Tony White

I was in supervision yesterday and I was asked a question about religion and psychology. It is not an uncommon question that one comes across from time to time. Is religion a Parent contamination of the Adult ego state? So I gave my answer which was maybe yes and maybe no. Then I gave further explanation and I came up with the following. It was one of those situations where as I gave my answer I stated things that I did not know that I knew. So I thought I would write it down here.

 

 

Now, I am no theologian. I am trained as a psychologist. So I am not making a statement here about religion or attempting to give some kind of definition of religion. What I am doing is making a statement about the psychological perception of religion. I am looking at how religion can be understood in terms of the personality or the human psyche.

 

The teaching of religion as is done by the church involves a doctrine being incorporated into the Parent ego state of the person. As the various scriptures are being taught and learnt they are being incorporated by the youngster into their Parent ego state along with various other Parent type tapes. It is a process whereby something from outside the individual gets incorporated into the personality. The diagram below shows this process where aspects of the religion are one of this person’s 4 various Parent ego state tapes

 

 

 

What the person then does with that tape is up to them. Some times it results in good things and sometimes it results in bad things. We need these Parent tapes or we have no society. It is these tapes that keep our Free Child in check. An unchecked Free Child will result in anarchy where people simply do what they want, when they want no matter how much it hurst others. So religious principles can be of a great assistance in this way.

 

Sometimes how ever the Parent tapes can be overly restrictive so the person ends up with virtually no Free Child left. When that happens the person will end up with some kind of problem like depression, anxiety and so forth. However this is yet to answer my student’s original question about religion being a contamination.

 

 

 

 

With some people the Parent can ‘contaminate’ the Adult ego state as is shown above. That is the person believes that what is a Parental opinion or value is actually an Adult ego state fact. So they begin to believe and act like their Parental tape is actually an Adult ego state fact and thus we have the contamination.

 

This is the first part of the answer to the supervisee’s question in the diagram below.

 

 

 

If those instances where the religious teachings become a dogma for the person then he is starting to see the Parental opinion or value as a fact and thus it is a contamination. They believe the religious principles as being incontrovertibly true. This may also be reflected in some kinds of fundamentalism. Their belief is perceived as being fact.

 

I must admit that I am amused sometimes when I hear those positing that science give the answers and that religion does not. Those who criticise religion for being a dogma and that such individuals are obviously misguided. Then they will say that they have the scientific approach to understanding the world. For instance in psychotherapy they say that they will only use approaches that are based on good scientific evidence. Such individuals are being just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as those religious people who they are criticising.

 

The scientific method is but one more Parental tape that explains a way to understand the world. It has its good points and it has its bad points like all other Parental tapes do. But to say that it is the only way to understand the outcome of psychotherapy is dogmatic and a Parent contamination of the Adult ego state.

 

 

 

However back to the student’s question at hand. From what I have observed there is another psychological component of religion that does not come from the Parent ego state but comes from the Free Child ego state. This is what I would see faith and perhaps spirituality as being. These things do not come from outside the person (like the Parent tapes) but come from within the individual. They are there already from birth. In some they get ‘expressed’ and in others they do not.

 

From a psychological point of view if a person has some kind of faith then they are more psychologically robust than that individual who does not. They have a belief in something that cannot be fully understood or seen or touched that maybe a higher power or benevolent in some kind of way. This may even be a living person.

 

For many this is what their religion or god is to them. It is something that they have a faith in and as I said before this can be a healthy thing to have from a psychological point of view. Indeed for some they could have a faith in science and that indeed would fulfil the same psychological function perhaps. 

 

 

 

If one does not have such a faith then perhaps they are missing something psychologically. In one way they could be described as lonely person or a person who lacks some kind of meaning. Indeed one could argue that the psychotherapy of Logotherapy as developed by Viktor Frankl is directly addressed at the person who has truly lacks a faith or belief.

 

I would also argue that in the diagnosis of the psychopath, anti social personality and narcissistic person one could also use the absence of a faith as a diagnostic criteria. These people in particular lack the aptitude of faith.

 

So to my student I would say that for some their religion is not a contamination at all but instead provides them with a way in which to discover, comprehend and express their faith. Which from a psychological point of view is a big plus and a sign of emotional health.

 

Graffiti

 

 

For my pommy mate.

watch?v=qNJ5AzVzpLY

Train spotting

Great movie.

 

In the video I love the bit where Spud explains why he lied on his application.

Such an anti social personality answer and so Free Child.

 

And the tempo of the video captures the life style so well.

How could one live with out that sort of tempo at least at times.

 

Graffiti

 

 

More women in politics. 

Originally written on March 26th, 2007.

A topic in the news where I live at the moment is the number of women in politics in the state where I live and around the world. Apparently there are more female heads of state now than there has ever been before. And that grand total is - 16. 

 

But to me it does not make sense. 

Typical masculine qualities are = assertive, competitive. tough, logical, 

unemotional, aggressive, dominating. lacking insight, unoriginal, vulgar. 

Typical feminine qualities are = domestic, creative, individualistic, sensitive, 

intelligent, passive, idealistic, conciliatory, peace loving, sociable. 

 

Is Amy physically female and psychologically male?

 

 

I am not saying that women are this and men are that. These lists are what are typically described as masculine and feminine qualities. Males and females have qualities from both lists. The more feminine qualities you have the feminine you will be and seem to others to be a feminine character. The same for masculine qualities. 

 

So what does it mean to count the number of females in politics (and commerce for that matter). It means the number of people who are anatomically female and at the upper levels of politics and business. But what does that mean in real terms. 

   

To be at such a level the LCD (Lowest common denominator) rules. You have to work very long hours, have to see little of your partner and children, suppress your feelings, be a bit paranoid and get them before they get you, be ruthless, be calculating, be competitive, etc. For a woman to succeed in upper level politics she has to think, feel and act like a man naturally does. 

 

Do you actually want to live like that? This list seems to pretty well much fit with the masculine qualities. If a person goes to a job in the board room of a large corporation and is sensitive, conciliatory, domestic, peace loving, how long are they going to last? I would guess that they will not be back for their second day on the job. 

 

Does the difference in physical strength between men and women have an impact on the psychological dynamics of their relationships?

 

 

So when one counts up the number of women in politics they are counting those people who are anatomically female and psychologically male. So that person is female but in another sense has a predominance of masculine qualities. It would seem more accurate to count those numbers who have more feminine personality traits than masculine traits. I would suggest that if you did that the grand total of female heads of state in the world - 0. 

 

To simply add up people who are anatomically female has no meaning like one could count up the number of people in politics who had red hair. One could do that but it means nothing. 

 

And if you added up the men who were in politics they would be the men who are anatomically male and masculine in personality as well. So its not the anatomical female who isn’t there it is the person who has a predominance of feminine characteristics who isn’t there. And that would include many men.

 

Graffiti

 

There is an interesting coronial inquiry going on at present where I live. A 21 year old woman died from an ecstacy overdose. This is being followed closely by the press. Today it was reported that her boyfriend was dealing drugs and he would give her the drugs for free. He allegedly supplied her with the drugs that she overdosed on.

I can see where this is heading and the boyfriend is going to be cast as the evil cad who led the poor innocent girl astray. How ever it does raise an interesting point about the drug scene and drug counselling. One question which I always sooner or latter ask the drug user and it is usually sooner than later, is, where do you get your money(drugs) from? Surprisingly there are a considerable number of drug counsellors who never ask such a question. To me it is pivotal in understanding how this person runs their day to day life.

This question is far less important to ask the recreational user than the regular user. One asks it of the person who spends quite a bit of money on drugs on a regular basis. There are a number of solutions to the money problem that I have heard over the years.


Grow your own



Some regular heavy marijuana users can supply their habit by growing their own. This is probably one of the ‘safest’ ways to get a supply as it can keep the person out of the dealing side of the drug scene. They are not selling, so the police have little interest in them and they are not having to score from other dealers who will inevitably rip them off at some point When this happens there can be very bad consequences. However one can only really do this with cannabis and cannot do it with opiates, amphetamines, hallucinogens and so forth.

There are others who can use drugs in a regular heavy way and still maintain a job. You would be surprised at the people I have counselled who are in high powered, responsible jobs and have a fairly sizeable drug habit. These people can persist like this for long periods of time because they spend 70% of their income on drugs and survive on the 30% left. This also is a ‘safe’ way to get supplies as they are not doing anything illegal to obtain money. Thus they are just a user and the police have little interest in them.

Most however engage in some kind of illegal activity to get the money for the drugs. This can range from petty crime, to prostitution, to much more serious crimes. These are much more perilous ways to get the money as the police are watching closely and the consequences are more severe.



Of course another common solution to feed a drug habit is to deal in drugs. Not only does one get the money from the deal but every time drugs pass through your hands a bit disappears here and there. This method can provide quite a good supply of drugs but the consequences are dire if one gets caught. And those who are dealing drugs to feed their own habit are usually the ones who get caught. Not the bigger fish higher up the chain who have money as the main motive rather than to feed a personal drug habit.

There is however one other way to get a good supply of drugs that actually breaks the sexual discrimination laws of this country. Females can not really be drug dealers. If they try they wont last very long. In the words of the great Chopper Read, any criminal organisation that does not have physical might and physical intimidation to back it up is a paper tiger. It will collapse very quickly.


Chopper Read. Do see the movie, "Chopper" it is very good.



One thing I learnt early on in my time in prison (as an employee!). The sword is much mightier than the pen. Its all about physical strength and the ability to physically fight. If one is a good fighter and strong then you are at the top of the pile. If one is not physically strong then one is at the bottom of the pile. There are some men who are not physically strong but they have the organisational skills to get some other person to do the physical intimidation for them. These people are also at the top of the pile.

Females do not posses the physical strength and just don’t seem to have that innate aggressiveness to be able to intimidate and threaten other males when necessary. Thus one finds very few female drug dealers. However women do have other wily ways to make an impact.

In order to get a regular drug supply some women will become partners of men who deal drugs. They will support them in their dealing but tend to sit on the sidelines of the criminal organisation. To a female regular drug user a male who is a dealer is very attractive for the reasons I just cited. I am not suggesting that she purposely sets out to ‘trap’ him but she will be attracted to him and thus the relationship can develop from that basis.



She also is in a ‘safer’ position when the inevitable drug bust happens because she is on the sidelines of the organisation. When questioned she can say that she was not directly involved and just a passive observer from the sidelines. Not uncommonly the man who loves her will support her in this claim to the police.

So back to the coronial inquiry of the 21 year old woman who was supplied with drugs by her boyfriend. If he did supply them how active was she involved in that process and how actively was she involved in his alleged drug dealing from the sidelines? We will never know I would say.

Graffiti

Well another ANZAC day has come and gone. ANZAC is an acronym for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. It is the day when Australian’s honour the men and women who have been soldiers and fought in wars against our enemies such that we can enjoy the freedoms we possess now. For instance both my father and my grandfather we in the armed forces. My grandfather was a doctor in the army and my father was an able bodied seaman in the navy during the second world war.

I have great gratitude to both of them and all the others who have served in various wars. I almost went to war but I was just a bit to young (fortunately) to end up in Vietnam. I did do cadets at school where young men from private schools are first introduced to the armed forces.



So what do I think about ANZAC day just gone? I recall in my 20s when the night before ANZAC day came around some people, usually younger people would in the dark of night sneak up to war memorials and write things. Slogans such as “Men’s wars rape women” and “ANZAC day glorifies war”. For many a year now this has not happened which is probably a statement about our younger generation. They have no interest at all in challenging society’s values, but that is for another post.

So does ANZAC day glorify war? I don’t tend to agree with that but with the Australian entrepreneurial spirit alive and well ANZAC day certainly has been commercialised. It is good to see the soldiers get their opportunity to march in the parades and many people come out to applaud them and basically say than you. I watch those on TV and it is great to see the men and women marching along with their medals and all. These finish by the middle of the day and then comes the commerce. Does this cheapen the ANZAC soldiers and what they did?



One of the most obvious ways it is commercialised is with sport. Many different sports are played on this national holiday but mainly with football and the AFL (Australian Football League). Without a doubt they have cashed in on the ANZAC spirit and have their ANZAC day block buster games.

Before each game both sides line up on the field facing each other and a bugler plays the last post. How many times did I hear the last post being played on TV and radio yesterday!! It became monotonous and certainly after hearing it a number of time it looses its impact and what it is supposed to represent. So in this way to my mind it does cheapen what the ANZACS are. Maybe have it played once but not over and over.

Also there are the comparisons drawn between ANZACS fighting wars and the battle of two football teams that is used endlessly in promotional advertising. For heaven’s sake it is just a game of football! So in this way I would not say that ANZAC day glorifies war but it has commercialised war one could say.

There is one other thing that is noticeable by its absence. You never see images like this anywhere on ANZAC day.



Well I never saw any. For some reason images like this get no public display. It seems reasonable to argue that they should because this is what war is about, killing people. Many of the soldiers who marched in the ANZAC day marches did precisely that, kill people. My father and grandfather were involved in the system that killed people.

This is never or rarely mentioned on ANZAC day. Why? Well firstly the AFL are never going to show images like this because it would not be good for business at all! Why would it not be good for business? Because people don’t like seeing such images. It makes them feel bad.

For some months I have been counselling a US marine who served in Iraq and was involved in direct combat with the enemy. He says that he gets very offended when people ask him (which they do) if he ever killed any one (which he did). He says that it feels like he is being asked if he has ever fucked his sister. He finds it that offensive and now of course he finds himself that offensive and such questions remind him of that.

So what we humans inevitably do when we are confronted with such images (facts about war) is we sanitise them. We all know war exists and we all know that this means many people are horribly killed like the man in the picture above. But our Child ego state does all sorts of tricky things so we can kind of believe that some how, sort of, kind of, it does not really happen. This is an inevitable psychological process and I would see that we have constructed ANZAC day in such a way that it allows us to sanitise war to ourselves. We can kind of, sort of start to think war is really just like a game of football.


A great footballer or a great warrior?

So I would not say that ANZAC day glorifies war but it does sanitise war. It allows us to honour and thank the soldiers but without experiencing the horror of war.

Graffiti