Otto Rank and Thoughts on Individuality, Education, and Indoctrination

All absolute viewpoints, positions, and actions are fallacious; moderation is the key to everything, and we ought to question all things and matters. Although I believe in that statement, I am also aware of its inherent fallacies and contradictions. It is in and by itself what it claims to denounce, and it is like the statement that reflects on itself by saying that this statement is true. In other words, it is an absolute statement that wishes to eliminate or at least sow some doubts into all statements, beliefs, and thinking that are deemed absolute but at the same time, it is essentially and inherently a paradox in and of itself.

Secondly, this also underscores the importance of moderation and although we can counter that the practice and statement itself should be also taken in moderation, i.e. everything to be taken in moderation including moderation itself, yet it should be seen as a more balanced way of refraining being taken or rather being taken in by any radical one-sided viewpoints and lifestyles. Lastly, we should question everything including questioning whether we should question all things, or not. The main aim here is not to confuse or play with words but to point to serious issues and reach some potential and hopefully clearer understanding of them.

Otto Rank in his book Beyond Psychology points at the internal conflict and dilemma of the educational system, which at the same time becomes a microcosm and symbol of the paradox of human existence. On one side, education aims at general knowledge and the formation and development of the self, as in the inspirational Greek call for self-discovery, namely, to search for and “know thyself.”

Yet on the other hand, there must be necessary limits, restraints, and compromises for society to co-exist together in relative peace and harmony, a type of social contract or acceptance of laws and responsibilities to be able to live together. This is the other aim of education to help and guide us by living the life the way we want while also balancing it with accepting and respecting others to be able to do the same. It is individuality pitted against social conformity, or the individual good versus the common good, and education is the playground where this is played out.

It is a balancing act between what Otto Rank calls the psychology of difference versus the psychology of likeness and it affects us all in one way or another. We want to stand out and be different in terms of our own personality and ways of thinking and being, yet not to the extreme idiosyncratic degree where we would have nothing in common with others. We do need others not only as a foil or point of comparison, but we need them in the sense of our own identity formation be it via groups, clans, nations, families etc. all making part of that which we personally identify with.

It is an existential push and pull (the duality of being an individual) and if taken to its extreme on the side of individuality it can lead to eccentric behavior at best and utter madness at its worst, while conformity in its extreme would strip us of everything that makes us unique, and we would, again at its worst and most extreme, be nothing but a mindless cog in the machine or a humanoid instead of a full-fledged human being.

Education finds itself at this crossroad. On one hand, at least ideally, it wants to help us put ourselves on the path of self-discovery to find ourselves and to bring out not only our unique ways of being but aid us in expressing this via speaking and writing and to guide us towards thinking for ourselves, commonly referred to as critical thinking. That said, I much prefer the term thinking outside of the box and in that sense to be authentic, steadfast, and even revolutionary in one’s own thoughts and viewpoints.

Yet, left on its own and unharnessed, this could potentially lead to chaos and dissonance, and even further left field to anarchistic tendencies, hence education wants to also help us maintain and adhere to social order. This is not meant in the fascist or communist sense but rather as its opposite, to uphold democracy and democratic tenets and not to give sway to forms of totalitarianism of any stripe or color.

As Otto Rank put it, communism and fascism are two sides on the same coin. It is in either case, a denial of freedom and choice by means of force and violence. In communism, the ideology that we are all the same and equal is enforced and imprinted upon everyone whereas individual difference is not only frowned upon but intentionally stifled.

In the case of fascism, we have the opposite end of the spectrum; it is the individual and their differences that are underscored alongside the belief that a given collective group, entity, and ethnicity is not perceived as equal and as a matter of fact deemed superior to others. In both situations, the individual and their rights and choices are disregarded and trampled upon for the sake of what each ideology sees as the common good.

Education plays a crucial and often unspoken role in all of this by ways and means of indoctrination. Ideologies are then inserted, consciously or unconsciously, into the curriculum or the institution. Education ought to be free of any politics or ideologies but, in practice, this is often a different story. A particular ideology may hold sway at a given time and/or in a certain environment, and, as such, the school or university would not be educating people anymore but molding and even brainwashing them.

This is not limited to the realm of education but also applies to psychology. The current norm is upheld as a golden standard and everything that goes against it in one way or another is shunned. The individual who does not fit the particular mold is then fashioned and molded to get rid of the parts that are in conflict with it. This could be achieved via different means and methods, ranging from medication, institutionalization, or on a more common basis, by changing thoughts and views through cognitive therapy. The given patient or client is adjusted and re-adjusted to what is considered to be the current standard of sanity or normalcy.

Certainly, in many cases, this is indeed helpful and necessary as I would not want to state absolute statements or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yet, the problem lies exactly in the mistaken belief that one’s view is and must be absolutely correct, whether we are talking about the patient, the psychiatrist, or the mental health expert.

This can be evidenced in what was considered abnormal in the past, including any difference or deviation in terms of sexuality or sexual preferences. What was considered abnormal and even illegal has become more accepted and commonplace because our views, values, and ways of thinking have changed. We have in addition to the conflict between the self and the other, the individual and society, another factor that is rigidity versus openness and flexibility.

That is another element of a delicate balancing act, and it should be a staple not only in psychology, politics, and education but also a personal practice of each and every one to move from fixed beliefs and mindsets to one of curiosity and empathy so that one is not held captive or hostage by the latest trends and fashions of the day. 

Change is a constant that we experience in our daily life but at the same time, we are often enticed and driven to latch onto the most current view by eschewing anything that went before because we feel we are at a vantage point, which we deem superior to the previous one. Regardless of the truth and value of this, issues may arise when this is done in a radical and absolutist way and by denying or ignoring the necessary nuances and considerations that come with it.

You may also be interested in the following post and the podcast below:

Otto Rank The Soulful Psychoanalyst: From Psyche to Beyond Psychology

 The Work, insights, Influence, and Legacy of Otto Rank with Robert Kramer and Kirk Schneider