Psychological Failures: Two Spitzer Fallacies

There is a memorable but rather unpleasant proverb equating a dog that returns to its vomit to the fool returning to his folly. That I've once again RETURNED to the Eliot Spitzer story is perhaps foolish, but I assure you I am not at all like a dog.

What I want to discuss is the opinions of two psychologists who appeared on the CNN program, Anderson Cooper 360˚. The two analysts were asked why Mr. Spitzer, a very public and seemingly law-abiding figure, should have taken to the rather risky behavior of soliciting prostitutes. My purpose, however, is not to examine Mr. Spitzer. Rather than putting Mr. Spitzer's soul on the Contratimes couch, I want to explore the implications of the two opinions offered. Unlike the rather time-bound fall of Mr. Spitzer, there is something timeless about what we are about to explore.

PSYCHOLOGIST #1

First, let me quote the beginning of Anderson Cooper's interview, where Dr. Gail Saltz makes her case. Here's the transcript (excerpted):


ANDERSON COOPER: ... Joining us is Dr. Gail Saltz, the psychiatrist who is the author of "Anatomy of a Secret Life." Also with us tonight, psychologist David Eigen, who is the author of the book, "Men: The Gods of Love."

Thanks, both, for being with us.

Dr. Saltz, why would a guy who had prosecuted prostitution rings as attorney general do something like this? I mean, it seems so reckless.

DR. GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRIST: It seems reckless, but, basically, you know, humans have urges. They have wishes. And, sometimes, their desires are basically unacceptable to them, morally unacceptable.

And what they're -- what they do in their mind is basically split off and, if you will, compartmentalize or deny those wishes, and try to make them unconscious, push them down, by being the opposite, by being this moral superstar, by being rigidly, almost inflexibly moral.

COOPER: So, you're saying this is something or a desire that has been around for a while, perhaps, and...

SALTZ: Very likely so. And the need to react to it, called reaction formation, I'm not that guy, I'm not that bad guy who wants to do that. I'm this good guy. I'm such a good guy, I'm going to convict prostitutes, basically.

COOPER: So, that's why -- you're saying, in all these cases where we see a preacher who's preaching, railing against something who then turns out to be doing whatever he's railing against, that's what's at play here?

SALTZ: Often that's at play. And when you ask, why would they do something so reckless, basically, those bad feelings don't go away, right? They feel guilty. They feel shameful. And, so, they often take bigger and bigger risks to get caught, in a sense, because they deserve to be punished. [emphasis mine]

Permit me to summarize what Dr. Saltz is saying. She is saying that buried in Mr. Spitzer's public activism against prostitution is his desire to do the very thing he is damning. In fact, the very thing he's damning is not merely a desire, he is involved in the dirty deed. Furthermore, as he secretly engages in this dirty deed, he takes more daring risks, all, perhaps, to get caught. Ms. Saltz, finally, suggests that getting caught, which is Spitzer's deepest desire, will free him from his guilt.

Now, I won't long explore this weird circle Ms. Saltz is describing; I mean, it seems clear to me that if Mr. Spitzer had not gone down his ruinous path, he would not have felt guilty in the first place, and thus would not have desired to get caught. Ms. Saltz in fact does not really answer the question why Mr. Spitzer BEGAN his journey. Surely it could not have been to liberate him from his guilt, as he was not guilty until after he met with prostitutes.

But what is important to me is that Ms. Saltz and Mr. Cooper are suggesting that those who take a moral stand AGAINST something have something to hide. In fact, there is the quite clear assertion here that those who "rail" against something are actually participating in that thing they decry. Had folks been more astute, or so it is reasoned, they would have noted that Mr. Spitzer's opposition to prostitution was actually a ruse, a disguise. His real self was hidden by his protestation and his litigation.

We have heard this sort of thing before, haven't we? I recall hearing it aimed at those who opposed homosexuality: that those who oppose gay marriage or open acceptance of gays in the military are -- perhaps -- uncomfortable with their own sexuality. In fact, the word homophobia initially meant this very thing, namely that one had a fear of one's own homosexual inklings (and those of one's neighbors). We heard such a thing stated about Ted Haggard, the evangelical leader demoted because he may have had sexual relations with a male consort; we also heard this sort of thing when Republican congressman Larry Craig, who claims to be straight, was busted for allegedly soliciting gay sex in a Minneapolis bathroom. These men, who claimed to hold traditional views on sexual morality, are really, down deep, gay.

I wonder, however, if Ms. Saltz has ever noted the problem with her own analysis. If we just stick with the issue of gay identity politics for a moment, I think the problem will be clear. For if the straight man who rails against homosexuality -- the quintessential homophobe -- is actually gay, then surely that man who rails against homophobia -- the quintessential gay-activist -- is actually straight. Similarly, the man who rails against abortion is really pro-abortion; the man who supports abortion is really against it.

And what if this is the case? What if those who seem most tolerant of gays secretly harbor ill will towards them? What if those who seem intolerant of gays are actually no threat at all?

Of course we can extend Ms. Saltz' analysis even further. Surely those who promote taxing the rich at higher rates are really the most envious, greedy men on the planet. Those who abhor Exxon's profits are really those who are up to their eyeballs in Exxon stock. Those vocal liberals marching on Washington are really dealing with their own repressed conservatism; while their conservative counterparts are really dissociated liberals. I could go on, and I am tempted to. But I am afraid that if I continue railing, making even bolder and bolder comparisons, readers will find me out: I am really a closeted quiet man utterly uninterested in any of the things I write about.

In short, not only does Ms. Saltz not help us understand Eliot Spitzer's behavior, she leaves us nothing to consider but an absurdity.

Some call it insight.

PSYCHOLOGIST #2

I pray you will indulge me once more. I would like now to look, quickly, at the opinion of David Eigen, PhD. Again, we turn to the transcript (excerpted):

COOPER: David, do you think that's at play here?

David, can you hear me?

DAVID EIGEN, AUTHOR, "MEN: THE GODS OF LOVE": Oh, there you go. OK.

COOPER: Yes. Hey.

Do you think that's what's at play here?

EIGEN: I think that the man -- he's a man. And, in this society, men have been told to basically have two emotions, because the rest have to be shut down. They're shameful. And one is anger. And the other is sex, which becomes a replacement, a surrogate emotion.

I think the governor is guilty of having a situation where he's just not been able to express himself and probably doesn't know how. And, you know, there's no question men have a huge sex drive, which really is a replacement for all the other needs they have. And he just found himself in a place where maybe he just needed to go outside of that relationship.

I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying, you know, this is where men have been caught in an actual situation where they're not allowed to have feelings. So, it becomes -- everything becomes about sex.

And that's what the problem is here. Men need to be allowed to have feelings, be allowed to say, hey, you know, I had a bad day at the office and I need a hug. I need to tell you how I feel downtrodden or how it's too much for me.

Men don't do that. They say -- you know, they pretend like they're the provider. The governor, he's all those of things. And he can't say that to his wife, maybe, in his mind, because he feels like he will be judged.

COOPER: Well, I mean, it seems like we're going very far down the road of speculation. We don't really know what their relationship is like or what's going on in his family's life.

EIGEN: Correct. Correct.

[emphasis mine]

According to Mr. Eigen, Eliot Spitzer is "a man," with a huge sex drive, a drive that is really a symptom of all his other needs that are not being met; that, as "a man," Mr. Spitzer has been emotionally muzzled, like all men. Had Mr. Spitzer been given ample room to express his FEELINGS, he'd not have wandered from the governor's mansion, his marriage bed, or his wedding vows.

Question: Is this a boatload of hooey or what?

Forgive me. But seriously. Men are not allowed to "express" their feelings? Really?

What do all of the following things have in common?

The Brandenburg Concertos
The Sistine Chapel
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Christ in the Storm on The Sea of Galilee
The Four Quartets
The Brothers Karamazov
Seinfeld
The Psalms
Christian hymnody (much of it)
Emeril Live!

What each of these has in common is that they are written, painted, composed, produced, drafted, or performed by men. In fact, men have absolutely dominated much of the arts, even the finest arts, and even the most expressive arts. Men express their emotions in all kinds of ways, in all kinds of venues. They have drafted the most glorious phrases; they've crafted the most glorious buildings; they have carved the most enchanting babies cribs; they have sung the world's most popular songs.

Moreover, men express themselves in what they wear, what they drive, what sports they play (or watch). They express themselves in battles, battles on the playing field, in the board room, in the Manhattan restaurant kitchen. They express themselves in what they drink after a fine meal; they express themselves in how they walk. They express themselves in where they go to church or temple; they express themselves in pulpit and pew. They express themselves in what computer they buy and what paper they read.

In other words, men have all kinds of ways of expressing their emotions, and many men take full advantage of the many ways before them.

The problem is, Mr. Eigen cannot mean that men don't express themselves except in anger and sex; or that they are not permitted to express themselves in any other way. What he means, or so I believe, is that men don't express their emotions the way women WANT them to. And what way is that? Simple. The way women express themselves.

Of course, I grant that Mr. Eigen is suggesting that men are encouraged to suppress their emotions. But I don't see it. I really don't. The men I spend time with express their emotions just fine; I see no repression. But I do see men suppress their emotions when women are around, because somehow women have, in many cases, gotten the upper hand: women KNOW how to express emotion. Men, well, they just don't. They are ... MEN!

Call me a cynic, but I don't buy it. And neither should you.

What I DO see, at least where psychoses are involved, is that SOME people, male AND female,
have a difficult time connecting to or expressing their emotions. There is nothing gender specific about this: some people are indeed repressed, paralyzed. But this is hardly endemic to a sex.

Surely Mr. Eigen has seen men laugh, no? Where does laughter fit in with sex and anger?

What does this leave us with? Again, nothing. We draw no closer to understanding Mr. Spitzer's behavior following Mr. Eigen's analysis. For all we know, Mr. Spitzer was sick of expressing his emotions in a way expected of him by the society in which he found himself; perhaps a prostitute actually let him be his truly expressive self. Perhaps his wife could not let him express himself in ways that were not HER ways. Perhaps Mr. Spitzer was with a prostitute because he wanted someone gentle and kind; or maybe he wanted to be able to express an anger that his social milieu would not permit.

Regardless of our speculations, the one thing we know is that our speculations are neither closer to nor farther from the mark. The human mind is a mystery, not because it is too complex for us to navigate through towards understanding. It's mysterious because it is born of the miraculous. And the miracle remains, even after the corruption.

In other words, we take off our shoes when walking so close to the heart of any man.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.