Giving Birth to Angels and Demons: On Fundamentalism and Splitting

The term “defense mechanisms” refers to a range of strategies that an individual engages in so as to protect themselves from a painful or unpleasant truth about themselves. Numerous defense mechanisms have been identified over the years and we all engage in a variety of them at different times in our lives. While the term is often used in a negative way, it is important to realize that defense mechanisms are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Indeed they provide an important service in our lives. After all, there are times when it’s not possible or beneficial for us to face a difficult reality.

Take the example of a lady who has an overbearing and unreasonable manager. Over time she might become very frustrated and angry with this authority figure, an anger that she is unable to directly express in work for fear of losing her job. In situations like this the anger might get redirected at a friend. This is an example of displacement, and is something that most of us do from time to time. If this woman’s friend is understanding, and the relationship is strong, she will be able to absorb the anger until the woman is able to acknowledge that the outburst was really a reflection of a difficult work environment. When this happens, she will be able to apologize to her friend and work through the situation, perhaps by looking for another job.

In this example the friend, who might know that the woman is in a stressful situation, takes the anger on board, knowing that it is not an indication of some problem in their relationship, but stems from something else.

This is a perfectly understandable and acceptable defense mechanism, although it requires stable friendships that are able to bear the weight of the displacement (without such stability the anger might get repressed and come out in even more destructive ways). A serious problem only arises if we hold so strongly to the defense that we refuse to look at the real reason for our anger and continue to scapegoat the wrong person. Over time this will destroy relationships and isolate us.

Not all defense mechanisms are equal. Some are generally considered more problematic (denial, regression, disassociation etc. ) and others more healthy (sublimation, compensation, assertiveness etc.). But none of them can be written off entirely and all of us use multiple combinations at different times of our lives (although we will tend toward the same ones over time).

One of the interesting things about defense mechanisms is the way that communities also employ them. Take the example of Splitting. In splitting a community that is unable to deal with its own anxiety and doubt breaks the world into two broad camps: us and them. One side is seen as good and the other as bad, one as right and the other as wrong.

The word “fundamentalist” is often used to describe communities that employ this defense in a strong and unyielding way. But the problem is that the very term “fundamentalist” allows us to distance ourselves from the times when our own communities engage in the same activity (after all, we rarely use the term to describe ourselves).

If we find ourselves in a group that regularly creates a world of simple oppositions, then there’s a good chance we’re engaging in a defense against some unpleasant and painful internal reality. This is not always a bad or inappropriate thing. Take the example of a man who has just gone through a difficult breakup. In order to protect himself from the pain of his own involvement in the split he might paint a two-dimensional picture of the situation in which he is an innocent victim and she is an evil, calculating villain.

As part of his defense, the man might talk to a close friend about how bad his ex is. This is an understandable reaction in the immediate aftermath of a breakup, as it provides a way to avoid the full force of the pain the split has caused.

In situations like this a good friend might allow the man to vent his anger without challenging or confirming what is said. Then, at an appropriate moment, his friend might venture to say something very simple that changes the tone of the conversation and helps the man see that his anger is actually covering over a range of painful feelings that he ultimately needs to work through.

If this intervention is successful, the man will gradually be able to develop a more well rounded perspective, accept what happened and perhaps see things from his ex-partners perspective. All of which might lead to a type of mutually beneficial reconciliation. However, if this doesn’t happen, he will likely remain bitter and find it difficult to forge healthy relationships in the future.

At this point it’s worth bearing in mind two additional points. Firstly, the man might actually have legitimate reasons for his anger, so that what appears to be splitting is in fact a perfectly legitimate expression of anger. Or, secondly, he might have a legitimate reason to be angry, yet still be engaged in splitting. In this latter situation it can be hard to discern the defense mechanism from the background noise of the legitimate grievance, for when a defense actually coheres closely with the reality of a situation it becomes hard to isolate.

Taking the time to understand how defense mechanisms work is useful, not simply for the sake of individual therapeutic work, but also when engaged with communities. Becoming sensitive to how defenses operate in groups can not only help us to develop healthier communities, but also to become more sensitive to how others might engage in simplified worldviews, not because they are evil and stupid, but because they are attempting to protect themselves from potentially difficult realities.

By becoming more sensitive to how this happens in our own contexts, as well as learning ways that can help expose what is being denied, we can potentially become better equipped to help others as they struggle to avoid their inner demons. A difficult job, for it’s always easier for us to impute defenses onto others rather than find them in ourselves.

As in the example of the young man above, judging whether our group is engaged in a defense like splitting can be difficult. Especially in situations when there is a legitimate grievance. There are numerous times when anger is justified and warranted. Indeed there are also times whenever the defense of splitting is useful. However the reason for attempting to sound defenses out in our communities comes down to understanding how, over time, attachment to a given defense becomes self-destructive and self-defeating.