I find the notion of “plausible deniability” very applicable to psychological defense mechanisms. (1) Originally, this term was used to describe aspects of political maneuvering pertaining to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

“In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.” (2)

 

This means that the high command gives some kind of implicit permission to carry out certain kinds of acts, and the people performing the acts don’t inform their superiors of what they are doing.

 

So, with defense mechanisms, they operate within the realm of ‘plausible deniability.’ Based on the severity of the psychological problems that an individual has, the range of ‘plausible deniability’ varies. For the schizophrenic, the range of plausible deniability is far ranging….they are able to believe things that most people aren’t able to believe. With other difficulties, the range of plausible deniability is more constricted.

 

As an example, a patient might state, “I suppose you think this has something to do with my mother!! Well, it has nothing to do with her. Don’t try to get me to talk about her, because I won’t do it!!” And, I respond, “I wasn’t thinking that….if you want to talk about your mother, I suppose you will if you want to…” And the patient goes on to talk about their mother for the remainder of the session. On a conscious level, they think that whatever they are talking about has nothing to do with their mother, but on an unconscious level, they are stating clearly that it does. For them, whatever the difficulty is, it is plausible on a conscious level that it has nothing to do with their father…at least to some extent. The emotion that is expressed, indicates something different on an unconscious level….I’ll just be patient and see what emerges as they explore their feelings further. Just like investigations into government activities, our investigations often lead to the the truth….and just like government investigations, the truth can be very hard to find. In treatment…we follow the evidence where it leads….

So, what determines how a defense mechanism will operate is its plausibility and deniability. 

“I love him to death.  But I really can’t understand why he treats me the way he does.” 

You’ve probably heard an expression like that.  Death and love used in the same sentence.  What makes it plausibly deniable is that fact that, “it’s just an expression…a lot of people use that expression.” 

“I hate you…I wish you were dead.”

Some teens like to use this one.  It’s usually followed up with, “I really didn’t mean it.  I’m sorry.”  And the person believes they really didn’t mean it.  We don’t like to think we have murderous impulses.  We explain this away by saying, “Oh, I was just kidding about that.”  Or, “I really didn’t mean it.  It’s just an expression.”

But as I’ve written before, we’re all murders, liars, thieves, adulterers, covetors, and so forth in our hearts if not in action.  This is taught in the Bible, and I see it as true-to-life in my practice and within myself.  It’s hard to admit–we want to see ourselves as “good people,” but the Bible teaches, “There is none good but God.”  So, I dispense with the whole notion to begin with.  As my wife, The Christian Scribbler, opines, You’re a Sinner, I’m a Sinner and explains this better than I do.

So, we start out with the basic nature of the human being, which is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, and then see the various ways that human beings try to mask this basic nature with defense mechanisms.  Again, it’s a very individual thing as to how plausible these defensive operations need to be to the individual.  Sometimes, it’s extremely obvious to others, and other times it is extremely subtle and refined.

I differ with Freud in that (1) I believe in God, and (2) I believe that the unconscious mind has very powerful positive abilities that can be utilized to help and individual resolve their difficulties.  With #2, this is in the vein of Milton H. Erickson, who revolutionized the study and utilization of hypnosis.  Freud viewed the unconscious in altogether negative terms, “a seething cauldron of expectations,” and “repressed instinctual drives,” but I think he missed the whole positive side of the unconscious.  And, this is the trouble with an atheistic perspective on psychology.

 

(1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism

(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Books that may be of interest:

My Voice Will Go With You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. 

Uncommon Therapy: The Psychiatric Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D.