to fly above the chaos of his home life, he quickly tends to fall down into Osiris’ underworld. Jack’s attempt at Horus’ flight to the sky comes from looking for solutions to avoid conflict. His intellect tells him there must be a way to resolve the chaos or conflict. His head seems to say to him, “I can think my way out of this.” As he puts it, “I just want her to tell me what to do.” Similarly, David and  Mark, at times, make their flight into the sky. David has spent years of his life out of  relationship, and Mark retreats to the backcountry of his youth to be alone and away from the bombardment of life’s conflicts. However, none of our five participants are  particularly at home in Horus’ world when it comes to conflict. Self-Focused Anger and Low Reflexivity. This constellation is where anger is

internally focused and reflexivity is lost. Unable to handle the experience of anger or  conflict, the person represses his or her awareness of it. In the extreme it is a pervasive

116 tendency toward despair, diminished vitality, and depression that covers over the rage and mistrust that is beneath the surface. The metaphor that carries this constellation is Osiris. As we remember, in Egyptian mythology Osiris was first born of the god-human incarnations. Osiris’ life was represented by fertility. As a young man he brought stability and growth to Egypt. Then in the prime of his youth and at the height of his reign, his brother Set took his kingdom from him by trickery and left Osiris nailed in a coffin to die, thus sentenced to eternal life in the underworld. The Osiris’ myth with its images holds the psychological dynamics of entrapment, abandonment, powerlessness, or  what Robert Lifton describes as the numbing of modern life. From a depth psychology  perspective, it is here in the underworld that we discover the imaginal structures that impact our lives. For our five participants, a number of them h ad strong identification with the myth of Osiris. Jack, for one, immediately identified with Osiris being caught in a coffin. He described his truck cab as “Osiris’ coffin with a stereo system.” He spoke of how addictive Osiris’ coffin can be: the more time spent there, the harder it is to return to the everyday life of family and chaos. Jack’s story has many parallels to the myth of Osiris. As the hard-working husband, Jack comes home and collapses on the couch in front of the TV, so common in today’s culture. The spouse finds herself living with an emotionally unavailable partner. Much like Isis, Osiris’ wife, she finds herself trying to awaken Osiris from his inert state, looking for the passion she once knew. Many of Jack’s descriptions of his conflicts with his wife give the impression of her trying to engage with him “to wake him up.” For  example he says, “She will grab my keys. She wants me there to vent at me. But I can

117 only take so much” (Jack, transcript line 110). His wife, like Isis in the myth, tries to awaken him. For Jack that awakening is overwhelming. He makes every effort to retreat. If she blocks his retreat he reacts with a counterattack. Jack described these conflicts with the words, “the tone of her voice and yelling. It would just be too much” (Jack, transcript line 148). It is here that Jack drops down in his ability to be reflexive. His words “it’s just too much” express his feeling of being overwhelmed. At this point, as Jack has told us, he wants nothing more than to retreat; when that is impossible he strikes back with words or actions. In the re-interview Jack also disclosed that periodically he self-medicates, using street drugs to enhance being “numb” to the stress of work and family. He described that he does it to avoid being destructive either verbally or physically to his wife. Mark’s relationship to Osiris is far different from Jack’s. In the myth of Osiris, as described earlier, there is a point where Set finds Osiris’ coffin, and seized by a fit of  rage, Set dismembers Osiris into 14 pieces and throws them into the river. Mark’s story gives us the impression of how one might live in the fear of that dismemberment. Most  potent in Mark’s story was his connection between being in conflict with his wife and an underlying feeling of inadequacy and humiliation rooted in his childhood. Mark referred  to his father as a strong German character who was like a little grizzly bear and “you knew if you did wrong there would be consequences” (Mark, transcript lines 86-88). There is little doubt that Mark grew up with physical and psychological fear of  dismemberment by his father. However, Mark’s descriptions of his humiliation as a child  going to school are even stronger. Mark, a farm boy, found himself at eight years old in a class for mentally retarded kids. He still remembers how the other kids teased him. The

118 conflicts with his wife over their financial problems brought back those feelings of  inadequacy and humiliation. As the myth describes, the dismemberment results in Osiris’  phallus being eaten by fish. Psychologically, this represents the loss of one’s power. The translation for Mark is that internally he lives in a state of fear, feeling powerless to deal with the world. For Mark, Osiris’ coffin is not a place of numbness or retreat, as it is for  Jack, but rather a place of overwhelming fear, where he needs to be ever vigilant to the dangers of the world around him. Other-Focused Anger and Low-Reflexivity. This constellation is where anger is

outwardly focused on others and reflexivity is lost. It is best exemplified by intense explosive reactions. The metaphor that carries this constellation is Set, Osiris’ brother  and enemy. Set, born second as both god and human in Egyptian mythology, carries the archetype of the warrior, seen later in Greek mythology as Ares. Set’s birth typifies his essence. He argues to be born first so that he can combat Ra, the sun god, who has  prevented his birth and that of his brothers and sisters for 16,000 years. Houston writes that, still in the womb, he shouts, “could I but see him face to face, I’d poke out his eye.” 5

Set can be equated with the primitive hunter archetype. While Osiris was building his

kingdom based on agriculture, Set led his band of men through the woods teaching them to be hunters. In this constellation, numbness or fear is not the problem. Set instinctively responds to conflict with action. All of our participants in some form experienced being taken over by the power of this archetype. This archetype exemplifies the autonomic nature of anger and how it can override the conscious ego. Perhaps Conrad best verbalized it when he said, “I was totally out of control. I mean, I was just so angry that

119 she was trying to control me. And . . . I just blew into a rage. . . I just wanted to fight against this ‘thing’ of her trying to control me” (Conrad, transcript line 10). Of the five participants, David is most identified with the warrior archetype. David told story after story of his battles with police, the courts, city officials, teenagers, his wife, and the list goes on. The issue, however, is not in David being a warrior but rather the warrior in David taking him over. In the second interview he reflected on how this occurs for him by describing what happens to him in contact with police. “It’s like I start out with, how can I help you officer. And before we are done it’s like, yeah, you are damn straight you don’t want me to get out of the car because they did not give you enough stuff to protect yourself you jerk. ‘And that’s how I’m feeling.’ I would   probably make a grease spot out of you” (David, re-interview tape). By going into battle mode, David is defending himself from experiencing feelings of inadequacy. As he says, he grew up always striving to be the best, hoping that his father would recognize him, but he felt it never happened. Other-Focused Anger and Reflexivity. In the last constellation of my typology

anger is directed toward others with reflexivity. This constellation represents an anger  experience that has the potential for transformative change. The metaphor that carries this constellation is Horus twice-born, son of Osiris. Jung equates this Horus with the transformation or rebirth of Osiris. In terms of our typology, Horus holds qualities of all the other constellations. Horus the Hawk represents his first birth, with his keen vision (awareness or consciousness in psychological terms), but without the ability to act or  relate. In the myth, Osiris instructs his son Horus from the underworld. This instruction is based on knowledge that he has acquired from that realm. Represented here is the

120  psychological process of becoming aware of instinctive and automatic processes (the imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience). In Egyptian mythology, Horus becomes a warrior doing battle with Set to avenge his father’s death and show his own courage and strength to be ruler before taking his rightful place as the first Pharaoh of Egypt. In this way, Horus twice-born inhabits the full range of man’s instinctive and  autonomic processes as well as having self-awareness, which gives him the ability to both reflect and act.  Needless to say, this constellation is not familiar ground to our five participants. In their defense, this is not familiar ground to many in our culture today. It is not easy to  be reflexive in the middle of conflict, with the destructive power of anger hovering about. Examining this constellation in relationship to our five participants is essential in addressing the topic of this research: the transformative potential of anger. It is important to look at what might keep these men from manifesting that transformative  potential. As the myth tells us, his dead father, Osiris, has instructed Horus from the underworld. This suggests that the images of the underworld need addressing if one is to achieve mastery of this constellation. For Mark, the underworld contains his humiliation and inadequacies. Herein lies the danger for him. Confrontation for Mark brings about the re-enactment of those overwhelming affects he experienced as a child. To be reflexive during those moments of confrontation requires that he engage the humiliation that he experienced as a child. Though there is potential for transformation during those moments, the terror of revisiting those feelings stops Mark from taking that step. Similarly, David knows well about being the warrior. What he avoids at times of  confrontation is an underlying terror of being judged. As he revealed in the interview,

121 even his wife’s leaving was representative of his father’s lack of caring, judging and  eventual abandonment of him. To engage reflexively with his anger in times of conflict, David would need to confront the sense that his self worth is being challenged by someone in authority. Jack, on the other hand, fears the position of warrior. He retreats to the solitude of his truck or self-medicates with street drugs rather than to risk his destructive nature. His numbness becomes his protection against feelings of any sort. Perhaps Conrad is the most conscious of the pain of betrayal in his life and has reflected  much on it. He also seems to engage his wife in these areas of his conflict. However, his story suggests that when the conflict touches too closely to the betrayal issue, he loses his ability to be reflexive while in that engagement. As exemplified by the domestic violence incident, he regressed into a state of uncontrolled acting out. At those times he is not able to be a warrior while experiencing his vulnerability or fear of betrayal.  Reflections and Description of Process Critical analysis. As previously indicated in this chapter and in Appendix B, all

four returning participants gave affirmation to the interpretations presented back to them in the second interview. Those interpretations particularly focused on the possible imaginal structures influencing their act of violence. Any affirmation such as this, according to Kvale, needs a critical analysis in order to include participant feedback as 6

one of the contributing validations of the analysis. Questions need to be asked such as: Were they simply pleasing the researcher? Did the “professional authority” of the researcher influence them? Did they, despite the disclosure, feel there was something to  be gained by pleasing or agreeing with the researcher?

122 These questions were examined closely with each of the four participants who returned. The last question, regarding whether any of the four participants felt there was something to be gained by agreeing with my analysis, will be addressed first. Though it is possible that one or more of the participants felt there was something to be gained by agreement, I took particular care to reinforce for them that what they said or did not say in this interview would have no impact in relationship to the court or the program that most of them would be attending. The transcripts include my description and disclosures as well as comments from the participants. I was not able to detect any indicators that these men believed otherwise. Was my “authority” as a “knowledgeable professional” influencing their  agreement and or collusion in my interpretations? Were they just trying to please me? Before examining the participants’ responses to these questions, I will discuss the attributes I saw in the participants, following the first interview, which I thought might influence their feedback. All four participants gave varying degrees of deference to me. Mark seemed particularly “reverent” to my credentials. Many of his comments about himself and his wife referred to education or lack of it. David, on the other hand, showed  a contradictory attitude toward authority within his stories. He often identified  authorities such as judges and the police as his “buddies” and at other times related  stories that showed his defiance toward people in positions of authority. I imagined that David was just as likely to reject what I had to say as to agree with it. What was unlikely, from the way David presented himself, was that he would be neutral. Jack’s story and his way of relating indicated something very different from David’s. In the same way that he indicated that he avoids confrontation with his wife, I would suspect that if Jack 

123 disagreed with what I said, he would most likely remain remain silent. Conrad, on the other  hand, gave the impression that he was most interested in an interchange of perspectives, and seemed to have no propensity to either accept or reject my interpretations. Also relevant to addressing the participants’ authenticity is their motivation toward being understood. Each participant had a personal and highly emotional emotional attachment to how he made sense of his experience. Violence is not a minor event in their lives. How it is interpreted from their perspective defines who they are. As shown in their stories, each has struggled with how o thers see them now that they have ha ve been charged with and convicted of spousal abuse. This struggle has the tendency to make these men defensive about their violence, and they often point a blameful finger at their   partners. This comes through in varying degrees in each of their stories. Consequently, our research validity is augmented by each man’s reluctance to have his behavior (which represents to him his self-image) defined by another, such as myself. I also took into consideration the potential that my interpretation might be more “agreeable” to the  participant than his own, which could foster a false affirmation. With a critical awareness of the various motivations that might affect a false affirmation or unauthentic agreement, I will examine bo th the presentation and the reception of the men to the analysis that was presented to them in the second interview. Presentation of Imaginal Structures by Researcher to Participants. Before

looking at the participants’ responses, it is of value to investigate the influences that impacted my presentations. The actual information information presented to each participant came from the summary section of Appendix B, Reflections, Interpretations and Summary. With David and Jack, I narrated that summary while holding it in front of me so that I

124 could catch the various important points. When I played back the tape, I found found that I had  used language that I thought would be more understandable to what I perceived as their  worlds. My dialogue included some slang. slang. Though I was not conscious of choosing to to do this, it is a style that has been bee n helpful when I have worked with various groups of men who have a different educational or cultural background than my own. I also used words like self-awareness rather than reflexivity. In reviewing the tape, I was particularly p articularly critical of whether I softened my summary in order to encourage agreement. Though my presentation had the intent of  giving a convincing interpretation of their the ir experience, I did not find myself playing down the more negative elements of that that interpretation. However, when I listened to the the description given to Mark, I noticed my hesitancy to be critical. Though I had not foreseen it, my presentation was done with concern and sensitivity to what I saw as the  primary underlying structure of his story. That structure, I believed, was driven by humiliation. My softening was not intended intended for getting agreement but rather to avoid  deepening what I perceived as a wound of the self. As I gave feedback to Mark, I had  unconsciously chosen to collaborate with him to enhance his understanding, as well as my own. My analysis was modified to be sensitive to his pain and suffering. Coincidentally, Mark was the one participant who had not physically abused his wife. Though I suspect that the primary p rimary influence on this was not his level o f rage, but rather an overwhelming feeling of shame and self-judgment. self-judgment. For Conrad, in contrast to the the others, I chose to read directly from from the summary in my my presentation to him. I was both aware at the time (which was confirmed by listening to the tape) that I wanted to be as direct as

125  possible with him, believing that this approach would produce honesty from him in return. Feedback and Affirmation from Participants. As initially stated in this section,

each of the four men who returned generally affirmed the interpretive analysis of the researcher. This was shown in various ways. The most affirmative response response was not a simple agreement; it was when the participants would listen to the interpretation and then expand beyond it, adding both new material and complexity to the analysis. For Jack this meant giving detailed descriptions de scriptions and making use of the typologies metaphor to describe how he numbs himself when overwhelmed. He described his truck  cab as “Osiris’ coffin with a stereo system.” system.” He also disclosed that periodically he would  self-medicate with street drugs to enhance being “numb” to the stress of work and family. He described that he does it to avoid being destructive either verbally or physically to his wife. David, similar to Jack, expanded on my interpretation. He gave further examples of his propensity to become a “reactive warrior” who lashes out at whomever is in his way. He also talked of how he will isolate isolate himself from others. David related his own cycle of starting with retreating from others (Horus the Hawk), then moving into a depression (Osiris), followed by becoming a reactive warrior (Set), battling with whomever is available. Mark on the other hand was not nearly as descriptive in expanding upon my interpretation as David or Jack. His reaction was more one of astonishment. astonishment. He repeatedly responded with amazement that someone could “read him like a book.” Not surprisingly, he could not expand upon the interpretation to increase his understanding.

126 This corresponds with his low capacity for reflection as noted by both Molly and Greg. In fact his astonishment almost immediately took a paranoid direction, as he said, “Gee, I wonder how many people I know can see through me me like you.” Though Mark did not dwell on this, it does give an indication of the fragile fragile and fearful world he lives in. He  particularly identified that humiliation and guilt are major influences on him. As much as Mark showed astonishment and agreement with my interpretation, I was left with a feeling feeling of pseudo-understanding. I wondered if Mark would would add this to the list of information information he carried about himself. I also realized I was pulled into collusion supporting the humiliation that Mark Mark lives with. By softening my interpretation interpretation to him, I was unconsciously affirming affirming that he was somehow “inadequate.” Therapeutically, this is exactly what Mark does not need. Conrad’s response to the interpretation was different from that of the other three. Though he acknowledged that the interpretation “makes sense,” he seemed to want more. His first response was to tell a story that came to h im while he was listening to my summary. He started with “I don’t know how this fits fits in, but it came to me while you were reading.” This typified Conrad’s interaction, which involved both exploration of  thoughts as well as insights insights into self-awareness. As Molly said, “I like like this guy, I could  do good therapy with him.” I felt Conrad left the second session less satisfied than the others. As he put it “that all makes sense, and I basically agree agree with it, but how do I change?” I felt Conrad was the only one who understood the power of the imaginal structures and how they influence us.

127 Summary of Results

What I have shown in this chapter is how the imaginal structures may have significantly influenced each of the five participants in relation to the incidence of  domestic violence. This chapter relates how the new stories collaboratively constructed   by the participant, the co-researchers, and myself evoked imaginal structures that were initially invisible to the participants and were not incorporated in their primary narrative  presentations. The above analysis of the process, the participant’s participation, the coresearchers participation, and my self-reflection are all presented to give validation to the authenticity of the imaginal structures structures produced. Were these the only structures influencing the domestic violence? Most likely not; however, the process taken in the form of collaborative, reflective research supports the conclusion that they are the  primary structures for each of these five participants. Issues of validity will be addressed  in the next section. This chapter made use of the typology of anger in order to differentiate the various ways the participants responded to their experience of anger. The imaginal structures that were identified by the co-researchers, the participants, and myself were discussed in terms of the typologies of four differentiations. differentiations. The results indicated that the men in the study had a limited level of awareness of the imaginal structures at the time of  their domestic violence. violence. However, whether increased awareness would have impacted  impacted  their behavior remains to be seen. seen. Some of the men, most notably Conrad, showed a strong capacity for reflexive thought when in a non-angered state. Most of their stories stories indicated that at the time of o f their anger their capacity to be reflexive was diminished. The interviews give us limited information as to what would happen if these men were

128  both highly reflexive and angry at the same time. David, as described earlier, had  awareness of his projection of his father during the violence with his wife. This was a key part of the imaginal structure that was more fully developed in the interviews. However, his story showed how he was unable to engage that projection. Consequently, he played out his destructive pattern, despite his awareness. Though it would be appropriate to argue that his awareness was still too minimal to affect his behavior, it  behooves us also to consider an alternative explanation. Perhaps his inability to engage the structures, even with some awareness, is due to the power of those imaginal structures. In general, for the five participants, the stories that were produced in collaboration with myself as researcher produced evidence of all five men directing their anger  internally. For three of the men, this was a dominant theme in how they dealt with conflict. A number of their stories vividly demonstrate their violence as having come from an excessive amount of non-other expressed anger, particularly toward intimate others, leaving them with a sense of powerlessness. Words like humiliated, manipulated, overwhelmed, controlled, abandoned, and betrayed dominated most of the descriptions they gave relating to the imaginal structures. The complexity of each participant’s experience was presented while concurrently addressing patterns or constellations that could be distinguished by the relationship of  self- and other-focused anger and reflexivity. The approach to analysis involved the weaving together of experience, memory, and reflection. The results presented focused  on how the designations of self- and other-focused anger and reflexivity allow us to distinguish patterns that give us (participant, researcher, and aud ience) enhanced 

129 understanding, meaning and ultimately influenced behavior. In the following section, I address the data from four different perspectives with the intent of adding more depth and   plurality of understanding. The four voices as described earlier will be the researcher, the  poet, the therapist, and the judge.

Plurality of Meaning The Researcher: Narrative Analysis

I, as researcher of this dissertation, looked at the expression of anger as the domestic violence abuser experiences it. As I listened to the stories of abusers, I actively  participated with them in a weaving of experience, memory, and reflection toward  understanding of their experience of anger both for their purposes and for the field of   psychology. The research was designed to investigate the role of reflexivity in relationship to self- and other-focused anger by entering the world of the domestic violence abuser. The supposition is that an in-depth exploration of the anger experience of these men would elaborate and give subjective support to the contention that reflexivity in relationship to self- and other-focused anger may be a key variable affecting whether an anger expression becomes destructive or constructive. The potential role of  identifying and engaging with imaginal structures associated with anger was viewed as a catalyst for transformative change. In this section I address, from the standpoint of the “researcher,” whether I have contributed to the understanding of the above contentions. From a traditional positivist research perspective questions would be asked such as: How do we determine that the interpretations and analysis that were produced go beyond a subjective interpretation? Did the typology and theoretical model predetermine what I, as a researcher, saw in these

130 men? Are we able to generalize from what was found in these participants to the field of  domestic violence and anger experiences? Is there any measurable data to validate that reflexivity was a primary variable influencing the participants’ expressions of anger? Lastly, does the data produced indicate that the difference of self- and other-focused  anger is relevant to the understanding of the experience of anger? As I have indicated, this research is qualitative and moves to a different paradigm from the positivist approach in its search for understanding. However, the above questions still have relevance and must be addressed, even if the study is not designed to  produce measurable results from a positivist approach. My approach to analysis is qualitative and falls into the category of participatory research. According to Steinar  Kvale, the standard construction of validity, reliability, and generalizability used in the social sciences become inadequate in verifying knowledge that is produced from 7

qualitative research. Although Kvale rejects the notion of objective universal truth, he “accepts the possibility of specific local, personal, and community forms of truth, with the focus on daily life and local narrative.”

8

Kvale approaches reliability, validity, and 

generalizability from what he calls a moderate postmodern perspective. In this section, I address the various issues of “knowing” as they specifically relate to my research methodology and analysis, using Kvale’s concepts along with those of Peter Reason, 9

John Heron, Elliot Mishler, and other qualitative research theorists.

With emphasis on Kvale’s steps to analysis and Reason’s participatory approac h, there are three primary methods within my research that give support to my claims. The first method is the use of the participants’ participation as co-researchers in the results obtained. Second is the participation of two therapists in the interpretation of the material

131  produced. Third is the reflexive stance of myself showing the steps I took toward  interpretation of the material produced. Participant participation as co-researchers

Heron and Reason in a Participatory Inquiry Paradigm write, Inquiry methodology within a participative worldview needs to be one that draws on this extended epistemology in such a way that critical subjectivity is enhanced   by critical intersubjectivity; hence, a collaborative form of inquiry, in which all involved engage together in democratic dialogue as co-researchers and as co10 subjects. As a researcher undertaking the search for knowing, I have attempted to adhere to Heron and Reason’s collaborative methods of inquiry. This is a methodology wherein the researcher is also participant and the participant is also researcher. There are ways that this research has attained that goal and ways that it has not. To be fully collaborative, the  participants, five domestic violence abusers, would have participated in the actual design of this research inquiry. Due to my own limitations as a researcher, and external  practicalities, this was not done. However, the design and methodology was greatly influenced by the six years I spent working as a facilitator of domestic violence abuser  groups. The more than one hundred men who shared their lives, suffering, and shame with me during those years have informed and guided my inquiry. Particularly influential was the importance those men placed on group enactment and re-creations of domestic violence situations. It was through these enactments that those men came face-to-face with the feelings and images that haunted them and contributed to their domestic violence. It was my participation and empathic resonance with their process of discovery that contributed to the design and methodology of this research.

132 Short of being participants in the design of this research, the actual participants were approached as co-researchers, being told that I was interested in their collaboration toward the understanding of anger and their individual domestic violence experience. Following Catherine Riessman’s approach to narrative analysis, I listened to each man’s story with the assumption that the telling of it was his way of making sense out of a 11

consequential event that resulted in domestic violence.

Using Heron and Reason’s

frame for participatory research, I further proposed to each participant that if they allowed their story to unfold as a dialogue, that the two of us could mutually further our  12

knowledge beyond the limitations of personal subjectivity.

Using Reason’s concept of 

critical subjectivity, the dialectical exchange challenge d both participant and myself to use a critical inter-subjective evaluation of how e ach of us were making sense of this experience of domestic violence. Through this method of dialectical exchange, along with fostering an in-depth understanding, each man’s story was allowed to take on new dimensions of complexity. The interpreted story they heard in the re-interview was, thus, a story co-created by them, Molly and Greg (the co-researchers) and myself, producing new understanding of their domestic violence experience. The participants’ affirmation of that story as being representative of their e xperience is one form of validation, 13

according to Kvale.

Kvale speaks of context of interpretation and communities of 

validation. The first of which is self-understanding, validated by the interviewed   participant. The enthusiastic responses of the four returning participants give strong evidence, not necessarily of the truth of the interpretations, but rather of the validity of  the interpretations as meaningful to the participants and to their self-understanding.

133 Primary to the results was the contention that imaginal structures played a significant role in the violence of each participant. We saw in the first interview that, in the initial telling of their story, the men had little awareness of the structures, particularly at the time of the domestic violence incident. However, via dialectical exploration, imaginal structures became visible. In some cases, it was the participant’s own reflection that gave awareness to one or more structures that had been influencing him. For others, those imaginal structures became visible through a combination of reflections by  participants, co-researchers, and myself. All four participants who returned for reinterview affirmed the structures presented as significant contributors to their domestic violence. More importantly, all four were able to use the symbolic representation of  those imaginal structures to further elaborate and symbolically engage their experience of  domestic violence with added imagery and additional stories. Those descriptions, along with their enthusiasm of seeing their experience in a new way, gave authenticity to the relevance of those imaginal structures co-created for e ach participant. The research was designed not only to look at imaginal structures but also to evaluate patterns of the structures that affected domestic violence. This was not done, nor was it the intent, without predetermined assumptions. In fact, the research was designed to see if the typology previously presented would both distinguish patterns as well as give a conceptual frame that would enhance the understanding of domestic violence and anger. The typology was used as a tool for describing the domestic violence experience. For each of our participants, that typology (distinguishing high and low reflexivity and self- and other-focused anger) was used to describe the interpretations made by myself, the researcher. The primary variable of reflexivity was defined in this

134 research as “the capacity to engage in and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience.” As previously mentioned, all five participants showed little or no ability in recognizing those structures when they first presented their  experience of domestic violence. Each of the four who returned for a second interview found resonance in the structures that were presented to them as key to their violence. Without solicitation they reported feeling that what they had learned would affect them  positively in the future. Though such testimony can certainly be challenged regarding future behavior, it does however support the constructs presented as being potentially compatible and representionally meaningful to the participant’s lived world. Ultimately, the hope would be that awareness of those structures at the time of conflict would  transform destructive anger into a constructive outcome. In alliance with participatory research, my intent includes the fostering of enhanced practical knowledge, described by Torbert in Kvale’s book  InterViews, as “underlined the pre-eminence of practical knowing with his view that what we need is an action inquiry useful to the actor at and  the point of action rather then a reflective science about action.”

14

The second variable in the research was self-focus vs. other-focused anger. What the research showed from the elaborations of four of the participants was that distinctions like high versus low reflexivity gave them a tool for more clearly distinguishing their  experience. As I described earlier, they showed enthusiasm in pointing out how they moved from one mode of operation to another in varying life situations. For example, describing how they at first numb themselves to the world and then react, often without self-control. This was particularly seen in the stories of Jack, David, and Norman. The most informative aspect of the collaboratively developed stories in regard to self- and 

135 other-focused anger was that each man saw how his self-directed anger contributed  directly to his becoming destructive toward his partner. Co-researchers Participation

The second check on the authenticity of the results of this dissertation involved  the participation of two co-researchers. Kvale states that by using several interpreters for  the same interview, a certain control of haphazard or biased subjectivity in analysis is 15

 possible.

He further suggests that not only do interpreters add reliability to specific

interpretations, but also that multiple interpretations can strengthen interview research by 16

adding depth and richness to what is being expressed.

I used Molly and Greg as

independent interpreters to reflect on the tape segments from all five interviews. Without my input, they reflected on the primary stories as well as additional segments of each taped interview. Their reflections were tape-recorded, and I used these tapes to further  my analysis of the original interviews. Primary to analysis of the interviews was investigation of the participants’ stories for potential imaginal structures that may have played a role in their domestic violence. Molly and Greg’s reflections were used to see if they identified structures similar to those I had identified, what variations they observed, and if they identified structures that I had  not seen. In Appendix B, I present many of their reflections, showing how their  interpretations both paralleled my own as well as the variations and differences. I did  not attempt to distinguish interpretations as right or wrong, but rather looked to their  value in making sense of the participants’ experiences. Often their interpretations and  reflections added variations that I had previously not thought of. For example, with Mark, both Molly and Greg, like myself, saw how overwhelmed he was, but Greg

136 focused on his paranoia. This became quite relevant for understanding how fear plays a major role in Mark’s life. From this standpoint the reflections of Molly and Greg added  to the stories that each participant brought to his interview, and thus contributed to making more sense of the domestic violence experience. When I met again with the  participant, I often reported my finding by saying “one co-researcher interpreted what you were saying as meaning. . .”; this gave each participant the chance to use the various interpretations to foster his own understanding. One emphasis of this research was to distinguish patterns of reflexivity in relation to self- and other-focused anger. I distinguished four modes of reflexivity, referring to them as watching, numbing, reacting, and participating. The two co-researchers, Molly and Greg, were unfamiliar with my representations or categorization. Hence, it is valuable to look at the terms they came up with in describing the structures that they saw influencing the participants. In my interpretation, where I used “reacting,” representing the mythological figure of Set the warrior, they used: woolly mammoth hunter, primitive man, regression, and a banty hen protecting her chicks. Where I used the term “numbing,” represented by the mythology of Osiris caught in a coffin, afraid of  dismemberment by Set, they used detachment disorder, out of control, helpless, overwhelmed and controlled, being suffocated, fear, constant sense of betrayal, petrified  of his emotions, emotionality that is intolerable, hopelessness, chaos, living in a dream, and entrapment. Where I used the term “watching,” represented by Horace the Hawk, they used afraid to make a stand, submissive, not being able to hold his own, does not know how to engage, sensitive like a child, and afraid. Where I used “participating,” they used engagement, intimacy, sensitivity with power, empathy, passions, awareness of 

137 embarrassment, emotionality, and compassion. The natural adaptability of the coresearchers language to the four-mode typology supports its ability to use language and  differentiate the experience of anger.  Explication of Procedure

As a supplement to the participants as co-researchers and two co-research interpreters (Molly and Greg), I used detailed examples of the material gathered from the interviews and explicitly outlined my steps toward analysis using Kvale’s mo del (see first 17

section of chapter four, Appendix B).

Also included are transcripts of the portions of 

the interviews that were played to the co-researchers (see Appendix A).  Researcher Conclusions

I will now return to the questions proposed from the positivist perspective. However, I will address them from a qualitative narrative perspective. The first question is, how do we determine that the interpretations and analysis that were produced go  beyond a subjective interpretation? Kvale argues that in fact the nature of qualitative data is always subjective. The question of validity is determined by whether the data has intersubjective agreement. In the case of this research, I looked at whether the subjective interpretation had meaning and relevance for the participant, the co-researchers, and  myself. The second positivist question was, did the typology and theoretical model  predetermine what I, as a researcher, saw in these men? I started this chapter with a quote from Carl Jung saying that any research is inevitably a reflection of the researcher. Mine is no exception. More important is the question of whether the typology and  theoretical model contributed to the understanding of the participant’s lived world. The

138 returning participants gave strong indications that the typology contributed to their  understanding. However, ultimately the readers must answer this question. The final questions from the positivist approach address whether there is any generalizability from what was found in these p articipants to the field of domestic violence and anger experiences in general. Is there any measurable data to validate that reflexivity was a primary variable influencing the participants’ expressions of anger? Lastly, does the data produced indicate that the difference of self- and other-focused  anger is relevant to the understanding of the experience of anger? Again from the  positivist approach, the answer to these questions is no. From a qualitative perspective, the data present a way of looking at the stories of the five participants. The researcher’s  presentation, the response of the participants, and ultimately the response of the reader  determine if such a conceptual frame has value for interpreting and understanding the  participants, the general participant population, and others.

The Poet: Myth and Archetypes

The guiding mythology of this dissertation has been the myth of Osiris. From a mythic poetic approach to knowing, I ask if Osiris shows himself in the stories and  reflections of the interviewees. Did the archetypes of the myth serve us in understanding these men and their violence? Did the stories give insight as to how the anger of these men might have the potential to be transformative? To respond to these questions, I turn to the five men’s primary stories, for in the stories themselves we should find evidence of  whether the myth of Osiris is present or not. As we go to the stories, we hear tales of lost love from Norman, deceit and manipulation from Conrad, the humiliation of Mark,

139 warrior David who was abandoned by his father, and Jack’s escape from chaos in the cab of his truck. Are these tales of anger that carry our myth or are they unrelated stories? The commonality in the tales of these men, and what made them part of this dissertation, was expression of anger. For each of the five men, anger played an intricate role in their tale. Anger had a life of its own that affected them in major ways. For three of the men it marked the end of their relationships; for the other two, it initiated a major  change within the relationship. All five men told tales of an event that changed their life. For some of the participants the incident of anger was violent and brutal, for all it was destructive. In no case did they tell a story of anger and behavior that they were proud of, or that they even felt was justified. In each case their own evaluation was that their anger  had not served them. All the men indicated they would like to erase the incident of anger  that ended in violence. In short, they wished it had never happened. However, paradoxically, their stories told something else. In each case, prior to the incident, there was something wrong in their lives and, despite anger not being invited, despite the destructive aspect, despite the anger making things worse, as each story unfolded something came out of each incident that shifted, changed, or influenced  their lives. In fact, each man gave indications that he would not want to go back to the way things were. Not the men, but their stories, were saying that anger provoked a needed change in their lives. James Hillman tells us that “emotion always has some survival value and reveals some truth about reality, but this truth is symbolic, not merely sociological or biological.”

18

He further warns, “emotion, no matter how bizarre, must

 be taken in awful earnest before diagnosing it abortive.” Needless to say, the men in this study did not abort their anger.

140 To poetically make sense of these stories I need to look to the question: whom did the uninvited guest of anger serve? The men interviewed would probably first say it had served no one. A few, with introspection, might say it only served the ego, their need  for power and control, or the need to get back at their wives. Though those answers hold  some truth for each man (and are the primary focus of most anger management programs) I, as poet, would respond differently. I kept hearing the uninvited guest of anger as a response to a world gone terribly wrong. Their lives, both inner and outer, were not working. At best the immediate conflict was only representative of something larger that  became more discernible as they told their stories. The anger that came from these men addressed a part of their lives that wasn’t working. For some of them, it was a marriage that had turned bad. For others it was some aspect of their life or relationship. I heard  their anger as a desperate cry for things to change, a kind of last attempt when all else had  failed. Their anger was a response to the “self” or soul of each man. The “self” that said, I need something, things aren’t right, do anything, but do something to stop this suffering. All the men spoke of wounding to the soul, with stories of betrayal, abandonment, humiliation, and rejection. No matter how destructive and nonproductive their anger was, it was still a response to the soul’s suffering. Jung clearly states that anger has a transformational potential. He specifically describes the incubation period  for that transformation “that is to say, the body and the psychic representations of the organs gain mastery over the conscious mind. In the heat of anger. At this point the ego has lost control. The heat is so intense that the hero loses his hair.”

19

In the case of our 

five participants the incubation period does not come to full fruition. For that to take  place, according to Jung, the affect of anger must be pierced “by the well-aimed thrust of 

141 the weapon (insight) which sees through the motive for the affect.”

20

Consequently, for 

our five participants the uninvited guest of anger acted poorly to say the least. However, for some of the men, the messenger of anger got his point across. For others, I suspect the guest of anger will likely return, acting more destructively with each visit. I chose the myth of Osiris to bring understanding to the topic of anger. Jung sets the parameters by saying that the myth guides one through a transformative process. He tells us that the Book of the Dead is not just a guide into an afterlife, but a guide to 21

transformation.

Horus the son of Osiris is the transformation of Osiris. Such a

transformation, Jung instructs us, involves the negotiation of stages. Those stages cannot  be avoided but must be worked through without one being caught. For example, in Jung’s alchemical process of transformation, there is the danger of be ing caught in the depression that often comes in the nigredo stage. My model of anger proposes that in the case of anger there are three primary modes that a person can be caught that prevent transformation. Mythologically, these are represented by Horus the Hawk (watching), Osiris (numbing), and Set (reacting). The men in this study graphically demonstrate the difficulties of being caught in the archetype as well as the potential of movement toward  transformation.  Norman spoke of months of “watching” as his relationship deteriorated (Norman, transcript lines 48-50). Conrad indicated that for years he had spent considerable effort in trying to make sense of his relationship (Conrad, transcript line 265). Mark spoke of  late nights trying to figure things out to save his marriage (Mark, transcript line 226). David acknowledged 20 years of staying out of a relationship. Certainly these are signs

142 of Horus the Hawk who hovers in the sky afraid of life, trying to figure it out. Yet, “watching” is not the primary mode seen in these men’s stories. As Jack reflected on his escape in the cab of his truck, we get a strong image of  the God Osiris floating down the river in a wooden box. It is not the entrapment that we feel with Jack’s escape to the highways of America, but rather his retreat from the cha os of the emotionality in his home. Jack’s numbness prevailed throughout his story: how he watches TV and pretends he’s listening to his wife (Jack, transcript lines 178-188), how he retreats from the house whenever her “hormones” are acting up (Jack, transcript line 29), how he uses drugs to numb himself when the stress gets to him. Schwartz-Salant reminds us that the psychological state Osiris represents of “nigredo and soulless conditions of nonunion can be terrible yet safe territory.”

22

Jack told us that his wife

thinks he’s depressed which fits with the nigredo state. From his descriptions of how he tunes her out as he watches TV it is easy to imagine his wife repeating the ancient chant “Ah helpless one! Ah helpless one asleep! Osiris, let the listless one arise!”

23

Jung

speaks of this facet of the myth of Osiris. He wrote that when Set entices Osiris into the  box, the “distortion of the true state of affairs is transparent. . . . Man tries to sneak into rebirth through subterfuge in order to become a child again.” Jung sees this representing man who wants to return to “the hopeful certainty of childhood and early youth . . . to live as an appendage of his parents, unconscious of himself.”

24

We hear the resonance of 

this in Jack’s words when his wife is upset, “I wish she would just tell me what to do.” In the cab of his truck Jack finds some peace and safety. What he insistently avoids, when  possible, is awakening from that tranquil place.

143 It is Mark who thrusts us deep into the Osiris condition when he describes to us the pain he feels when he fights with his wife. As he put it, “It wasn’t that I wanted to inflict pain to her, I was hurting inside, I needed to get back away from it. I needed to get away from what was hurting me.” He goes on, “I was being humiliated like when I went to school” (Mark, transcript line 210). It is here that the images of the dismemberment of  Osiris make their appearance. Again, it is Schwartz-Salant who makes the connection to myth, saying “the self in this state is much like the pathetic Osiris of Egyptian myth, lying in the coils of the underworld serpent of chaos, masochistically numb and inert, and  attacked if he attempts to arise.”

25

Schwartz-Salant interprets this as the process of 

resistance to experiencing unconscious contents. In the case of Mark, that content seems closely identified with the humiliation he experienced as a child along with the abusive rage of his father. The arguments with his wife bring back memories of that childhood. Schwartz-Salant wrote, “awareness of our rage often starts the process of waking up.”

26

This waking up is where the transformative potential lies. Psychologically, it means  becoming aware of the unconscious contents that dominate the individual, keeping him in a numb and inert state. The men in this study lacked the capacity to integrate their unconscious contents into their conscious understanding. Consequently, when pushed to awaken by their  spouses, their first line of defense is to return to the safety of Osiris’ box. When retreat is impossible, the only mode left to them is “reacting.” This is the realm of Set, of which Schwartz-Salant wrote, “represents overwhelming affects, including terrifying abandonment, depression, and dismemberment.”

27

With these dangers present, Jung

tells us that the unconscious usually responds with violent emotions, irritability, lack of 

144 control, arrogance, feelings of inferiority, moods, depressions, outburst of rage, e tc., coupled with the lack of self-criticism and the misjudgments, mistakes, and delusions which this entails.”

28

The men in the study described “reacting,” being caught by the serpent Set. David extensively described his propensity toward outbursts of rage. Conrad spoke of   being possessed by rage in his response to his wife’s manipulation and control the night of his violence. Mark spoke of how he could not stop his verbal abuse, saying “those God damn arguments” (Mark, transcript line 204, and that he did not want to inflict pain on her but did so because he was hurting inside. Possession by rage is not the issue here; from the social cognitive theorists to the archetypalists, all would agree. However, the  basis of that possession is vital to our understanding. The poet is drawn to ask, what does the possession want or call for? Psychologically, this is equivalent to asking how the disorders serve the self, no matter how destructive or problematic. Jung tells us that  being possessed by the affects ensures a primitive state of psychic health when higher  levels of thinking and reflecting are not present. However, Jung goes on to say that such  possession is a means of transformation, and encourages cultivation of the art of  conversing with oneself to hear what the part of us that is possessed has to say. Jung is speaking of the need to develop the capacity for reflecting, what this dissertation has termed reflexivity. Horus second-born holds this quality in our mythology. This Horus has the eye of the hawk, the wisdom of Osiris of the underworld, and the power of Set to do battle when needed in the outer world. The participants of this research showed little capacity for exercising the qualities of this Horus, particularly in relation to their domestic

145 violence incident. As described in the previous sections, their primary stories indicated  that their level of reflexive awareness was relatively low. The poet wonders, if this archetype of Horus second-born had been present for these men, what would have been different? Would Conrad have stood up to his wife’s manipulation without becoming overwhelmed with rage? Would Mark have not allowed his humiliation and fear cause him to dominate his wife and eventually destroy his marriage? Would Jack stop using television and his road job to escape from his wife and family? Would Norman have found a different way out of relationship with a woman he did not love? Jung gives encouragement by saying that reflexivity is “cultural instinct par excellence,” that which 29

gives man/woman the capacity to transform their emotions.

However, the effect of 

such deliberation is unpredictable and, as a consequence of the freedom to reflect, individualized and relativised responses are possible.

Therapist

I, the therapist, am keenly aware that the participants of this research are real  people with suffering and pain. Though their behavior is one of abuse toward others, each of them has been victimized in their own lives. Their behavior should not be excused because of that victimization, but neither should their suffering be ignored. This research has been conducted with a collaborative approach, the assumption being that not only does the participant contribute to the findings in the process of the research, but also that the research benefits him as a participant. This is not to say that the research is designed or intended to provide therapy for the participant. However, it is intended that the research goal should be in accordance with the participants’ quest for understanding and that the outcome should serve both needs. Further, the research was approached 

146 collaboratively in order to enhance understanding that would be beneficial and could be taken back to the participant population of domestic violence abusers. With the exception of Norman, who did not return for a second interview, each of  the other four participants responded with positive descriptions that indicated the interviews had contributed to their own understanding. Three of those men, without solicitation, have re-contacted me to share their progress in dealing with their incident of  domestic violence. Mark, the only participant who had not been charged with domestic violence, voluntarily enrolled in a six-month spousal abuse program in order to address his anger. Jack, who was legally required to do a one-year domestic violence program, dropped out after six months. However, he was “pleased” to inform me that he was doing regular couples therapy and it was making a big difference in his marriage. Conrad  completed his required six months of anger management sessions and, as of this writing, is acting as co-facilitator of anger management groups at the local domestic violence center. It has been the focus of this research to examine specific concepts related to the  phenomenon of anger. It is important to underscore that the use of participants is intended to illustrate and investigate the role of those concepts. However, the dynamics of each participants’ life are affected by a wide range of influences that may or may not  be related to those concepts. Those influences include life situations, health issues, and   psychological conditions. If any of these participants were entering a therapeutic process, the therapist would not be expected to restrict his inquiry or therapy to the concepts addressed by this research. This research is not meant to suggest that because there is violence, anger, or conflict, that other therapeutic, relationship, medical, or other life

147 issues need not be addressed. In the case of the participants of this research, it is not my intention to explicate in a thorough and comprehensive manner all the dynamics that would be of relevant to any therapy undertaken. However, I will give brief attention to some of the more obvious dynamics that were seen and in some cases referred to during the interview process as well as in the interpretation that would be relevant to the  participants in this study. In the case of Mark, significant factors to be considered would include the head  injuries he referred to along with some unusual speech patterns. Together they might indicate neurological influences or post-traumatic stress. Either of these could contribute to his anger episodes and his inability to deal with the anxiety of his present life situations. Both Conrad and Jack had indicators of potential substance abuse disorders, specifically Conrad’s regular beer drinking and Jack’s periodic use of amphetamines. Three of the participants showed some signs of narcissistic behavior patterns and one showed strong borderline patterns. As described in the literature review, borderline and  narcissistic patterns have been associated with domestic violence. All five participants gave indicators of the need for communication skills in regards to their relationships. These are but a few of the potential influences on the participants’ behaviors not addressed in this dissertation. Each has importance and is not being discounted by this research, which has its own focus.

Judge

In contrast to the therapist, I, as judge, b ring consciousness that this research is situated in the realm of violence, so destructive to human life. Without my presence there is the danger of the violence and abuse being minimized, or denied. I, the judge,

148 will speak to the responsibility of the research in the discussion chapter. In this section, I focus on the interviews and the data collected. It is valuable to observe the interviews from the standpoint of how our culture has treated domestic violence over a period of  time. During the last decade, with the help of the feminist perspective, light has been  brought to how we as a culture have denied the abuse and violence perpetrated on women. The interviews did not focus on the violence, for that was not the intent of the study. This does not and should not minimize or deny the emotional and physical harm caused by perpetrators of domestic violence. The interviews, in form and purpose, were not meant to be a psychological assessment of domestic violence. Though the purpose of this research made this distinction appropriate, it is of value to reflect on what such an assessment may have shown. As revealed in the interviews, none of the men denied their act or questioned the conviction for spousal abuse. Yet it is fair to suspect that if these men had not been charged and convicted of abuse they would not have so willingly spoken of their  violence. Likewise, it is legitimate to suspect that some of these men may well have minimized the degree of their violence. I make this statement not as a judgment of the five men who participated, and whom I believe approached the interviews with sincerity and intent of being honest and forthright. However, from the standpoint of having assessed and worked with hundreds of domestic violence abusers, I am well aware that the strong societal stigma attached to the behavior contributes to a psychological defense of minimizing the behavior. If the interviews had been for assessment purposes, police reports, spouses’ statements, and other information would have been gathered. What was observed was

149 that only one man spoke of the physical details of his behavior. That man was Conrad  who spoke with self-disgust of his slapping and pinching the nose of his wife. His details, combined with his own self-disgust, provided a sense o f trustworthiness to my interpretation of his account, although without supporting evidence this is certainly a speculation. In contrast to Conrad’s presentation, I speculate that the others men’s limited focus on details might suggest minimizing. For example, David spoke in detail of   both his and his wife’s words spoken during their argument, yet had trouble explaining how his hand actually “caught” his wife’s nose and made it bleed. For the research, the accuracy of these statements has little significance. However, from the position of  countering the destructive nature of domestic violence it is important to be vigilant in order to note the denial and minimization that has been so prevalent in our history.

Chapter 4 1. Carl G. Jung, Freud and Psychoanalysis, vol. 4, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), par. 774.

270 2. Aftab Omer has developed the following definition for reflexivity at the Institute of Imaginal Studies, Petaluma California, 1997. Reflexivity is the capacity to engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience. By structures he is referring to personal, cultural, and  archetypal themes that have an underlying influence on how a person experiences. 3. Steinar Kvale, InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing (Thousand  Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1996), 213-28. 4. 1995), 34.

Jean Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris (New York: Ballantine Publishing Group,

5.

Ibid., 33.

6.

Kvale, InterViews, 189.

7.

Ibid., 230-231.

8.

Ibid., 135-141.

9. Ibid., 229-252; John Heron and Peter Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” Qualitative Inquiry , vol. 3, (1997), 283; Elliot George Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and   Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1986), 96-105. 10. Heron and Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” 283. 11. Catherine K. Riessman, Narrative Analysis (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1993), 3. 12. See critical subjectivity in Heron and Reason, “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm,” 280. 13. Kvale, InterViews, 214. 14. Ibid., 281. 15. Ibid., 208. 16. Ibid., 212. 17. Ibid., 209. 18. James Hillman, A Blue Fire: Selected Writings (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 274. 19. Carl G. Jung, Psychology and Alchemy, vol. 12, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953; 2nd ed., 1968), par. 440. 20. Carl G. Jung,  Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of  Psychic Opposites in Alchemy, vol. 14, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963; 2nd ed., 1970), n. 364. 21. Carl G. Jung,  Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self . vol. 9 Pt. 2. The Collected  Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series; 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1959 2nd ed., 1968), quoted in Stephen A Diamond,  Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of  Violence, Evil, and Creativity (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), 87.

271 22.  Nathan Schwartz-Salant, The Borderline Personality: Vision and Healing (Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications, 1989), 51. 23. Ibid., 51. 24. Carl G. Jung, Psychology of the Unconscious: A Study of the Transformations and  Symbolisms of the Libido, vol. B trans. Beatrice M. Hinkle, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), par. 358. 25. Schwartz-Salant, The Borderline Personality , 51. 26.  Nathan Schwartz-Salant, Narcissism and Character Transformation: The Psychology of   Narcissistic Character Disorders (Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books. 1982), 125. 27. Schwartz-Salant, The Borderline Personality , 21. 28. Jung, Alchemical Studies, par. 335. 29. Carl G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche . vol. 8 , trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960; 2nd ed., 1969), par. 243.

CHAPTER 5

REFLECTIONS

A Case for Re-Imagining Anger

In the introduction to this dissertation I said I would present a new perspective for  understanding the expression of anger. The proposed perspective, along with the accompanying research, is presented to support a re-imagining of anger that would free it from its conventionally problematized conceptualization by exploring the role of  reflexivity and its transformative potentials. Our culture and most of the field of   psychology regards anger and its expression that as generally inappropriate and  destructive to individuals, the community, and culture at large. This dissertation challenges that conceptualization by presenting a more complex view of the role of anger  and its expression, a role wherein anger and its expression has the potential of  contributing to the human condition. This study has looked at the interaction between self- and other-focused anger and  the role of reflexivity in the storied experiences of spousal abusers. Through collaboration between participant and researchers the research explored imaginal structures that may have influenced the participant’s anger and its expression, which resulted in domestic violence. The presumption is that awareness and engagement with those imaginal structures at the time of an anger experience could contribute to a nonviolent/non-destructive outcome. The research, combined with supporting theories of  1

2

3

4

Jung, Tomkins, Winnicott, and Benjamin, gives evidence for considering the 150

151 hypothesis that reflexivity may be a key variable affecting whether an anger expression  becomes destructive or constructive. Further, it points to the possibility that with reflexivity the anger expression has the potential for transformation of identity and  relationship. In the words of the Dalai Lama, “there can be two types of anger. . . . Where anger is motivated by compassion it can be used as an impetus or a catalyst for a  positive action.”

5

Further, the Dalai Lama wrote “we cannot overcome anger and hatred 

simply by suppression.”

6

This dissertation documents the search for an understanding of 

how anger can be liberated from its suppression and its always-present potential for  destruction. There is certainly no simple or safe route toward this liberation. W. H. Auden’s words should be heeded by all who undertake such a journey: “we are lived by  powers we pretend to understand.”

7

Our culture has pretended to understand the nature

of anger. The consequences, according to Rollo May, have been that “our culture requires that we repress most of our anger, and, therefore, we are repressed in most of our  creativity.”

8

Even more significantly, the demons let loose by our anger and rage have

fueled a hatred that permeates the world, resulting in violence between nations, terrorist attacks, civil wars, drive-by shootings, road rage, and destruction in the inner cities. Perhaps most disconcerting of all is the domestic violence experienced by so many families in our own neighborhoods. The research examined in depth the experiences of men who had committed  domestic violence. I chose a population of men whose expression of anger and its resulting violence toward loved ones staggers our comprehension of humanity. Understandably, social cognitive theorists like Leonard Berkowitz seem to conclude that “anger and aggression are pathologies of human existence; not merely regrettable, but

152 malignant cancers in the body politic.”

9

In contrast, this research chose a different

 perspective, one that attempts to understand the complexity of anger as a natural human experience. The implications of this re-imagining of anger are critical in regards to the individual, the family, community, and society in general. If the key assumptions that I  present in this dissertation have validity, many of our approaches to dealing with anger  and its expression need to be reevaluated. I will discuss the implications of the findings in this research in two primary areas. First will be the field of domestic violence. Second will be to show how this dissertation lends support to a theoretical understanding of anger that shows its importance to the ongoing development of one’s self-identity and one’s relationship with others.

Domestic Violence

The research data collection and analysis described in this dissertation focused on the experiences of men who had committed domestic violence. This population was chosen for their extreme relationship to the topic of anger expression. Consequently, the results of this dissertation have particular implications relevant to the understanding and  treatment of domestic violence abusers. The field of domestic violence has changed  greatly in recent years. During the last decade, laws, enforcement, and mandatory domestic violence programs have mushroomed throughout the United States. Political and social consciousness have fueled and rapidly expanded systems for addressing violence that exists within the family structure. M. A. Straus estimates that at least a

153 10

third of American children have witnessed violence between their parents.

California’s

mandatory 52-week batterer’s program for all convicted d omestic violence abusers is one  primary response to the problem of domestic violence. The following is an overview of  the approaches used for batterer programs and the implications of this research on those approaches. As presented in the literature review section on domestic violence, there are three  primary points of view prevalent in the field. Emerson Dobash and M. Bogard both point out that the feminist perspective has been influential on the development of domestic violence curriculum during the past decade. This holds that spousal abuse is the result of  attitudes held in a patriarchal society that supports inequality and dominance over  11 12

women.

The second perspective, as seen in the writings of Donald G. Dutton and 

Anne L. Ganley, perceives domestic violence from a broader sociological position that 13 14

sees a variety of social influences causing domestic violence.

The third perspective,

 best represented by John Gunderson’s book  Borderline Personality Disorder looks at domestic violence in terms of individual psychopathology emphasizing psychological disorders as its cause.

15

All three of these perspectives have influenced the current

understanding of domestic violence and have contributed to the curriculum of programs used in California and throughout the United States. Susan Hanks, one of the most influential spokespersons on domestic violence, has encouraged cross-pollination and  16

critical challenging of these distinctly different paradigms.

However, despite Dr. Hanks

and others, the most widely used models present a less pluralistic attitude emphasizing a social cognitive/behavioral approach based on a narrow interpretation of the above  perspectives. The actual content of these programs varies only slightly. A social

154 cognitive behavioral approach is exemplified by a teaching and discussion format design as seen in most of the primary programs used, such as the Duluth Minnesota program and  17

the California Man Alive programs.

The areas of research and theory almost entirely

excluded from domestic violence programming are affect theory and depth psychology. Based on the implications of this research, social cognitive behavioral approaches may have limitations for addressing and bringing about significant changes in behavior  for many domestic violence abusers. Three primary concerns are the following. First, they unintentionally contribute to the suppression of anger and its expression. Second, they do not adequately explore and address the underlying influences, described in this research as imaginal structures, contributing to an individual’s domestic violence episodes. Third, the emphasis on cognitive learning may have limitations as an approach for addressing the innate and learned activation process of anger and its autonomic reactive nature. I will start with the problem of suppression. Programs unintentionally contribute to the suppression of anger and its expression in spite of the fact that they see suppression of anger as a problem. This difficulty arises partly due to social cognitive theory that sees anger and anger expression primarily as a primitive reactive response that is overcome by cognition and/or socialization. Leonard Berkowitz writes about anger: “the relatively primitive associative process producing these ill effects can be countered by higher level cognitive processes. Afflicted persons can restrain their hostile and  aggressive tendencies. . . .”

18

This defines anger and its expression as a primitive

 process that needs to be countered and restrained, and forces a solution that involves suppression. From Berkowitz’s perspective, behavioral change, that is, change that

155 manages, controls, or eliminates anger or its expression, is don e by suppression of that  primitive response. Let me be clear to the reader. I am not questioning the need to stop the violent behavior of men who abuse. What I am challenging is that the assumptions and the language used create problems and lead to methods that may be counterproductive. Seeing “anger expression” as a behavioral problem that needs a social or cognitive intervention has the consequence of making any behavioral change synonymous with suppression of the anger and its expression. It is only when “anger  expression” can be seen as a potentially constructive behavior that it becomes free from suppression. In other words, if the response of anger and the urge to express it is considered natural and potentially of value to the experiencer, the issue is not about suppressing it but about how is it expressed fully in a way that is constructive to self and  others. I will demonstrate how the social cognitive definition becomes problematic by reviewing some of the terminology and curriculum commonly used in programs. Men who have been convicted of spousal abuse are sent to “anger management” or “anger control” classes. The new term now required in California is “abusers  programs.” The terminology repeatedly fosters a perception that anger and its expression is something that needs to be managed, controlled, or eliminated. These terms give the implied message that anger is to be suppressed. Researchers and program developers would disagree, saying they teach men how to express anger appropriately and that it is the violent behavior they are addressing. I would argue that their terminology fosters a conception that suppression is necessary and that in most cases the approaches taken do suppress the anger and its expression. For example, the most-used programs devote considerable time to such techniques as time outs, counting to ten, stress reduction, and 

156 self-control techniques. All of these insinuate that anger and its expression are not okay and need to be suppressed. They also are techniques that foster the suppression of anger  and its expression. I am not questioning a “degree” of effectiveness of these methods for  changing behavior. As Silvan Tomkins has indicated, societies have encouraged social sanctions on anger as the primary way of controlling its toxicity and potential for  19

destruction.

What this dissertation suggests is that there may be more effective ways of 

combating violence. It also suggests that if the tools currently in use suppress anger, they may be contributing to future violence. The primary consequence of suppression is that suppressed anger can and often does become repressed, giving greater potential for the individual to have an explosive episode. Lenora Walker’s cycle of violence theory is descriptive of the process of how domestic violence is acted out repetitively. The tension-building phase of the cycle exemplifies the suppression of anger prior to it being acted on.

20

One approach of the standard programs is to address this issue by teaching listening skills and how to give “I-messages.” Though certainly a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough, as listening skills do not necessarily bring selfawareness. My research suggests that men who commit domestic violence have little awareness of how they are affected by the underlying influences of their anger response. Approaching domestic violence from a social cognitive base, these programs focus their  attention on particular anger situations. Identification of unconscious influences that contribute to the anger is not part of standard curricula. For example, if a man were angry with his wife for not doing the laundry, most programs would teach the man how to tell his wife that he is angry by using a well-constructed “I-message.” What is not

157 addressed or looked for in conjunction with the anger episode is the variety of other  internal structures that may be influencing the anger response. Most attempts at looking for influences are done via lectures and discussion of specific predetermined causes set out in the curriculum for domestic violence. For example, in relation to the above episode, the man might be told that his anger was inappropriate in that his expectation that she has to do the laundry is based on a patriarchal male dominance systemic structure. Though that might be true, it negates other possible influences. Again I return to the perspective taken in this dissertation. For an anger  experience to have potential for the individual to change, it was hypothesized that reflexivity may be the catalyst for that change. That means bringing awareness to an engagement with the imaginal structures that have influenced him/her. As was seen in the cases of the five participants in this dissertation, underlying their anger response were experiences of betrayal, abandonment, being manipulated, humiliation, and being emotionally overwhelmed. As long as those structures were ignored, their influence remained a constant threat, leaving the man vulnerable to being overwhelmed by his anger. There are numerous indications and examples of attempts by the men in this research to manage or control their anger. In each case, the suppression and then repression of their anger eventually failed, leading to an uncontrollable reaction that turned into violence, the phenomenon that Jung refers to as the affect overwhelming the 21

conscious ego.

Further, affect research shows that an anger response once initiated within the affect system moves in the direction of amplification and urgency. As Tomkins wrote, “the primary function of anger is to make bad matters worse and further increase

158  probability of anger response.”

22

Incidents of domestic violence are a tragic verification

of Tomkins’s words: once the autonomic reaction is initiated, cognition in it self has little influence. As Andrew Samuels explains, “affect intrudes against one’s WILL and  can only be repressed with difficulty.”

23

Domestic violence programs that emphasize

classroom instruction and information sharing are inadequate in impacting b ehavior that is influenced by episodes of heightened affect. Other approaches are needed that use tools that can engage and bring awareness to the images that are associated with the heightened affects, in particular anger and rage. The majority of men who commit domestic violence do not have criminal records or histories of violence toward others outside the home. This would indicate that most of  these men are either able to publicly suppress a violent anger expression when they’re out of the home or do not experience a heightened state of anger outside the home. The feminist perspective would say that it is expressed against the wife because of patriarchal attitudes that give men permission for such expression. Though I agree that we are influenced by such cultural attitudes, I would add a competing influence: the role of  significant others in our lives. The wife and children are the primary relationships during adulthood. The argument presented in the introduction and shown throughout this dissertation is that the anger response is ultimately related to issues of self. James Averill and Keith Oatley indicate that most anger responses are with intimate others and are related to issues of self.

24

Commonly heard from domestic violence abusers, including

the ones in my study, are statements such as “what we were arguing about wasn’t that important!” Heinz Kohut and Otto Kernberg’s research particularly addresses the significance of self-development and the affects anger and rage. They emphasize the

159 importance of “significant others” starting with the primary caregiver an d the role the 25

affects play.

The evidence of this research supports Kohut’s analysis that destructive

expressions of anger are closely related to the individual’s experience of fragmentation or  26

endangerment of the self. As Andrew Samuels writes, “affect occurs at the point at which our ADAPTATION is weakest and at the same time exposes the reason for its weakness.”

27

I would agree with Jessica Benjamin that the only potential for healing of 

the self is via significant relationships where confrontation can be experienced with an 28

outcome that is not destructive to the internal self or the other.

I will say more of this in

the following section on anger and the self. The rapidly growing systems of intervention for domestic violence have encouraged and overly simplified behavioral approaches that in most programs emphasize control and suppression of anger. There are, however, those facilitators who  bring depth to even the most simplified and restrictive program texts. Also, the three  primary theoretical paradigms in the domestic violence field (feminist, social, and   psychological disorder) each have contributed and have an important role to play. The need, as this dissertation suggests, is a widening of perspective that integrates depth  psychology and affect theory with these other perspectives. Susan Hanks argues that sophisticated critical theory and technique needs to be adapted and interwoven with social system interventions. She emphasizes the need for interventions that can be replicated in traditional mental-health settings and integrated into community-based  29

 programs such as domestic violence.

This dissertation made use of a typology and 

accompanying mythology that carries at least some of the most prevailing structures that are attached to the anger experience. The use of that typology and mythology is one

160 example of how a depth psychology theoretical model with all the complexity of selfstructure, relationship, identity, and its relationship with the expression of ange r might be used as an intervention.

Anger, Self, and Other

The next area that I will address is the implication of this research on anger  expression and development of the self and significant relationships throughout life. It is here that I need to return to the propositions and theoretical basis of this research a s addressed in chapter one. The focus of this research has been on one segment of a larger  theoretical understanding of the field of anger and its expression. That larger theoretical  position is articulated by Benjamin who sees the confrontation with otherness as key to the ongoing development of identity. This dissertation has looked at that confrontation  by directing its attention to the role of anger, its expression, and reflexivity. Hence, this research gives support to the theoretical stance of those theorists who see the importance of confrontation toward the development of self and relationship. More importantly, it adds to that theoretical position by exploring the significance of anger expression and  how reflexivity contributes to the potential of a transformative change in identity. Winnicott describes this process of confrontation with otherness as starting in childhood with the destruction of the early internal object that enables the child to go  beyond relating to the primary caregiver through identification, projection, and other  30

intrapsychic processes. Winnicott proposes that it is only by the process of coming into confrontation with difference from the other that the child is able to develop an independent, healthy self-structure. This he says is not a one-time experience but rather a

161 31

lifelong process.

The transcripts of this research along with the analysis and 

interpretations showed examples of the participants’ inability to go beyond their  identification and projections. In each case, family history of the participants gave examples of failure of what Benjamin describes as breakdown and repair so necessary for  healthy self-structures.

32

This research has focused on the role of affect and anger in this process. Affect research and its contribution to the field of psychology is a more recent development. Works such as those of Richard J. Davidson give us a clearer picture of the physiological and motivational aspects of anger in relationship to psychological states involving 33

feelings, emotions, moods, and traits.

By integrating understanding of these aspects

with theoretical positions developed in depth psychology, an ever-more-useful conceptualization develops. Otto Kernberg adds an important step by using affect research, in relationship to object relations theory, to show how anger is related to aggression and how it can develop into hatred. As he wrote, “hatred always reflects the  psychopathology of aggression,” which is activated initially by the affects of anger and  rage.

34

My research takes the additional step of seeing the link between the affect anger 

and the integral role it plays in the confrontation concepts of Winnicott and Benjamin. It is not necessary to go to depth psychology to find evidence of the value of  anger and confrontation with significant others. The renowned research study done by leading social psychologist James R. Averill found that most incidents of anger  35

concerned persons the participant knew and liked.

Averill’s data is particularly

significant since he has argued that anger is primarily an evolutionary by-product of the  primitive instinct to fight and protect oneself, discounting any positive value to anger in

162 today’s world. However, his data shows that in 63 percent of the incidents of anger  expression, the motive was to assert authority or independence, or to improve the  participant’s self-image. Further, 62 percent of the participants who became angry, and  70 percent of subjects who had been targets of someone’s anger, rated the angry incident as having been beneficial to their relationship. Contrary to Averill’s view, the subjects saw the anger expression to be of value to the relationship and, in some cases, of value to the subjects “self-image.” A similar study, conducted by Jenkins, Smith, and Graham, showed that in marital quarrels that had la sted for ten minutes or more with raised voices, 79 percent of the women in these families said they thought at least some good came 36

from these quarrels.

The psychologist Keith Oatley interprets these studies and others

as indicating that the function of anger is to readjust the relationship and modify the 37

expectations that each person has of the other.

If we look from the perspective of 

Winnicott and Benjamin, the angry confrontation is about more than just the readjustment and modifying of expectations. If successfully negotiated, the confrontation is a process of differentiation that contributes to the ongoing development of self. As Winnicott writes, the confrontation brings with it a new experience of external reality in contrast to one’s inter-fantasy world. Both Winnicott and Benjamin argue that such confrontations have significant impact on the self and relationships. The implications of my research, in context with a larger theoretical position  presented, primarily point to the need for new ways of understanding anger and its expression. The attitude of psychology and culture to focus primarily on anger’s destructive nature has been particularly damaging. There are other so-called “negative” affects such as grief, sadness, fear, and shame. Not all of these have been treated the

163 same as anger. Grief is also seen for its transformative potential; self-help book sections on grief are examples. Not surprisingly, in a culture wanting quick fixes, we find books on how to get past your grief. But more importantly, we find also find many books on how grief transforms. Grace and Grit  by Ken Wilber and the best seller Tuesdays with  Morrie by Mitch Albom, are but two examples of books that embrace the potential that

comes with grief.

38

We find far fewer examples of books, movies, and other images of 

the transformative potential that resides within anger. In fact, there is every indication that we limit any potential it might have by the way we articulate anger. In therapeutic resource publications, one can find pages addressing issues of  anger, behavior problems, conflict, and aggression. In those pages one finds dozens of   books, games, and now Internet programs on how to “resolve conflict without anger,” “control anger,” and “manage anger.” Likewise, in the self-help section of any  bookstore, one will encounter books that have titles such as how to control, manage, or  39

eliminate your anger. One best seller was titled  Anger Kills by William Redfor.

By and 

large, our culture as well as psychology fosters an image of anger that not only limits its  potential but fosters its suppression. The psychologist Arnold Mindell, who does large-group work on conflict, sees the restrictions on anger as a societal problem. He wrote, “Ironically, procedures that implicitly or explicitly forbid anger ultimately provoke conflict, because they favor   people who are privileged enough to live in areas where social struggles can be avoided.” 40

He sees the restrictions on anger expression as furthering repression by the assumption

that the goal is to be “even-tempered.” Mindell argues that the suppression of anger and 

164 aggression is another form of oppression that leaves people with two choices. “They can resort to riot and revolution, or they can turn to crime and drugs.”

41

Conclusion

This research is a move to re-image the understanding of anger by liberating its expression to being both legitimate and of value. The ever-present contesting voice to this move is that the destructive force of anger is too dangerous and must be contained or  its forces will reap destruction and eventually destroy us. Both Freud and Tomkins emphasize that this voice has been overwhelmingly present not only in psychology but 42

also throughout most societies.

My response, echoing Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Rollo

May, James Hillman, and many others, is tha t humankind’s anger and rage, with its manifestation in aggression, is in fact destroying us. When we look at our problems of  domestic violence, inner-city violence, increasing prison populations, civil wars throughout the world, international conflicts, and acts of terrorism, we see the impact of  humankind’s inability to deal with its aggressive nature. Our attempts at suppressing anger with social taboos and legal sanctions have not worked. I returned to my earlier conceptualization of the relationship of anger to humankind’s aggressive nature. If we hope to overcome these forces, we must find new ways of seeing, new ways of imaging the anger and rage that contribute to humankind’s destructiveness. This dissertation presents one such re-imaging of anger. Carl Jung  pointed the direction by saying reflection “re-enacts the process of excitation,” bringing forth internalized, intrapsychic images that can transform an a utomatic process into a 43

conscious and creative one.

This dissertation looks toward an image of anger that has

 been combined with Jung’s reflection. What has emerged is the image of a “reflexive

165 anger” experience that has the potential to bring the forces of anger, like passion, strength, endurance, initiative, and courage, into alignment with serving both the individual and humankind. So, before concluding, I will return to the four voices that carry this dissertation: the poet, the therapist, the researcher, and the judge. The following is a personification of  those aspects of myself as they reflect on this dissertation.

Poet: I, the poet, have been touched by the powerful spirit that resides in the

 psyche of both Rich and others when anger is evoked and violence strikes. Rich has felt the pain, suffering, and destructiveness of that a nger when its expression in the form of  violence has been directed his way. As a young boy he felt its power from his father. And he too, as a father, has lashed out in anger at his own sons, wounding them in similar  ways as he was wounded as a child. Many people can only see the demon in anger, the negative spirit that destroys life. However, as Rollo May points out, what they do not see is that the demon is also daimonic.

44

As such, the daimon that resides at the core of anger 

has a powerful life force that can either be creative or destructive. This daimon has fire and passion that Rich has felt and touched and believes in. The denial of the daimon either robs one of passion or gives strength to the demon, which by its nature is destructive to life. This dissertation is a step toward embracing the powerful creative  potential that anger holds.  Judge: I have nothing against fire and passion. Though this dissertation does not

emphasize the destructive nature of anger, I know Rich supports strongly the need for the  judicial system, community, and individuals to respond aggressively against acts of  violence. Rich knows the damage that anger can inflict. Any approach—research, even

166 dialogue—must take into account that anger can be destructive. I ask the poet, have you forgotten all the women, not to mention the children, that Rich has seen over the years who have been both physically and emotionally battered? The issue here is not an esoteric distinction between demon and daimon but rather the issue of right and wrong. We, as a culture, must protect the victims of the men and women who commit domestic and other forms of violence. These individuals are dangerous not only to others but also to themselves. Rich has seen three men die in the last six years; he knows well the power  and destructive energy that can be released by the pre-modal forces of anger. It is I, the Judge, with close connection to the archetypal father, whose presence is needed. The legal system can serve as the badly needed father that takes control and provides  protection for the family and community when control is needed. Though I may be only a supporting character in this dissertation, my voice must not be forgotten. Therapist: I guess this is my cue. Though in many ways I agree with both of 

you, I see the issue somewhat differently. Without a solid therapeutic stance, neither  view can be helpful in changing that violence. Though you, the judge, are perfectly correct in saying that we need to protect the victim in the community, you know as well as I do the limitations of the legal system. Of course the legal system must take action against violence that is perpetrated. However, unless the legal action is supportive to a therapeutic action, little can be accomplished. Your typical domestic violence act is seldom committed with forethought or with an ideology that believes it is okay. Rather, it is a defensive response, often pre-modal in its nature. The perpetrator himself is often the victim of his own actions.

167 What is needed, and what this dissertation provides, is a therapeutic approach and  understanding that can address the anger and rage that far too often leads to physical and  emotional violence. Even the legal system, for the most part, acknowledges that fear of  arrest and imprisonment does little toward eliminating the violence. The mental-health system is sorely lacking with its contradictory approaches to the angry client. This dissertation addresses the complexity and depth of the anger experience and its relationship to violence in order to give us a clearer therapeutic direction for change. The emphasis on reflexivity’s role in the transformative potential of anger experiences was actively sought and engaged in with the participants of this research. By so doing the research honored the therapist’s voice.  Researcher: Well, you fellows are getting closer but you still do not have it quite

right. This is a dissertation. The question Rich should be asking, is has he paid his dues to academia? This project really is about establishing that he knows the field of anger  and that he has contributed something to that field. Did he show that he could talk, think, and write in a scholarly fashion about the topic of anger? Has he made his contribution? His accomplishment is either present or not in this dissertation, and will be evaluated by the three men on his committee who represent the academic community at large. Poet: No, I will not let Rich off so easily! Rich’s Enneagram type is a five; he

can wallow in the thinking process for eternity if he lets himself follow your lead. He is much too willing to try to get it right by pleasing others. It is I, the poet in him, that  pushes him to go to the underworld for the answers. His typology of anger has made its greatest contribution not in quadrant three (reacting, other-focused/non-reflexive anger), that of the God Ares, not even in quadrant four (participating, other-focused /reflexive

168 anger) which is the resurrection of anger. The beauty of his typology for Rich, as well as the majority of men, lies in quadrant two. Osiris was the god that ruled this quadrant (numbness, self-focused/non-reflexive anger). In the Egyptian myth, Osiris is numb and inert, held down in the underworld. Osiris, in that state, fears being attacked by Set if he attempts to arise. The myth holds the image of what it is like not only for the domestic violence abuser but also for every man or woman who has been oppressed. Set is the angry father, the tyrannical boss, and  the harsh society, the glass ceiling in the business world. Set is all that oppresses the human spirit. He is all of those who overwhelm the child and later the adult, leaving him or her with the fear of dismemberment. Set carries all the negative affects often  presented by the rageful father, who, in many cases, leaves the child in chronic psychic disassociation. This psychological state is the home of most domestic violence abusers. Their violence against their spouses becomes their attempt to break loose from the coils of that underworld serpent. Their spouses initiate the call to battle, but this is a battle that is as much between Set and Osiris that must be fought for the transformation to take  place. Though quadrant four is the end place of that transformation, it has to start in the underworld of these two gods, Set and Osiris. As the myth tells us, Osiris’ dismemberment leaves him without his phallus, symbolizing the loss of potency and   power. It should be of little surprise that in order to gain back his power he must come to terms with Set; one must find the energy of Set in order to transcend. Set, in mythology, represents the home of the warrior who knows how to use the energy of the daimon anger, though often in a demonic way. Here anger quickens and  vivifies, giving life’s energy back. Rich has found this energy in a smaller population of 

169 men who often have survived extreme childhood brutality, violent life-styles, long prison terms, and serious addictions. These men, now in their thirties and forties, have fought Set not in the underworld, but in the physical world of our streets and prisons. Those who have survived those battles carry a wisdom and strength. The recent movie  Hurricane is one man’s journey through the underworld of Osiris and Set. The real-life

character, played in the movie by Denzel Washington, like Osiris battled his demons trapped in the coffin of an American prison.  Researcher: I must protest; your direction here has moved toward a poetic stance.

This could be appropriate if you were writing a book or an article for the Spring Quarterly. Even your chair, early on, instructed you on the difference between a

dissertation and a book. Remember the reaction you got from one of your professors when you merely used James Hillman as a reference. The stance you’re taking here is  based on the writings of men like Rollo May, James Hillman, Stephen Diamond, Thomas Moore, and Noel Cobb. You are not doing a theoretical or philosophical dissertation, nor  are you doing it on the soul of anger. Stick to a defensible position. You have defended  clearly the hypothesis that anger when combined with reflexivity has transformative  potential. In fact, through theory and application, the research presents an in-depth  perspective of the potential of identifying and engaging with imaginal structures associated with the anger and showed how they may catalyze transformation of identity and relationship. That is what this dissertation is about! Therapist: I too have a problem with the direction you, the poet, have taken. If 

you want the therapeutic community to pay attention to what you have to offer, you must emphasize that this dissertation is grounded in self-psychology, affect theory, or social

170 cognitive research. This is where Rich’s dissertation can make its contribution, where the work can both have authority and give practical direction to the therapist and those who work in this field.  Judge: But do not forget that violence needs to be contained regardless of its

therapeutic value, whether on the street or in the home. No child or spouse should be ignored by the legal system; it is my duty to be vigilant. Poet: Your voices are heard, but I won’t understate the challenge of Rich’s

dissertation. The goal has clearly been to liberate the expression of anger as well as the concept of violence from the repression it has been relegated to by our culture. As Thomas Moore wrote, “the gun-wielding young men portray a spirit desperately needed  in a disenchanted culture, a spirit that could provide ardor, passion, strength, endurance, initiative, courage, daring, and enterprise if it were not literalized in plain aggression.”

45

Both the researcher and the judge want to literalize violence and in so doing force the expression of anger into the underworld of the streets of our cities, the bedrooms of our  community, in the bombs of our army. When deliteralized and honored violence can bring a vital energy to life. The form it takes is anger and its expression. As Heraclitus’s words proclaim, “would that strife might perish from among gods and men! F or then all things would pass away.”

46

Reflexively recognizing that anger and rage resides in each of us can give us the courage and passion to commit to the aggressive act of following Aristotle’s words, “being angry at those things we should be angry with” in order that we might truly leave our mark on this world.

47

As the Dalai Lama suggests, with compassion, anger can be the catalyst that 48

 brings positive action.

171

Chapter 5 1. Carl G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. vol. 8 , Collected Works of C. G.  Jung, trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960; 2d ed., 1969), par. 241-3. 2. Silvan Tomkins, Affect/Imagery/Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and  Fear (New York: Springer, 1991). 3.

Donald W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Tavistock Publishers, 1971).

4. Jessica Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction: An Outline of Intersubjectivity,” Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis, ed. Susan C. Warshaw and Neil J. Skolnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, Inc., 1992), 43-60. 5. Dalai Lama and Howard Cutler, The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living (New York: Riverhead Books, 1998), 248-9. 6.

Ibid., 249.

7. Stephen A. Diamond,  Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of  Violence, Evil, and Creativity . SUNY Series (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), 111. 8. Rollo May, “Man and Philosophy,” Perspectives: Humanistic Psychology Institute, special issue 2, no. 1 (Summer 1981). 9. Keith Oatley, “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done,” Perspectives on Anger and Emotion,  Advances in Social Cognition, ed. Robert Wyer and Thomas K. Srull, vol. VI (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993), 159.

272 10. Murray A. Straus, “Children as Witnesses to Marital Violence: A Risk Factor for Lifelong Problems Among a Nationally Representative Sample of American Men and Women,” Report of the Twenty-third Ross Roundtable (Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories, 1992). 11. R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy (New York: Free Press, 1979). 12. Micheal Bogard, “Feminist Perspective on Wife Abuse: An Introduction,” Feminist  Perspective on Wife Abuse , ed. Kersti A. Yllo & Michele Bogard (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988), 11-26. 13. Donald G. Dutton, The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives (Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, 1995). 14. Anne L. Ganley, “Integrating Feminist and Social Learning Analyses of Aggression: Creating Multiple Models for Intervention with Men Who Batter,” Treating Men Who Batter: Theory, Practice, and  Programs. Springer Series: Focus on Men, vol. 5, ed. L. Kevin Hamberger and P. Lynn Caesar (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1989), 196-235. 15. John G. Gunderson, Borderline Personality Disorder (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1984). 16. Susan E. Hanks, “Translating Theory into Practice: A Conceptual Framework for Clinical Assessment, Differential Diagnosis, and Multi-Modal Treatment of Maritally Violent Individuals, Couples, and Families,” Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Emilio C. Viano (Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1992), 157-76. 17. Minnesota Program Development, Inc., Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, 206 West Forth Street, Duluth, MN 55806. Man Alive training programs for men, 345 Johnstone Drive, San Rafael, CA, 94903. 18. Leonard Berkowitz writes, “the relatively primitive associative process producing these ill affects can be countered by higher level cognitive processes. Afflicted persons can restrain their hostile and aggressive tendencies, perhaps as a result of becoming aware of their feelings and seeing clearly that it is wrong for them to blame or attack others.… It is thought and not suffering that makes us better.” Berkowitz, “On the Formation and Regulation of Anger and Aggression: A Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Analysis,” American Psychologist 45, no. 4 (1990), 500. 19. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects, 127. 20. Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Women (New York: Harper and Row, 1979). 21. Carl G. Jung,  Alchemical Studies, vol. 13 , trans. R.F.C. Hull, Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton,  NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), par. 12. 22. Tomkins, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects, 115. 23. Andrew Samuels, definition of “affect.” In A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis (London, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), 11. 24. James R. Averill,  Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1982); Keith Oatley, “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done,” Perspectives on Anger and Emotion,  Advances in Social Cognition, ed. Robert Wyer & Thomas K. Srull, vol. VI (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993), 161-62.

273 25. Heinz Kohut and Paul H. Ornstein, The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978 (New York: International Universities Press, 1978); Otto F. Kernberg, Object-Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis (New York: J. Aronson, 1976). 26. Kohut and Ornstein, The Search for the Self. 27. Samuels, A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis, 11. 28. Jessica Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction: An Outline of Intersubjectivity,” Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis, ed. Susan C. Warshaw and Neil J. Skolnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, Inc, 1992), 52. 29. Susan E. Hanks, Translating Theory into Practice, 158. 30. D. W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Tavistock Pub., 1971). Though Winnicott does not specifically talk about reflexivity, his writing discusses the importance of the child’s development to include the emotional identification with the other’s position. This differentiation of the child thus depends on the child knowing that his experience is different from the parent and that both he and the  parent know what the other feels. This experience primarily comes out of conflict. 31. Ibid. 32. Benjamin, “Recognition and Destruction,” 58-9. 33. Richard J. Davidson, “On Emotion, Mood, and Related Affective Constructs,” The Nature of   Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard J. Davidson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 20-31. 34. Otto Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions (New Haven and  London: Yale University Press, 1992), 21-7. 35. James R. Averill,  Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1982). 36. Jennifer M. Jenkins, Marjorie A. Smith and Philip Graham, “Coping with Parental Quarrels,”  Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28 (1989), 182-89. 37. Keith Oatley, “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done,” 161-62. 38. Ken Wilber, Grace and Grit (Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, 1993). Mitch Albom, Tuesdays with Morrie (New York: Doubleday Press, 1997). 39. William Redfor,  Anger Kills (New York: Collins Publishers, 1993). 40. Arnold Mindell, Sitting in the Fire (Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press, 1995), 37. 41. Ibid., 37. 42. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton, 1961); Tomkins,  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and Fear, 102. 43. Andrew Samuels, in  A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis (London, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986). 44. Rollo May, Love and Will (New York: W. W. Norton, 1960), 123.

274

45. Thomas Moore, The Re-Enchantment of Everyday Life (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1996). 46. Heraclitus, Rule number 43, in Selections from Early Greek Philosophy, ed. Milton C. Nahm (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1947), 91. 47. Willard Gaylin, The Rage Within: Anger in Modern Life (New York: Penguin Books, 1989), 75. 48. Dalai Lama and Howard Cutler, The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living (New York: Riverhead Books, 1998), 7.

Illustration 1− Thoth, the Egyptian God of Knowledge The above painting is the work of Richard D. McCutchan. The painting is a 4 x 5 foot acrylic on canvas. It is one of a pair, the other painting is shown on page xi. Both were  painted at the time of completion of this dissertation.

The End 

171

APPENDIX

172

APPENDIX 2

INTERVIEW REFLECTIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND SUMMARIES

INTERVIEW 1: JACK   Initial Interview: Overview and Reflections by Researcher 

It didn’t take me long to get an impression of Jack as a hardworking 30-year-old  man struggling to meet financial needs in order to provide a good life for his wife and  three kids. He described himself as quiet and laid back. As I listened to his story, I found  his work life anything but laid back. As a mover, he spent long, hard workdays that often left him both physically and emotionally exhausted. With pride he told me, “I’ve been known to unload a shipment in Seattle and leave Seattle at noon and be back here in California by 5:30 the next morning, sleep for an hour, and then they’ll send me out. I’ll drive the truck to a job and then sleep on the pads or whatever while the truck gets loaded  and ready to ship out” (Jack, transcript, line 288). As he described the incident that led to his arrest, he focused on key issues. The first was his wife’s moods. He started his primary story saying, “My wife is on Paxil  because she has a hormone imbalance.” Descriptions of her included words like “melodramatic” and told how, during her periods, anything could set her off. Another   parallel issue was that of his being controlled. As he put it, “All of her family, mother  and sisters, are into control.” Jack also focused on the specific behavior of his wife’s smoking. In his mind these issues and problems led to the incident of domestic violence. The incident itself involved his hitting a cigarette out of her mouth during a heated 

211

212 argument. As he described it, his finger caught the corner of her lip and caused it to  bleed. As I listened to Jack I felt a sadness. I saw a man who wanted to do the right thing but was overwhelmed. In his words, “just being on the road you’re isolated, by yourself, and when you come into a situation at home with a lot of chaos, it is just overwhelming. You can’t deal with it; it takes a day to work into it almost” (Transcript Jack, line 35). Despite focusing the problem on his wife, he gave long descriptions about her difficulty managing their three small children. My impression was of a man coming home from work mentally and physically exhausted who then tuned out. In fact, he even gave a vivid description of how he tuned her out. In his words, “I have shut her off; most men can do it. I can, what, be looking at her but listening to the TV, actually concentrating on what’s on the radio and or the TV, while I’m looking at her” (transcript Jack, line 178). As I reviewed the transcripts, I wondered if what he described as his wife’s melodramatic nature was her way of trying to get a response, to wake up Jack. His comment that his wife thinks “I’m depressed” intrigued me. As I thought back on the interview, my impression was that Jack was most enthusiastic when he described his work and the people he met and worked with. He felt a sense of pride when his boss appreciated and counted on him, saying, “I am one of the highest-paid guys there. I work  more than most. Today is one of the first days off; they actually gave me today off.” (Transcript Jack, line 279). The only aliveness expressed about his home life was when he described it in negative terms, noting the times his wife pushed him to his limits. He described her behavior as “upping the notch,” at which times he felt that he was forced to

213 counter. The most striking thing I observed about the interview was his lack of emotional attachment to the incident of domestic violence. For example, when I asked if he heard  his wife call the police, he responded, “Yes, but I walked into the back room and started  shaving and told her that as soon as they get here I’m telling them to take me to jail, just to get me away from her for a couple of days. They didn’t take me though” (Transcript Jack, line 306). I found little evidence of shame or guilt, nor was there much of a response to being ordered by the court to attend an anger program. I did not find much of  the emotional side of Jack’s world; not because he held it back, but more likely because that is a part of his world with which he has little contact. Selection Process of Tape Segments to Be Played to Co-Researchers

Jack’s story, as he initially gave it, was clearly defined with a beginning and an end. It started with, “I’ll give you the incident first,” and ended with “So that was the incident.” I provided the entire narrative to the co-researchers Molly and Greg. In the narrative Jack described two other incidents in which physical altercations happened   between his wife and himself. Much of the interview involved questions and answers that gave information rather than a narrative, storytelling approach. The stories Jack told  focused on the themes of his wife’s moods, his being controlled, his tuning out, and his embarrassment. I chose the two narrative stories that clearly captured those themes. (see appendix A.) Co-researchers’ Comments and Reflections

Jack’s sentence for domestic violence initially shocked Molly due to its relatively low level of violence. Both Molly and Greg responded to his emphasis on his wife’s hormones being the problem. Jack’s descriptions of his wife’s screaming, her voice, and 

214 his embarrassment all caught their attention. They commented that things seemed to be  beyond his control. Her hormones or the mystery of womanhood seemed to be the culprit. Greg suggested that it is as if she wants something from him. Though he said it was attention and approval, Molly suggested that it was engagement; that his big power   play is to withdraw and she keeps wanting him to come in, like a game of cat and mouse. Greg suggested that he is petrified of her emotions. Both spoke of their feeling that he is a nice guy who simply doesn’t know how to react to the emotional world of his wife. Molly said, “I think this is archetypal; there is an emotionality that is intolerable as well as tuned out.” When questioned about Jack’s ability to be reflexive, Greg gave the analogy that Jack “recognizes, like on a car, that the temperature is going up, but there is nothing that he can do about it.” Molly agreed, emphasizing that he seems a victim of  hormones. There are places he is pretty self-aware, but he uses that self-awareness to withdraw and tune out. As Greg put it “He has a narrow range of awareness. He knows the back and forth, but cannot see the bigger picture of how to get out.” As for anger, Molly suggested that he uses it as a way of getting people to stay away from him. Then Greg said, “I don’t think the guy has a clue of what he wants, though at some level he wants family, he doesn’t know what it means or how to obtain it.” Summary of Analysis and Interpretation

What kept coming back to me, as I thought about Jack, was his being overwhelmed. I was constantly reminded of the archetype of Osiris. A man is caught in a coffin, comfortable as he drives the interstate in his truck. When he returns home h e is overwhelmed by, as he put it, “his wife’s hormonal problem.” Jack spoke of needing a day to recoup after being on the road; the return home to his three small children and his

215 wife is an entrance to emotional chaos. The dismemberment of Osiris when Set finds his coffin equates, in psychological terms, to Jack’s loss of c onnection to himself with the onslaught of emotional turmoil, exemplified by his descriptions of “the tone of her voice, the yelling,” and his reaction of, “it’s just too much.” When it does get “too much,” he strikes out with words and occasionally violence (three incidents that he described). When the anger came, it’s purpose was more to push her away rather than to get something from her. However, his main approach to any chaos was retreat by tuning out, leaving the house, or returning to the road.  Re-interview of Subject, with Subject’s Comments on the Researcher’s Interpretations

I presented the typology to Jack and then explained how Molly, Greg, and I saw him fitting into it. Jack immediately identified with Osiris. He quickly volunteered that his going on the road in his truck was much like that of Osiris in a coffin. As he put it, “a coffin with stereo system.” He said, “But then you get used to being by yourself, so when you get back, you’re still stuck there.” When I mentioned the tuning out that he spoke of, he said, “I get good at it on the road.” When I asked him about the times when he can’t tune her out and he becomes reactive, he said, “I would rather not go there at all. I would rather just have her say what she wants, and then I will work on it. But when she pushes, it’s almost like she keeps  pushing until she gets a reaction.” When I told him that Molly the co-researcher  suggested his wife wants “engagement” he responded, “That’s right in a way, it’s not that I ignore her, but she will keep going over and over the same thing. She’s waiting for me to start giving my input, but my input is basically, all right I will take care of it.” As in the first interview, he said again that he didn’t know how to respond to her voice, her 

216 yelling, or her melodramatic nature. I replied with the words of Greg that the mystery of  womanhood can be very frustrating and he responded by saying that he doesn’t know what to do other than to tune out and said, “I’ve tried many ways to deal with it, with no success.” He then said, “There’s another part of me down here (pointing to the numbness section of the diagram) that I didn’t tell you about.” He talked about drugs used at times in order to release the stress that built up. That if he didn’t do them, approximately once every month or two, he would become reactive and strike out verbally or physically at his wife. He explained that this was not a matter of using a drug at the time of a conflict, but rather as a way of releasing his stress periodically when it reached a level that he knew he could easily become destructive. He said this was just another way of “numbing out” like Osiris but it was better than striking out.  Analysis of Reflexivity and Self/Other-Focused Anger 

In the second interview Jack identifies himself as primarily fitting into the “numbness” mode. His need to numb out the bombardment of all emotional life seems to  be the only way he has survived. It is perhaps not an accident that he married a woman he describes as an emotional Italian girl; he has clearly made the choice to inhabit his life with three kids and the chaos that such a choice brings. As Jack tells his story, he gives the impression that he wants out of the numbness in which he spends most of his time. However, he seems to avoid taking action in that direction; it seems as if h e waits for his wife’s provocation to make him wake up. At these times he engages her slightly from the “reactive” position, but then quickly withdraws by either tuning out or by leaving town to do his work. Unlike most men who commit marital violence, when Jack is provoked his

217 own anger doesn’t seem to overwhelm him. His violence is relatively contained. He hit the cigarette out of her mouth, threw his wallet at her, and one time he slapped her. When Jack describes these three incidents, which he says are the only physical altercations in nine years of marriage, he does not convey a sense of being out of control. Perhaps long before he reaches what other men refer to as rage, Jack leaves or tunes out, returning to the numbness. In either case of selfself- or other-focus, he never seems to pass a middle level of reflexivity having, at best, an awareness that he or his wife is angry. In most cases his anger is other-oriented; it involves blaming. blaming. If the emotion intensifies, intensifies, he retreats to a self-focus by becoming numb.

INTERVIEW 2: MARK   Initial Interview: Overview and Reflections by Researcher  Researche r 

Unlike the other participants in the study, Mark had not been arrested for  domestic violence. The local domestic violence organization referred him to the study. He had been involved in a mediation process concerning the the custody of his children. His extreme anger and rage during mediation sessions led to his referral to anger management classes, and, for this reason, he was included in the research. research. Mark is in his early forties. He is a ranch worker, unemployed due to a disability. He has two children, a boy and a girl, both approaching their teens. His wife left him a few months before this interview. He started the interview by emphasizing his willingness to participate in the study, saying, “I believe in learning new things.” This was one of the most most difficult interviews for me. Mark was almost too talkative. His story-telling story-telling style was confusing, as he moved from one voice to another in the middle of his thoughts, speaking at times as

218 himself, then switching to another voice, or sometimes combining combining the two voices. For  example, while talking about his wife he spoke the following (italics is the imitation of a counselor), “She (Mark’s wife) felt controlled because we talked to a counselor like a team three thing. And she was telling telling me this one time ‘this is the ‘90s, this is not the ‘60s’ and I said ‘Lady I ain’t stupid.’ I understand that one. She said, ‘well your wife has a right to go down to the city at night.’ And I said, ‘Lady where were you …’ ‘I came  from Los Angeles.’ Well, I said, ‘I’ve been there,’ I haven’t bee n out of the mountains

very much but I go down to the the cities here. And I said, ‘that’s fine, but have you ever  looked on your streets?’ streets?’ ‘Well there’s people out there …’ ‘you’ve got drive-by shootings…’ ” (Transcript, Mark 147). When telling stories stories of past events he might might  begin with a specific time and place, then change quickly to a generality that described  many situations. In the same way, a sentence that started started with “I” might shift shift to “a man.” In the interview he mentioned that, years ago, his skull had been crushed in an auto accident, and at times I wondered wond ered whether this might have affected his thought process. Mark repeated the same themes over and over again throughout the interview. They included how he was raised by a strong, tough, German father, how women are different from men, how men should protect women, how one can control others, and that his wife left him. As the interview went on, I felt I was caught in one gear and couldn’t change it. The gear was cognitive, based on a path of free association. If I asked for feeling, he described “how a man thinks.” I felt inadequate as a depth interviewer. interviewer. The last thing I got from Mark was depth, and yet I heard the vocabulary of depth. For example, when we talked about rough times between his wife and himself, he would say, “I did a lot of 

219 soul searching during that time.” I also heard elaborate explanations of what went on  between him and his wife, but relatively little about what it was like for him internally. internally. He explained that she had put him on a pedestal, and he had not realized it. I thought his explanations of what happened were accurate, but the tone of his response was not exactly appropriate. I felt trapped in my head, or better put, I felt trapped in his head. We never got out of that mode of thinking or, as he put it, “The wheels up here [pointing to his head] are spinning so fast.” It wasn’t until the last 15 minutes of the interview that I realized I was the one struggling, struggling, not he. He was thoroughly engaged. His body and  mind were excited and stimulated by the the conversation. It wasn’t the conversation I wanted, but it was a conversation that that had meaning to him. When I let go of my expectation and tried to engage his words and cognitive explanations, the conversation took a new direction. The type of oratory did not change, but the pat answers shifted. When I asked him to focus on the worst moments between him and his wife, I asked if he had ever experienced the feelings that came up at any time before his marriage. At this point I did not expect a “feeling” word, but it popped right out: “Humiliation!” Then he said, “When I was young I was put in a class for retards.” retards.” From there he launched into a painful story story about his childhood in school. Though the affect was still not present, present, I began to understand Mark’s struggle. Late in the interview he reflected, “I was being humiliated like when I went to school with the mentally retarded  kids, somebody was classifying me, me, somebody was judging me. And I needed my freedom. It wasn’t that I wanted to inflict pain to to her, I was hurting inside inside and I needed  to get the heck away from it. I needed to get away from what was hurting me.” me.” This was the most emotional statement of the entire interview. In general, I don’t believe that

220 Mark has access to these feelings as an emotional, bodily response, however, he knows them cognitively, and he cherishes the ability ability to express them as thoughts and words. I  believe Mark has survived by the use of thinking and acting. His analogy of a wife being necessary to make a man whole is an understatement in the case of Mark. Selection Process of Tape Segments to Be Played to Co-Researchers

Mark’s primary story had a clear beginning and end, and it took a total of about nine minutes to tell. Consequently, it met the criteria criteria and was selected as the first tape segment. The rest of the interview included five well-defined narrative stories stories that related to the episodes of conflict and anger with his wife. wife. They included themes of   being different as a child, having a strong German father, and the clearly defined roles of  men and women. I chose two of the five narratives that best illustrated illustrated those themes and  those that also held the most most affect. The last segment chosen was a short narrative that Mark used as an analogy of what he had been going through in his life. Co-researchers’ Comments and Reflections

After hearing Mark’s initial story, Molly and Greg’s reactions were similar to mine. For example, Molly’s comment was, “It’s hard to have a conversation with this guy.” Greg said, “He has an answer for everything, and yet at the same time he is feeling overwhelmed and controlled. It’s like he is in the middle of the nightmare, nightmare, but without affect.” As Molly and Greg listened listened to the other parts of the tape, their feelings feelings that this fellow was overwhelmed and out of control intensified. They noted how he could not trust the realtor, could not trust the lawyer, and he could not trust the sellers. sellers. Even his wife betrayed him by leaving. They felt that there was a strong connection between his

221 anger and his being overwhelmed. As I had done, both of them speculated that his head  injury might have affected his personality. Summary of Analysis and Interpretation

As I thought about the co-researchers’ input as it augmented my own observations, the prevailing pattern of Mark’s anger was that it seemed to arise in situations that involved chaos in his world, in his words, “out of controlness”). The more he tried to make sense of what was happening and to cope with it, the more frustrated he  became. When he described these times of anger, he spoke dramatically about being crushed. When reflecting during the interview, he connected “being crushed” with feelings of inadequacy, humiliation, and guilt (all words used by him). him). Mark spoke about humiliation and related it to a time when he was a child living on a ranch, going to school and being put in a class for “retards.” Rather than revisiting that memory of humiliation, Mark’s main defense is to attack, blame, or take control. To allow any emotional expression besides anger would be to put himself in danger of returning to an unbearable memory connected with his childhood. As Molly put it, “There is an emotionality that is intolerable, and therefore tuned out.” Staying in control by thinking is what keeps Mark  out of what he calls “the darkness,” a state of mind he described going to during the months leading to the end of his marriage. All his time went into figuring out what to do, trying to take care of things, and thinking about his problems late late into the night. As he  put it, “My life was in the dark; I didn’t get to see the sun rise.” Despite Mark’s thinking, his approach involves little in the way of reflexivity. Any sense of his emotional life, as well as any empathy for his wife, dissipates into  problem solving. As Enrique Pardo says, “Shame chastises and covers up before any

222 objective response can be summoned, it blinds us with aggression, which usually projects  blame.” Mark’s shame, closely connected to his early humiliation, did just that. He  became aggressive, attacking and blaming his wife for their problems. Then he retreated, feeling guilty. Thus, Mark’s anger inevitably ended up being non-reflexive and otherdirected.  Re-interview of Subjects with Subject’s Comments on the Researchers’ Interpretations

I presented Mark with my thoughts on how he dealt with issues of conflict. I described how he uses his thinking to resolve issues to the point of not even being aware of his anger. I told him it appeared that when the frustration and anxiety mounts he starts to feel overwhelmed. I suggested that his feelings of being overwhelmed relate to childhood events that had caused him to feel inadequate, humiliated, and guilty, and that the struggle to avoid these feelings leaves him with only the feeling of being crushed. I suggested that when he starts feeling crushed he strikes out with verbal abuse toward his wife, saying everything he can think of to accuse, blame, and belittle her. When I finished, he exclaimed, “You read me like a book, and you are exactly right.” Then,  pointing to the chart, he continued, “Everything you say is so much right. I’ve got a lot of things on my mind, like right now. Okay it comes down here, guilt [pointing to the numbness mode], I feel like I should have done something differently. Then it gets over  there [pointing to reacting mode] where I get pissed off with my wife . . . and then it goes  back to thinking again [pointing to watching mode].” From my perspective, the difficulty occurred in our conversation when I tried to give Mark a clear understanding of the difference between thinking and reflexivity (with him I used the term self-awareness). He was right with me in understanding how feelings

223 of guilt and humiliation can become so overwhelming that he reacts with anger. However, when I spoke about his inability to express feeling other than rage, his response was, “Uh ha,” giving me the sense that he only partially understood. Then he said, “Well, I’m trying to learn how to trust.” He explained that this was not done in his family, and his experience was that trust led to betrayal. At the close of the interview I asked him once again whether my explanation made sense from his experience. His reply was, “Everything you got there is a lot of what I go through. But what is amazing to me is that you picked it up. That astonishes me, it’s like you have been able to go into my brain and understand these things here that have been making my world so damn hard.” As much as Mark showed astonishment in his agreement with the interpretation, I had the feeling of a pseudo-understanding, as if Mark would add this information to his list of information about himself.  Analysis of Reflexivity and Self/Other-Focused Anger 

Though Mark put a huge amount of effort into thinking about his problems, his thinking seldom moved toward reflexivity. To be sure, the interview showed little awareness of imaginal structures that impact him. More significantly, his “thinking reflection” seldom seemed to incorporate his emotional life. Mark seemed to spend a great deal of time doing his thinking, going over and over events in his life, trying to “figure them out,” and deciding what to do. He represses his emotional life in order to avoid being flooded by feelings of inadequacy, humiliation, and guilt. When confronted  with a situation that touches one of those feelings, his experience is, as he put it, as if he were “being crushed.” When this happens he defensively moves to a protective position

224 of other-focused anger, and attacks, using a lot of projective blame (reacting mode). I  believe Mark’s consciousness is identified with what Sylvia Perera, in The Scapegoat  Complex refers to as both the accuser and the alienated persona-ego of the scapegoat

complex. We see in the transcripts that Mark holds up collective labels and imperatives such as, “men should be, the women’s role is.” He strives to live up to these imperatives while ignoring his individual needs, except for the need to be right, to win, to succeed in order to fit in, or to belong.

INTERVIEW 3: NORMAN  Initial Interview: Overview and Reflections by Researcher 

 Norman, age 23, was the youngest of the five men interviewed. He worked as a night manager in a small grocery store. Although he was friendly and willing to  participate, there seemed to be a distance about him. As he told his primary story and  explained how he got arrested for domestic violence, I wondered if he fit my criteria for  subjects. Certainly he had been arrested for domestic violence, however, in his version of  what happened, he seemed to have felt little or no anger associated with the incident. He related that when his girlfriend became hysterical and hit him, he responded by holding her against the wall by her arms. After he released her, she went to neighbors and called  the police, who arrested him because of the marks on her arms. He told his story without emotion. At most, he seemed irritated that her call to the police caused him the inconvenience of having to attend an anger management program. As the interview progressed, I found myself looking for his anger. He lived with his girlfriend for almost two years, and broke up with her the night of the incident. I

225 assumed that there must be anger there, as he was quite clear that when he decided to confront her with his issues, he had also made up his mind that he would leave if she was not responsive. As it happened, she was not responsive, and the relationship ended that night. The more I searched for anger, the less I found. He even went on to explain that although she is with someone else now, they are friends and enjoy conversation together. He said that she feels badly about getting him into trouble. Somewhat lost in our conversation, we drifted to the subject of his previous girlfriend, his “first love” as he put it. I became intrigued and listened intently as he described meeting her in McDonald’s, their exchange of phone numbers, how they fell in love, her pregnancy, how they tried to make it work, and how the relationship failed. I caught myself and tried to return to issues of violence and anger. As I searched more, we talked about the second girlfriend’s child, who is not his child. Did he enjoy the child? Was he resentful that it was not his? Again, the conversation turned to his first love. He recalled that everything had been wonderful, and they decided to have the child together. He loved her more than anything else in the world. And then, without warning, she said  to him, “I want to raise the child without you.” He recounted being devastated, lost and  confused. A few months later he met his second girlfriend, who was five months  pregnant. He had known her in high school, they immediately connected, and he suggested that they live together. He recounted how this girl let him touch her belly and  feel the child kicking, all the things he couldn’t do with his first love. As the story unfolded, I learned that his first love remarried and had a second child. He recounted that after he got together with his second girlfriend, and after the birth of her child, his “first love” became jealous, which he did not understand since she had been the one who

226 decided to leave. At this point she refused to let him participate in the raising of his son.  Now, two years later, they still are in a court battle concerning how and when he can see his child. As he talked, I saw a young man who blamed himself for failing as a husband and  father. I imagined this young man trying to create a life with the wrong girl and the wrong child. I suspected that he repressed his initial anger when his “first love” left him and then turned that anger inward. Confused by a mixture of guilt, shame, and feelings of failure, he numbed himself to all feelings, and let his new girlfriend carry that part for  him. Recently, those feelings seemed to surface, as exhibited by his words, “How could  she do this to me and my son?” Selection Process of Tape Segments to Be Played to Co-Researchers

Following the standard criteria, the first tape segment chosen was Norman’s  primary story. One section of that story was eliminated because it is less of a narrative and contains many questions and answers for clarification. The rest of the interview involved a large number of questions to which Norman gave short answers. Only a small number of story segments resulted which had clear beginnings, middles, and ends. Each of these involved one or the other of Norman’s two relationships. I chose one on the  basis of its completeness. A second choice was a segment where Norman spoke reflexively about his primary relationship and the domestic violence incident. Co-researchers’ Comments and Reflections

As the co-researchers Molly and Greg listened to Norman’s primary story, they  both noticed what they thought was a lack of investment in his relationship. As Molly  put it, “Not much sign of anger; he seems lukewarm toward this lady.” Greg also asked 

227 about his age, and had the impression that he was very young. Greg said, “It’s like he wants a playmate or a friend.” Norman is 22 years old. Molly suggested helplessness  because people come into his life and, “just go away.” She continued, “There is a naiveté, the lack of relationship skills. He is very narcissistic; everything reflects back on him. ‘My son, my life, my—.’ ” She continued, “It’s not pathological, it’s just young.” Both Molly and Greg saw his story as a tale of a young man who, having lost his first love, tries to replicate his life with her and the child with another. Summary of Analysis and Interpretation

 Norman’s story seemed to have little to do with anger. It is a story of a young man who falls in love and is then thrown into parenthood before either he or his partner  were emotionally ready. His second relationship seemed to be an attempt to make things right, to try again, and to turn failure into success. Was there deep anger in the story?  Norman said that the only anger he had was toward his first love for keeping his son away from him. In his narrative this is the only acknowledged anger. If, however, I returned to Molly and Greg’s comments on Norman’s self-centeredness, his anger about his son being hurt may be also about himself. Issues of abandonment, rejection, and  helplessness are present both in Norman’s story of how his relationship ended with his first love and in his narrative of his current problems with the custody of his son. When I asked him about how he responded when his first love ended their relationship, he said, “I was confused, very sad. I didn’t . . . I didn’t blame her, you know, I just figured it was one of those things. . . . I wasn’t angry. I mean, I loved her a lot. I was trying to have the attitude, you know, well, look, I love you, and if this is how you want it to be, that’s how it’s going to be, you know.” I cannot help but think that Norman blames himself for that

228 relationship’s end. Norman’s emotional immaturity did not allow him to love and have negative feelings such as anger. This was not the first time Norman had been rejected. Though he didn’t talk about the circumstances, Norman said that he was adopted. I suspect that rejection and abandonment played an important role in Norman’s development of self.  Return Interview of Subject 

 Norman was unable to be reached for a second interview despite numerous attempts.  Analysis of Reflexivity and Self/Other Focused Anger 

 Norman exhibited a low level of reflexivity during the episode of domestic violence. His reflections about that night reinforce this idea. “I think I would have handled the whole discussion differently. I wouldn’t . . . when I thought back on it, I remember that night when I was sleeping at my dad’s after the police released me, I was . . . I remember I sounded really accusing, you know. You do this, you do that, you do this, you do that . . . . I don’t think that got the job done. (Laughs) . . . I wanted to reconcile our differences . . . I didn’t want her calling the cops and me getting towed  away and. . . .” (Transcript, Norman, line 383). Norman’s own analysis was that his anger was relatively low and definitely not an out-of-control rage. Considering the rest of his story, as well as his affect level in describing the situation, his analysis is probably accurate. However, despite this low level of anger, Norman still seems to lose control. In his words, “I remember I sounded really accusing, you know. You do this, you do that, you . . . . ” This, along with his general affect level, suggests that Norman’s emotional life is not easily available to him and, in general, it overwhelms him. In terms

229 of my typology, Norman’s world primarily resides in the “numbness mode,” where reflexivity is low and anger is turned inward. In this underworld, the demons for Norman are rejection and abandonment. As long as they remain there, Norman is vulnerable to the varied emotionality of intimacy. Though it is an interpretive leap, I postulate that  Norman turns his anger inward while attaching it to rejection and abandonment. This leaves him with an unconscious script that says, “If I show anger or even feel it toward  another, that person will leave me.”

INTERVIEW4: DAVID  Initial Interview: Overview and Reflections by Researcher 

David is a 37-year-old, energetic man. He is currently back in school, at a junior  college. He has been married for two years to his second wife. Before that he had not  been in a relationship for 15 years. He has a son who just graduated from high school and a two-year-old son with his current wife. The domestic violence incident that  brought him into this study involved an intense argument with his wife about the  behavior of a four-year-old stepchild. It led to a physical altercation between them that left her with a nosebleed. She subsequently left with their son and the stepchild, charged  David with spousal abuse, and filed for divorce. Though the argument was about his disciplining the stepchild, David believed his wife set him up so she could call the police. The word that best describes David is “challenge.” He was a challenge to interview because, once he started talking, he never stopped. His primary story about his domestic violence offense turned into multiple stories about himself, about his son, about his stepson, about his wife, and about various relationships with community members.

230 The list goes on. The transcript showed dozens of incomplete questions, interrupted by David’s responses. During the first half of the interview, it was as if I were a captive audience. Although his stories were fascinating, I felt out of control. As I moved toward   being more directive, I felt I was in competition with David. David wanted to tell me his story, but he was going to do it his way, whether I liked it or not. I found myself, somewhat unconsciously, reassuring him that I accepted his story: my “uh huh’s” and  “okay’s” were excessive, appearing at least three times more often than in the other  interviews. He seemed to respond positively, and by the beginning of the second hour, our exchanges seemed more productive. David’s stories revealed a life of challenges. His father physically abused him, and later abandoned the family. He told of how he had to be the best in school, sports, and at work. He alluded to a number of times when he had challenged political officials and had court battles. In one story he apprehended two teenagers who had broken into his house and was arrested for holding them at gunpoint. I got the picture of a man who is at odds with the world. On the one hand he was telling me that people “don’t mess with him,” and on the other hand he cautioned that “you have to watch out because  people are out to get you.” With some encouragement, late in the interview, he reflected on how much he felt abandoned and rejected by his wife the night of the domestic violence incident. He spoke of how he wanted her support and how he felt betrayed by her in the same way as his father had betrayed him. Worse still, he saw himself in his rage as acting much like the  part of his father that he hated. When I finished the interview, I had the image of a man constantly in battle with a hostile world, while starving for somebody to care for him. To

231 make things worse, each time in his life that he put down his shield, he was betrayed. In contrast to interviews 1 and 3, which dealt with men caught in an inner world, numb to the life around them, David seemed caught in the outer world where around every corner  he found a threat and a battle that needed to be fought. Selection Process of Tape Segments to Be Played to Co-Researchers

In each of the four other interviews, the initial description of the incident of  domestic violence was used as the first tape segment. In the case of David, this was not  possible since his initial description went on for over 45 minutes and included numerous sub-stories. Since this was so representative of David, I chose three segments of his description that included both elements of the primary story as well as sub-stories that related to it. The rest of the interview involved a return to various segments of his initial story with encouragement for more introspection. I pulled three segments based on narratives that added more depth to his original description. These included closely related sub-stories that had elevated his level of affect. Co-researchers’ Comments and Reflections

The first reaction by Molly was, “I am cautious about this guy, he says he gets set up and that he’s a good guy.” The other co-researcher, Greg, commented on David’s victimhood. As we played more segments of the interview, two sides of David became the focus. One was the reactive warrior, “I can handle it,” tough guy. The other side hinted that maybe that tough guy is a facade. Greg said it is as if he is in a dream, and  each time he wakes up he has to take action. This was in reference to how he spoke of  not seeing the end of his relationship coming. Referring to David’s reference to knowing  people in high places and how he can handle trouble, Molly suggested that if he were a

232 skillful warrior, he would have solved the problem. She described him as a “woolly mammoth hunter” and a gangster warrior, saying, “My image of the woolly mammoth hunter is an example of the primitive way the boys act that drive school teachers bats. Their response is physical, and they don’t know any other way.” Greg, referring to David’s description of his dad, said, “He didn’t have any kind of modeling that handled  conflict different than that. He made reference to feeling helpless and out of control, and  I don’t think that was just in relationship to his wife. The gangster warrior thing seems so thin it is not real power at all.” Summary of Analysis and Interpretation

Like Molly and Greg, I believe that David uses his reactive warrior persona  because that is the only way he knows to act when he is in conflict, which seems to be most of the time. When he related that his father had not come to his graduation, it was clear that he still felt resentment and anger. The primary image is that of a reactive adolescent that wants approval from dad. Now, “dad” appears as public officials, police officers, judges, and other authority figures. It is as if he is stuck in the need to repeat a game of getting in trouble and then making up, and being a buddy to those in power. Though his reflexivity was moderate in his de scriptions of the fight he had with his wife, his ability to act on it was very low. For example, he said that he was aware, even during the conflict, of the irrationality of what he and his wife were doing. But, even though he saw in her a personification of his own father, he was unable to disengage from his own rage, then became helpless, and was caught in a reactive mode. Like Molly and Greg, I believe David’s primary way of dealing with the world is that of the reactive warrior. Anger is often defined as an internal response to a real or 

233  presumed threat to one’s personal control or impact on the world. In David’s case, the mode of operation is clearly the reactive warrior, which directs energy to combat the  perceived attacker. When David described his altercation with his wife, he gave the impression of being caught in the conflict like a warrior who has lost control of the  battlefield. He described being aware of not liking the yelling, the screaming, the kids standing there, and the conflictual nature of the situation. But despite seeing through it, he was helpless to change either his behavior or his wife’s. He could even see his wife’s resemblance to his father in that moment. His father was one who refused to support his mother and often abused her as well as his sons. When David was violent, he regressed  to a teenage reactive warrior determined to stand up to his father at all costs. However, what he really wanted was his father’s support. In the same way, what he wanted from his wife was her support. Where David seems to get into trouble is not with being a warrior, but rather with his warrior being lost in the chaos of battle. I wondered how deeply wounded David was by the rejection by his father. It was easy to see David’s identification with both his son and his stepson’s fear during the conflict between him and his wife.  Re-interview of Subject, with Subject’s Comments on the Researcher’s Interpretations

When David returned for the second visit, I first presented to David the typology diagram. I gave him a full description of how Molly, Greg, and I felt he fit into this typology. I focused on the incident of domestic violence and how we saw him being trapped in the reactive mode. To this he responded, “I didn’t feel like there was any escape from it.” Then David generalized that incident to other incidents by saying, “I almost ricochet into that place every time.” He further explained, “It’s like that night

234 with Katie, I can almost, I could see my dad flashing past me, like seeing my life going from me.” When I told David that I thought his reactive behavior was a way of avoiding feelings of hopelessness and rejection, David gave an extensive example of another  similar case that showed how his wife rejects him. He explained how he would give his wife advice in different cases and how she would reject it. I pointed out to him how he moved from “the rejection of his advice” to being personally rejected. To which he responded, “But she always does that.” I was left with the sense that it is hard for David  to separate his “intellect” from his general “self-worth.” This was supported when he talked about how his father was the same way: “I was never good enough for my dad.” As we talked more about rejection, he shared, “All my life I feel like no matter how hard  I try, somehow I come up short.” When I returned to his anger I gave him the description that Molly used  describing him as a “woolly mammoth hunter” along with the description of adolescent  boys who drive teachers crazy. David responded, “It’s like an outburst rather than acting in a constructive way. When I was in school I was very much like that, all over the  place.” At this point David studied the typology chart and explained, “I don’t let a lot of   people in.” Pointing to the watching mode, “This ‘Horus the Hawk’ thing; I often go there trying to always do things on my own, not totally, but I go there, and I can work  through a lot of things. But the ego is a big part of it. I put the ego up even though it’s not reality. I think what happens is that a lot of times I go there and then frustration comes up and I see myself feeling like I bit off more than I can chew bringing in the

235 feeling of hopelessness. Now if there’s another human involved, like a relationship thing . . . I go down to the reactive warrior taking it out on whoever is there . . . . But sometimes I do go down to Osiris and get in that hopeless place . . . like I am not going to climb out of this hole. I get there regularly. It’s not a daily thing, but I go there a lot.” I realized I hadn’t expected him to identify with Osiris. With curiosity I asked  him if he was aware of the rejection. He responded, “I’m not aware of it when I go really low, but if I crossed over to the reactive place then I know that I have been rejected. The thing you did with the pencil [earlier when describing a non-reflexive, reactive response I used the example, saying “shit” and throwing a pencil across the room], a lot of times I’ll do that, I’ll hit the table, push something, throw something . . . especially when I’m in that kind of mood and somebody else comes into it, I can be very reactive.” I was both surprised and pleased at the way David used the typology to describe and make sense out of his world. David later gave an example about how things happen to him for what seems to  be no reason other than that people are out to get him. When he described an incident of   being pulled over by the police, I asked David if it was the warrior in David that gets  people to react back to him?

He replied, “Oh yeah; you may be on to something there.

It’s like I start out with ‘how can I help you, officer?’ And before we are done it’s like, ‘Yeah, you are damn straight you don’t want me to get out of the car because they did not give you enough stuff to protect yourself, you jerk.’ And that’s how I’m feeling. ‘I would probably make a grease spot out of you.’ ” Though David showed a sharp and inquisitive mind, his stories during our short time together repeatedly portrayed him as the innocent victim who fights back and will

236 not take abuse. Although in the interviews David showed an ability to be reflexive, his stories repeatedly showed his inability to make use of it when in conflict with others. Old  feelings of rejection inevitably seemed to initiate action b ased on anger.  Analysis of Reflexivity and Self/Other-Focused Anger 

David, Molly, Greg, and I all recognize David’s propensity to move to the mode of the “reactive warrior” when in conflict. Representative of this was David’s retort to the judge, “If someone kicks me in the shins, they’re probably going to get their lights  punched out. That’s just the way I operate” (Transcript David, line 166). Perhaps more interesting was David’s own reflection of how he tries to stay in the mode of watcher, which he interprets as taking care of things without needing others. Then when feeling like he takes on too much, he describes himself as going down into the numbness mode, feeling depressed and hopeless. However, if there is another person involved he says he then goes to the “reactive warrior,” and strikes out. Anger seems to play a large role in David’s life. He is either angry at being a victim of others or turns it inward by seeing himself as a failure. As he put it “I try so hard sometimes . . . I fail.” David’s examples verify his propensity to become a reactive warrior who lashes out at the person in his way. He went beyond the interpretation of the researcher, telling in the interview how he projected his father onto his wife. He also added that he isolates himself from others, takes on projects that are too much to handle, and then becomes depressed and feels like a failure, which he recalls happening in his relationship with his father. His description portrayed both intense, needy love along with hatred, much like what Sylvia Perera describes as “. . . primary initial affects of the victim ego held so long out of life.”

237 INTERVIEW 5: CONRAD  Initial Interview: Overview and Reflections by Researcher 

Conrad is a 41-year old, self-employed landscape contractor. He has three children who are mostly grown and has been married to the same woman for over 20 years. He describes the relationship as generally great, but at times frustrating. In the  past, his wife has physically abused him; in one case, she knocked him semi-unconscious. Conrad says that prior to his arrest for domestic violence there had never been an incident where he physically assaulted his wife. Probably the most distinguishing aspect of Conrad was his expressiveness. When he spoke of the anger and rage that he had felt the evening of the incident, it was not hard  to imagine what it was like for him. In fact, a number of times during the interview I had  to ask him about the emotional expressions he was using; whether they were feelings that he still held, or were they just part of his story. Conrad’s domestic violence incident was the most extreme of the five. Conrad pushed his wife onto the couch, slapped her a few times, and pinched her nose. Significantly visible were Conrad’s shame, embarrassment, guilt, and disgust for his actions. Of all those interviewed, I felt the most engaged by Conrad. It seemed that Conrad was here because he was genuinely interested in learning something new about himself and was willing to take the chance of revealing himself. I found I had to work  less while interviewing Conrad than I did with the others. Mostly I listened, and my questions were less about finding direction as they were about encouraging his own  process of revealing and reflecting on his experience.

238 A primary theme emerged of control and manipulation countered by betrayal. Later in the interview he told a story about his older brother, 14 years his senior, who was like a father to him. The primary relationship with this brother was one of seeking approval and then being betrayed by unjustified criticism. He felt he spent much of his life trying to demonstrate his worth and seek ing attention from his brother, only to have him come back at him in betrayal. He also told a story about working with a woman that he considered a friend. She turned on him and, to his surprise, became angered by something he said. Then she walked away and left him in a rage but unable to remember  her words. He told of his long, turbulent relationship with his wife of 20 years. He was astonished by the fact that despite the many times she had physically abused him, he had  never struck back until this incident three weeks ago. He described the injuries he received from her battering him with objects while he slept. Despite this history with his wife, he did not blame his wife or deny his abuse. He spoke of how she had had an affair some 17 years ago. As he wove together  the stories of betrayals, a silence came to the interview for the first time. Tears welled up in his eyes and with broken speech he said, “She never put the effort into working it out.” There was no anger at this point, just the words “ it’s always there,” referring to her  infidelity. Selection Process of Tape Segments to Be Played to Co-Researchers

Conrad’s primary story had a clear beginning and end; it took a total of four  minutes to tell. Consequently, it met the criteria and was selected as the first tape segment to be rated by the co-researchers. I included a subsequent short segment, and a longer story that Conrad said was pertinent to the current incident. This was the story of 

239 his wife’s infidelity. During the interview, Conrad highlighted his feelings of being controlled or manipulated by others. I chose a particular story that typified this feeling. The last segment chosen was from near the end of the interview. Here, Conrad’s emotions and reflexive response were most pronounced from the researcher’s point of  view. Co-researchers’ Comments and Reflections

Both Molly and Greg, upon hearing the initial story presented by Conrad, were intrigued and curious about this man. Molly put it, “This man would be fun to work  with.” They each saw a level of reflexivity beyond that which they perceived in the other  men. Conrad’s level of empathy, sensitivity, and emotional honesty impressed them. Conrad’s frustration seemed significant to his long-term relationship. They became curious about the level of his submissiveness, finding themselves excited by Conrad’s descriptions of standing up to his older brother, and sympathetic to his fantasies about “striking back at his wife.” As Greg put it, “He is visibly hurt by her not making it right,” referring to her affair, “But he does not look toward his own power to make it right.” Molly suggested that this innocence trips him up and he hangs up on the issue of betrayal. As Molly spoke positively of Conrad’s sensitivity, Greg responded, “Yes, but is it a sensitivity appreciated by a mother or a lover?” To which Molly responded, with a laugh, “By a mother.” Summary of Analysis and Interpretation

While Molly and Greg reflected on the segments of the taped interview, I thought about Conrad’s high level of expressiveness as well as reflexivity. What was it that was getting him into trouble? It was easy to blame the alcohol of the evening as the catalyst

240 for his violent outburst. However, as Conrad himself acknowledges, the propensity toward that violence, or at least the rage, resided in him. He was clear that what set him off was the feeling of being controlled and manipulated; feelings that were neve r too far  away. With a man as expressive and reflective as Conrad, one wants to put the blame on another: the older brother or the unfaithful wife. Conrad is reluctant to move fully to this  position of blame. although when he says, “She never put the effort into making it right,” he is certainly drawn to the comfort of blame. The pattern that seems to underlie Conrad’s dilemma is that, in pursuit of acceptance from another, he allows himself to be vulnerable and is then devastated by betrayal. Vulnerability is certainly something therapists look for in a healthy relationship. My question is, why is vulnerability not working for Conrad? The co-researchers referred to Conrad’s innocence as something that seemed to be tripping him up. He is vulnerable like a child or young man. Betrayals are part of every relationship, but for Conrad they become primary in defining the relationship. Conrad admits that it is unlikely that his wife has been unfaithful to him since that one time 17 years ago. Each manipulation or betrayal by his wife becomes a suggestion to Conrad that he has failed in some way. Each time he is confronted by issues of manipulation or control he feels it is necessary for him to counter with anger in order to, as he put it, “Give himself definition.” His confrontation with his brother, when he asserted himself publicly and let his brother know he would not put up with being ridiculed, was a powerful example of Conrad’s move toward healthy emotional adulthood  (which took place about 14 years ago). However, particularly with his wife, his taking a stand seems more like an adolescent boy who reacts to his parents’ control (i.e., manipulation) with outrage. Every manipulative or controlling action of his wife

241  becomes a message that she doesn’t care and, like an adolescent boy, his anger becomes an assertion of his independence in the form of the polarity of, “I don’t need you,” and, “How could you do this to me?” Or, “If you cared about me, you wouldn’t do this.” From the way Conrad presented himself, I would assume that in most areas of his life he is fairly high in both reflexivity and engagement with others, including his wife. However, when he is engaged in a situation of control or manipulation with another   person he regresses to either outbursts of anger that are non-reflexive and controlled or to a reflexive state that does not involve the other person directly. Consequently, with his intimate relations, his wife, and in the past with his b rother, he becomes stuck in a cycle without resolution.  Re-interview of Subject, with Subject’s Comments on the Researcher’s Interpretations

After reading the summary description, I asked Conrad if he thought there was a  pattern of the manipulation and control which touches off betrayal and hurt. His response was, “I totally agree, I go to or I react to the manipulation control (like being trapped),  but at the time, I have no awareness of hurt and betrayal.” When I asked further about his wife’s betrayal, which in the first interview he had separated from his anger, he said, “It has been two decades and I still obsess about it.” Then he related other incidents that he connected with betrayal. He spoke of abandonment and not being accepted. “There was a brother of mine who was killed when I was 12 . . . my other brother moved out at 14 (I was 11). My father left when I was seven, my mother had to go to work when I was two.” He also spoke more about the manipulation and control he feels from his wife. “Something else came up when I thought about being stuck: my frustration with my wife and her not being honest. The thing that frustrates me is that she continues to deny

242 things. She won’t talk about it. I want to know what happened. We were getting along great, we had just had a second child, I had a new job. And I feel betrayed that she never  has gone to repair it. She has never given me what I feel I deserve to know. She really  professes profound love for me, and yet I am still wanting that from her.” As Conrad free-associated on themes in his life connected to betrayal, he spoke of  a major concern he has about this pattern of non-productivity and laziness. “Particularly with work, and then blaming myself.” He told a story about working as a bartender for  the owner of a restaurant and how it didn’t work out, and how he was living in hell for six months. He said, “I would go home and cry because I was so miserable.” Then he remembered how he decided to become self-employed and never again be betrayed by somebody who has power over him. He also gave another example about being betrayed   by a client who dropped him because of hearing about the domestic violence incident. He said it really affected him. The second interview ended with him saying, “These sessions have really made me step out of myself and see things more graphically . . . especially the issues of betrayal.”  Analysis of Reflexivity and Self/Other-Focused Anger 

Of all those interviewed, Conrad showed the most ability for reflexivity, both in his personal introspection as well as in his a bility to empathize with his spouse’s experience. When the domestic violence incident occurred, Conrad had had a few beers. Though this certainly had an impact on his behavior, it also accentuated the deep wounds that Conrad carries within him. It would be an over-simplification to designate Conrad to one mode of my typology. However, by following his movement from one to another of  the four modes we can understand his lived experience. When Conrad is confronted by

243 conflict, particularly with those individuals important to him, the old wounds of betrayal resurface. When this happens, with his wife in particular, he moves to the “reactive mode.” This becomes problematic because he loses his capacity to be reflexive and  every internal conflict gets defined as a betrayal rather than an issue of differentiation. Ironically, conflicts with his wife often end with him experiencing a stronger sense of  self, “I wanted to define myself with my . . . not acquiescing all the time” (Transcript Conrad, line 305). Conrad’s stuckness could be defined by an unconscious script that says, “Either I give up part of myself in order not to be betrayed or I devalue the importance of the ‘other’ so their betrayal won’t hurt me.” Conrad’s anger, though flowing through all the quadrants, seems to bounce between “reactivity” and “numbing” when it touches on betrayal and abandonment.

APPENDIX 3 CONSENT AND DISCLOSURE FORM

As part of your sentencing, the court has given you the option to participate in a study on anger and violence. By participating you may receive credit for one class of the required 52-week domestic violence program given by DVSAC. You also qualify for a $25 stipend. Your participation involves being interviewed about the incident that led to the domestic violence charges and conviction. This interview is designed to be a learning experience for both you and the interviewer. After completing the interview a signed  document will be given to you to be used for getting credit for one class toward your  domestic violence program. If you choose to participate in the interview process, you should be aware of the following information: The data gathered from the interview will be used for educational and research purposes. Your name and any identifying information disclosed in the interviews will be changed so that your identity will not be known to others. The interview will be a collaborative research approach. As a follow up to the research, you are encouraged to take advantage of a follow-up meeting. During this session the interviewer will share his analysis and conclusions from the study and will ask for your  comments and input. Your privacy, with respect to information you disclose during participation in the study, will be protected. Names and identifying information will be excluded from any use of the material collected. However, there are circumstances where a licensed  therapist is required by law or ethical standards to reveal information, usually for the  protection of the participant, or others. A report to the police department, the appropriate  protective agency, or individual is required in the following cases: 1. If, in the judgment of the researcher, a participant becomes dangerous to himself or others (or their property), and if revealing the information would be necessary to prevent the danger; 2. If there is suspected child abuse, in the other words, if a child under 18 has received physical injury not accidental, sexual assault, neglect, willful cruelty, or  unjustifiable punishment; 3. If the subject indicates intention to harm an identifiable victim or victims; 4. If information from the interview is subpoenaed by a judicial court of law; If you have any questions as to what would need to be reported, the interviewer  will give you a clear explanation. The purpose of this research is not to get you to disclose information that would have a detrimental effect on you. As a participant you may withdraw from the interview at any time without negative consequences. Following the interview, if there is any anxiety or other emotional reaction that leaves you in an uncomfortable state, the interviewer will refer you to coun seling resources. I have read and understand the above information.

Date___________.

 Name (printed)_____________________. Signature ____________________________. 244

APPENDIX 4 RATING SCALE OF REFLEXIVITY

This rating scale is to be used to rate the dominate characteristic of a “narrative unit” (stories, episodes, or segments). It should be assumed that elements of lower categories are contained in higher levels. Thus, in general, the highest rating takes dominance over  lower levels. Raters will be trained. 5

HIGH REFLEXIVITY−

Awareness of intra- and inter-psychic images and the  potential to act on the basis of those images. Content of the narrative demonstrates the presence of one or more of the following along with indication that the narrator could choose to adjust his actions on the basis of them: Indications of empathy for the other. Indications of awareness of oneself acting (feeling one’s feelings, thinking one’s thoughts). Expression of awareness of the relationship of past situations and emotions to the present one. • •

•

4

MODERATE REFLEXIVITY

Some awareness of intra- and inter-psychic images without showing any potential for acting on the basis of that awareness. Content of narrative demonstrates the presence of o ne or more of the following  but is not able to act on the basis of them: Indications of empathy for the other. Indications of awareness of oneself acting (feeling one’s feeling, thinking one’s thoughts). Awareness of past situations, experiences, emotions similar to the present one. • •

•

3

LITERAL REFLECTING OF THE IMMEDIATE EXPERIENCE −

Awareness of body sensations, feelings, awareness of one’s own and other’s affect, actions, words. Relates to content of dialog or argument. Content of narrative demonstrates the presence of o ne or more of the following: Awareness of one’s physical self (shaking, trembling, sweating, position of   body, etc.). Awareness of one’s own affect, feelings. Awareness of other’s affect. Able to hear the words and content of the other. Is able to respond to the content of the other. •

• • • •

245

246 2

LOW REFLEXIVITY −

Defensive stance to stimulus, general focus on other 

rather than self. Content of narrative demonstrates the presence of o ne or more of the following: Blames other for situation. Defends one’s own actions. Use of various defense mechanisms: projection, regression, repression, etc. Attention to the other without awareness of self. • • • •

1

PRE-REFLEXIVE−

An immediate and unpremeditated reaction to objective stimuli. Actions (or words) are impulsive, without thought. Content of narrative demonstrates the presence of o ne or more of the following: Regression. Impulsivity (physical reaction with no or limited awareness of self).  Numbness to physical stimuli (pain). Emotional numbness to stimuli. Unable to hear or understand words or content of others. • • • • •

REFERENCES

Aristotle and Richard Peter McKeon. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 1941. Albom, Mitch. Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Doubleday Press, 1997. Auerbach, John.  Dualism, Self-reflexivity, and Intersubjectivity: Commentary on Paper  by Sheldon Bach. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 8, no. 5, 1998. Averill, James R. “Anger.” In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1978, Vol. 26, ed. Richard Dienstbier, 1-80. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.  ________. Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.  ________. Emotions and Their Functions. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 4, no. 1. 1984. 40-43.  ________. “Putting the Social in Social Cognition, With Special Reference to Emotion.” In Perspectives on Anger and Emotion, Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. VI, ed. Robert Wyer, and Thomas K. Srull, 47-55. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1993.  ________. “I Feel Therefore I Am − I Think.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Richard J. Davidson and Paul Ekman, 379-85. New York: Oxford University Press. 1994.  ________. “Emotions are Many Splendored Things.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard  J. Davidson, 99-102. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Bach, Sheldon. “Perspectives on Self and Object.” Psychoanalytic Review, Spring 1971, no. 1, 145-168, 1971. Barrett, Paul H. and Charles Darwin.  A Concordance to Darwin's “The Expression of the  Emotions in Man and Animals”. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986. Basch, Michael F. “The Concept of Affect: A Re-examination.” In Journal of the  American Psychoanalytic Association, no. 24 (1976): 759-75. Bateson, Gregory.  Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Bantam Books, 1979.

275

276 Benjamin, Jessica. “Recognition and Destruction: An Outline of Intersubjectivity.” In  Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis, ed. Susan C. Warshaw and Neil J. Skolnick, 43-60. Hillsdale: Analytic Press, 1992.  ________. “Love, Rage, and Destruction: Donald Winnicott and Social Theory: Reply.” Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought 16, no. 3 (1993): 447-54. Berkowitz, Leonard. “On the Formation and Regulation of Anger and Aggression: A Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Analysis.” In an address 1989 to American Psychological Association - Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology (New Orleans).  American Psychologist 45, no. 4 (1990): 494-503.  ________. “Toward a General Theory of Anger and Emotional Aggression: Implications of the Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Perspective for the Analysis of  Anger and Other Emotions.” In Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. VI , Perspectives on Anger and Emotion, ed. Thomas K. Srull and Robert S. Wyer Jr., 1-46. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.  ________.  Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. New York: McGrawHill, 1993. Bland, Roger C. and Helene Orn. “Family Violence and Psychiatric Disorder.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 31, no. 2 (1986) 129-137.  ________. “Feminist Perspective on Wife Abuse: An Introduction.” In Feminist  Perspective on Wife Abuse, ed. Kersti Yllo and Michele Bogard, 11-26, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1988. Brown, Norman Oliver.  Life Against Death; the Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959. Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani. New York: Dover Publications, 1967.  ________. Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection. Edited by Dover. New York: Dover  Publications, 1973. Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Bollingen, 1972. Campbell, Jacquelyn C. “Prevention of Wife Battering: Insights From Cultural Analysis.” In Response to the Victimization of Women and Children 14, no. 3 (1992): 18-24. Camus, Albert. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt . Translated by Anthony Bower.  New York: Vintage Books, 1956. Clark, Lee A. and David Watson. “Distinguishing Functional from Dysfunctional Affective Responses.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions.

277 Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson, 131-36. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Clore, Gerald L. “Why Emotions Require Cognition.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Richard J. Davidson and  Paul Ekman, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Cobb, Noel.  Archetypal Imagination: Glimpses of the Gods in Life and Art . London: Lindisfarne Press, 1992. Colaizzi, Paul F. “Psychological Research as the Phenomenologist Views It.” In  Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology, ed. Ronald S. Valle and Mark King, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Corbin, Henry. The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy. Translated by Joseph Rowe. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 1998. Dalai Lama and Howard Cutler. The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.  New York: Riverhead Books, 1998. Darwin, Charles. The Expression of Emotions in Man and the Animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Davidson, Richard J. “On Emotion, Mood, and Related Affective Constructs.” In The  Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard J. Davidson, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Derrida, Jacques. Speech and Phenomena, and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of  Signs. Translated by David Allison, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973. Diamond, Stephen A.  Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: the Psychological Genesis of  Violence, Evil, and Creativity. SUNY Series in the Philosophy of Psychology, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Dobash, R. Emerson and Russell P. Dobash. Wives: The Appropriate Victims of Marital Violence. Victimology 2, no. 3-4(1978): 426-42.  ________. Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy. New York: Free Press, 1979. Dodge, Kenneth A. and John D. Coie. “Social-Information-Processing Factors in Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children's Peer Groups.”  Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology 53 (1987): 1158-64. Dodge, Kenneth A., and Judy Garber. “Domains of Emotion Regulation.” In The  Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation, ed. Judy Garber and  Kenneth A. Dodge, 3-11. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

278 Dodge, Kenneth A. “The Structure and Function of Reactive and Proactive Aggression.” In The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, ed. Kenneth H. Rubin and Debra J. Pepler, 201-18. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1991a.  ________. “Emotion and Social Information Processing.” In The Development of   Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation, ed. Judy Garber and Kenneth A. Dodge, 159-81. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991b. Dutton, Donald G. and James J. Browning. “Power Struggles and Intimacy Anxieties As Causative Factors of Wife Assault.” In Violence in Intimate Relationships, ed. Gordon W. Russell, 163-75. Costa Mesa, CA: PMA Publishing Corp., 1988. Dutton, Donald G. The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal  Justice Perspectives. Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, 1995.  ________. “A Scale for Measuring Propensity for Abusiveness.”  Journal of Family Violence 10, no. 2 (1995) 203-21. Eagle, Morris N.  Recent Developments in Psychoanalysis: A Critical Evaluation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Eigen, Michael. “The Area of Faith in Winnicott, Lacan and Bion.”  International  Journal of Psycho-Analysis 62, no. 4 (1981): 413-33. Ekman, Paul and Richard J. Davidson. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Elliott, Frank. “The Neurology of Explosive Rage: The Episodic Dyscontrol Syndrome.” In Battered Women: A Psychological Study of Domestic Violence, ed. Maria Roy. New York: Van Nostrand, 1977. Ellis, Normandi.  Awakening Osiris: A New Translation of The Egyptian Book of the  Dead . Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Emde, Robert, D. H. Kligman, J. H Reich,. and T. C Wade,. “Emotional Expression in Infancy: In Initial Studies of Social Signaling and an Emergent Model.” In The  Development of Affect , ed. Michael Lewis and Leonard Rosenblum. New York: Plenum Press, 1978. Fairbairn, William and Ronald Dodds.  An Object-Relations Theory of the Personality.  New York: Basic Books, 1954. Faulk, Michael. “Men Who Assault Their Wives.”  Medicine: Science and the Law 14 (1974): 180-83.

279 Foucault, Michel. “The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.” New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Frazer, Sir James George. The New Golden Bough, ed. Dr. Theodor H. Gaster. New York: Criterion Books, Inc., 1959. Freud, Sigmund.  An Outline of Psycho-Analysis. International Psycho-Analytical Library no. 35. London: Hogarth Press, 1949.  ________. Civilization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961. Freud, Sigmund, Wilhelm Jensen, and Helen M. Downey.  Delusion and Dream: An  Interpretation in the Light of Psychoanalysis of Gradiva, A Novel by Wilhelm  Jensen, which is here reprinted . New York: New Republic, 1927. Freud, Sigmund and Philip Rieff. Collected Papers of Sigmund Freud: With an  Introduction. New York: Collier Books, 1978. Frijda, Nico H. “Emotions are Functional Most of the Time.” In The Nature Of   Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series In Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman, 112-22. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy Of Human Destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and  Winston, 1973. Ganley, Anne L. “Integrating Feminist and Social Learning Analyses of Aggression: Creating Multiple Models for Intervention with Men Who Batter.” In Treating  Men Who Batter: Theory, Practice, and Programs. Springer Series: Focus on  Men. Vol. 5, ed. L. Kevin Hamberger and P. Lynn Caesar, 196-235. New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1989. Gelles, Richard J. and Donileen R. Loseke. Current Controversies on Family Violence.  Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1993. Ghent, Emmanuel. “Credo: The Dialectics of One-Person and Two-Person Psychologies.” Contemporary Psychoanalysis 25 (1989): 169-211. Giorgi, Amedeo. Phenomenology And Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1985. Goldner, Virginia, Peggy Penn, Marcia Sheinberg, and Gillian Walker. “Love and  Violence: Gender Paradoxes in Volatile Attachments.” Family Process 29, no. 4 (1990): 343-64. Goleman, Daniel.  Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.

280 Gottman, John M. and Lynn F. Katz. “Effects of Marital Discord on Young Children's Peer Interaction and Health.”  Developmental Psychology 25, no. 3 (1989): 37381. Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955. Guggenbühl-Craig, Adolf.  Marriage: Dead or Alive. Translated by Murray Stien. Zürich: Spring Publications, 1977.  ________.  Eros on Crutches: Reflections on Psychopathy and Amorality. Irving, TX: Spring Publications, 1980. Gunderson, John G.  Borderline Personality Disorder . Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1984. Hanks, Susan E. “Translating Theory Into Practice: A Conceptual Framework for  Clinical Assessment, Differential Diagnosis, and Multi-Modal Treatment o f  Maritally Violent Individuals, Couples, and Families.” In Intimate Violence:  Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Emilio C. Viano, 157-76. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1992. Hartup, Willard W. “Peer Relations.” In Handbook of Child Psychology, ed. E. Mavis Hetherington, 103-196. New York: Wiley, 1983. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich and Johannes Hoffmeister. Phänomenologie des Geistes, 1952. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1952. Heron, John and Peter Reason. “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm.” Qualitative Inquiry 3 (1997): 274-94. Hillman, James.  Emotion, A Comprehensive Phenomenology of Theories and Their   Meanings for Therapy. Evanston, IL: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960.  ________. The Myth of Analysis: Three Essays in Archetypal Psychology. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1972.  ________.  Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.  ________. From Mirror to Window: Curing Psychoanalysis of Its Narcissism. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1989.  ________. The Thought of The Heart and The Soul of the World . Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1992.  ________. Facing the Gods. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1994. Hillman, James and Thomas Moore.  A Blue Fire: Selected Writings. New York: Harper  and Row, 1989.

281 Homer. The lliad . Translated by I. V. Rieu. Baltmore: Penquin Books, 1950. Houston, Jean. The Passion of Isis and Osiris. New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 1995. Izard, Carroll E. “On the Ontogenesis of Emotions and Emotion-Cognition Relationships in Infancy.” In The Development of Affect , ed. Michael Lewis and Leonard A. Rosenblum, 389-413. New York: Plenum, 1978.  ________. “Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Emotion and Emotion Communication.” In  Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, ed. Harry Triandis & William Loner, Vol. 3. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.  ________. “Cognition is One of Four Types of Emotion Activating Systems.” In The  Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Richard J. Davidson and Paul Ekman, 203-7. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Izard, Carroll E. and R. Roger Kobak. “Emotions System Functioning and Emotion Regulation.” In The Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation. Cambridge Studies in Social and Emotional Development , ed. Kenneth A. Dodge & Judy Garber, 303-21. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. James, William. The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.  ________. “Co to jest Emocja?/ What is an Emotion?” Przeglad Psychologiczny 27, no. 4 (1984): 863-85. Jenkins, Jennifer M., Marjorie A. Smith, and Philip J. Graham. “Coping with Parental Quarrels.”  Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, (1989): 182-89. Johnson, Stephen M. Character Styles. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1994. Jung, Carl G. Symbols of Transformation: An Analysis of the Prelude to a Case of  Schizophrenia. 2d. ed. Vol. 5. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956.  ________.  Answer to Job. New York: Meridian Books, 1960.  ________. Freud and Psychoanalysis. Vol. 4. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and  William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.

282  ________.  Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Ed. Aniela Jaffe. New York: Vintage Books, 1963.  ________. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. 2nd., rev. Vol. 7. The Collected  Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton,  NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966.  ________.  Alchemical Studies. Vol. 13. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated   by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967.  ________. Psychology and Alchemy. 2d ed. Vol. 12. The Collected Works of C. G.  Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard  Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.  ________. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. 2nd ed., Vol. 9, pt. I. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.  ________.  Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self . 2nd ed., Vol. 9 pt. II. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.  ________. Psychology and Religion: West and East . 2d ed. Vol. 11. The Collected  Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton,  NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.  ________. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. 2d ed. Vol. 8. The Collected  Works of C. G. Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton,  NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.  ________. Civilization in Transition. 2d ed. Vol. 10. The Collected Works of C. G.  Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard  Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.  ________.  Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of  Psychic Opposites in Alchemy. 2d ed. Vol. 14. The Collected Works of C. G.  Jung. Translated by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard  Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.

283  ________. Psychological Types. Vol. 6. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated   by R. F. Hull, ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971.  ________. Psychology of the Unconscious: A Study of the Transformations and  Symbolisms of the Libido: A Contribution to the History of the Evolution of  Thought . Supplementary Vol. B. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Translated   by M. Hinkle. Bollingen series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. Kaam, A. van. Existential Foundation of Psychology. New York: Image Books, 1969). Kagan, Jerome. “A Conceptual Analysis of the Affects.”  Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, no. 39 (suppl., 1991): 109-129. Kalmuss, Debra. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Marital Aggression.”  Journal of Marriage & the Family 46, no. 1 (1984): 11-19. Kernberg, Otto F. Object-Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. New York: J. Aronson, 1976.  ________. “The Structural Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Organization.” In  Borderline Personality Disorders: The Concept, the Syndrome, the Patient , ed. P. Hartocollis, 87-121. New York: International University Press, 1977.  ________. “Sexual Excitement and Rage: Building Blocks of the Drives.” Sigmund  Freud Lecture (1990, Vienna, Austria). Sigmund Freud House Bulletin 15, no. 1 (1991): 3-38.  ________.  Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.  ________. “The Psychopathology of Hatred.” In Rage, Power, and Aggression, ed. Robert A. Glick, Steven P. Roose, et al., 61-79. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Kierkegaard, Soren and Walter Lowrie. The Concept of Dread . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944. Kohut, Heinz and Paul H. Ornstein. The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978 . New York: International Universities Press, 1978. Kugler, Paul. “The ‘Subject’ of Dreams.” C. G. Jung, Analytical Psychology, and  Culture: Study of Dreams Vol. 3, no. 2, 1993. Kvale, Steinar.  Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1996.

284 Labov, William. Speech Actions and Reactions in Personal Narrative. In Analyzing  Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. Deborah Tannen, 219-247. Washington, DC: Georgetown University of Washington Press, 1982. Lacan, Jacques. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1973.  ________.  Ecrits, a Selection. New York: Norton, 1977 Lachmann, Frank M. and Beatrice A. Beebe. “Three Principles of Salience in the Organization of the Patient-Analyst Interaction.” Psychoanalytic Psychology 13, no. 1 (1996): 1-22. Laird, James D. and Charles Bresler. The Process of Emotional Experience: A SelfPerception Theory. In Emotion, ed. Margaret S. Clark, 213-34. Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1992. Lazarus, Richard S.  Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.  ________. Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.  American Psychologist 46, no. 8 (1991): 819-34.  ________. “Cognition and Motivation in Emotion.” 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award Address (1990, Boston, MA).  American Psychologist 46, no. 4 (1991): 352-67. Lemerise, Elizabeth A., Kenneth A. Dodge,. “The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions.” In Handbook of Emotions, ed. Michael Lewis and Jeannett Haviland, 537-46. New York: Guilford Press. 1993. Lerner, Harriet Goldhor. The Dance of Anger: A Woman's Guide to Changing the Patterns of Intimate Relationships. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. Lewis, Michael and Jeannette M. Haviland.  Handbook of Emotions. New York: Guilford Press, 1993. Lie, Gwat-yong, Rebecca Schilit, Judy Bush, and Marilyn Montagne. “Lesbians in Currently Aggressive Relationships: How Frequently Do They Report Aggressive Past Relationships?” Violence and Victims 6, no. 2 (1991): 121-35. Lifton, Robert Jay.  Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima. New York: Random House, 1968. Mahler, Margaret S., Fred Pine, and Anni Bergman. The Psychological Birth of the  Human Infant: Symbiosis and Individuation. New York: Basic Books, 1975.

285 Malatesta, Carol. “The Expression and Regulation of Emotion: A Life Span Perspective.” In Emotion and Early Interaction, ed. Tiffany Field and Alan Fogel. Hillsdale,  NJ: Erlbaum, 1982. Martin, Stephen A. “Anger as Inner Transformation.” Quadrant 19, no. 1 (1986): 31-45. May, Rollo.  Love and Will. New York: W. W. Norton, 1960.  ________. “Psychotherapy and the Daimonic.” In Myths, Dreams, and Religion, ed. Joseph Campbell. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1970.  ________. The Cry for Myth. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1991.  ________. “Man and Philosophy.” Perspectives: Humanistic Psychology Institute, special issue 2, summer, 1981. Miller, Alice. For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of  Violence. New York: Noonday Press, 1990. Mills, Trudy and Sherryl Kleinman. “Emotions, Reflexivity, and Action: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 66, no. 4 (1988): 1009-27. Mindell, Arnold. Sitting in the Fire. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press, 1995. Mishler, Elliot George.  Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Mitchell, Stephen A.  Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis: An Integration. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. Monick, Eugene. Phallos: Sacred Image of the Masculine. Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books, 1987.  ________. Castration and Male Rage: The Phallic Wound . Toronto, Canada: Inner  City Books, 1991 Moore, Thomas. The Planets Within: Marsilio Ficino's Astrological Psychology. Studies in Jungian Thought. Lewisburg, London: Bucknell University Press: Associated University Presses, 1982.  ________.  Dark Eros: The Imagination of Sadism. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1990.  ________. The Re-Enchantment of Everyday Life. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1996.  Nahm, Milton C. Selection from Early Greek Philosophy. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, Inc., 1947.

286  Nathanson, Donald L. Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self . New York: Norton, 1992.  Nietzsche, Friedrich. “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music.” In The Philosophy of Nietzsche. Translated by Clifton P. Fadiman. New York: Random House, 1909. O'Leary, K. Daniel. “Through Psychological Lens: Personality Traits, Personality Disorders, and Levels of Violence.” In Current Controversies on Family Violence, ed. Richard J. Gelles and Donileen R. Loseke, 7-30. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1993. Oatley, Keith. “Those to Whom Evil Has Been Done.” In Perspectives on Anger and   Emotion, Advances in Social Cognition, ed. Robert Wyer and Thomas K. Srull, Vol. VI: 159-66. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994. Omer, Aftab. “Experience and Otherness: On the Undermining of Learning in Educational Organizations.” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1990. Panksepp, Jaak. A Critical Role for “Affective Neuroscience” In Resolving What is Basic About Basic Emotions: Response to Ortony and Turner. Psychological  Review, no. 99 (1992): 554-60.  ________. “Neurochemical Control of Moods and Emotions: Amino Acids to  Neuropeptides.” In Handbook of Emotions, ed. Jeannette M. Havil and Michael Lewis: 87-107. New York: Guilford Press, 1993. Pardo, Enrique. “Dis-membering Dionysus: Image and Theatre.” Spring: An Annual of   Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought (1984): 163-79.  ________. “Inspiration, Eros and Error, Failure in the Alchemical Theatre.” Sphinx 3:  A Journal for Archetypal Psychology and the Arts, 3 (1990): 169-88. Perera, Sylvia Brinton. The Scapegoat Complex: Toward a Mythology of Shadow and  Guilt . Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books, 1986. Plato. The Republic of Plato. New York: Oxford University Press, 1945. Polkinghorne, Donald E. “Phenomenological Research Methods.” In ExistentialPhenomenological Perspectives in Psychology: Exploring the Breadth of Human  Experience, ed. Steen Halling and Ronald S. Valle: 41-60. New York: Plenum Press, 1989. Reason, Peter and John Rowan.  Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm  Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

287 Reason, Peter and John Heron. “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm.” In Qualitative  Inquiry, ed. John Heron and Peter Reason, 274-94. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997. Redfor, William.  Anger Kills.  New York: Collins Publishers, 1993. Riessman, Catherine Kohler. “Making Sense of Marital Violence: One Woman's  Narrative.” In Storied Lives: The Cultural Politics of Self-Under-Standing, ed. George C. Rosenwald and Richard L. Ochberg: 231-49. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.  ________.  Narrative Analysis. Vol. 30, Qualitative Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1993. Rosenau, Pauline Marie. Post-modernism and the Social sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Rosenberg, Morris. “Reflexivity and Emotions.” Social Psychology Quarterly 53, no. 1 (1990): 3-12. Rosenwald, George C. and Richard L. Ochberg. Storied Lives: The Cultural Politics of  Self-Understanding. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Ross, Lee and Richard E. Nisbett. The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991 Runes, Dagobert D.  Dictionary of Philosophy: Ancient-Medieval-Modern. Paterson,  NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1962. Samuels, Andrew, Bani Shorter, and Fred Plaut.  A Critical Dictionary of Jungian  Analysis. London; New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Sartre, Jean-Paul. The Emotions; Outline of a Theory. New York: Philosophical Library, 1948.  ________. The Psychology of Imagination. New York: Philosophical Library, 1948. Saunders, Daniel G. “A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from Cluster Analysis.”  American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62, no. 2 (1992): 264275. Schachter, Stanley and Jerome Singer. “Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State.” Psychological Review 69, no. 5 (1962): 37999. Scherer, Klaus R. “Emotion Serves to Decouple Stimulus and Response.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson, 127-30. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

288 Schwartz-Salant, Nathan.  Narcissism and Character Transformation: The Psychology of   Narcissistic Character Disorders. Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books, 1982.  ________. The Borderline Personality: Vision and Healing. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications, 1989. Schwarz, Norbert and Gerald L. Clore. “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of WellBeing: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States.”  Journal of  Personality & Social Psychology 45, no. 3 (1983): 513-23. Serrano, Miguel. C. G. Jung and Herman Hesse: A Record of Two Friendships. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. Shweder, Richard. “Emotion as an Interpretive System.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series In Affective Science, ed. Paul Ekman and Richard  Davidson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Snell, John E., Richard J. Rosenwald, and Ames Robey. “The Wifebeater's Wife.”  Archives of General Psychiatry 11, no. 2 (1964): 107-12. Sorenson, Susan B. and Cynthia A. Telles. “Self-Reports of Spousal Violence in a Mexican-American and Non-Hispanic White Population.” Violence & Victims 6, no. 1 (1991): 3-15. Spielberger, Charles D., G. A. Jacobs, S. F. Russell, and R. S. Crane, “Assessment of  Anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale.” In Advances in Personality Assessment , ed. J. N. Butcher and C. D. Spielberger, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. Spielberger, Charles D. and Sumner J. Sydeman. “State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and  State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory.” In The Use of Psychological Testing for  Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment , ed. Mark Edward Maruish: 292321. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994. Stern, Daniel. The Interpersonal World Of The Infant . New York: Basic Books, 1985. Stevick, Eugene L. “An Empirical Investigation of the Experience of Anger.” In  Duquesne Studies In Phenomenological Psychology, ed. William F. Fischer, Rolf  von Eckarsberg and Amedeo Giorgi, 1. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1971.  ________.  Being Angry in the Context of an Intimate Relationship: An Existential Phenomenological Investigation. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1984. Stewart, Louis H. “A Brief Report: Affect and Archetype.”  Journal of Analytical Psychology 32, no. 1 (1987): 35-46.

289 Straus, Murray A., Gelles, Richard J. & Steinmetz, S uzanne K.  Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980.  ________. “Children as Witnesses to Marital Violence: A Risk Factor for Lifelong Problems Among a Nationally Representative Sample of American Men and  Women.” In Report of the Twenty-third Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories, 1992. Streans, Carol.  Anger: The Struggle for Emotional Control in America's History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Tavris, Carol.  Anger, the Misunderstood Emotion. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982. Tomkins, Silvan S. Script Theory: Differential Magnification of Affects. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1978, Vol. 26, ed. Richard Dienstbier, 201-361, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.. Tomkins, Silvan S. and Bertram P. Karon.  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vol. 1: The Positive Affects. New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1962.  ________.  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vol. 2: The Negative Affects. New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1963.  ________.  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and  Fear . New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1991.  ________.  Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vol. 4: Cognition Duplication and  Transformation of Information. New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1992. Torbert, William R.  Managing the Corporate Dream: Restructuring for Long-Term Success. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1987.  ________. The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry.  Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1991. Vogt, Gregory Max.  Return to Father: Archetypal Dimensions of the Patriarch. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, Inc., 1991. Walker, Lenore E. The Battered Women. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.  ________. “The Battered Woman Syndrome.” In Family Abuse and Its Consequences:  New Directions in Research, ed. David Finkelhor John T. Kirkpatrick, Murray A. Straus, and Gerald T. Hotaling: 139-48. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1988. Watson, David & Lee Clark. “Emotions, Moods, Traits, and Temperaments: Conceptual Distinctions and Empirical Findings.” In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental