2nd Call for Papers:
Paranoid Fantasy & Enemy Creation: Hitler, Goebbels, and World War

Dear Colleague,

The deadline to send us your proposal for this volume is coming up in one month (May 14). We’re excited by the excellent submissions we’ve received—but would very much like to consider yours.

The Call for Papers appears below, as does a Selected Bibliography to stimulate your thinking.

Can societies create “something out of nothing”? Can entire worlds come into being when fantasies are put forth by political leaders and embraced by members of society?

Reality may be a social construction, but constructed based on what?

We’re looking forward to receiving your abstract.

Best regards,
Orion

Orion Anderson
Communications Director
Library of Social Science
Telephone: 718-393-1104
Fax: 413-832-8145
oanderson@libraryofsocialscience.com

 

Selected Bibliography: Click the link to read the complete document

The Jewish Enemy (Book Excerpts)
Jeffrey Herf

ON DELUSION: "The Nazi leadership pushed to the extreme the widespread human capacity for delusion and belief in illusions. The assumption that these men did not believe these fantasies relies on an optimistic view of the power of human rationality, justified neither by the events of modern history nor by our now widespread awareness of the role of nonrational forces in human experience. The weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that members of the Nazi leadership viewed the world in the way that they said they did."

Political Violence as the Destruction of Evil
Richard Koenigsberg

PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED OBJECT: "At the core of religious and political ideologies is the propensity to identify another group as an enemy perpetrating evil upon—acting to destroy—one’s own sacred ideology. If one is to rescue the group (one’s nation or religion), it is necessary to locate and eliminate those who embody the evil group. Hitler believed "Jews" were the source of the world’s evil. Lenin believed "capitalists" were acting to destroy the world. Americans in the Fifties believed Communists were intent upon taking over and crushing the world. An identical dynamic governs today's political struggles: Acts of war and terror are generated as a response to the perception of an evil other, whose continued existence cannot be tolerated. Anxiety generated by this evil other generates the desire to "kill off" those perceived to be acting to destroy the world’s goodness."

The Influence of Psychogeography Upon the Conduct of International Relations
Howard Stein

ON BOUNDARIES: "One's personal boundaries come to be felt as coextensive with and bound up with the fate of the geopolitical boundaries of one's group. Aggression is mobilized in defense of the self, in the service of keeping a sense of goodness and completeness and safety inside, repudiating in oneself disavowed parts and impulses, putting these disavowed aspects into the enemy, intensifying them in the enemy, engaging them through the enemy, combatting them in the enemy, and restoring what the enemy is seen to have taken away."

The Love of Hating: The Psychology of Enmity
Ofer Zur

ON ENMITY, ENEMY IMAGES AND PARANOIA: "The Latin root of the word enemy is inimicus which means "not + amicus" or not-friend. Webster's defines "enemy" simply as a "hostile force or power," "a member or unit of such a force," or "something having destructive effect." Federal law defines "enemy" as "the government of any nation with which the United States is at war." Psychologists have long been aware that "hostile forces" and "destructive effect" are not always objective realities but are inextricably linked to complex relationships. Considering the role of perception, "enemy" can be defined as a person or a group of persons perceived to represent a threat to or to be hostile towards the perceiver."

Call for Papers:

Library of Social Science, Publishers is seeking submissions for an edited book volume: Paranoid Fantasy & Enemy Creation: Hitler, Goebbels, and World War
The Anthology will consist of twelve papers, each of approximately 3,000 words in length.

Editor, Richard A. Koenigsberg, Library of Social Science

Submission Guidelines:

Abstracts should be 300-400 words, and should identify the theoretical grounding for the essay or piece. Please also include a brief biography (100 words).

Deadline for abstracts:

May 14, 2012

Send abstracts to:

oanderson@libraryofsocialscience.com

Notification of acceptance:

June 11, 2012

Accepted papers will be due:

October 15, 2012

World War II and the Final Solution

Declaring war on the United States on December 11, 1941, Hitler stated that it was the "eternal Jew" that stood behind Roosevelt. In April 1942, Hitler declared that a brain trust made up of Jews had driven Roosevelt into war, against America’s better interests. The influence of the Jew, Hitler claimed, explained what at first seemed incomprehensible: the alliance between Western democracies—Jewish capitalism—and the Soviet Union.

In November 1941, Goebbels stated that "every Jew is our enemy, whether he scrapes out a parasitic existence in Berlin or Hamburg, or blows the trumpets of war in New York or Washington." Goebbels declared in June 1943 that Jews were behind Roosevelt, behind Churchill and, hidden in the Kremlin, the "real bearers of Bolshevism." The "international Jew"—building bridges between the United States, Great Britain and Soviet Union—was the "mortar" that held the coalition together.

On this rhetoric, the Nazis generated a World War that killed over 50 million people. A fantasy or ideology with no foundation in reality generated monumentally destructive historical events.

After the Second World War, two lines of research evolved: one focusing on the conventional narrative of warfare, the other on an extraordinary event that came to be called the Holocaust. Jeffrey Herf documents that Hitler and Goebbels did not consider Final Solution and World War II distinct events. Rather, the Nazis conceived of war and genocide as fronts of one apocalyptic battle: a struggle to remove Jews from the face of the earth. As the Nazis implemented the Final Solution, they simultaneously waged a "war of annihilation" in the Soviet Union in order to "exterminate" Jewish Bolsheviks.

A standard text used by mental health professionals to classify mental disorders—The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)—defines delusion as a "belief held with great conviction in spite of having little empirical support." An individual may be diagnosed as deluded or paranoid when he holds firmly to a belief that is "utterly unwarranted by the evidence." However, the DSM introduces a caveat: a belief cannot be considered paranoid if it is "ordinarily accepted by other members of a person’s culture or subculture." By definition—according to psychiatric diagnosis—Hitler, Goebbels and other Nazis were not paranoid.

Nonetheless, Daniel Goldhagen states that upon reading anti-Semitic texts, one would be hard-pressed to conclude that they were anything but the product of the "collective scribes of an insane asylum." Based on extensive research on mass murder, Johan van der Dennen observes that though it is hard to imagine that normal people embrace ideas equivalent to the delusional systems of the insane, historical evidence suggests that entire societies have been persuaded to accept the most "absurd calumnies about minority groups." Psychiatrist Anthony Storr states that the portrayal of various groups as enemies emanates from a fantasy comparable to "paranoid delusions found in psychotic subjects."

Despite their paranoid belief system, Hitler and Goebbels were not psychotic. Looking beyond their world, it becomes evident that many elements of Nazis ideology (e.g., the identification of a single class of people as the source of evil in the world) are quite common or ordinary. Indeed, paranoid logic is a central dimension of many political ideologies.

The Continuing Influence of Paranoia in Enemy Creation

This volume seeks contributions on how ideologies of enmity can be constructed on ideas and fantasies with little or no foundation in reality. How can we understand the fact that delusive systems of belief frequently are embraced within societies—giving rise to systematic forms of violence and destruction to which we give names like war, genocide and terrorism?

This anthology will explore the dynamics of enemy creation: how fantasies construct reality. How does belief in the power of an omnipotent enemy generate political ideology—and history?

Questions to consider include but are not limited to:

  • The symbolic meaning of the Jew
  • Metaphors of biology and disease in Nazi ideology
  • The relationship between war and genocide
  • The enemy as a force that destroys one’s nation
  • The enemy as heretic or non-believer
  • How paranoid ideas take hold within society
  • Methods employed by leaders to convey their ideas
  • Metaphors of the enemy
  • The significance of "rescue fantasies" in political ideology
  • The enemy within one’s body
  • Political ideology and binary systems of thought
  • What one seeks to "kill off" in killing enemies

We would especially like to include in this volume:

  • Case studies of enemy creation.
  • Papers employing discourse or metaphor analysis: How does rhetoric embody the idea of the enemy?
  • The relationship between the psyche and ideology: How do fantasies support cultural ideas?
  • The relationship between psyche and history: How do fantasies and ideologies give rise to societal institutions and historical actions?