Self, Creativity, Political Resistance Author(s): Douglas B. Emery Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 14, No.

2, Special Issue: Political Theory and Political Psychology (Jun., 1993), pp. 347-362 Published by: International Society of Political Psychology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791415 . Accessed: 08/02/2012 18:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

Political Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1993

Self, Creativity, Political Resistance

Douglas B. Emery Temple University

This essay looks at the relationshipbetween art and political change througha case study of the Eastern European dissidents, Vaclav Havel and Andrei Sakharov.Drawing on Heinz Kohut'saccount of the artist, I argue thatcreativity was a crucial source of each figure's resistance to totalitarianism.
KEY WORDS: Havel; Sakharov;Kohut;totalitarianism; intimatecouple; political resistance. art;

INTRODUCTION The importanceof artistic activity for inner resistanceto group regression tradition.Rousseauin and tyrannyhas long been commentedupon in the Western works continually contrastshis own creative self with the his autobiographical corruption of the surroundingsocial order and John Stuart Mill emphasizes artistic individuationas a key check on the tendency to conformityof moder mass society. In recent times no two figures have more fully exemplified such creative resistance than Vaclav Havel, the Czechlosovakianplaywrightand essayist, and Andrei Sakharov,the Soviet scientist and writer on human rights. mainBoth individuals,faced with the severe groupregressionof totalitarianism, tained theircreative activity.This essay considersthe natureand political significance of their resistance. Drawingon Heinz Kohut'saccountof the psychology of the artist,I suggest that the key to Havel and Sakharov'screativityis found in an innerextension of the more idealizing, narcissisticaspects of the self. This extension allows each to figure sufficient distance from totalitarianism clearly make out its political at outlines and to thus escape the reigning forces of depersonalization work in this setting. What is crucial, however, is that they both go beyond simply the moment of inner resistance to an active attempt to strengthenthose broader aspects of public life which supportpeople's sense of creativityand individua347
0162-895X/93/X900-OXXX$06.50/1 ? 1993 International Society of Political Psychology Published by Blackwell Publishers, 238 Main Street, Cambridge,MA 02142, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 lJF, UK.

348

Emery

tion. Their efforts at defendingthe autonomyof a more privatecreative-intimate sphere, strengtheningan ongoing realm of artistic discourse, and encouraging a broader sense of citizenship bestow upon their biographies a monumental quality.

THE SETTING OF TOTALITARIANISM Under the extreme circumstances of totalitarianismthe developmental model of self psychology suggests that the normal advancementinto maturity will be radically disrupted. As Ernest Wolf has pointed out in summarizing Kohut'sdevelopmentalmodel, ordinarilythe child's initial experienceof maternal mirroringand identificationwith the perceivedstrengthof parentalfigures is over time into a broadersense of public identity.Indiincreasinglytransformed viduals move relatively smoothly from a relationshipwith parentalfigures to the self-objects of the adolescentpeer group and then to the self-objectsof the adult world with its more general cultural values. (Goldberg, 1980, pp. 117-130) While there are clearly dangersin such a potentiallyunreflectivedevelopmental sequence, usually this expanding sense of self leads to a broadersocial matrix which encouragesindividuationand responsibilityin public life. As Wolf puts it, "as long as a person is securely embeddedin a social matrixthat provides him with a field in which he can find the needed mirroring responsesand the needed availabilityof idealizable values, he will feel comfortablyaffirmedin his total self with its ambitions and goals. In short, he will feel himself strong and, paradoxically, relatively self-reliant, self-sufficient, and autonomous" (Goldberg, 1980, p. 128). The totalitariansetting shattersthis congruencebetween the existing social matrix and public individuation. As Havel suggests, totalitarianism celebrates the pseudolife, the undifferentiated with the group: merger
Partof the essence of the post-totalitarian system is that it drawseveryone into its sphere of power, not so they may realize themselves as humanbeings, but so they may surrender their human identity in favourof the identity of the system, that is, so they may become agents of the system's generalautomatism. ... so they may-with no externalurgingcome to treat any non-involvement as an abnormality,as arrogance, as an attack on themselves, as a form of dropping out of society. By pulling everyone into its power of structure,the post-totalitarian system makes everyoneinstruments a mutualtotality,the auto-totalityof society. (1986, p. 52)

Sakharovpaints an equally pessimistic pictureof the group forces of depersonalizationat work. In one instance, for example, a Gorkynewspaperpublishes a propagandaarticle attackingSakharovand blaming his wife for his resistance activities. The article asks: "Can one really expect simple Soviet folk to remain calm and indifferentwhile someone defames the holy of holies-our Motherland

Self, Creativity, Political Resistance

349

and people . . ." (Sakharov,1990, p. 594). The result is the following terrifying scene of group depersonalizationand persecutionsufferedby his wife:
I saw her to the trainand then returned Scherbinki.For Lusia, the tripturnedout to be a to terribleordeal. As the trainmoved off, the passengersin her compartment began yelling at her, insisting she get off the trainat once-honest Soviet people like themselves couldn't possibly travel with a Zionist warmongertraitor.Almost everyone else in the car, including the conductor,joined in. Some of the passengers had read Yakovlev's articles, and agreed with the sentimentsexpressed;othersdoubtlesswere afraidof standingapartfrom the crowd; others simply relished pogroms. And a pogram it was-complete with hysterical screams and shouts. Lusia tried at first to respond, but then, realizingthat no one was paying the slightest attention,she decided to keep quiet. The confined quarters the of coach offered no escape from the ordeal. (Sakharov,1990, p. 595)

Hence, the social matrixin the totalitarian setting becomes a source not of individuationbut the loss of self. Under such circumstanceshaving a genuine sense of identity requiresenduringthe feelings of uncertaintywhich come with not having a secure position in a particularsocial order. According to Wolf, though, most people are capable of acting only in terms of a clearly defined social matrix. (Goldberg, 1980, pp. 128-129) While one may question this generalization, there can be little doubt that the totalitariansetting takes the naturalhuman tendency to desire a public sense of self and uses it against the very substance of active citizenship. As Havel and Sakharov'sdescriptionsof group depersonalizationconclude, most people are inclined to choose, at least initially, depersonalizationover the demandsof a more individuatedidentity. THE ARTIST'S INDIVIDUATION Artistic figures, according to Kohut, depart fairly significantly from the norm in termsof their own self-development.Even when the usual developmental sequence described by Wolf is possible in a particularsocial setting such individualsdo not define theiridentitiesexclusively with referenceto the existing social matrix. As Kohut puts it, "the adult ego's strengthrests on its graduallyacquired frustrations tolerable of structure,slowly built up in consequenceof innumerable This structured serves as stimulusbarrierand bufferin the interacintensity. ego tions with inner and outer environment. It provides for the neutralizationof drives and for ever more complex, varied, and efficient modes of discharge throughaction" (1978, p. 272). In the case, however, of the creativefigure such buffering structuresare far less present: "The great in art and the truly pioneeringly creative in science seem to have preservedthe capacityto experience that protectthe reality, at least temporarily,with less of the bufferingstructures average adult: from traumatization-but also from creativenessand discovery" (1978, p. 273).

350

Emery

The importantpoint is that if most people deal with traumathrougha flight into the taken-for-granted social matrix,the artistdeals more directlywith uncercreative activity: tainty through
we learn from the biographyof creative people that even in childhood the futuregenius possesses the capacity for handlingtraumaticstimulationsand their traumaticinnerelaborations by some creative activity, however rudimentary might be. A self-reinforcing it cycle is thus set up from early on. On the one hand, we see that great creative capacity rendersthe building up of other forms of tension mastery (the acquisitionof buffering, neutralizing structure) unnecessary. While, on the other hand, the continuation of Or, creativityis necessitatedby the absenceof reliablebufferingstructures. statedwithout reference to metapsychologicalconcepts, we can say that the sensitive artistictemperament leads to creativity;and persistentcreativitysafeguardsthe artist'ssensitive temperament. (1978, p. 274)

This dual quality of an absence of bufferingstructures and the response to trauma of artistic productivity is seen in the biographies of both Havel and Sakharov. First, neither the developmentalexperiences of Havel or Sakharov allowed for a smooth transitionand consolidation of a more taken-for-granted identityover time. Havel describesthe following childhoodexperiencethatmade such consolidation difficult:
During my childhood, especially when we lived at our country estate and I went to a village school, I enjoyed a greatmany advantagesandperks. ... All of thatput, between myself and those aroundme . . . a social barrierwhich, althoughI was still just a little guy, I was very much awareof and foundhardto deal with. ... I felt aroundme a certain mistrust, a certain distance . . . because I knew that between me and those aroundme there was an invisible wall, and because behind that wall-and this may seem paradoxical-I felt alone, inferior,lost, ridiculed. . . . Add to thatthe fact thatI was overweight and that the other children, as children will, laughed at my tubbiness, all the more so because it was an easy way to exact a kind of unconscious social revenge. (1990, p. 5)

As Havel concludes,
"I believe this childhood experience influencedmy entire futurelife, includingmy writing. My childhood feeling of exclusion, or of the instability of my place in the world . . . could not but have an influenceon the way I viewed the world-a view which is in fact a key to my plays. It is a view 'from below,' a view from the 'outside,' a view which has grown out of the experience of absurdity.What else but a profoundfeeling of being excluded can enable a person betterto see the absurdityof the world and his own existence or, to put it more soberly, the absurddimensions of the world and his own existence?" (1990, p. 6)

Sakharovhad a no less uprootedand uncertainchildhood experience:

I grew up in an era markedby tragedy,cruelty, and terror,but it was more complicated than that. Many elements interactedto producean extraordinary the atmosphere: persistenoring revolutionaryelan; hope for the future;fanaticism;all-pervasive propaganda; mous social and psychological changes; a mass exodus of people from the countryside; and, of course, the hunger, malice, envy, fear, ignorance, and demoralizationbrought about by the seemingly endless war, the brutality,murder,and violence. (1990, p. 20)

Sakharovlost several family members who were executed or died under interrogation and in Soviet concentrationcamps.

Self, Creativity,PoliticalResistance

351

While Sakharovis less open about the inner consequencesof such experiences on his life history (his autobiographyas he puts it is "a memoir, not a confession" [1990, p. 16]), he does write that growing up "therewas a ferment inside me, an innerconflict, and moderationwas somethingI could achieve only with great effort, if at all" (1990, p. 15). Second, and this is the key point, psychologicallyboth individualsas adults respondto traumanot by a flight into an unjustsocial matrixbut throughcreative production. Havel, for example, faced with imprisonmentfor his activities, responds with an attemptat artistic activity. Shortly after being imprisonedhe writes to his wife Olga: "I'm thinkingover the kind of meaning I should try to breatheinto the years in prison that lie ahead. . . . Conceivably,I might begin writing more for the theateragain, as an observerof the 'theaterof the world'. It's paradoxicalthat I find the prospect of such a turnaround prison, of all in places, where I will no doubt find it exceptionally hard to write, but that's not unusual:haven't I always writtenmost when I've had the least time?" (1988, p. 50). Havel in the end fails to write plays in prisonbut does continuallyrespondto the traumaof the experience by writing letters to his wife on a varietyof topics which are subsequently published as a major literary work, Letters to Olga. also leads to the Upon his release from prison the traumaof readjustment response of a suddenburstof creativity:"when I came back from prison, I had a bad case of nerves: I was constantlydepressedand out of sorts;nothinggave me any pleasure. ... An Austriancritic wrote of one of my plays that it seemed to have been writtenout of the very depthsof despair,and that it was my attemptto save myself. I laughed at his notion of how plays got written, but now I feel as though I should apologize to him: perhapsmy writing these plays so soon after coming home from prison really was an act of self-preservation,an escape from despair, or a safety valve through which I sought relief from myself" (1990, p. 63). Sakharov'sresponseto traumais similarto Havel's. When sent into internal exile in Gorky, he uses the time to write his memoirs as well as complete a variety of other creative projects. According to Sakharov,the KGB's reactionis to directly try to thwartsuch efforts by stealing his work. This is how Sakharov describeshis own responseto the first theft in 1980 of his memoirswhile in exile: "The theft of my bag was staggering.I was exasperated my carelessness, and by that bitterlyregrettedthe loss of documentsand manuscripts would be difficultor from Moscow thatevening, she impossible to replace. . . . When Lusia returned was stunned by the news, and she says I was in a state of shock, literally trembling. All the same our spirits weren't brokenand in fact the tempo of my activities actually increasedafterthe theft, althoughI was forcedto set scientific work aside for a time. Looking throughmy papers, I've found six documents written between March 13 and March 24, when Lusia left again for Moscow . ." (1990, p. 530).

352

Emery

The manuscriptis stolen again in 1982 afterSakharovhas handwritten more than 900 new pages. Once again his responseto such traumais renewedproductivity: "After the October 1982 robbery, I once again began rewriting these memoirs. I was forcedto rely on my unaidedmemory,since I didn'thave the first draft or the two hundredpages of notes I'd used in preparingthe edited version .... Adding to my worries, the never-ending complication with the memoirs exposed Lusia to risk. But despite the sword of Damocles suspended over the project, I kept on writingbits and pieces in the hope that they would fit organically into the manuscript.. ." (1990, p. 535). Both Havel and Sakharovseem self-conscious about this artistic cycle of response to traumathrough creativity, that the "sensitive artistic temperament leads to creativity;and persistentcreativitysafeguardsthe artist'ssensitive temperament"(Kohut, 1978, p. 274). In Havel's words concerninghis own activity, "the deeper the experienceof an absence of meaning-in otherwords, of absurdity-the more energeticallymeaningis sought;withouta vital strugglewith the experience of absurdity,there would be nothingto reach for; withouta profound inner longing for sense, there could not then be any wounding by nonsense" (1990, p. 201). As he summarizeshis own biography, "I suspect that somewhere, deep down, I find this paradoxicallife of mine terribly entertaining" (1990, p. 206). Sakharov, on the other hand, expresses this self-consciousness about his artistic temperamentthrough his choice of the following epigraphtaken from Goethe's Faust as a guiding principle: "He alone is worthy of life and freedom / Who each day does battle for them anew!" As Sakharovputs it, "the heroic romanticismof these lines echoes my own sense of life as both wonderful and tragic" (1990, p. 283). Given the uprooted artistic temperamentof Havel and Sakharov,a takenconnectionto the existing social matrixof totalitarianism for-granted simply isn't an option. Both individualsare too inclined to define their initial self-identityin terms of the above form to settle for such depersonalization.

THE ARTISTIC TRANSFERENCE Kohut argues that the key to the content of the artist'screativitylies in his capacity to produce an idealized image of the self:
a leading partof the psychological equipmentof creativepeople has been shapedthrough the extensive elaborationof a transitional point in libido development:idealization.(1985, p. 114)

The artistis not just respondingto traumathroughcreativeproduction,he or she is continually responding in a very particularway through the creation of an

Self, Creativity,PoliticalResistance

353

image of self-perfection. It is this capacityto elaboratean idealized image of the self that is his principle contributionto public life. According to Kohut, this tendency toward idealization makes the artist particularly prone, especially in the initial phases of creativework, to a transference to a charismatic-messianicfigure. As Charles Strozier summarizes this account of the artistic transference,
"Kohutasks a deceptively simple question that has far-reaching implications.Whatkind of person serves as an idealized selfobject for the creative person. . . ? Kohut dissituationin analytinguishes between the endopsychic factorsthat createthe transference sis and the situationof the creativepersonin which the self is enfeebled and drainedof its cohesion maintainingcathexes. These demands on the creative figure weaken his selfcohesion and make him dangerouslyvulnerableto specific idealizing selfobject needs" (Goldberg, 1980, p. 402).

In other words, the very strengthof the artist'slack of bufferingstructures also is a weakness, a weakness which leads him to look to a particular paradoxically type of idealized other in the midst of the creative endeavor. Using the example of Freud's relation to Fliess as a paradigmaticcase of such artistictransference,Kohutarguesthatthe creativefigureidealizes a charismatic individualfor whom the ego and ego ideal have become completelyas one, who can provide a "messianic" certainty for the artist's uncertain self. As Strozierconcludes, "Kohutsees these Fliesses as narcissisticallyfixatedpersons, bordering on the paranoid. They possess an unshakableself-confidence with enormous, if brittle, self-esteem. Lackingany self-doubts, such figures set themselves up as leaders. Their absolute certaintyrisks total failure but also makes possible confident leadership.They possess an all-or-nothingcharacter.Along with Fliess, one could think of any numberof leaders who fit nicely into this narcissistic framework"(Goldberg, 1980, p. 403). The relationshipbetween the artistand the charismatic-messianic figure is not a genuinely educationalone, in Kohut'sview. There is no broadercreative discourse into which this figure might self-consciously introducethe artist. The idealized figure is not a mentor but a mere projectionof the artist'sown inner world. After the creative work is completed, the artist'ssense of his own genius comes to the forefront.As Kohutputs it, "a genius, frightenedby the boldnessof his pioneering discoveries and yearning to relieve his loneliness, creates for himself the figment of a vastly overestimatedfigure on whom he leans temporarily but whom he discards . . . after his essential work has been achieved.

During the transferenceof creativity itself, the genius projects his own mental powers onto someone else" (1985, p. 7). Now there are certainlyelements of Kohut'saccountof the artistictransference which fit the cases of Havel and Sakharov.Each figure early in his career idealized a more powerful charismatic-messianic individual. But these relations appearto have been far more educationalthan is suggested by Kohut'smodel.

354

Emery

Havel and Sakharov did not simply project their own interiorityonto these people. On the contrary,these relationsseem to have providedthem with a more creexpansive ongoing sense of the significance of idealizationfor a particular ative discourse and for public life in general. Havel was influenced early in his lifework by the example of Jiri Kolar, a famous poet, visual artist, and memberof the literary"Group42." Therecan be no doubtthatHavel idealized Kolarand the membersof Group42, who, he says, were for him at the time "the last living achievementof Czech poetry,perhapsof Czech art" (1990, p. 26). Kolar, who took Havel and other young writersunder his wing, was a charismatic-messianic figure with a very strong and inflexible view of the world. And yet these tendencies were always balancedby his genuine concern with introducingHavel to a broadercreative discourseand were in fact part and parcel of his concerns with defending this discourse. In Havel's words:
These sessions in Kolar's circle opened up to me hithertounknownhorizons of moder art. But, most important all, they were a kind of universityof writers'morality,if I may of for put it in such augustterms. Kolarwas a distinctivepreacherwith a greatunderstanding young authorsand for everythingnew, and he had a spontaneousinterest, in his endearingly authoritativeway (thanksto which his ideas often took the form of injunctions),in helping what was new into the world. He judged the moral and noetic dimensions of literature his own, ratherstrict, standards; is clear, for instance, in his MasterSun, this by an extensive collection of imperativesthatpoetryheaps upon the poet. And althoughlater I began to write, independentlyof his literaryinfluence, things that were utterlyunlike what Kolarexpected of me, these effortsof mine, both in literature in the field of civic and affairs, culture, and politics, would be unimaginablewithouthis initial lesson in a writer's responsibility.(1990, pp. 26-27)

Havel's relationshipto the political philosopherPatockahad a similarmore expansive educationalmeaning inexplicable in terms of Kohut'saccount of the artistic transference.Patocka, like Kolar, was a strong-willedpersonalitywho would fit into Kohut's category of the charismatic-messianic figure. As Havel whereverhe was, puts it, his approach"resembledthe strategyof trenchwarfare: he tried to hold out as long as he could withoutcompromise, but he never went on the attackhimself. He was utterlydedicatedto philosophy and teaching, and he never modified his opinions, but he did try to avoidthings thatmight have put an end to his work" (1990, p. 135). But again Havel received from this relationshipa more expansive sense of the need to actively defend the possibilities of a realm of creative discourse which was of no small moment in his self-development.Patockataughtpolitical thoughtat the Theateron the Balustride,where Havel workedearly in his career: "These unofficial seminarstook us into the world of philosophizingin the true, original sense of the word: not the boredom of the classroom, but rather an inspired, vital searchfor the meaningof things and the illuminationof one's self, of one's situation in the world" (1988, p. 18). And as Paul Wilson points out,

Self, Creativity,PoliticalResistance

355

much of Havel's later philosophical reflections can be read as an ongoing dialogue with Patocka who died under police interrogation after his arrest as the coleader of Charter 77 (1988, pp. 18-19). Hence, from Kolar and Patocka, Havel received both a sense of the existence of a broader realm of discourse and the need to aggressively defend this sphere. For Sakharov the key public relation of this sort was to Igor Tamm, a famous theoretical physicist with whom he studied and then completed work on nuclear reactions. Tamm also was strong-willed and opinionated and could fit into Kohut's characterization of the charismatic-messianic figure. His response, for example, to Sakharov's publication of his first dissident work, Reflections, was not particularly favorable. Tamm
"was sceptical aboutmy ideas, andespecially thatof 'convergence.'He remainedfaithful to the ideals of his youth, to a belief in a pure, undistorted socialism as the only means of resolving mankind'sproblems and ensuring general happiness. He held back from any discussion of ways to preventa nuclearor ecological catastrophein a divided world, but he did acknowledge that I'd posed some critical questions" (1990, p. 124).

Again, as with Havel, this was no mere projection of the artist's inner world onto a powerful personality but a more expansive relation which gave Sakharov a sense of a possible ongoing individuated public discourse. While acknowledging the different line of his own creative work, he concludes,
"What remains significant for me are the underlying principles by which Tamm was guided: absolute intellectualintegrityand courage, willingness to reexaminehis ideas for the sake of truth,and readinessto take action. Insteadof broodingaboutthe stateof affairs within the confines of his own circle, he would relentlesslypursuehis goals. In those early years, Tamm'severy word seemed a revelationto me-he alreadyunderstoodso many things I was just beginning to notice, and he was more knowledgeableand astute about them than almost anyone else with whom I could talk freely" (1990, p. 122).

It was this more expansive social sense of aggressively defending a realm of discourse which Sakharov received from him: "Tamm influenced primarily my approach to social questions" (1990, p. 122). It is only from the vantage point of this alternative conception of the artistic transference that it's possible to fully appreciate the origins of the political resistance of Havel and Sakharov. For their first steps into political activity were directly connected to the defense of the more individuated realm of discourse associated with each of these spheres of activity. Havel, for example, stood up and criticized the censorship of the Czech Writers' Association in 1965 and then led the Independent Writers Circle in 1968. Sakharov likewise entered the political fray in a major way with the publication abroad of Reflections in 1968, a work principally concerned with defending freedom of thought and a more open and creative discourse on scientific questions. In each case their earlier artistic transferences had prepared the way for such decisive actions in defense of a more creative realm of discourse.

356

Emery

THE CREATIVE-INTIMATE REALM The cases of Havel and Sakharovalso suggest the crucial significance of another type of creative transferencewhich Kohut's account simply skips. In additionto the above public artistictransferences,the more privaterealm of the to intimatecouple is a key creativeelement in theirwork. Havel'srelationship his wife, Olga, and Sakharov's relationshipto his wife, Elena (Lusia), are both crucial aspects of their creative identities. Intimacyfor both Havel and Sakharovinvolves an active conjunctionof narcissism with a crossing of the boundariesof the self in termsof the deeperidealizationof sexual love. As Otto Kernberg argued, "passionin the realmof sexhas ual love . . . is an emotionalstatethatexpressesthe crossingof boundaries the in sense of bridging intrapsychicstructures which are separatedby dynamicallyor conflictuallydeterminedlimits" (1985, p. 289). Such desire as the "expressionof (as well as guaranteeof) the active, creative functions of love" (1985, p. 288) inherentlyinvolves the opening up of a more creativeprivaterealm.This ongoing crossing of the boundariesof the self and mutualrealizationof a creative-intimate realm are largely inexplicablein terms of Kohut'smodel of artisticactivity. The point is not that there are no elements of the artistictransference the in form describedby Kohutin these intimaterelations,but thatthe creative-intimate realm involves a relationshipwhich cannot be simply understoodin terms of Kohut'simage of the transitional object. Havel and Sakharov,for example, may each narcissistically idealize the other of intimacy in terms of an almost fetishized image of perfection,but this image is connectedto a sense of place and commitment to the intimate couple. In one of his most importantwritings, Letters to Olga, Havel writes that "Olga is their main hero, though admittedly hidden. That was why I put her name in the title of the book. Doesn't thatendless searchfor a firm point, for certainty,for an absolutehorizonthatfills those letters say something, in itself, to confirm that?" (1988, p. 10). Olga is idealized but also a clear sense of a private creative realm or ground is present. Sakharov,too, clearly idealizes the otherof the intimaterelation:"Not long ago afterwe'd begun our life together,Lusia told me a story aboutthe writerYuri Olesha and his wife Olga. Once, in a restaurant,Olesha addressedtheir very attractivewaitressas 'My queen!' As the waitressleft theirtable, Olga asked: 'If she's your queen, who am I?' Olesha staredat her a moment, caught off guard. 'You?' And then answered solemnly: 'You are my self.' I am very fond of this story, and I believe thatafterour sharedjoys and cares, I too have the rightto say to Lusia: 'You are my self' (and 'my queen' as well)" (1990, p. 576). But again such idealization is reconciled with the ongoing work of intimacy,the "shared joys and cares" of an intimate life. The intimate couple provides a sense of reassurancein the face of the tremendousuncertaintiesof artisticactivity, but here also it is a mutualrelation

Self, Creativity, Political Resistance

357

that is involved. As Havel puts it in Disturbingthe Peace, "thereis one certainty in my life thatnothing-so far, at least-has been able to shake. Thatcertaintyis Olga. We've known each other for thirty-three years, we've been together for thirty, and for those thirty years we've gone through everything possible and impossible together"(1990, pp. 155-156). It is the commitmentto the creativeintimaterealm itself which is the source of reassurancein the face of the uncertainty of life. Or as Sakharovdescribeshis experienceof exile in Gorky, "people say that a person deprivedof connectionto the outside world becomes a living corpse. If my surrealisticisolation in Gorky did not turn me into a dead man, that was entirely due to Lusia. From the first day to the last, she helped me set a course that preserved my honor and dignity through all the vicissitudes of fate. She sustained continually my public activity, my science, and my life" (1990, p. 551). But again this reassuranceconfrontsthe uncertaintyof life and faces it in terms of a mutually created sense of place. This intimaterealm halfway between the purely interiorrealm of the artist as described by Kohut and the public world seems to allow for an extension of liberationof desire, creativity.The couple's privateintimacyencouragesa further a greater individuationfrom the unconscious group, and a fuller realizationof artisticactivity. An ongoing creativerealmexists in partseparatefrom the public world, a realm in which deeper desire is confronted. As Kerberg puts it, the maturecouple "is always in open or secretoppositionto the group;it is by nature in nonconventional;it frees the couple fromparticipation the restrictionsimposed by the sanctioned sexual norms of its social group, creates an experience of sexual intimacy that is eminently privateand secret. ... its inclusion of infantile features into its sex life, is, paradoxically,more maturethan the repressive and regressive group pressuresthat attemptto restrictsexuality underthe influence of infantile superego remnants"(1985, p. 316). The commitment to this creative-intimaterealm requiresa defense of the this couple's autonomyfrom political power. And undertotalitarianism defense of the intimate couple potentially speaks to the broaderpolitical need for an autonomousprivate sphere. No doubt the artist articulatesthe private intimate realm in much more idealized termsthan may be the rule throughout society; but even if most people don't experience the intimate sphere in the same creative sense as the artist, the idealizationof this realm does speak to the general need for people to defend their right to privacy from group power.

THE ARTIST AND SOCIETY Given Kohut's view of the artistic transference, it should come as little surprisethat he sees the artist's broaderrelation to society not in terms of an

358

Emery

active defense of an individuatedrealm of discourse but simply as the total projection of interiorityonto the public world. The artist over time becomes himself a charismatic-messianicfigure based on a purely inner articulationof identity. In an interview with Charles Strozier,Kohutdescribes what he takes to be the artist's social significance througha discussion of the case of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While this accountof Rousseauis somewhatbiographically questionstatementof Kohut'soverall view of the relation able, it provides a paradigmatic of the creative figure to the social world. Accordingto Kohut, Rousseau "hada
very unsustained life early on and he was always searching. . . . His own deep

sense of not belonging was thereforepersonal. It matchedperfectlythe population at large. Rousseau thus expressed something importantat a historical moment when a major reshuffling of the group was occurring. . . . Rousseau oper-

ated on the borderlinebetween severe pathologyandthe creativereassemblageof the self in a way that is characteristic many significantfigures"(Kohut, 1985, of The artist, given his temperament,directly recreatesthe self, reassemp. 258). bles the self, and this innerprocess leads to the creationof a new idealizedimage of identity of potential significance to others. And this brings us to the crucial importanceof the artistfor a setting like thatof totalitarianism. Accordingto Kohut,thereareperiodsin historywhen this creationof a new relationbetween ego and ego ideal correspondsto the broader needs of the social group for the articulationof a new identity. During these periods in which, as we've seen, the existing social matrix fails to encourage active individuationby people, the artist is in a unique position to respond to this sense of social trauma. As Kohut concludes about such creative figures in general:
During crucial moments of self survival-not just biological survivalbut self survivalsomething fundamentalis threatened.At such moments, the gifted and successful leader experiences danger on a personal level but can realize and express that danger on the grouplevel. He experiencesit at a personallevel because he himself lackedthe sustenance of selfobjects as a child. He is threatenedby disintegrationand goes throughphases of nearfragmentation frequentlyin adolescenceor early adulthood,thenreassembleshimself with a set of creative ideas that happento fit the overall needs of the group. He and the group then become each other's selfobjects. They come to form a unit that is exhilarating and full of vitality. The self that was fragmentedclicks firmly back into place. It is for these experiencesthatpeople will gladly die. Biological survivalis nothingby comparison to this experience. (1985, p. 259)

The problemwith this view of Kohut'sis not only that it deemphasizesthe inherent individuationfrom the group of artistic activity and the ongoing selfcreatednatureof this process but thathe ultimatelymakes the artista contributor to the depersonalizationof the group world. While he speaks of a selfobject relationbetween the artistand the world, it is hardlya connectionwhich encourages an individuatedpublic realm. The artist elaborates the identity, and the

Self, Creativity, Political Resistance

359

individuals in the group adopt it writ large, without critical debate or selfquestioning. The artist'sinner world becomes the group identity,and in the end he is simply in a dialogue with a group that has itself become depersonalizedat the same moment it has acquiredan identity from him. The artistin this schemabecomes a kind of saviorfor the "commonpeople" who are incapableof creatingtheir own public identities. Kohuteven speaks of of the artist'sidealized identityas takingon the "appearance a miracle"(1985, p. 72). In Kohut'swords, "not all of humanityneeds to change, but an outstanding leader who has achieved a new internal solution may sweep along the rest. Amalgamationwith mystical modes of thinking may supportdrive control and rationality"(Kohut, 1985, p. 71). It is precisely this abstractand omnipotentconception of the world as the artist'sself-object that allows Kohutto justify the most extremegroupdepersonalization so long as it eventuallyleads to such a new creativeconjunction.Kohut can write, for example, that the historiansof the future may one day see the "fascist regimes as little bubbles in a transitionalphase of the renewedself that man once acquired.Nothing creativecomes withouttrauma,and while what the fascists did-and do-is enormouslyugly and inhuman,yet in a vast overview they may very well come to be seen as conditionalphases towards something positive" (Kohut, 1985, pp. 258-259). In Kohut's view, any price is worth paying to create this total conjunctionbetween the artist's inner world and the broaderpublic world. While there can be little doubt aboutthe presenceof idealized heroic imagery in the cases of Havel and Sakharov,their self-understandings explicitly reject the kind of hierarchicaland depersonalizedrelationshiparticulatedby Kohut between artistand society. Both Havel and Sakharovseem to appreciatethe fact that an active artistic discourse and the privatecreative-intimate realm are both imperiledso long as the broadmass of potentialcitizens lack their own sense of public individuation. Even if the artist could impose his own identity on the group as a whole, such a course would be politically self-defeating,encouraging simply a new form of group depersonalizationwhich would in the long run of inevitablymitigate an appreciation creative individuation.It is this awareness which seems to lead Havel and Sakharovto not just idealize their own creative individuationbut also to idealize the potential individuationof citizens in general. Havel, for example, idealizes a variety of individuatedidentities ranging from those "who privatelyteach young people things that are kept from them in the state schools" to "clergymenwho . . . try to carryon a free religious life"; from "painters,musiciansand singers who practisetheirwork regardlessof how it is looked upon by official institutions" "peoplewho are not afraidto call the to attentionof officials to cases of injustice."As Havel suggests, "the list could go on" (1986, p. 87).

360

Emery

It's crucial that such individuatedfigures exist to countervailthe tendency for simply passive resignationto tyranny:
of Even if they never speak of it, people have a very acute appreciation the price they have humiliationof their humandignity. The paid for outwardpeace and quiet: the permanent less direct resistance they put up to it-comforting themselves by driving it from their mind and deceiving themselves with the thoughtthat it is of no account, or else simply gritting their teeth-the deeper the experience etches itself into their emotional memory. ... All the fear one has endured, the dissimulationone has been forced into, all the painful and degrading buffoonery,and, worst of all, perhaps, the feeling of displaced cowardice all this settles and accumulates somewhere on the bottom of the social consciousness, quietly fermenting. (Havel, 1986, p. 31)

A broaderdemocraticmovementis needed which can encourageindividuation by people throughoutsociety. Charter77, which came into existence in 1976, in Havel's view, coincided with a sudden increasein people's dissatisfaction with the depersonalizationof their lives. This group involved the active conjunction of the interests of creative figures and the aspirationsfor genuine individuationby the broadermass of citizens. The trial of some youthful avantgarde singers for their resistantforms of self-expressionsparkeda suddenreturn to meaningful public action throughout the citizenry. As Havel concludes, "when the trial took place, a new mood had begun to surfaceafter the years of waiting, of apathy and of scepticism towards various forms of resistance. ... People were inspiredto feel a genuine sense of solidaritywith the young musicians and they came to realize that not standingup for the freedom of others, regardlessof how remote their means of creativityor their attitudeto life, meant one's own freedom" (1986, p. 64). Hence, Havel, unlike Kohut's surrendering artist, looks to a quite self-conscious relation between creativity and a more individuatedsocial world. And as with Havel, Sakharovembracesthe creationof an idealizedimage of individuatedcitizenship. He recognizes the political importanceof a conjunction between the concernsof artistswith a public creativediscourseand the concerns of citizens with democratic individuation.Sakharovmay, as we've seen, celebrate Goethe's artistic epigraph on the daily struggle for freedom but he also embraces the truthof AlexanderMezirov's dictum that "I lie in a trench under fire. / A man entershis home from the cold." As he puts it, "struggle,suffering, and heroic exploits are not ends in themselves, but are worthwhileonly insofaras they allow other people to lead normal,peaceful lives. Not everyone need spend time in the trenches. The meaning of life is life itself: that daily routine which demands its own form of unobtrusiveheroism" (Sakharov,1990, p. 283). Sakharov's ideal society is one which allows a broader realization of creativity and individuation,a "democraticpluralistsociety free of intolerance and dogmatism . . ." (1990, p. 282). He speaks regularlyof "proposalsfor a programof democratic,pluralisticreforms"(1990, p. 326). He defends religious liberty in the context of the supportfor a new pluralistsociety: "for me, religious

Self, Creativity, Political Resistance

361

liberty is part of the general issue of freedom of opinion. If I lived in a clerical state, I would speak out in defense of atheists and heretics" (1990, p. 337). Sakharovexplicitly rejects an omnipotentconnectionbetween the artistand public life when he makes clear his own reluctanceto embrace the more authoritarian politics of Solzhenitsyn:
For all my admirationof Solzhenitsyn, it's just not possible to avoid an open debate, which is all the more necessary inasmuch as some of his fundamentalthemes-as expounded in his Letter to the Soviet Leaders and elsewhere-seem to me questionable.In my view, he underestimatesthe need for a global approachto today's most pressing bias. . . . In my article, I cautionedthatthe problems, and displays a distinctanti-Western politicians who follow in the footsteps of ideologues tend to be more dogmatic and ruthless than their mentors. . . . The West's lack of unity is the price it pays for the pluralism, freedom, and respect for the individualthat constitutethe sources of strength and flexibility for any society. It makes no sense to sacrifice them for a mechanical, barracksunity which may have a certainutility if one's goal is aggressive expansionbut has otherwise proven to be a failure. Solzhenitsyn'smistrustof the West, of progressin general, of science and democracy, inclines him to romanticize a patriarchalway of life. . . . (1990, pp. 407-408)

As Sakharov summarizes his more democratic political approach: "Solzhenitsyn and I differ most sharplyover the defense of civil rights-freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom to choose one's country of residence, the openness of society. For me, these rights constitute the basis for a fully human life and for international security and trust. I have no doubt whatsoever as to the value of defending specific individuals. Solzhenitsyn assigns only a secondary importanceto human rights and fears that concentrationon them may divert attentionfrom what he sees as more important matters"(1990, p. 409). Thus, Havel and Sakharovavoidany coursethatwould place the artistin the position of substitutinghis or her own identity for the more active creationby citizens of an ongoing democraticsocial matrix.Instead,each embracesa political conjunctionthat maintainsboth the artist'sindividuationand a connectionto the more democraticaspirationsfor individuationof citizens throughoutsociety. CONCLUSION The above case study suggests that while Kohut's approachto creativity speaks to Havel's and Sakharov'slack of buffering structuresand response to trauma,it overlooks the possibility for the artistto more self-consciouslyconnect his or her narcissismto the supportof public individuation.Citizens and artists potentially share a common concern with the defense of the private realm of intimacy and the creation of a public sphere allowing individuation.This conjunction has been of no small moment in the resistanceto EasternEuropetotalitarianismand the origins of new democraticregimes in Czechlosovakiaand the

362

Emery

Soviet Union. Once the revolution has succeeded, creative individuationand democraticcitizenshipmust to some extent be distinguished.Artistsand citizens do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing by the concept of public individuation, and only the artist'somnipotencewould allow him to assume otherwise. But unlike the profile of Kohut'screative figure, the more self-conscious identitiesof Havel and Sakharovallow for an ongoing relationbetween the artist and democraticpolitics. Their creative productionsuggests the possibility of a and more active conjunctionbetween artisticindividuation democraticindividuation, a relation which recognizes both the distinctivepsychological characterof the artistic temperamentand the necessary concerns of all citizens with a revitalized public world.

REFERENCES
UniversitiesPress. Goldberg, Arnold. (1980). Advances in Self Psychology. Madison:International Havel, Vaclav. (1986). Living in truth (Ed., Jan Vadislav).London:Faber& Faber. Havel, Vaclav. (1988). Letters to Olga (Trans., Paul Wilson). New York:Alfred Knopf. Havel, Vaclav. (1990). Disturbing the peace (Trans., Paul Wilson). New York:Alfred Knopf. Kernberg,Otto. (1985). Internal world and external reality. New York:Jason Aronson. UniversitiesPress. Kohut, Heinz. (1977). Restorationof the self. New York:International UniverKohut, Heinz. (1978). The search for the self (Ed., Paul Ornstein).Madison:International sities Press. Kohut, Heinz. (1985). Self psychology and the humanities. New York:W. W. Norton. Sakharov,Andrei. (1960). Memoirs (Trans., RichardLourie). New York:Alfred Knopf.