Sigmund Freud is one of the main psychological thinkers in the field of conscience, believing that the basis of conscience is our most rudimentary and instinctive desires (what Freud refers to as the id). He believes that it is not down to God but down to humans themselves who go on to create the ego (which takes into account the realities of the world and society) and the super-ego (which internalises the anger/disapproval of others). Recently psychoanalysts have developed Freud’s ideas into the mature conscience (forward outward, concerned with what is right and wrong-a reflection of the ego) and the immature conscience (backward looking, concerned with guilt put there by authority figures-much like the super-ego). This again highlights the lack of God, with Freud not only stating that he is not part of the conscience process but blaming authority figures (such as a belief in the Christian God) for building up mass feelings of guilt and making us more likely to blindly obey. Fromm, another psychologist also believes that all humans are influenced by external authorities which we have a fear of rejection from. Therefore we attempt to please them (leaving us with a good conscience) rather than be disobedient which leaves us with a guilty conscience (making us more and more submissive to them). He also states that the humanistic conscience is much ‘healthier’ as we use it to make our own decisions without God or any other authority.
However, this does not mean that there aren’t psychological ideas about conscience which allow for the existence of God. Jung, in contrast to Freud’s hostility, was actually quite supportive of religion, with the allowance for the existence of God being one of his main strengths (he states that the proving or disproving of God’s presence is outside the scope of psychology). He also goes onto say that a belief in God (or at least tuning into one’s archetype of God) and the following of a morality based on this belief, leads us to individuation and fulfilment. However, though our archetype of God may give us guidance on how to behave and how not to behave, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this guidance actually comes from God Himself. Jung stated that the ‘archetypes’ we tune into are in fact series’ of basal predispositions buried deep within our subconscious minds. This amplifies the fact that differences between both ways of thinking are not as clear cut as they initially seem. However, a general rule is that all psychological accounts of the conscience state that it comes from within, whilst all theological accounts essentially state that it comes from without, or something from without at least plays a major part in it being there.
- Of the psychological and theological accounts you have studied, which do you find most persuasive and why?
Personally, I find the most convincing account of the conscience (of all those we have studied) to be that of Fromm’s, as it’ the one that I see as being most applicable to my life. Having been a church goer for a lot of my life, I know from experience that when one feels that they have pleased an authority that they have had since youth, they are left with a good conscience, in a very similar manner to that of a child given a gold star by a teacher at primary school. In the same way, when one feels like they have displeased this authority, they end up feeling like a dog being punished and left out in the rain. Even if they are not made to feel guilty by anyone else, the guilt manifest itself just because one knows that they have let their authority down, the one thing that they should be striving not to let down. I also know from experience that when one is left with a guilty conscience, it doesn’t mean beginning to shy away from the rules that have been imposed by your authority, but instead quite the opposite, attempting to follow the rules (that have by now internalised themselves as laws) extra hard in an attempt to not let down the authority again. I feel Fromm to have the most persuasive account because I recognise so much of what he says from real life. Guilt has made me submissive to authority, and still does and probably will again many times in the future.
If this is where Fromm’s explanation of the conscience ended though, I do not think I would embrace it wholeheartedly. What really encapsulates me about his version is that he not only shows us how we are trapped through the authoritarian conscience, but also how we can stop being trapped via the presentation of the humanistic conscience. What he explains through this, is that its much healthier to judge our own actions rather than blindly follow the rules of something or someone we’ve been told to follow the rules of. Though making our own choices may seem obvious on the surface, it is amazing how many times in life we are told to do this and not to do that. I know for myself that when I do make my own choices and my own decisions, I definitely feel like I am following a healthier conscience that one built around fear of authority and fear of rejection. As Fromm says, the humanistic conscience allows us not only to realise your own potential but to define and achieve your aims. How can one know one’s own aims when they are aiming for something that they haven’t chosen or thought through? Authority in life generally has its own agenda, and so in blindly following authority, one is just playing into someone or something else’s hand. And in the clear contrast between the authoritarian and humanistic consciences, we are left with the inner battle, not only between right and wrong but between your own right-wrong, and the right-wrong you’ve been told to follow all your life.
To say I find Fromm’s idea more convincing than others is not to say that I find the psychological side more convincing in general. The problem for me is that they generally don’t give any chance to the fact that God may exist and therefore He (merely as a possibility) is never included in any accounts. Even Jung who states that its not psychology’s place to prove or disprove God (which I agree with) and that religion/God-given morals can be a good thing, states that people tuning into God, are just connecting to some part of their collective unconscious. Freud also made his feelings about religion very clear. Regardless of whether Fromm was a staunch un-believer in God, via his authoritarian conscience, he has simple described many of the facets of the biblical God. God is a vengeful God and when he is displeased people will feel guilty, yet the fact that Christianity is built on forgiveness means that this guilt is increased many times over. Perhaps punishment would make people less submissive, as it would give something for people to focus their hate and anger on. If people truly believe that God is the way to Heaven and eternal happiness then fear of rejection will be inevitable. And though the humanistic conscience may be ‘healthier’ for Fromm, it merely helps us to achieve our own aims, not those of God, and so is essentially selfish and wrong. Therefore, Fromm’s biggest strength is that he manages to describe religion through psychology without critiquing it to a major extent, almost managing to build a bridge between the two schools of though on what the conscience is, why it’s there, and how it works.
