March 3, 2003

I report below a letter that I have received from a reader, G, commenting the article Without Borders. The Borderline Case of the European Union.
My response is in the segments colored in blue.

Dear Iakov,

In regards to your essay on the European Union's flag and it's deeper
subliminal symbolic meaning.

Whilst I agree with Hippolytus that: "The unapparent connection is more
powerful than the apparent one." In my opinion, you are not allowing enough
room for your own moralistic or cultural prejudices and preconceptions in
your analysis of this subject. Without questioning our own cultural
indoctrination on some level. We often see only what we wish to see and
learn little of the true meaning of other peoples perspectives.

Their seems to be a great deal of latent resentment and hostility behind
your critic of the EU flag. Dismantling a flag symbolically is clearly a act
of covert aggression. Much in the same way as burning one is. You are not
looking at the flags virtues. Indeed rather you appear to be actively
seeking its supposedly hidden and mystical vices.

Dear G,

I sincerely hope that my own moralistic or cultural prejudices and preconceptions do not affect my capability of an unbiased analysis. I suggest that whoever thinks that such prejudices stand behind my conclusions would raise the specific arguments pointing to their presence.
I welcome every constructive criticism which, in order to be such, it has also to be "to the point".
My approach to history, past and current events, is psychoanalytic. Namely, my aim is to discover the latent contents that are the engine (the drive) behind our collective behavior.
Accordingly, the tools that I use are the ones that allow the penetration into such contents: symbols, subliminal messages by the media, slips of the tongue of politicians and delegates of the public, speeches, and so on. Flags are a very important tool because they represent unconscious, condensed symbols of the latent meaning. They are a declaration of intents. But it is the unconscious intent which interests us, not the manifest.
We can say that every analysis is clearly an act of covert aggression, because "analysis" is the opposite of "synthesis". Synthesis is the final result of conflicting currents, namely, psychic contents that find their expression in the collective acting out. My aim is do discover and decode the original elements that are at the roots of it.
Since every synthesis aims to conceal its real components and their hidden motivations, and the analysis aims to reveal them, the latter is correctly perceived as an act of aggression. The only way to avert such an aggression is to accept face value all the rationalizations that are induced to explain our behavior.
Furthermore, in order to reach a synthesis, a great amount of energies are to be invested, as in every repression. Decoding means investing energies that counteract the ones invested in the manifest solution. An energetic counter - investment is, indeed, to be understood as an act of aggression.
Accordingly, every understanding and every new knowledge, if they are such, are to be considered as acts of aggression, because they "dismantle" a previous knowledge, and introduce an element of destabilization. The ones, who want to stick to the previous understanding, feel attacked. So it had been with Galileo's new understanding of the cosmos, which "dismantled" the old one.
The arguments of the Church against Galileo's theories ran as yours: There are "virtues" in the old values. The same of course with Darwin and Freud. They "dismantled" the manifest meaning of the centrality of Earth (Galileo), of an anthropocentric creation (Darwin), and of the innocence of childhood (Freud) . 
As for "actively seeking... hidden mystical vices", it is not clear what you mean. I understand that your anger points to my depriving flags of their mystical epiphany, and bringing them down to their earthly significance as expression of very human drives and psychic contents. The "mystic" is the opposite of the real. When mysticism enters, the Reality Principle runs for cover. Human drives and needs are concrete. The purpose of transforming the concrete into mystic is to conceal its real substance.
As for the "dismantling", it is exactly the same as with dreams' interpretation. The interpretation may be wrong, of course, or partial. The more the interpretation gets closer to the real latent contents of the dream, the more it will be perceived as aggressive. After all, the aim of the manifest meaning of the dream is to conceal the real latent contents. It is the work of our inner censorship, the work of the Ego, whose task is to hide the original drive, which emerges from the unconscious, and had been delivered there because we are unable of accepting its real substance.
The flag is a symbol, like a representation of a dream. The manifest content of the EU flag is unity.
I have explained in my article what, in my opinion, is the latent content of this unity.
Furthermore, I do not deal with virtues or vices. These are the domain of priests, philosophers, and moralist politicians. I deal with the psycho - sexual contents of the collective acting out. As such they may be progressive or regressive, not moral or immoral, nor virtuous or vicious.
If regressive is vicious, the European Union is indeed a vicious acting out.
As for "the true meaning of other peoples perspectives", it is exactly what I am after: the "true meaning of the perspective",  not the declared (manifest), deceptive one .

There are now far more than twelve member states in the EU and their is some
conjecture around changing the design of the flag altogether. At the end of
the day it's is only a flag. Even though it's geo-political importance is
obviously significant, as it is meant to represent the values and
aspirations of over 300 million people. However you do have to question if
this could ever be successfully achieved.

If flags have virtues, as you stated above, at the end of the day they are not "only flags".
As you correctly stated, they represent something. To me, they represent, in a symbolic way, namely, in a very concrete way and not in an abstract one, real mental contents, needs and acting out, that are to be decoded.
When they change the European flag, I shall be eager to understand what the change means. My hunch is that it will be an even more evident symbol of the placenta, if there can be one more evident than a circle of little stars on a blue background.

The conceptual design of the European Union's flag.

Firstly the European Union's flag is a deep shade of blue. Blue is the most
popular and least contentious of the hues and is commonly associated with
stability, trust, reliability and belonging. The golden twelve stars
representing the twelve member states are in fact golden (prestige,
expensive, rare, valuable) mullets and can be thought of as epaulettes of
both rank and association.

Blue is the symbol of the water, the sea, i.e. the Mother (See, Sigmund Freud, "Symbolism in Dreams", 1915-17). As you correctly pointed: "commonly associated with stability, trust, reliability and belonging", again, the maternal womb.
When human beings think of havens and heavens, harbors, trust and security, they unconsciously associate these concepts with the Mother, who hosted us when we were powerless fetuses, then breast - fed us and took care of us...
"golden twelve stars representing the twelve member states are in fact golden (prestige,
expensive, rare, valuable". All those concepts are associated with the female genital (S.Freud, ibidem. See also, Rosencrantz e Guildenstern)

These are arranged in a circler manor in order to symbolize harmony, unity,
peace and the infinite continuity of the union. To digress slightly, this
reminds me of the way that children are often made to hold hands in a circle
in order to group them together. The value of the number twelve as I'm sure
your aware possesses many biblical proprieties. Apart from the obvious
meeting of Council of the twelve disciples.

"harmony, unity, peace and the infinite continuity of the union"
Aren't you describing the Paradise Lost, namely, the maternal womb?
No disgression at all, again, a circle, togetherness, children who are unconsciously staging again fetal, unconscious memories, and again "the obvious meeting of the Council of twelve disciple". Haven't you heard the expression "Holy Mother Church?".
 

The key element in the flag in my opinion is the symbolism of the golden
twelve stars or mullets. This construction has been compared to a Catholic
crown or hallow often found adorning both the virgin Mary and the infant
Jesus. Both by and much to the annoyance of protestants who despise the
Catholic association.

The maternal bond between mother and child is obliviously a strong and
protective and nurturing one. The father is absent perhaps even forbidden
from the image. The infant Jesus is cradled in his mothers arms at whom she
looks to lovingly and he points to the sky presumably heaven with one hand
and in the other holds a golden sphere adorned with a cross. A scepter of
heavenly authority, wealth, abundance and power over the earth.

Therefor the "son" or infant Jesus is the central focal figure of the image
and not the "mother" the virgin Mary.

It is curiously also a Catholic tradition to kiss the feet of the madonnas
statue. Who is normally situated in a darkened candle lit side chapel
adorning a Churches main alter. As you may be aware in strict accordance to
Catholic doctrine specific prayers are said in different places in a
Churches often under the direction of a priest. Chapels on the other hand
which are often administrated by monks serve as places of confession,
reflection, retreat and for those chosen learning and guidance.

It seems to me, that the greatest strength of many secular religions are
also their greatest weakness. The totalism and self deification exhibited by
certain religions and cults are not with out certain merits. However they
oftern also betray darker inclinations and intentions.

Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html

Christianity in it's past hay day it seems mostly made people feel bad about
themselves. This caused a sense of repression leading on to self loathing,
guilt and doubt. The Christian Church also became far to autocratic and
became corrupted by it's power. The more powerful the Church as a secular
authority became. The more obsessively meddling, politicized and
increasingly bizarre their believes where allowed to be expressed.

The European Christian political and imperial model. Historically with good
reason was often at odds with the opposing secular interests of the Jews and
Muslims. The European feudal order where after all out for themselves and it
could hardly be thought of as surprising; that they attempted to suppress
the development of other cultures faiths. However to be fair to the
political qualifications, ethical integrity and agendas of certain parties
in many parts of the world are very questionable. Due in no small part to a
lack of division between secular authorities and state.

Retrogressive secular tyranny however when it occurs, is the inherent
reemergence of previously suppressed cultural and political failures.
Religions often serve or are manipulated and subverted in to serving
corrosive political, cultural and ethnic agendas.

Best Regards

G.

In my view, religions are the expression of the psychosexual stage in which the peoples find themselves. It is not relevant if a religion is called Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism or Islam. Different peoples are in different psycho sexual stages, as they progress or regress, each  in their own way.
Therefore, also the same religion changes from time to time, accordingly to the psychic unfolding of the people that holds it. Judaism today is not the same as it was 2000 years ago, and Christianity or Islam are not the same either. Christianity has progressed from the early Middle ages, while Islam has regressed from the times of the first Omiad Caliphs. Every religion must be analyzed to the point and for its own merits at a specific moment of history. In this context, religion and culture are to be treated as synonymous.
They are the peoples who create religions, and not the other way around. Man created God in his own image.
As the peoples create political organizations, symbols and flags.

All the Best

Iakov
 

 
 
 
 
 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws