Seven Psychoanalytic Hypotheses on the Pandemic Discontent

Freud characterized the role of society as providing security for its citizens, along with his fundamental articulation of the repressive hypothesis—that society demands the repression of certain sexual and aggressive drives—which he linked with the development of the neurotic form of human suffering. The global response to the pandemic, from the vantage point of summer 2020, was quite varied. Psychoanalytic formulations provided a different lens through which to read in 2020 the heterogeneity of pandemic responses on the part of government and society in general. The Freudian model of the society as the protector of its citizens was evident, most clearly in New Zealand and, in Europe, with Angela Merkel, two female leaders. A different model of structuring societal response was formulated, especially among some in the United States, based on hatred, the negative identification of the virus as an external threat. The loss of a place of a single, universal master that had some dominant role in society—most clearly in the position of Emperor—was replaced with a swarm of figures wanting to take the role of master, as was also seen in the United States. The absence of a symbolic father was also evident in the nostalgia in some countries for a strong man to take the helm. Others turned to the Discourse of the University—to a committee of experts—to take the helm. Another response was aligned with the Discourse of the Capitalist and the need to keep money and labor and production circulating. And, finally, without symbolic moorings, the United States also experienced a certain disorganization manifested in the pursuit of diverse libidinal aims.