I suggest we abandon the idea that politics and political history are domains separate from ordinary human existence—the fantasy that these domains are governed by principles that do not govern ordinary existence.

I suggest we do away with the notion that politics and history are "privileged" spaces. We may judge what occurs in this domain according to the same standards that we use to judge what occurs in other spheres of human existence.

It is appropriate to use the language of psychopathology in relationship to political events. Psychiatrists give names to each and every anomaly of human behavior: whatever deviates from "the norm." 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 description of a “genocidal disorder.”

Isn’t this extraordinary? Human beings are willing to identify hundreds of forms of behavior that deviate slightly from a norm--as manifesting a “disorder.” Yet we hesitate to identify as disorders forms of behaviors that have been monumentally 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 engage in extreme forms of behavior: murder, bombing, torture, etc. There are thousands of examples in the historical record of “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 insist that we cannot speak of a “disorder” when a form of behavior is accepted or acceptable within a given society. According to this conception, 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 the concentration camps. By gentleman’s agreement, psychiatrists have agreed that only individuals can suffer from psychopathology—not entire societies.

What is the nature of the political domain that makes it immune from ordinary standards of judgment? Why do we hesitate to speak the language of psychopathology in relationship to events occurring in this domain? What prevents us from identifying events that occur within this domain as pathological?

Perhaps human beings have created the sphere of political history precisely to establish a domain in which people are released from ordinary laws and forms of human behavior. Within this privileged place, strange and crazy things can occur—but people don’t call them strange and crazy. Within this split-off dimension of human existence, shooting, bombing, killing, torture, etc.—are rendered normative.

The discipline of “history” records behavior that occurs in this privileged domain, waiving judgment. Massive acts of destruction and self-destruction are the norm. Bizarre forms of behavior take place, but are not defined as pathological. Within this sphere, we agree not to use terms like psychopathology.

“History” constitutes a domain where human beings—acting in the name of groups or collectives—enact fantasies. People collectively release their anger, violence, self-destructiveness and despair—knowing that behavior in this realm will not be labeled pathological. The political sphere simultaneously manifests severe psychopathology and denies that what occurs is pathological.

Everything in this dimension is by definition normal. 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 of or participate in the pathology, we are paralyzed.

The nature of the psychopathology infusing the historical process is that of a pathology that we are unable or unwilling to recognize as pathology. What is happening stares us in the face—we cannot help but notice what is always going on. Yet we hesitate to say that what is going on is abnormal. The very nature of historical documentation represents 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 to die in the name of political ideologies. This means becoming aware of the massive cult in which we participate: the cult of the nation.

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

In the domain of politics, mass murder and destruction are rendered normative. Normative, yes, but also profoundly pathological. Pathology is contained within the very fabric of civilization.

We live within a nightmare, and therefore are unable to separate ourselves from it. We are dreaming the nightmare together. Culture constitutes a dream or fantasy that many people are having at the same time.

We live within the pathology, and the pathology lives within us. Once we are able to perceive or conceive of our nation or society as something other than our self—we begin to recognize the pathology in which we are immersed. At this moment, diagnosis begins—the first step toward awakening from the nightmare