“God, Guns, and Guts”: Christian Nationalism from a Psychoanalytic Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this article should be published and could be accepted as is -- subject to some copy-editing. A politically left Christian myself, I have been utterly appalled by what passes for Christianity in the United States. This article, however, helped me understand better the phenomenon of white Christian nationalism, somewhat alleviating not my opposition to this movement but some of my anger. I am surprised to say so because I am not particularly a fan of Freud or the psychoanalytic approach he engendered. Yet, I found even the psychoanalytic portion of the article very helpful. I am grateful for the article and will actually go back to it to impress upon myself a better understanding of the utter betrayal of Christianity by the American right.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

General summary:

This article explores the United States’ January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol through the select contributions of primarily Sigmund Freud, Melanie Klein, and D.W. Winnicott and other theorists. 

General comments:

The paper lacked an Abstract and listed no keywords. This might be the result of the software generating a review copy and not oversight by the author. 

The subtitle of the paper “…in Psychoanalytic Perspective” indicates a broad view.  It is here where this paper’s weakness is exposed as the various theories are not critically engaged nor are they placed in conversation with one another. Bringing Freud, Klein and Winnicott into conversation, for example, as this paper does, without addressing the vast differences in their theories opens the paper for critique. Inevitably, key analytic voices are excluded, which beckons the question why the select analysts were chosen. For this reviewer, the paper reads too wide and can be strengthened by gaining a narrower focus, increasing historical awareness of the questions raised, and providing a critical analysis (see below for additional comments).

The paper often reflects moral and/or sarcastic judgments by the author: “Perhaps most appalling…”; “…in the blessed name of Jesus;” “…growing movement of desperate would-be Christian conquerors…” ; “the vocal, shamelessly expressed hatred…” etc.,  Religions may or may not allow such writing, but this reviewer found the descriptors distracting as it points to the view of the author and not the theories under discussion. 

Sections, especially describing the mindset of Christian nationalists, read anecdotal: “A common belief among Christian nationalists…”   or “In the gun culture that characterizes much of the geographical regions where Christian nationalists are most numerous, guns are not looked upon as frightening, but rather, as utilitarian and reassuring.” Also, Christian nationalists are seen as survivors of abuse. No data is provided to back these assumptions and statements.

Possible ways to strengthen the article

As indicated, a definite way to strengthen the article is to focus the argument, provide historical contexts, and by critically engaging the theories used, which will remove its “review essay” feel. 

Should the paper focus on Freud’s group psychology for example, there are significant psychoanalytic papers exploring Freud’s thought and its political and sociological implications: Scheidlinger’s 1952 & 1960 & & 1968 & 1984 papers; Bion 1952; Ferenczi 1952: Rieff 1955 & 1956; Kohut 1976 & 1978;  to highlight just a few papers. Post 9/11 many more papers can be found. Placing this paper in a long history of psychoanalytic exploration of political and societal dynamics, also from a religious perspective, benefits the reader. 

The data provided in the paper can be updated. Recent Pew Research data may challenge some of the statistics offered in the paper.  See: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/45-of-americans-say-u-s-should-be-a-christian-nation/   The paper presents a more homogenous image of Christian nationalism than Pew’s research found. 

The author mentions that Freud’s work and that of LeBon came out of contexts of war. The author does not explore the link between Christian nationalism, a militarized society, and the various wars America has fought the past decades or the memory of 9/11. 

More attention can be given to sources and references: In the section on Freud and LeBon the reviewer, before looking at the endnotes, was uncertain whether quotes were from LeBon (from an original source), Freud quoting LeBon, or Freud himself.  References can be given to Klein’s work (rather than providing a paraphrase her work); Some quotes, such as Robert Lifton’s, come from news media, demanding a critical analysis.

The author, drawing on Freud, argues for “identification, and idealization” by people with a particular charismatic leader, in this instance, Donald Trump. Showing how this plays out around the person of Donald Trump can further link January 6 with Freudian theory.  What is the function of Trump in the psyches of this followers? How does the persons involved in January portray regression and dependency? Why would they/or would they not identify as being caught in dynamics of “fear and doom”? In its current form, the paper asks the reader to draw conclusions between stated theory and Christian Nationalism. 

On page 12, the author faults Christian nationalists for “us vs. them” and “insider vs. outsider” mentalities.  The reviewer was struck by the use of “They” to refer to Christian nationalists (especially on p3). 

Re. Splitting: The construct was first introduced by psychoanalysts W.R.D. Fairbairn and Melanie Klein, probably independently due to Fairbairn’s isolation in Edinburgh.  D.W. Winnicott received his understanding of splitting from Klein, his supervisor and analyst. Since splitting is a defense mechanisms, links can be made to the four themes the author identifies as origins of Christian nationalists feeling under threat. How does splitting play out in Freud’s group psychology? 

In the section on “good enough parenting,” the author seems to conflate the works of Klein and Winnicott. It was Winnicott who argued for “good enough parenting” whereas Klein argued for the paranoid-schizoid position as well as the depressive position, the latter being the basis for the act of reparation. Any possible links between good enough parenting, abuse, PTSD, and Christian nationalism need to be made explicit by the author. It was unclear to this reviewer, for example, how “good enough parenting” relates to Freud’s group psychology and to Trump and his followers. Is Donald Trump a “good enough” parent to Christian nationalists? If so, how? Or is Trump only an idealized object or a selfobject (Kohut, a psychoanalyst only referenced in Endnote #25, not discussed)? 

The author concludes with “Finally, and probably most speculatively is the insight we might possibly derive from unconscious group relations theory. Might Christian nationalists bne [sic] “carrying” aggression for the rest of the Christian community – the “body of Christ” – in America [who embrace peace]?”  Speculation aside, the essay ends with a theological argument around exploring what to do with personal and communal aggression—a theme unaddressed by the paper up to this point. The author opts for nonviolence, a dynamic Freud’s group psychology questions. An already broad-ranging paper just got wider. 

Review summary:

The paper needs significant revision before publication. 

Author Response

Thank you.  I have addressed all the issues you raise in the endnotes, and/or with additional citations.