Empathy for the Love-Wound

I am one of many children that grew up in the 1980’s with a parent who was punitive, insensitive, oppressive, and authoritarian. There were times when I did not feel loved, cared for, or respected and this left me with a love-wound. How I cope with this love-wound that is seeped with helplessness, pain and powerlessness shows up with how i align myself politically as an adult.

If I choose to identify with my authoritarian parent in order to feel “safe,” I would deny my wounded-ness and ridicule anyone who appears weak and helpless. I would align myself with the right-wing and vote for “law & order, national security, tough measures, gun ownership, the privileged position of the wealthy power elite, and patriotism.” Afraid of appearing weak, I would project my fears onto those who remind me of the part I have denied.

If I choose to identify with the victimized child, I would vulnerably feel the pain of my wound, acknowledge its presence, and support those in need with compassion and social justice. I would align myself with the left-wing and vote for “workers’ rights, social safety nets that take care of the poor and downtrodden, and a more fair and humane foreign policy.” Afraid of being tormented again, I would project my fears onto those who remind me of my persecutors.

I would like instead to strike a balance between these two, and have empathy for both parts of the love-wound. I would like to find a way that goes inward and faces the wounds and fears from a place of empowered wholeness, neither victimizing or being victimized. Now that I have the capacity to stand up for myself, I can do so.

From Perfect Love, Imperfect Relationships by John Welwood, p. 192-194.

Then there is grievance politics. The political division between the left-wing and the right-wing, and the intense antagonism accompanying it (especially in America), grow out of two opposite ways of responding to the love-wound from childhood. One way that children cope with their helplessness, pain, and powerlessness in families where they are not loved well is through a psychological defense called “identification with the aggressor.” This involves identifying with the punitive parent (usually the father) who is in the position of strength: “If I can be like him, I will be safer.” In this way, the child finds a semblance of power in a powerless situation. This is the psychological strategy of those who wind up on the extreme right.

Thus the right advocates for law and order, national security, tough measures, gun ownership, the privileged position of the wealthy power elite, and patriotism (from the Latin root, pater, father). Since this character structure is built on denying one’s woundedness, right-wingers generally have little sympathy for the downtrodden, often demonizing them as “welfare cheats,” losers, or misfits. For them, America and industrial civilization are the adult world, while those in third-world, underdeveloped countries are seen as irresponsible children who must be kept in line and told what to do. This attitude forms the basis for colonialsim, empire building, and totalitarian tendencies that suppress popular dissent.

This need of people on the right to see themselves as strong and resolute, rather than helpless or weak explains why working people often vote for tough right-wing leaders who actually work against their economic interests. For it is more important to maintain the identification with the strong leader (parent) than to look out for their own interests (as children). This allows them to feel safe, through avoiding having to face their own woundedness and fear. Meanwhile, they have a horror of “bleeding-heart liberals” who sympathize with the wounded or oppressed.  Voting for compassionate liberals, even though this might actually improve their economic security, would undermine the whole sense of identity their emotional security rests on. 

Those on the left, on the other hand, usually identify instead with the victimized child, who is at the mercy of the unfair, insensitive, or oppressive parent.  Because they acknowledge and feel the pain of their woundedness, they are attracted to an approach based on compassion and social justice.  Thus the left advocates for workers’ rights, social safety nets that take care of the poor and downtrodden, and a more fair and humane foreign policy. (My view is in accord with George Lakoff’s model of the strict-parent right versus the nurturant-parent left but emphasizes the psychological dimension of how these two poles arise out of different strategies for relating to the love-wound.) 

However, a large number of people on the left are so identified with their victim identity that they cannot trust power or anyone in power.  This accounts for the strange situation where progressives often shoot themselves in the foot, sabotaging any possibility of holding the reins of power—for example, by refusing to modify their idealistic principles in order to build a broad coalition that could rule, by acting out their pique with the established order in self-indulgent ways that turn the larger populace against them, or by voting for third-party candidates who have no chance of winning, thereby ensuring victory by the right.  The rallying cry becomes, ‘We’ve been wronged, and we aren’t going to play with you.’

Thus, the left and the right represent opposite ways of dealing with one and the same wound: not feeling loved, cared for, and respected. And their mutual antagonism and lack of dialogue grow out of the vital threat they represent to one another.  The right, representing the authoritarian, punitive parent, terrifies the left, which remains on guard against creeping fascism and police-state incursions on civil rights.   The permissiveness of the left in turn terrifies the right, which remains on guard against erosion of rigid moral principles, lack of patriotism, and softness on crime—all of which threaten to undermine the strong-parent stance that provides their sense of security.”