Chapter II:  THE FUNCTIONALITY OF NEGATIVISM OF THE INDIVIDUAL

ABSTRACT

            Negativism as a permanent personality trait in the adolescent and adult has not been so far directly discussed in psychological studies. Childhood negativism, though (itself a developmental stage), has been a subject of research and has been found to perform the positive function of asserting the child’s growing independence. Contrary to this, adolescent and adult negativism which expresses basically a thwarted revolt against authority, acts as a mainly maladaptive and injurious factor for the negativistic individual. Examples from the areas of early adolescence, delinquency, non-conformism, mental illness and suicide are discussed in the context of negativism and negativism proper is examined, with the negativistic sequence defined and elaborated together with the complex lawfulness of the negativistic mechanism. It is maintained that the negativist in an attempt at independence cannot act according to the rules laid down by authority as this activates his feelings of rebellion, while acting contrary to the rules laid down by authority activates his feelings of guilt. Thus, it is the function of negativism to fulfill the negativist’s powerful needs of revolt against authority and self-punishment (or by others) on the same revolt from authority.

 
            We would be hard-pressed indeed if we tried to assert that functionality is a predominant factor in the life events of the individual. The fact is that man is not in a position to utilize fully all the information that he is acquainted with,[1] and, ipso facto, through his lack of ability to absorb and elaborate the whole of the information available to him, he does not stand a chance of acting in the most functional way commensurate with reality and in accordance with the newest data relating to his life space. An example of this, if one can be permitted to switch from man to animal, is Mowrer’s rat.[2] The rat apparently did not elaborate, and certainly did not use the new information that only the middle sector of the floor was electrified in the second stage of the experiment, and continued to behave in the way that while at first was functional, had in the meantime become dysfunctional. In other words, the rat continued escaping to the compartment in the same way it had done when the whole of the floor had been electrified (in the first stage of the experiment) even when this behavior had stopped being functional (in the second stage of the experiment). Thus, since it can be seen that functionality is not a prime mover of the organism, it is perhaps not so problematic to use the apparently non-functional trait of negativism as a subject for functionality.

            Negativism by its own definition (to put the latter somewhat simplistically) is probably meant to express dysfunction rather than function, especially if it is considered as responding indiscriminately with negation, without weighing the pros and cons of the situation and without regard to whether the “no” is in line with the self-interests of the person.

            However, a much more interesting phenomenon than simple verbal negativism is the phenomenon of doing things that are the opposite of the declared (or recognized) interests and needs (but above all the declared ones) of the individual himself. (With regard to the avowed interest of the self a kind of verbal negativism functions alongside non-verbal negativism. For instance: the negativist said that he would perform action “X” which serves his best interests. He does not perform the action. Thus, he goes counter to a verbal commitment, in addition to acting counter to his admitted interests.) Negativism would thus appear to be a purely dysfunctional trait which acts contrary to the individual’s best interests. At the same time, negativism performs a function in relation to other needs of the personality that are powerful enough to demand their satisfaction despite the chronic damage incurred thereby.[3]

            Negativism, when it appears in children who are about two years old, fulfills the function of a kind of independence declaration and insistence on the child’s right to resist the adult’s will – what would have happened if the child had continued his previous succumbing!. The almost automatic response of “no” which precedes even the “yes” which the child will eventually give, is a kind of reaction formation to his former dependence on and obedience displayed toward adults and furthers him on his way to independence and maturity. This point is discussed by Buss who claims in fact that negativism is a result of a too drastic socialization which is not aided enough by positive reinforcement;[4] and by Ausubel who argues that the main problem is the new organization of the child’s ego. According to Ausubel, the function of negativism (in a simplified way) is opposition to the new requirements of socialization agents and the child’s response to the devaluation of its ego.[5] It is quite obvious that here the function of negativism is positive with regard to the self, though it can lead the child into difficulties with socialization agents. But at the same time it is actually a temporary stage in the child’s development (lasting usually until about the age of four years) and what is notable about it is a defiance element and an element of revolt.

            There occurs a somewhat similar spell of negativism in the early adolescent years. The similarity to childhood negativism lies in the similar goal – gaining freedom from the restraints of adult domination. Similarly to childhood negativism it amounts to no more than a developmental stage and is thus a temporary period that comes gradually to an end with the establishment of the adolescent’s new status within the family. However, with some adolescents and with some adults, negativism is not a stage of development – which would imply its being a passing phenomenon – but is there to stay. (On one level of analysis this might be taken to mean that a fixation has taken place at one of the crucial stages of childhood or adolescence.) It is this latter negativism which is the main subject of the present paper. What might be termed the permanent or stable negativism seems to be very near to dysfunction since it gains expression by doing something contrary to the fulfillment of the individual’s self-interests, though its initial object is to give vent to a strong desire for independence, a function similar to that of the negativism which accompanies the temporary developmental stage. One can view stable negativism to be in positive linear correlation with suppressive education, which rejects expressions of independence occurring at an early age. To put it differently – the phenomenon of negativism shows itself in the individual’s failure to act in accordance with what is expected of him, with a consequent damage to his main interests. (Failure to act would cover both abstention from action and uncalled-for action as long as both go counter to rational expectations of himself or others. Obviously enough, refusing a proposition that goes counter to the interests of the individual is not to be regarded as negativistic action.) And most important, there is a hidden conflict with authority, even when the individual is his own authority.[6]

            Cattell classes negativism with “unresponsive,” “noisy,” “reckless.”[7] Those traits would seem to dovetail with negativistic behavior that is not rational or moved by self-interest. Cattell likewise classes negativism with “unconventional,” “ingenious.” Further, according to Cattell’s factor analysis, negativism is an associated variable to the source trait which he designates “co-asthenia” (or “thinking neurasthenia”). According to Cattell: “Our hypothesis will be that this is a pattern of thwarted revolt [italics in text] rooted in both an inhibited tenacious temperament and an environmental situation of heavy cultural pressure.”[8] The function of rebellion, which has been ascribed to negativism in childhood, is plainly visible here. Cattell continues: “Its characteristics are: meticulousness (and a general expression of guilt within the imposed habit systems) . . . and the individualistic assertion of self [italics in text] partly motivated by negativism.”[9] Perfectionism (“meticulousness” in the vocabulary of Cattell) appears to be a prominent defence mechanism against authority, since it would be hard for the individual’s superiors to find fault with perfect work. The element of guilt and the element of self assertion are pointed out by Cattell. Negativism is addressed mainly against authority and is actually an expression of opposition to authority. Cattell puts it somewhat differently when he says with regard to negativism that it is a “passive resistance to the psychological environment” (p. 138).

            It is hardly astonishing that in negativism there is a clash with the demands of the superego (representing authority) which on its part brings about guilt feelings. In order for the guilt feelings to be abated punishment is demanded either consciously or unconsciously.[10] To put it differently, we may say that negativism is a kind of unconscious (or rather mainly unconscious) rebellion, giving rise to unconscious (or mostly unconscious) guilt feelings that “require” punishment which in its turn is brought about mainly unconsciously[11] and that can be either externally imposed or be caused through the behaviour of the self, mostly through the agency of mishaps, accidents, etc.[12] Negativism is thus quite obviously dysfunctional if we measure it with objective and non-subjective measures and is probably related to the concept of neurotic paradox.[13] From the subjective point of view the function of revolt (albeit hidden) is of utmost importance to the individual.

            Actually, the negativistic sequence would work somewhat like this: Action “X” goes counter to the demands of authority. Therefore, though it is carried out, it is performed in a faulty way which makes it unacceptable, or necessitates its re-doing or in some way or other has unfavorable results. Thus, action “X” operates in a cause (faulty action) and effect (punishment imposed ab extra or accidental) sequence. An example from the sphere of delinquency proper might serve to illustrate the point: A theft from the employer is carried out as an act of rebellion (the stolen object constitutes a secondary gain), but the thief leaves clues that make it easy to catch and identify him. This is a negativistic act. In an act of true revolt the theft would be carried out in a way that would ensure maximally the thief’s not being apprehended, since he would not experience the a priori guilt feelings calling for the punishment of the act of rebellion. The thief whose main object is material gain would also attempt to ensure maximally his not being apprehended.

            But there exists also a more positive aspect of negativism. The phenomenon of lack of conformity mirrored in some of Cattell’s classifications is also one of the expressions of the negativistic individual’s revolt, though this is negativism in a diluted form. We know very well – even if only from the famous experiment of Asch[14] – how difficult it is to be a non-conformist. In this experiment the experimenter used six collaborators and one naive subject. The naive subject was told that the experiment was about perception. However, his position among the others was such that he was invariably the last (or the last but one) to give his judgment. Those who did not conform to the unanimous judgment of the majority (that on purpose reported seeing two lines of unequal length as equal) had a very hard time of it. It is interesting to note that the one non-conforming subject said that he had “long years of practice in being different from other children.” When asked: “As you continued to hear the answers of the others, did the discrepancy between their answer and the one you were going to choose remain the same, or did it change?” He answered: “No, I was getting almost a sadistic pleasure out of being different.”

            Generally speaking, non-conformism is considered to be a very positive characteristic resulting from personality strength. It can be seen that for the negativist, non-conformism can fulfill the function of revolt with the element of revolt undergoing a reduction or an attenuation. It appears to me that though the affinity between negativism and non-conformism would not, in statistical terms, yield a one-to-one correspondence (r=1), a substantial positive correlation would be involved.

            Being a negativist (even a mild one) can be of help in withstanding the pleasures of conformity and in forming an independent attitude which is essential in several areas of life (as in art or in research) though such an attitude is actually helpful in most spheres of human activity. In the areas requiring an independent attitude negativism can play a positive role similar to the role it played when it aided the child in becoming less dependent on its parents. In general, lack of dependence on others, freedom of thought, going against the stream are thought to be very positive traits. (See also the aforementioned books by K. Horney.) Society benefits greatly from the contributions of non-conformists in virtually every area of human endeavor.

            On the whole, if rebellion were sufficiently powerful, the phenomenon of negativism would be tantamount to plain revolt. Yet, though revolt in the negativistic guise may not be very prominent as such, bringing revolt up to even this low level expression is the main function of negativism. Thus, revolt against authority (albeit hidden) leads to: a) guilt feelings with a consequent seeking of punishment (mainly unconscious), and b) sanctions by the authority (or the unconscious infliction of punishment upon oneself mainly in the form of failing to carry to a successful outcome the implicitly rebellious act). To put it differently – to the outside observer it may appear that the negativist, in an attempt to serve masochistic tendencies, looks for guilt feelings and for the subsequent sanctions by the authority against which he had transgressed (or failing such sanctions for the forthcoming unconscious self-punishment). Yet, the negativist has to rebel (though he cannot do it overtly), and he cannot rebel (even in a covert way) without feeling guilty.

            Though the negativist would seldom put his feelings as articulately as the following, he may implicitly tell his authority (friend, teachers, psychologist, himself): “I have done exactly what you told me to do beforehand, but I have not succeeded.” Here the element of revolt comes to the fore in the lack of success, since to succeed while acting under explicit instructions would be tantamount to yielding (lack of rebellion), which is intolerable to the negativist. Alternately, the negativist tells his authority: “This time I have done the opposite of what you told me, but I have not succeeded either.” Here, the element of revolt is expressed through not acting according to instructions, but this is bound to arouse guilt feelings which in their turn cause the failure (or partial failure) of the enterprise. It can be seen that the negativist is caught if not in a vicious circle then in a vicious net, in a basically “can’t win” situation[15] from which he cannot extricate himself, since acting according to instructions activates his feelings of rebellion while acting contrary to instructions activates his feelings of guilt. The outcome in both cases is the same – the result is failure.

            It is obvious that notwithstanding the psychological function that negativism does in fact fulfill, this will not change the basic fact that from the commonsense point of view, negativism is most dysfunctional for the individual.[16] But this, paradoxically, is an integral part of the function it fulfills.

            One exception to dysfunction would be the negativistic roots of the non-conformistic personality that can be most successful and whose contribution to society is not to be slighted. Another possibility is that negativism provides the driving force of the personality.

As noted above, stable negativism displays a positive linear correlation with suppressive education, which rejects expressions of independence occurring at an early age.[17] On the theoretical side, negativism may be seen as a reaction formation directed against the exaggerated demands for socialization (i.e. yielding) that had been brought to bear upon the personality by authoritarian and inconsistent parents. Sigmund Freud says somewhere that a reaction-formation can be distinguished from a non-reaction-formation through its vehemence. Negativism is a most vehement form of revolt but then the persistent need to fight figures of authority points to: a) its non-teleological character, in other words, its aimlessness and worthlessness for the individual, b) its leaving a residue of guilt feelings since the individual’s nexus to figures of authority appears to be one of love-hate and not one of indifference. To put it differently, the very need that necessitates the reaction-formation creates the guilt feelings.

            Freud, while speaking about “negativism and negation,” which he attributes to some of the psychopathic patients, says: “Affirmation as a substitute for uniting – belongs to Eros; negation the successor to expulsion belongs to the instinct of destruction.”[18] Freud’s concept of destruction appears to fit in with the theoretical description offered above that stresses the revolt aspect of negativism.

            The same function of revolt is served by the remarkable negativism evident in catatonia. An illustration from the realm of fiction might be in order here. Hershel, the protagonist of Agnon’s A Simple Story,[19] suffers a catatonic fit when his hidden inner rebellion against his marriage to Minah reaches a new climax with the advance of her pregnancy which makes him feel threatened with being permanently tied down to her without any possibility of escape. Agnon does not designate Hershel’s illness as catatonia but the symptoms point to it plainly enough. Fulfilling the need for revolt (albeit a passive one) appears to be the chief function of catatonia. The catatonic patient “is in a state of acute negativism so acute that it invades the whole motor system.”[20]

            Considering the problem from a different angle, it may be said that mental illness is a break-down that occurs because all other avenues of escape are felt to be blocked. Since there is no possibility of giving vent to the feelings of revolt (Freud’s “expulsion”) in an open way, those feelings find their outlet in mental illness.

            In suicide there is also inherent a break-down of a person’s defences. Revolt (against life in general) reaches a point where it destroys the self. In cases of conscious suicide, to be differentiated from “accidental” suicide,[21] the break-down appears to be lesser than in mental illness, since the revolt in such cases is most obviously overt, and sometimes also most conscious.[22] Moreover, suicide includes the element of victory in failure and constitutes an act of final revolt. The revolt of suicide would also include feelings of mastery and dominance (probably related to Freud’s concept of destruction mentioned above). It seems that when a negativist commits suicide he does it inter alia in order to hurt someone. At least this would be one of the reasons and would provide the positive reinforcement of the act. Revolt is a basic feature of negativism; while happiness is characterized by Durkheim as a situation in which man is in harmony with his surroundings, a situation not conducive to revolt, or suicide.[23] It might be added that Cattell includes suicidal tendencies in the cluster along with negativism.[24] According to Sarnoff: “Suicide may be regarded as the ultimate form of self-punishment. In our culture suicide is itself a mode of behavior that is severely condemned [my italics] on moral grounds.”[25] Thus, suicide appears to be a fitting expression of revolt against a society the conventions of which consider suicide to be immoral. There is also the self-punishing aspect of suicide pointed out by Sarnoff. According to Durkheim the person who commits suicide is, roughly speaking, in the attitude of revolt, and he attacks himself from anger. This is an act of symbolic revolt against the others resulting in an act of self-punishment in accord with what has been termed above the negativistic sequence.

            In conclusion, we can say that in the permanent negativism of adolescents and adults there is mutual interaction between revolt against authority and self-punishment (or by others) on the same revolt from authority. It seems that the fulfillment of these two powerful needs, that constitute the opposing poles of the same pivot, is the basic function of negativism.