I suggest we abandon the claim that politics constitute a domain separate from ordinary human existence and social life—the fantasy that the domain of politics cannot be evaluated or judged according to principles that govern ordinary existence and social life.

I suggest we do away with the notion that politics and the "history" created within the domain of politics--is a privileged space. It is reasonable to judge what occurs in this domain or space by the same standards we use to judge what occurs in other spheres of human existence and societal life.

It is appropriate to use the language of psychopathology. Psychiatrists give names to each and every anomaly of human behavior: whatever deviates from "the norm" in a given society. The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 2013)—identifies personal shyness as a “social anxiety disorder.” Yet nowhere in the DSM-5 do we find a “genocidal disorder.”

Isn’t this extraordinary? Human beings are willing to identify hundreds of forms of behavior that deviate slightly from a norm: to claim these forms of behavior constitute "disorders." Yet we hesitate to identify as disorders forms of behaviors that have been monumentally destructive and self-destructive and that threaten the survival of the human race.

When nations wage war or commit acts of genocide, it is as if human beings have gone berserk. People become hysterical and enraged, participating in extreme forms of behavior: shooting people, bombing cities, performing torture, etc. There are thousands of examples in the historical record of such “insane” forms of behavior. One case that occurred during the Holocaust stands out in my mind (see Aroneau/Whissen, 1996).

An SS-man was standing at his post at the entrance to a death camp. A Jewish mother holding her baby in her arms entered the camp and walked toward the SS-man, apparently innocent of what the camps were. Her baby smiled at the SS-man. The mother released her baby and handed him to the SS-man, thinking he would protect her child.

The SS-man grasped the baby by the ankle, swung him around in a circular motion, and smashed the child’s head against a cement wall. This is an extreme case, but similarly brutal actions were performed by the Nazis hundreds of thousands of times.

Psychiatrists claim that we cannot speak of a “disorder” when a form of behavior is accepted or acceptable within a given society. According to this concept, one could not say that the SS-man who smashed a baby’s head against a cement wall was suffering from a mental disorder. He was behaving according to the norms of Nazi Germany that governed behavior in concentration camps.

By gentleman’s agreement, psychiatrists have agreed that only individuals can suffer from psychopathology—not entire societies.

Why is the domain of the politics conceived as exempt from standards that govern ordinary societal life? Why do we hesitate to speak the language of psychopathology in relationship to events occurring in this domain?

Perhaps human beings created the sphere of politics precisely to establish a domain in which people are released from the standards and laws that govern ordinary societal life. Within this privileged place, strange and crazy things can occur—but people won’t call them strange and crazy. Within this split-off dimension of human existence--shooting, bombing, killing, torturing, etc.—are considered normative, consequently rendered "normal."

The discipline of “history” records behavior occurring in this privileged domain, waiving judgment. Massive acts of destruction and self-destruction are the norm. Bizarre forms of behavior take place. But historians and political scientists do not call these forms of behavior pathological. Within this sphere, by gentleman's agreement, the idea of "psychopathology" cannot be applied. 

Political history is a domain of existence where human beings—in the name of their groups or collectives—enact fantasies. Societies enact collective fantasies. Human beings acting in this domain release anger and violence--behaving in destructive and self-destructive ways--knowing their behavior will not be judged or labeled pathological. The political sphere represents a domain that simultaneously manifests severe psychopathology and refuses to call pathology--pathology.

The craft of history normalizes the pathological. When people discovered that Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and dismembered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991, it seemed natural to call him a psychopathic killer suffering from a mental disorder.

When people murder and dismember human beings in the political domain, it seems just as natural to say that these forms of behavior are normal. This is what warriors, genocidal actors and terrorists do: murder and dismember.

Within the historical process, human beings shoot one another, blow each other up, torture one another other, drop bombs on cities, and murder tens of thousands of people. These acts are reported in newspapers and recorded in history books. By virtue of having been reported and recorded, these forms of behavior are rendered normal.

How dare one claim that the norm constitutes a form of pathology? A character in a James Joyce novel famously spoke of the “nightmare of history.” We live within this nightmare. We’ve grown accustomed to her face. Since we partake and participate in the pathology, we are paralyzed.

The nature of the psychopathology that infuses the historical process is that of a pathology that we are unwilling to recognize as pathology. What has happened and continues to happen stares us in the face—we cannot help but notice what is always going on.

Yet we hesitate to say that what has gone on and continues to go on is abnormal. The very nature of how history is written--of historical documentation--constitutes a form of denial. 

A concept of collective psychopathology emerges at the moment we begin to disengage from the assumption that it is normal or natural for thousands of people--hundreds of thousands of people--to kill and die in the name of political ideologies. This means becoming aware of the massive cult in which we all participate: the cult of the nation.

Nationalism is a cult that we do not recognize as a cult—because everyone participates in this cult. When millions of people embrace a cult, we call it “culture.”

We live within the nightmare and therefore only with great difficulty are able to separate from this nightmare. We are living the nightmare, dreaming the same nightmare together. 

We live within the pathology and the pathology lives within us. Perhaps if we were able to perceive or conceive of our nation or society as other than our self—separate from ourselves--we might be able to become aware of the pathology in which we are immersed. At the moment in which separation occurs, diagnosis can begin—the first step toward awakening from the nightmare of history.