Let's talk about Rationalization as a defense mechanism of the mind It means that the rational process is being used by the ego (our psychic structure responsible for self-perception and the relationship with external reality) in order to keep the ego as it is. Therefore, a defense.

Four reasons mobilized us in the writing of this text:

• enter what is defense mechanism in the most didactic way possible;
• understand the Rationalization as a defensive resource I mean, as one of the forms of defense;
• broaden the view on analyst-analyst relationship from the prism of Rationalization;
• sharpening an eye on self-analysis and Rationalization in relation to human collectivities .

Say that there are defense mechanisms of the mind means to say that a part of our mind acts to keep it functioning as it is today.

It is important, right from the start, that the reader does not take a pejorative sense in Rationalization, nor does he/she understand that the text defends irrationality. After all, it would not be possible to draft this article if we started from the praise of irrationality.

Another caveat is that we don't understand how far apart Rationalization-Defense and the Reason-Science : are probably similar in many of their procedures, with the caveat made at the end of the article that, at least in theory, Reason-Science is more open to criticism.

How do the defense mechanisms work?

In this sense, if a person has a dysthymic condition (a mild "depression"), we would understand that the mind would act to justify that everything stays that way. In this way, a block is acquired in the sense of preventing the problem from being seen in a different light and "running the risk" of being overcome. Of course, this is not done intentionally.

But, why would the mind prefer to keep suffering? Why would the ego sometimes act with attachment to a psychological malaise, disorder or nuisance And why would rationalization use reason in such an "irrational" way to preserve an inaccessible part of us? Wouldn't it be a paradox, especially within the Enlightenment thought of understanding reason as "light"?

The most likely answer : to face a malaise requires a great psychic energy And if the ego clings to a discomfort, it may be because it sees in this attachment some benefit, however minimal and distorted.

For example, the benefit of seeing in dysthymia a fragility that attracts the affection of others (through the dependency bias), or of seeing in dysthymia a part of the subject's own personal history, as if dysthymia were the subject itself. In this sense, abandoning it could be understood as a risk to the integrity of the ego.

Understand how rationalization and other defense mechanisms of the mind (see list) It is up to the analyst and the analisand to identify possible resistances and defenses, always questioning whether it is possible to consider the question through a new prism.

Of course, it is not up to the analyst to simply impose an interpretation, for, as Freud said, " sometimes a pipe is just a pipe "Not to mention that an eventual imposition by the analyst (however correct it may be) thus perceived by the analisand may close doors and harm the transference relationship and the gradual development that the analisand needs to create in therapy, especially in the beginning phase of psychoanalytic treatment.

How does Rationalization work as defense and resistance?

Having presented the general idea of defense mechanisms, let's talk about Rationalization, which is one of the most important of these mechanisms. It is fundamental to understand this concept of rationalization and to be aware of how rationalization presents itself in psychoanalytic clinics. In a certain way, by understanding rationalization we are also understanding the dynamics of the so-called defense mechanisms, in abroad sense.

Point out that there is Rationalization as defense or resistance does not mean that Psychoanalysis is waging war on reason and logic. On the contrary.

Rationalization is, in psychoanalysis, a resource sometimes understood as "not very rational", in which the subject uses logical arguments mixed with simplifications and stereotypes to keep the subject's psyche in its current pseudo-comfort situation .

It is as if the ego would comfort itself by rationalizing because the rational is socially valued and would not give rise to a clash a priori That is, the ego that rationalizes doesn't feel guilty, because it imagines it is doing the right thing, for if the human being is a rational animal, by using reasoning I am being human. This strengthens this defense even more.

Importantly:

I want information to enroll in the Psychoanalysis Course .

• o concept of Resistance is used by most psychoanalysts to refer to the blocking of the analisand in therapy;
• o concept of Defense Mechanism is used by most psychoanalysts to refer to the way the mind organizes itself to prevent an encounter with unconscious aspects that generate "potentially liberating discomforts".

At first, this distinction will not be relevant for the purposes of this article: Rationalization (by the approach taken in this article) can be understood inside or outside the clinic. What's more: it can be understood as an idea also beyond Psychoanalysis.

Examples of Rationalization

To question Rationalization as a defense mechanism is not to criticize reason or the ability to reason, which are inherently human and fundamental to science. The idea is to think that rationalization can be, from an individual point of view, a supposedly "fair" way to simplify things, feel less guilty for this simplification, and remain "irrational".

An example Rationalization as a defense mechanism occurs when we list a series of logical arguments to criticize a person (whether or not our reasoning is correct), to avoid the unconscious causes that lead us to it. Rationalization works well for our psyche, because when we are reasoning we believe we are correct.

Another example: There is a "theory" formed on the part of this subject, a system of "knowledge" similar to a "science.

Yet another example For example, an analisand that has read Freud and that, in therapy, all the time cites technical knowledge about Psychoanalysis. When this is excessive and serves to prevent the analisand from looking at himself, it can already be in the terrain of rationalization as a defense mechanism.

However, this rationale can be all based on logical arguments to defend the ego and relieve it of its comfortable place of continuing to be what it is.

What are the mechanisms of Rationalization?

Be careful not to think that every rationalization is an equivocation, from the point of view of Psychoanalysis. We venture to say that it is very likely that the Rationalization is correct in its internal logic (that is, a coherent logical sequence). Sometimes it may even reflect a truth of the external logic (that is, a coherence also in relation to the facts of the world). And yet to be a defense mechanism that prevents the subject from encountering other possible perceptions.

We can think that Rationalization has subprocesses. Mechanisms within the mechanism. The four forms listed below are not the only ones, nor are they constructions of Psychoanalysis. They are ways that the author of this article sees the theme and that may help to understand it, including in clinical dynamics.

Generalization, Conceptualization, Simulation and Procrustation would be four forms of rationalization, let's see:

• A generalization The analyst can provoke in the analisand the anti-generalization inquiry: "is every human being unhappy?" By transforming a statement into a question, we have the so-called "critical reading", useful not only in clinical practice.
• A conceptualization : concepts are important for understanding the world, we have already used dozens of concepts in this article. Now, it is an idealized view to believe that the concept hides a "right way" of understanding. For example, if you ask a Christian, a Muslim, an agnostic and an atheist "what is faith?" you will get completely different definitions. And if you ask two different Christians you will also getThis matters in psychoanalytic clinics: if the analisand defends himself from talking about himself by talking about innumerable concepts, the analyst must ask: "but what does this concept mean to you?", "how does this concern you?", "how does this affect you?".
• O simulacrum In brief synthesis, we can say that simulacrum is a way of rationalizing by stereotyping, reducing the other's ideas to a "puppet" that is easier to fight. For example, when in a debate someone provokes his opponent with a phrase like "so, you're in favor of violence?simulacrum of the other's argument. Note that the same phrase can be used both by those who advocate disarmament/non-militarization and by those who advocate the imposition of force by means of weapons. We are not saying that you should not take a position: we only recommend that, in doing so, you reduce to a tolerable level the recourse to simulacrum. We will return to the concept of simulacrum in a future article. Inclinically, the simulacrum can also appear, for example when the analyzing person has a reductionist idea about the worldview of an antagonist (for example, the father, the ex-love).
• A procustation Procustus is a character from Greek mythology who used to lay people down on a bed, the so-called Procrustean bed If the person lying down was bigger than the bed, Procustus cut him; if he was smaller, Procustus stretched him. One way or another, each person fit exactly to the size of the bed (and died!). Fitting the world and others to our mold is one way to kill them. And one way to annihilate our libido is to think that everything is already mapped out, as if there were no more room for new ways of thinking andProcrustation is a form of rationalization: the analisand may try to explain his entire psychic universe from a minimal set of beliefs and concepts.

But, does it only the analyzer rationalize?

What is the anti-rationalization antidote in Psychoanalysis?

Do you remember the example a few paragraphs ago that mentioned a son who synthesized all his revolt against the world in his father? Well then, it could be that this revolt of the subject against his father (in this example) is a reflection of an unresolved Oedipus Complex, and that his mind is trying to avoid the encounter with new interpretative possibilities. So it becomes easier to put the father in theplace of antagonist and judge the father for all the problems in the subject's life.

But isn't that already a rationalization of the analyst? It is presumptuous to believe that the analyzed rationalizes and the analyst is right .

I want information to enroll in the Psychoanalysis Course .

Let's just take up the concept of procustation and go back to the example of the son raging against his father. The analyst who has only studied the Oedipus Complex will see this complex in everything: will be your Procrustean bed .

It seems to us that the best antidote (for the analyzer, for the analyst, and for anyone) is to ask:

• "you mentioned idea X, but what is it like for you to feel it?"
• "I mentioned idea X, but what does this idea bring or suggest to me?"
• "you said you have dysthymia, but how is it for you to have dysthymia?"
• "do you have any way of thinking or perceiving this question?"
• "I'm thinking about X right now, what might thinking about X be saying about me?"

These (and many other) possibilities listed above are useful to the analisand, to the analyst, and also to someone who is seeking some knowledge or doing some self-analysis. And, specifically to the analyst who wants to avoid that the couch becomes his Procrustean bed The psychoanalyst Carl Jung's antidote: "Know all the theories, master all the techniques, but when you touch a human soul, just be another human soul.

Rationalization as collective learning

As we have seen, Rationalization is a resource that appears to be not very rational, but uses many of the logical operators legitimized in science, as well as simplifications, antagonizations and stereotypes so that the ego remains in its current "comfortable" situation.

This way of proceeding is also learned in society. We can say that there is a parallel between:

• a individual streamlining : in which the subject's psyche has its own, individual reasons to protect its ego, even if it doesn't know that it does;
• a social or collective rationalization : in which social groupings rationalize their habits, beliefs, and concepts as a way to facilitate the reproduction and repetition of society itself.

So, from social or ideological point of view We can also conceive of this whole debate about Rationalization when human collectivities reproduce customs and traditions, as if they were the only possible way of being, thinking and living.

And, in collectivities, this is also customarily done:

• from generalization e conceptualization In the discursiveness formed within this collectivity;
• from simulacrum By stereotyping antagonistic ideas to make them easier to beat;
• from procustation by using his own worldview as the only "ruler".

Many times, the way people defend their points of view in an uncompromising way goes through a simplistic rationalization, rationalizing the other (their opponent) through simplifications and stereotypes.

From both individual and social perspectives, rationalization can be understood as a resource that:

• is efficient in a mental and social energy savings through replication, repetition and perpetuation;
• has a potentially narcissistic dynamic for both individuals and groupings, because the rationalization that refuses alterity (the external other and the Other of our divided psyche) tends to limit itself to the world of its own self-truths, which is why the analyst's outside look is so relevant.

A little more effort from the subject and from society to question the poverty of certain rationalizations could propitiate new ways of thinking, of doing, and of being.

Excuse us, but perhaps there is not much procedural difference between rationalization as a defense mechanism and scientific reason. Let's not be so positivistic as to think that there is one true reason: ours, of course. This is already, at the same time, reason-science and rationalization as defense.

In any case, a relevant differentiation that has a great impact even on self-analysis and psychoanalytic clinics seems to us to be the following:

• while rationalization as a defense mechanism refuses the questioning, as it is a rational ego-explanation with the aim of "closing the discussion",
• a critical reason as an instrument of scientific investigation could be its antidote, in the sense that it allows one to question, desecrate, and refute founding positions in favor of new ones approaches: this seems to us to be a great exercise from an individual and collective point of view.

This article about rationalization as a defense mechanism was written by Paulo Vieira He is the content manager of the Training Course in Clinical Psychoanalysis.