2.4 Development of the Self
2.4.4 Defensive Mechanisms
35
this state of incongruence and decrease the accompanying anxiety the experience must be ignored, denied or distorted (Meyer et al., 1997:470; Rogers, 1951:504).
36
1951:508). An example of this would be of a child brought up in a very authoritarian household, experiencing severe headaches every time he or she is requested to perform a task, which could be as a result of the denial of feelings of rebellion against the rules his or her parents have enforced and so strictly maintained. One can therefore view conscious distortion as a reaction to incongruence whereas unconscious distortion would be more proactive in nature, avoiding the possibility of exposing the incongruity.
Denial on the other hand involves the complete blocking of the incongruent experience from consciousness such as an accused individual not arriving for his or her court date due to complete disbelief in the need for them to be there (Rogers, 1951:505). The avoidance of such incongruent experiences has far-reaching effects for the individuals psychological functioning as well as behavioural expressions. The act of denying or distorting the experience does not eradicate its presence but merely decreases the accompanying level of anxiety and thus its perceived threat to the individual, thereby denying it the ability to affect the self-concept. This could relate to an increase in criminality as the lack of self- condemnation and thereby decreased self-control could result in repeated use of these defences allowing the motivation to manifest into a purposive goal. As a result, many people who lack adequate integrative skills begin to build an increasingly large, yet fictitious reality in order to maintain their self-concept. This inability to integrate both positive and negative experiences into the self manifests in behaviour that is in complete opposition to the realisation of an actualised self as it is based on distorted perceptions of experiences (Meyer et al., 1997:482; Rogers, 1951:500-501). These experiential distortions are common in cases of offenders with antisocial personality disorder, psychopathology or related tendencies as they tend to show a complete lack of remorse for their offences and often fail to take responsibility for their behaviour. This often results in the commission of brutally violent offences with little remorse due to the process of dehumanising victims allowing the offenders to perceive their victims as objects and therefore more readily decrease any possible anxiety related to the negative social reactions associated with the offence (Bartol &
Bartol, 2008:191; Gough, 1948:362; Turvey, 2009:575).
In consideration of the core tenets of Rogers’ theory, this false reality would undoubtedly create a less than ideal climate for actualisation to be realised. If defensive mechanisms are present it must be noted that the individual cannot be entirely actualised as the use of defensive mechanisms implies the lack of incorporation of experiences into the self-concept,
37
an important part of self-actualisation and thus the greater actualisation process (Maddi, 1980:100). The concept of psychological defences is by no means unique to Rogers’ theory.
Theorists such as Freud as well as Sykes and Matza also make use of psychological defence techniques similar to Rogers’.
From the psychoanalytic perspective, Freud outlines six different defence mechanisms namely denial, projection, isolation, rationalisation, reaction formation, sublimation and repression (Kring, Johnson, Davidson, & Neale, 2010:18). Freud’s’ denial defence is in essence identical to Rogers’ version as they both involve complete and utter denial of facts without further justification regardless of evidentiary support. This is considered as one of Freud’s more primitive defence mechanisms (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:88-89; Kring et al., 2010:18). Other Freudian defence mechanisms that have similarities to Rogers’ distortion mechanism are rationalisation, sublimation and reaction formation. Rationalisation is the process whereby the problematic behaviour is not ignored, as in denial, but acknowledged.
However, the underlying motivation of the behaviour is manipulated in a manner to which it becomes expressed differently to reflect reason and acceptability. Sublimation alters the expression of deviant thoughts and feelings in a manner which reflect goals that command high standing in society. Reaction formation only allows the individual to express behaviour that is the opposite of their seemingly inappropriate impulses due to the inability to accept the presence of such impulses (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:91; Kring et al., 2010:18). Much like Rogers’ distortion, rationalisation, sublimation and reaction formation all require the individual to alter certain experiences to make them more acceptable or appropriate to fit into their self-concept although as one can deduce from the above information Rogers’ defence mechanisms are not as in-depth, encompassing or complex as Freud’s.
On a theoretical level, the source of these defences may not be the same. However, there is evidence to suggest that the outcome of over reliance on such defences may lead, as both Freud and Rogers mention to a situation whereby not dealing with the inappropriate thoughts could result in an outburst of seemingly uncharacteristic behaviour (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:91; Meyer et al., 1997:475). This can be illustrated by considering examples such as the quiet neighbour who embarks on a killing spree or the highly conservative teacher caught behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner with minors. Rogers (1951:510) further purports that this is due to the individual’s lack of incorporation of organic needs into the self. The tension which is build up due to this lack of incorporation is said to be able to essentially
38
force the individual to succumb to the need and satisfy itself with no regard for societal principles. Such behaviour is however not said to be owned by the individual and responsibility for the actions will therefore not be taken by the individual.
The techniques of neutralisation as purported by Sykes and Matza are not identified as defensive mechanisms but essentially serve the same purpose as reactive cognitive mechanisms with a distinct purpose of maintaining psychological equilibrium. There are five such techniques proposed by Sykes and Matza that like Freud’s defensive mechanisms tend to be more elaborate and complex than the mechanisms proposed by Rogers. Similarly though, these techniques also emphasise the role of society as the source of the information needed to make the neutralisations effective. The five techniques include: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes & Matza, 1957:667-669).
The element of denial is common in most of the neutralisation techniques purported by Sykes and Matza although it is of a more complex nature. Whereas Rogerian denial has no further justification, neutralisation techniques base the denial of responsibility, victim and injury on evidence derived from personal experience and perception at the very least. This is evident in all of the neutralisation techniques as the behaviour is justified in a manner that makes it acceptable within the context in which it occurs.
The concept of distortion as purported by Rogers can furthermore be said to be present in all five neutralisation techniques including condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties. This interpretation can be validated by considering that both condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties involve the shifting of responsibility from the individual to an external entity, thus distancing the actor from the action (Sykes & Matza, 1957:668). With that said it is important to note that although there are similarities between the previously mentioned perspectives, there is one key difference. Whilst Freud as well as Sykes and Matza view defensive techniques as necessary for normal functioning, Rogers views the succumbing to conditions of worth and therefore the need for the use of defensive techniques as destructive for the actualising tendency. Therefore, unlike the other two perspectives defence mechanisms are not necessary for the healthy development of the individual but rather an obstacle impeding the actualising tendency (Maddi, 1980:100).
39