"Doubling" and everyday life

[Cain]

In The Genocidal Mentality, Robert Jay Lifton talks about an interesting psychological process many German scientists who worked in the concentration camps went through, which he called doubling:

"The psychological mechanism of doubling is a key to understanding how Nazi doctors managed to do the work of killing. Doubling involved the formation of an Auschwitz self, by which one internalized many of the patterns and assumptions of the Auschwitz environment: the reversals of healing and killing, the operative Nazi biomedical vision, the extreme numbing that rendered killing no longer killing, struggles with omnipotence (deciding who would live or die) and impotence (being a cog in a powerful machine), maintaining a medical identity while killing, and somehow finding meaning in the environment."

As can be seen, this is closely related to dissociation and, in some aspects, depersonalisation.  What this entails, at its most basic, is the split of the personality through the creation of two seperate roles – in this case, the role of the government scientist, and the role of the family man (I am assuming here, not entirely unjustly, that the doctors working at concentration camps were all male).

It's very easy to get people to do terrible things with this process in effect.  No doubt the German doctors considered themselves to be "good" people.  They looked after their families, read bedtime stories to their children, went on weekend picnics and all the rest.  And then, when they clocked into work, they experimented on and killed innocent people for the government.  "Banality of evil" indeed.

All of which is very interesting.  But I had another concept of "doubling" that intrigued me.  What I'm thinking of is more like a ju-jitsu reversal of the process, where the assumed identity isn't designed to protect the individual from the consequences of their immoral actions, but designed to be ineffective, to give the illusion of participating and "doing something", while in fact achieving nothing.

I am, of course, thinking about a certain class of "subversives" who will offer any number of radical statements but ultimately give no solutions than capitulation to another formulation or faction of the existing status quo.  The idea or image of being a sort of radical is enough for them, it soothes their dissatisfaction with the status quo because they are "at least trying", even if (especially if) their methods are dated, ineffective and useless.

Another way to think about this is the psychoanalytic approach to an inner personality, namely a "true existence" outside what we actually do is fundamentally fake.  We tell stories about ourselves, as wonderfully illustrated in this episode of House M.D., to obscure our true social purpose and position, or to hide the moral implications of our actions.  And in a Spectacle-dominated world, we only require a few props to appear to be that we wish we were – mostly a certain set of commodities specifically designed to sell this personality and sense of self to us.

This can apply to many others in our daily lives as well.  For instance, let us consider the smug, self-satisfied Cult of the Mac User.  Mac users frequently revel in the heavily marketed aspects of the Mac, that it is for creative purposes and thus creative, artistic people use it.  This identity can usually be contrasted with the office-drone existence many Mac users labour under.  They may not be as self-consciously choosing such an identity as the above mentioned subversives, but it is the same essential process at work.  With the great amount of personal dissastisfcation people feel with their lives, such identities become methods to habituate us to our lifestyles, because in our free time we can be whatever we want to be (with the right purchases) and chuckle at all the other sheep, an attitude which of course only increases our alienation.

Therefore, a new approach to such Discordian activities as Operation: Mindfuck might be devising ways to expose the falsity of this inner life or part-time personality.  How exactly that would work out in practice I'm still not entirely certain.  Because of my own misspent childhood, I've often been suspicious of essentialist arguments in the first place, which this is a variation on (Nietzsche is wonderful for that sort of metaphysical scepticism), so my own realisation is hardly a model to go by.  But I'm sure it can be made to work, somehow.

(Originally posted at Alamut)

[Triple Zero]

Interesting approach of the fashion/faux radicals! Good stuff.

[Cramulus]

very interesting!

This Doubling phenomenon is probably more common than we think.  And it's easy to illustrate.

I use an entirely different vocabulary at work then when I'm with friends. My attitudes, disposition, reactions to things, are totally different at work. For all intents and purposes, I am a different person at work. But what makes me think that the home me is the real me? Maybe there is no me.

A year ago, Chloe tried out a different personality for each day of the week. On Mondays she dressed real prim and proper, on Tuesdays she got goth'd up, on Wednesdays she got punked out, on Thursdays it was hippie stoner wear... The kids who knew her from different classes would have no common language to describe her. When she eventually told somebody about this project (after about four months!), he got really offended. As if she was being disingenuous.

But if acting like a different person every day is deceitful, what is the truth? Is there a "true" way to dress? Is the deceit in that she is dressing in a way which does not resonate with her "off-stage" personality? In what ways is this a lie?


That thing called the Self -- what a circus!

so many selves(so many fiends and gods

each greedier than every)is a man

(so easily one in another hides;

yet man can,being all,escape from none)



so huge a tumult is the simplest wish:

so pitiless a massacre the hope

most innocent(so deep's the mind of flesh

and so awake what waking calls asleep)



so never is most lonely man alone

(his briefest breathing lives some planet's year,

his longest life's a heartbeat of some sun;

his least unmotion roams the youngest star)



—how should a fool that calls him 'I' presume

to comprehend not numerable whom?

[LMNO]

I'm thinking that the OP is slightly more pathological than simply acting within a social context.  I behave differently depending on the situations I'm in: Work, Band Practice, Recording Studio, Cocktail Party, with Parents, with the Gay Mafia, etc.  However, that doesn't change a core self-perception of who I am and what I believe.

I think what Cain is referencing is a disconnect of immense proportions.  People who do truly monstrous things, and yet do not seem to be monsters in any other context.  The ability to shut off long-held basic ideals of morality, justice, and compassion in a specific situation or environment, and act counter to your principles, without any sort of cognitive dissonance.


Not to disparage Chloe's experiment, however... But I'd call the more of a social breaching kind of thing.

[Cramulus]

I think we all compartmentalize our personalities to varying degrees, as needed. When you have to do something really horrible, like those German scientists, you have to compartmentalize to a larger degree.

My roommate works in HR for a big company, and is always firing people and cutting their salary -- within his company, you should be terrified of him. But when he comes home he puts all that away and becomes a different person. I suspect he would use different adjectives to describe himself while he's sitting on the couch vs sitting in his office. When he comes home, he goes from "Michael" to "Mike".

It illustrates that we humans hold multiple conflicting narratives about ourselves, and use them as we need. There is no cognitive dissonance because the self is so mutable.

I think Tyler Durden riffed on this -- "You Are Not Your Fucking Khakis".The anti-commercial rhetoric aside, that section had the vibe of freeing oneself from one's identity. Yes, a good topic for operation mindfuck.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I use an entirely different vocabulary at work then when I'm with friends. My attitudes, disposition, reactions to things, are totally different at work. For all intents and purposes, I am a different person at work. But what makes me think that the home me is the real me? Maybe there is no me.

The idea of a 'real me' implies a stasis of identity which I don't think any of us here subscribe to. To adapt it to a metaphor we are all familiar with, the environment outside our BIP tends to mirror the environment in it (or at the very least is a reaction to it). A prerequisite for doubling may in fact be a lack of awareness of the change -- if you have never considered that you are a different person at work than at home and the difference is extreme enough to be problematic, then you have a problem, whereas if you are aware of it you can take advantage of it consciously (obviously the Nazi doctors were benefitting from this kind of controlled mental maybe-abberation, but it was a benefit that they probably would not be able to handle were they to consider it consciously, since the whole point is to protect them from their own conflicts).

[Salty]

I am, of course, thinking about a certain class of "subversives" who will offer any number of radical statements but ultimately give no solutions than capitulation to another formulation or faction of the existing status quo.  The idea or image of being a sort of radical is enough for them, it soothes their dissatisfaction with the status quo because they are "at least trying", even if (especially if) their methods are dated, ineffective and useless.

This struck a particular chord with me as I have a tendancy to lose the clarity required to see this kind of thinking and behavior for what it is. This is just as dangerous as any other delusion, maybe more so since the efforts one could be making, actions that would make an actual difference, get laid aside. It also explains Hot Topic perfectly. 

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I just reread my earlier post and realized it was totally fscking incoherent. I will rewrite it later, when I have had sleep.

[Captain Utopia]

What I took away from the experiment Chloe performed, was that there is a social penalty for displaying schisms of personality which are not easily comprehensible.  For example, I wager the difference between myself and her friend who became offended, is that I just kinda smiled and nodded - whether I was right or wrong is immaterial - I had a model in my mind which explained at least one potential reason for why she might try that experiment.  I bet her friend had no clue why she would even find the idea interesting.

I also think that separate personalities form around the opportunity to define a unique aspect of "self" in different environments - as long as it plays nice with others and doesn't cause more problems than the rewards "fitting in" brings, then the others permit it to continue.  The concept of "self" can be seen as a mutually beneficial strategy which helps promote smooth transitions between one aspect to another, and which doesn't create awkward questions afterwards.  One of the oldest taboos we have is with regards multiple "dis-jarring" personalities -- and indeed, any personality aspect which cannot be controlled by the others, is single-mindedly dangerous in its potential.  At least, that's my interpretation of destructo the wonder-chimp.

Celebrity culture and politicians represent those who are reinforced/rewarded by society for their compliance to tropes and an easily understandable/consumable identity.. rock stars are allowed a certain excess which we don't afford our politicians, but they are afforded liberties with the common truth which we don't permit others to take.  As we find new models to explain behaviour, what is permitted changes rapidly, John Lennon hid the fact that he had a child for years, under the fear that it would make him less marketable.. the people we put under the spotlight today are almost expected to have children with different partners.

EDIT: Oh wait, I think I may just be applying simple group theory to the mind 

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

The concept of "self" can be seen as a mutually beneficial strategy which helps promote smooth transitions between one aspect to another, and which doesn't create awkward questions afterwards.  One of the oldest taboos we have is with regards multiple "dis-jarring" personalities -- and indeed, any personality aspect which cannot be controlled by the others, is single-mindedly dangerous in its potential.  At least, that's my interpretation of destructo the wonder-chimp.

I like this idea.

[Reginald Ret]

I think we all compartmentalize our personalities to varying degrees, as needed. When you have to do something really horrible, like those German scientists, you have to compartmentalize to a larger degree.

My roommate works in HR for a big company, and is always firing people and cutting their salary -- within his company, you should be terrified of him. But when he comes home he puts all that away and becomes a different person. I suspect he would use different adjectives to describe himself while he's sitting on the couch vs sitting in his office. When he comes home, he goes from "Michael" to "Mike".

It illustrates that we humans hold multiple conflicting narratives about ourselves, and use them as we need. There is no cognitive dissonance because the self is so mutable.

I think Tyler Durden riffed on this -- "You Are Not Your Fucking Khakis".The anti-commercial rhetoric aside, that section had the vibe of freeing oneself from one's identity. Yes, a good topic for operation mindfuck.

Compartmentalize is the key word here.

I experienced it about 6 years ago.
I had a fulltime nobrainer job and it was the first time i earned most of my own money.
So i started thinking about ways of spending the money.
2 months later I found that i had 3 lists of things i wanted, one i came up with during work, one at home, and one during the bike ride to/from work.
And the lists were completely different.

The trick to making someone realize they lead multiple lives is to give them something they will think about during all their lives.