Group Dynamics Part II: The Powerful Defense of Splitting

In my last post I introduced the group dynamics concept of the collective unconscious. I want to follow up on that post by elaborating on some other key concepts that are applicable to groups. In my next post, I will discuss the role of the scapegoat that often emerges in a group. But first I want to focus on the defense mechanism of splitting as it pertains to the group level.

On an individual level, splitting is a primitive defense observed in infants that can persist into adulthood for some people. Infants are not yet able to make sense of the complexities of human behavior and so they need to split people into being all good or all bad. It is too hard to understand that the same individual one idealizes can at times behave in ways that are very hurtful. We often talk about splitting as black-and-white or all-or-nothing thinking. I tend to believe that the concepts of "good” and “bad” or “right” and “wrong” are man-made constructs that are limiting and simplistic. It is false to believe that any individual can be all good or all bad.

When we apply this concept of splitting to the group level, we observe how subgroups adopt an “us vs. them” stance. Republicans vs. Democrats. North vs. South. These groups often get polarized. Each subgroup believes that they are the good guys and the other subgroup is the problem. In my last post about the riot on the Capitol, I spoke about how Trump supporters believed that they were defending America and democracy while Democrats were the bad guys who illegally stole the election away and were undermining democracy. Democrats believed that Biden won the election fairly and that the riot was an insurrection that threatened our democracy and American values. Both subgroups truly believed that they were in the right.

It is easy to see how this is an example of splitting on a group level. The group in this instance is America, and the group members are all the U.S. citizens. One major subgroup is called Republicans and another Democrats. And we have been tremendously polarized, illustrating the “us vs. them” split I described. What is less easy to see is the connection between splitting and authority. Splitting is a defense mechanism. It protects the group against expressing uncomfortable feelings towards the group’s leader. It is safer for the group as a whole if one subgroup expresses anger towards another subgroup rather than for the entire group to express negative feelings directly toward the group leader who has power and could potentially use it in dangerous ways against the members. It is far less scary to allow the split to occur between the subgroups and to have the negative feelings located there. Now, we know that many individuals and the subgroup of the Democrats expressed negative thoughts and feelings towards Trump, the group leader at the time. But on the group level, on the level of the collective unconscious, it was much scarier for the group as a whole, that is, the entire group known as Americans, to be conscious of and express how utterly terrifying it was to have a leader who was so emotionally unstable and unable to effectively lead. Many people need to cling to the belief that Trump was a protective authoritarian figure that they could idealize. The split defended the group from having to access such terror.

I find it helpful to consider the members in a group as being either on-task or anti-task. The on-task subgroup consists of members who support the group leader and the task of the group while the anti-task subgroup is made up of members who are essentially attacking the leader by avoiding the task of the group. This can be understood as a split between the two subgroups which serves as a defense that protects the group as a whole against its deeply held unconscious feelings toward the group leader. These buried feelings may range from hostility, envy, and mistrust to dependency longings and sadness. I know that these are difficult ideas to digest and synthesize. I invite you to think about the various groups you are a part of, such as an organization or your family. Begin to consider ways in which there has been splitting that occurred between different members or subgroups. Perhaps these splits are operating as defense mechanisms that serve as a protection from negative, uncomfortable feelings - often unconscious - that exist towards the group’s leader.

Acting Out Behaviors

In my last blog post I addressed the "acting in" behaviors of depression and anxiety. Here I would like to focus on "acting out" behaviors that people turn to in an attempt to manage uncomfortable internal emotional states. There are many ways that people may "act out," such as putting substances (alcohol, prescription and recreational drugs, nicotine, or food) in their bodies to "self-medicate," overworking, gambling, working out excessively, obsessively turning to plastic surgery for cosmetic changes, excessive shopping, binge watching tv, spending hours playing video games, or engaging in risky and/or excessive sexual activities. When these types of behaviors are being used to unconsciously (or perhaps consciously) manage one's feelings, it probably means that the individual is choosing to flee from living in the present moment or the "here-and-now" to avoid fully inhabiting and experiencing one's feelings.

Cognitive behavioral therapists would focus on these behaviors directly and work on helping their patients learn ways to change the behaviors. Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic therapists like myself view these behaviors as symptoms or coping mechanisms that the patients employ because they might be the most adaptive ways they have learned to regulate the unacceptable, scary, or threatening feelings that are buried beneath. Rather than focus so directly on these symptoms, we believe that if we can help patients access and express the underlying unresolved feelings and come to understand how they are internally organized in relation to their emotions and unconscious processes, then over time people can learn healthier, more effective ways to manage their internal worlds. As a patient does so, we find that the unhealthy symptoms start to dissipate because there in no longer such a strong need to rely on archaic defense mechanisms that served a purpose at one time but now are more likely to be hindering an individual's progress.

A behavior is always a choice (even when it may not feel like a choice); feelings are not. If we subscribe to the belief that most people are well-intended and would choose the healthiest methods available to them, then we can come to see inexplicably harmful behaviors as adaptive attempts to manage difficult internal states. When people are able to learn alternate ways to manage these internal states, they are apt to choose the healthier options. When people learn that they needn't fear nor judge their feelings and begin to practice ways to tolerate, effectively manage, and perhaps even embrace their emotions, then they are better positioned to fill their tool boxes with the most healthy and effective tools. 

Depression and Anxiety as Defense Mechanisms

There is a great deal of confusion between feelings and mood states. Feelings (or emotions) are normal, healthy aspects of being human. Sadness, anger, joy, and fear are all common feelings that every human experiences, often daily. Mood states are not feelings. Depression, anxiety, and Bipolar Disorder (often known as manic depression) are mood states and can be considered mental disorders when severe enough. This isn't necessarily the case, as most people have experienced some type of depression or anxiety in their life time without it being serious enough to constitute a mental illness. We can say that we "feel depressed" or "feel anxious," which adds to the confusion between feelings and mood states.

Mood states may be understood as defense mechanisms that serve to protect us from underlying feelings. For instance, if we experience our anger as unacceptable or threatening, we might "depress" it and end up being "numb," resulting in not being in touch with the underlying anger. People who suffer from depression often describe themselves as being lethargic, fatigued, hopeless, or despairing. We cannot be in touch with our emotions when we are depressed. Reversely, when we are in touch with our feelings, we are not depressed at that moment. Anxiety may also be a way to manage underlying emotions. If our anger becomes too intense, we might react by becoming highly anxious. In this case, the anxiety is in response to a perceived threat induced by our anger. To complicate this further, if our anxiety then becomes too intense, we might then clamp down on it and become depressed. I describe this to my patients as layers upon layers, with the root feeling (which is pure and healthy) being buried deep down. So in this example, anger is the pure, healthy emotion that the individual has come to believe is bad, dangerous, or unacceptable. So Anger -> Anxiety -> Depression. Freud described depression as "anger turned inward." I believe this is what he meant by that explanation. Thus, a person might only experience his depression or anxiety, having suppressed his anger to a point where it cannot be easily accessed. But if a person suppresses one emotion, he suppresses all emotions. So when a person is suffering from depression, he cannot fully inhabit his anger, joy, fear, or sadness.

In psychotherapy I help my patients explore what feelings they might be defending against by employing the defenses of depression or anxiety. By teaching people that their feelings are normal and healthy and not to be feared, they start to shift their relationships to their emotions. Over time, this helps people learn alternate ways to manage their feelings so that they no longer believe they have to push their feelings away at all costs. We may view depression and anxiety disorders as forms of "acting in," i.e. turning inward to try to manage difficult emotions. In my next blog post, I will address "acting out" behaviors that people may employ as alternate ways to attempt to manage internal emotional states.