SPP Visiting Professor and Passion Project Mentor Kinga Göncz gave an insightful presentation, “Psychoanalysis and Politics: the Hungarian Case Study,” during a faculty research seminar on May 21 drawing on her expertise and experience as both a psychiatrist, and also a politician.
A former member of the European Parliament who has held several prominent positions in the Hungarian government, Göncz noted that there are many explanations for the changes that have taken place in Hungary in recent years. She said that she was particularly interested in why so many Hungarians had accepted these changes.
Göncz said that in Hungary one saw a “unique interplay” between a charismatic leader and a society that had gone through several major traumas in its history. She pointed to 1848 and 1956 as key moments in Hungarian history when a strong leader had emerged. In both cases, these leaders defeated a revolution, were responsible for executions, and oppressed democratic initiatives, but later sought reconciliation with their opponents who were willing to compromise. She said that these reconciliations had helped to pave the way for periods of stability and prosperity in Hungary. Göncz explained that individuals who sought reconciliation were equipped with a certain psychological defense mechanism – one that allowed them to let go of negative feelings.
Göncz noted that there were several key differences in Hungary now from previous periods in its history. One big change was that since its accession to the European Union and the Schengen area in 2007 it is much easier for people who don’t like the changes that are taking place in the country to leave. Another difference was that Viktor Orbán is a very different type of charismatic leader.
Using publicly available and published sources, Göncz explored some of the factors in his family history that might explain why Orban saw the world “as black and white, evil and good.” She discussed also why this same dynamic could be seen at the societal level in Hungary as well. Göncz explained that this dynamic was most common in societies that were divided along ethnic lines, which was not the case in Hungary. She noted though that many Hungarians had been both victims and perpetrators of injustice at various times in the country’s history and that in these circumstances, it is much easier for people to blame someone else than it is to recognize that they themselves– or a member of their families – have been perpetrators of injustice.
Göncz said that Orban had been very skillful at identifying different scapegoats (communists, Romas, the homeless, migrants, etc.) for Hungary’s problems, and at giving many Hungarians someone to blame for their problems, and also a sense of self-esteem. “It is one based on illusion though, and it strengthens people’s sense of victimhood,” said Göncz.
Göncz said that another reason why so many people have accepted recent changes is that historically two-thirds of Hungarians are “not really committed to democratic values.” She said that this value system had remained quite stable over time. The levels of xenophobia, however, were higher today than in previous times. Göncz noted that there have been other changes as well. “No one discusses politics now,” she said. “The conversations we have are instead about private issues, about family.” She described this behavior as a form of internal migration.