My Two New Books on Dreaming. Support the books. Sponsor the campaign...
“Let us consider that we are all partly insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things...” — Mark Twain.
Divergence is Not Dysfunctional
This post is about social and collective thought. I previously made the point that people are uncomfortable talking about insanity, and this underlies the stigma it carries. There is a trend to whitewash insanity and cast it as divergent thinking, but this is a thin euphemism. Insanity is not divergent, it’s dysfunctional and can be sociopathic. It’s more than different, it’s destructive.
There is divergent thinking, and it is often beneficial. It refers to new ideas, new perspectives, and thinking along different lines. The notion of divergent thinking is undermined when it’s put in the same basket as insanity.
Distinguish these three broad types of thinking: conventional, divergent, and insane. We need the first two and, while we don’t need insanity, it can be expected as evolutionarily inevitable. Evolution explores potential opportunities, and if our minds are to change and adapt, then there will always be some that fail.
People avoid discussions of insanity because of its bogeyman character: it’s never too far away and always seems possible. Our root fear is that we’re insane to some degree. We’re unsure of where to draw the line, or whether we’re on the right side of it.
There has always been an alternation between sane and insane ideas. The Soviet Union was famous for diagnosing political dissidents as mentally ill, and locking them in mental institutions.
Western psychology has political roots. It has always been employed to certify the right thinkers, and stigmatize the wrong ones. Psychology and education have worked together to blur the line between divergent and dysfunctional thinking.
Superior People
Prejudice always disguises its reasons. Minorities were cast as inferior, women as unintelligent, and the poor as naturally unable. Whether the object of disdain was a race, religion, gender, or class, there was always someone putting forward a logical reason. A psychologist with a psychological assessment often provided the evidence.
“Sanewashing” describes how journalists and their editors downplay dysfunctional thinking. Sanewashing recasts extremely biased ideas as rational in order to soften conclusions that would otherwise alienate readers or advertisers. This again reflects people’s aversion to mental disability especially when it arises within the context of divisive topics.
Stigmatizing is the opposite of sanewashing. Both reflect the lack of a clear boundary for sane behavior. Both can be misused for the purpose of avoiding or creating division. Downplaying alternatives discourages people from drawing conclusions and taking sides. Blurring distinctions allays conflict, fosters cohesion, and leads to more complacent attitudes.
Duality Versus Distinction
There is a spiritual cred of “nondualists” who endorse the unity of all. Despite what these nonthinkers say, duality is the foundation of reasoned behavior. Whether you act rationally, emotionally, or symbolically you must contrast ideas, feelings, and options.
Sanewashing is a form of nondual thinking that justifies dysfunctional ideas. In contrast to it, stigmatizing creates prejudice by casting a group of ideas as inherently dangerous. One of these overlooks danger, while the other creates it. Neither would be a problem if people—voters, readers, orators, and consumers—were informed and capable of deciding for themselves. Wherever sanewashing and stigmatizing occur, people are not getting the truth.
Stop sanewashing your life, get some advice…
