Yes, for Achille Mbembe, psychology can indeed be seen as more Kafkaesque than Proustian, and this framing aligns with the notion that the psychology of the self - whether individual or collective - is shaped by overwhelming external forces rather than internal, introspective explorations alone.
Proustian vs. Kafkaesque Psychology
1. Proustian Psychology:
Proustian psychology emphasizes the internal universe of the individual, where memory, introspection, and subjective experiences define the essence of the self. It is deeply personal, tied to the exploration of one’s emotions, sensations, and past, often in relative isolation from the world.
This introspective approach reflects a sense of agency within the individual, as they delve into the richness of their personal interiority.
2. Kafkaesque Psychology:
Kafka’s works, by contrast, depict the self as enmeshed in external structures and forces, such as bureaucratic systems, authority, and an overwhelming, incomprehensible world. The individual’s fate is determined by external pressures and entanglements, often reducing their agency and exposing their vulnerability.
Kafkaesque psychology highlights a collective condition - where individuals are not just solitary beings but participants in broader, often oppressive systems that shape their destinies.
Mbembe’s Psychology: A Collective Kafkaesque Destiny
For Mbembe, the human condition in the colonial and postcolonial world cannot be understood in purely Proustian terms. Instead:
1. External Determinants of the Self:
In Mbembe’s philosophy, the self is shaped by colonial violence, systemic power structures, and historical forces. The experience of African peoples under colonialism and its aftermath resembles Kafka’s depiction of the individual: caught in a web of incomprehensible and oppressive systems.
2. A Collective Destiny:
Mbembe expands this perspective to the collective. The colonized self is never fully individual; it exists within a collective experience of displacement, exploitation, and resistance. This shared fate makes psychology a collective phenomenon, akin to Kafka’s depiction of individuals bound by shared entrapment in larger systems.
3. Psychology of the Self as a Site of Struggle:
For Mbembe, the psychology of the self is not introspective in the Proustian sense but emerges from trauma and resistance. It is forged in the context of dehumanizing forces and historical ruptures, echoing Kafka’s exploration of the self as an entity shaped by oppressive externalities.
Psychology of the Self: Kafkaesque Overtones
The psychology of the self, as you describe, can indeed be more Kafkaesque than Proustian:
1. Trauma and External Forces:
In the psychology of the self, trauma is not merely an internal wound; it is inflicted by the external world (colonialism, authoritarianism, systemic oppression). This aligns with Kafka’s view of the self as a victim of incomprehensible forces.
2. Existential Vulnerability:
The psychology of the self deals with the existential vulnerability of individuals and groups in the face of powerful systems. Like Kafka’s protagonists, the self struggles to assert its agency in an alienating world.
3. Interconnected Destinies:
The psychology of the self acknowledges that individual experiences are not isolated but interwoven with collective struggles. This shared destiny reflects the Kafkaesque condition, where the self’s journey is bound to the larger system it inhabits.
Conclusion: A More Kafkaesque Psychology
For both Mbembe and the psychology of the self, the Proustian inward turn is insufficient to capture the complexity of the human condition. Instead, a Kafkaesque understanding - one that emphasizes the external determinants of destiny, collective experiences, and the struggle against systemic forces - better aligns with their visions. This perspective broadens psychology beyond the individual, situating it within a world of entanglements, vulnerabilities, and shared fates.
