The second in a series of posts on the cathartic imperative, the email below, written to a friend in Feb, 2025, describes some basic tenets of catharsis as a new way of understanding our personal and political behavior. The preceding post can be found at this link.
My view of why we are where we are, nationally, has to do with a theory of catharsis that I hatched some years back. There really should not be anything new under the sun, so for me it is astonishing that this theory has not been formulated before. It seems so foundational that I would not be surprised if academia serves up courses on "cathartic studies" in coming years. I use the word catharsis in a broader sense than the definitions that have come previously from theater and medicine. For me, the cathartic imperative describes people's biological and emotional imperative to take what is building up inside and get it out. Catharsis is at work right now, as I exhale, but also as I seek to write down an answer to your question--an answer that has been taking shape in my mind over the past several days.
Catharsis can take many intellectual and emotional forms, but it most basically and urgently involves the body's need to eliminate the excess carbon dioxide gas constantly accumulating in our bloodstreams, and the liquid and solid fertilizer accumulating in our bladders and bowels. All of these are powerful substances that pose an existential threat to our survival if not eliminated. I jokingly say that our bodies are trying to kill us.
Our senses and our culture tell us that what our bodies expel is useless at best, revolting and deeply embarrassing at worst--waste that must be exported from our awareness quickly and completely. Partial export is deeply frustrating. It is very important that catharsis be complete, whether it be physical catharsis, an answer to someone's question, or a complaint about one's day that needs to be aired to a friend or partner. This need for complete catharsis is embedded in our language, in words like "all" and "never", or the satisfaction one feels when uttering phrases like "it happens every time!" Catharsis is embedded in the exclamation points we use, seemingly more frequently than in the past.
Recycling is a good example of what happens when the need for complete, emphatic catharsis is frustrated. Our basic desire is to throw something away, but instead we are asked to pause, to sort, to scrutinize the tiny numbers on the container and discriminate plastics 1, 2, and 5 from plastics 3, 4, 6, and 7. Receptacles for recyclables in public places inevitably become contaminated because the request to discriminate gets overruled by the basic need for complete catharsis. Generalizations and stereotypes also thrive on our desire to avoid pesky distinctions as we express our thoughts.
In the political realm, the two political parties seek catharsis in different ways. Broadly speaking, liberals see problems as the enemy, and seek to work together, collectively, to solve them. In contrast, conservatives are not much interested in solving collective problems. They deny the reality of climate change and exploding deficits caused by tax cuts. Conservatives instead need an actual enemy. During the Cold War, communism was the enemy that posed a threat to our shared values of freedom and democracy. When the Soviet Union broke up, conservatives needed a new enemy, and chose to amplify the demonization of liberals and the federal government. Though Reagan had already begun this shift, Gingrich mobilized and focused the animosity and resentment. Supported by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and later the internet, Gingrich in particular shifted politics away from fact-based discussion and towards an emotion-based, gut level need to eliminate. He directed Republicans seeking election to use words laden with connotation. Simply disagreeing with liberals had left Republicans in Congress in the minority for decades. Seeking to eliminate liberals altogether led to the cathartic takeover in the 1994 elections. Politics had shifted away from the intellect and towards the gut.
A second foundational concept is the need for identity. This plays out in myriad ways in our lives and our politics. I see the need for identity in people's tendency to disagree. When I was in my 50s, I started doing some acting, which involved practicing theater improv in classes. In improv, two people spontaneously create a dialogue. To develop the scene out of thin air, each person must build on what the partner says, using a technique called "yes, and". We found, however, that we as amateurs reflexively sought to disagree with our scene partner, killing the scene's development. The same plays out in any meeting where someone has an idea. Rather than run with the idea and see where it might take us, we instead immediately find flaw and give reasons why it won't work. To agree seems to imperil our sense of who we are as individuals. This need to draw a line between me and not-me is connected to the cathartic imperative.
In politics, the need for identity can be seen in the rise of misinformation. We live in this incredible time when the answer to nearly any question is but a few clicks away. Seemingly a boon, in political terms this ready truth poses a profound threat to identity and electability. If there are two political parties but only one right answer, then a wrong answer must be developed and claimed to be right. For a political party that thrives on defining an enemy, the unifying potential of truth poses a threat. People say that we live in a highly polarized society, but much of that polarization is manufactured by politicians and shock jocks who need it in order to sustain the Other. The term "artificial polarization" can be usefully applied in political discourse. There can be polarization due to honest disagreement about government's role in our lives, and what to do about this or that problem. But much of our polarization is artificially produced. The easiest way to create polarization where there need be none is to lie, and then double down on that lie.
Trump's success for me stems from his capacity to mobilize cathartic energy and sustain identity through misinformation, particularly his capacity to project his own negative traits onto others, simultaneously cleansing himself while smearing opponents. He operates at a gut level. People for him are at one end of the gastro-intestinal system or the other, either friend or foe. His catchphrase, on TV and in the oval office, "you're fired!", is a form of expulsion cathartic to the core.
Another tenet of catharsis is that the cathartic imperative exceeds in urgency all other considerations. When nature calls, we must drop whatever we're doing, no matter how important, and answer that call. Similarly, the creation of the despised Other in politics creates an urgency to throw the bums out, simultaneously and conveniently diminishing scrutiny of those being thrown in. We saw that in last year's campaign, as the resentment about inflation eclipsed any good the Biden administration might have done, and overwhelmed any concerns about Trump and what he might do if again given power.
I've shared my writings about catharsis with others, thinking they will be seen as revelatory, but the response has instead been pretty tepid. One reason why the concept may be resisted is that there's a lot of embarrassment wrapped up in our bodies and how they work. The theory seems to me clear as day, and yet has remained hidden behind cultural taboos. If there is in fact something new under the sun, it may be because it has been hidden in the shadows all this time.
Related Post: Introducing the Cathartic Imperative--a New Way of Understanding Human and Political Behavior
