Affects and Globalization

As early as 1895 in The project for scientific psychology, Freud discussed the significance of psychological qualities. He used “qualities” to refer to the differentiation between internal and external realities. He was of the opinion that the consciousness was needed to perceive this difference. Later it was Freud's opinion that drives make themselves felt as ideas and affects. He considered that the affects were potentially harmful. Thought is destroyed if the affects pour into the ego and the consciousness in an uncontrolled manner. The ego must therefore guard itself against free invasion by affects. In this statement, Freud implies a function that moderates the access of the affects to the consciousness. This moderation means that the affective life can function analogously with reason and that it in fact can deepen it.

But, in 2008, it is not only the ego that must guard itself. After September 11, 2001, we live in a new era, in which terrorist use fear and terror as a weapon to induce psychological states that make free consent impossible. “Today we are in a process of redefining both terrorism and war,” writes Philip Bobbitt in his challenging, complex book Terror and consent: The wars for the twenty-first century. He argues that, in order to protect the open societies, the war against terror has to be fought on different fronts: against global networked terrorism like al Qaeda, against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and also to prevent or mitigate genocide, ethic cleansing, and the human rights consequences of civilian catastrophes, for example when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005. As a law professor, also serving in the White House in periods, he emphasises the need for reformation of international law and a clear definition of terrorism.

However, from history we also learn that either the law or the internalization of the law of the father or the capacity to think protects us against evil, our own potential to take part in evil acts. H