Since November 2023, several articles have highlighted constraints that limit the ability to achieve psychological distancing and, consequently, to gain freedom of thought and peace of mind: oppositions, idealizations (particularly the pursuit of moral truths), conformity, psychological projection, and the desire for recognition.
Here, we will focus on the emotional bond of attachment. While essential for the normal development of a human being, particularly in shaping ethics, it can nevertheless pose an obstacle to psychological distancing.
Prolonged Dependency
Infantile Dependency
Biologists use the term altricial1—as opposed to precocial—to describe newborns of an animal species that lack mobility, fur or feathers, functional sensory organs (like open eyes), or the ability to independently procure food. Human altriciality is also associated with a high level of brain plasticity, which promotes enhanced learning capacity, behavioral flexibility, and cultural transmission. Thus, while the prolonged dependency of humans might initially seem like an evolutionary handicap, it actually contributes to increased intelligence, offering a decisive survival advantage for the species..
As French sociologist Bernard Lahire explains in The Fundamental Structures of Human Societies, psychoanalysis has linked this initial dependency to the emergence of a parental superego that imposes limits on the child, particularly moral boundaries. Psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott also inferred from this dependency the development of a sense of omnipotence:
If the mother is capable of playing this role for a certain time without, so to speak, admitting obstacles, the baby then lives an experience of magical control, that is, an experience of what is called “omnipotence” when describing intrapsychic processes. In the state of trust that gradually establishes itself when the mother can fulfill this difficult task—and not when she proves unable to do so—the baby begins to enjoy experiences based on the « marriage » of the omnipotence of intrapsychic processes and control over reality.2
Dependency and idealization are compatible. One could even argue that the initial dependency of humans is correlated with the expansion of their intellectual capacities and, consequently, their freedoms. Well, human power stems primarily from the collective and its shared knowledge, a notion reflected in Greek myths and the social hierarchy of ancient cities, where power derived from gods and heroes, protectors of the city.
The Importance of Emotional Bonds
Starting in the 1950s, British psychologist John Bowlby developed a theory of attachment between the newborn and its mother. Building on psychoanalysis, he focused on the mother but diverged from the Freudian approach by drawing inspiration from ethological studies, which notably highlighted the importance of the first objects perceived by a gosling3. Attachment helps children regulate negative emotions caused by threatening or painful events. It also continues to evolve over time:
During adolescence and adulthood, some attachment behaviors are commonly directed not only toward individuals outside the family but also toward groups and institutions other than the family. A school or college, a workgroup, a religious group, or a political group can serve as a « subordinate attachment figure » for many and as a « primary attachment figure » for some.5
In 1995, R.F. Baumeister and M.R. Leary employed the concept of belongingness,6 which broadens the notion of attachment beyond parental figures, to describe a need for social inclusion: any individual can potentially fulfill the need for belongingness from the earliest months of life. From this perspective, an intimate relationship is substitutable without significant emotional loss.
Several psychological theories have thus emphasized that the normal development of a human being depends on close interpersonal relationships.7 While the concept of belongingness has the advantage of generalization—socially broadening the scope of attachment—we will continue to use the latter term. It underscores how, beyond a certain age, it becomes increasingly difficult to question what one is attached to.
Attachment to Idealizations and Distancing
Affection and Moral Attachment
In 2005, researchers proposed a model linking attachment and empathy:8 attachment helps infants regulate negative emotions and frustrations, thus contributing to the development of empathy and sympathy. In the discussion on projection,9 we supported that empathy develops from synchronization between the child and the adult—a process that cannot occur without a form of attachment rooted in prolonged proximity.
In the late 1960s, American psychologist Martin L. Hoffman proposed a theory, backed by experimental data, suggesting that feelings of guilt partly stem from empathic distress.10 When a person harms another, they may experience a sense of urgency, tension, and regret resulting from empathy toward the victim. It is worth noting, however, that while empathic distress arises spontaneously in children witnessing aggression, the intervention of an adult or moral authority may be required to elicit empathy in an aggressor,11 helping them recognize the harm they caused.
Attachment fosters empathy, which in turn contributes to the emergence of guilt, a key component of moral development. Attachment has also been more directly linked to moral development.12 For instance, children who feel secure respond prosocially and show sympathy when their mother expresses anger or sadness. In such conditions, the mother can frequently provide moral evaluations of their « good » or « bad » behaviors and reference the emotions their past transgressions have elicited.
Beyond attachment, various psychological approaches suggest that parental tenderness and responsiveness facilitate moral development.13 In 1979, Martin L. Hoffman observed that “affection is important because it can make a child more receptive to discipline, more inclined to imitate their parents, and confident enough to be attuned to the needs of others.” These findings have since been reiterated and refined by other psychologists.
Additionally, researchers have found that while critical discussions in academic settings promote the development of mature moral judgment, they tend to hinder moral reasoning in adolescents.14 Adolescents often perceive critiques as excessive, hostile, or as a restriction of their freedom.
Attachement to Idealizations
The attachment between parents and their children—and reciprocally, children’s attachment to their parents—strongly contributes to adherence to a given moral framework. As we have repeatedly emphasized, ethics are rooted in various ideals, which may derive from myths or abstract concepts such as liberty or equality. Attachment to these ideals is therefore, at least in part, mediated by attachment to persons. Furthermore, one could argue that attachment to ideals is most often grounded in emotional bonds.
We have also seen that attachment develops during an initial phase of dependency, which fosters the flourishing of the most prominent idealization: that of power. Without this early dependency—transformed into a secure, idyllic phase by technological advancements—would it even be psychologically possible to idealize or experience a sense of omnipotence? The development of the idealization of power thus seems to include both a natural component—altriciality and affection between parents and children—and a cultural one: the construction of an educational environment designed, as much as possible, to shield the child from the hardships of reality.
As they grow, humans form diverse relationships through which they may question their convictions or adopt new ideals, which are not confined to morality, as we highlighted in our discussion of individualisms.15 However, it seems rare, if not impossible, for individuals to completely abandon all their idealizations. Instead, they nurture a select few, which help maintain a minimal sense of security, accept the world as it is, and transcend it in some way—whether by envisioning it differently, imagining a better future, or even contemplating an idealized afterlife. To challenge all one’s ideals is to interrogate the entirety of one’s attachments, exposing oneself to the anxiety of exclusion and the associated feelings of guilt.
Psychological Distancing: Neither Natural nor Cultural
Given that idealizations often lead to social oppositions, is the existential solution of cultivating them not merely an expedient? That is my impression. However, questioning all one’s idealizations, including those dearest to us, such as liberty or equality, is an exceedingly delicate task. It requires taking a step back from all attachments, including those to loved ones. Well, such distancing is difficult to achieve because of the anxiety and guilt it generates—unless it occurs as a reaction to a new attachment (e.g., meeting a friend or partner who disapproves of certain close relationships). In such cases, this is less a matter of distancing and more of shifting attachments.
Another factor complicating psychological distancing is the political and scientific perception of solitude. Early in 2024, a collective of around 100 French researchers, inspired by English and Japanese examples, proposed creating a “French Federation for Social Connection” to “combat the harmful effects of loneliness on public health.”16 While excessive social isolation does indeed have clear negative effects on health, it is crucial not to equate social isolation with the feeling of loneliness. This distinction has not yet been adequately addressed. Concerns about solitude also highlight the paradoxical nature of Western individualisms.
Between attachment, the cultivation of idealizations and oppositions, conformity, psychological projection, and the desire for recognition, psychological distancing is far from a priority. While calls to « take a step back » are frequent—intended to foster better understanding of complex situations and emotional moderation—there is justified caution about the effects of social isolation, which can lead to extreme views or conspiracy theories. Yet the normalization of extremes actually reflects a lack of psychological distance and freedom of thought rather than the opposite. Social distance and psychological distance must not be confused. The latter is tied to a more composed relationship with reality and the capacity to question moral constructs rather than asserting or imposing them on others.
If doubt were not the driver of antisocial theories but instead a source of tranquil skepticism in the vein of Montaigne, would it find greater legitimacy? Regardless, the current trend favors defending values and retreating into one’s idealizations rather than questioning them. Political polarization, populism, and authoritarianism exemplify this. I also observe it, for instance, in On Tyranny by historian Timothy Snyder, where he writes: “Without ideals, it is impossible to be realistic.”17 What a beautiful oxymoron!
Psychological distancing, it seems, is a process that is neither natural nor cultural.
Notes
1.↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precociality_and_altriciality ; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02253-z#Sec7
2.↑ Donald Winnicott, Jeu et réalité. L’espace potentiel, Gallimard, 1975, p. 191 in Bernard Lahire, Les structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines, La Découverte, 2023.
3.↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowlby#Development_of_attachment_theory
4.↑ https://www.britannica.com/science/attachment-theory
5.↑ John Bowlby, Attachement et perte, vol. 1 : L’Attachement, PUF, 2002 [1969], p. 283 in Bernard Lahire, op. cit.
6.↑ Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995), “The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
7.↑ Melanie Killen and Judith G. Smetana, “Origins and Development of Morality » in Richard M. Lerner (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Socioemotional Processes, John Wiley & Sons, p. 701-749.
8.↑ Tucker, D. M., Luu, P., & Derryberry, D. (2005). Love hurts: The evolution of empathic concern through the encephalization of nociceptive capacity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 699–713. Quoted by Jean Decety, William Ickes, The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, MIT Press, 2009, chapitre 6.
9.↑ https://damiengimenez.fr/wpdgi_article_en/projection-a-major-obstacle-to-distancing/
10.↑ Martin L. Hoffman, Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 114.
11.↑ Ibid., p. 135.
12.↑ Melanie Killen and Judith G. Smetana, op. cit.
13.↑ Ibid.
14.↑ Ibid.
15.↑ https://damiengimenez.fr/wpdgi_article_en/these-individualisms-which-are-based-on-idealizations-and-hinder-the-freedom-of-thought/
16.↑ https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2024/01/04/pour-lutter-contre-les-mefaits-de-la-solitude-sur-la-sante-publique-creons-une-federation-francaise-pour-le-lien-social_6209038_3232.html
17.↑ Timothy Snyder, On Freedom, Penguin Random House, 2024.