SAILOR’S PSYCHOLOGY

A psychologist anatomizes an unhealthy, fragmented fictional mind and discusses how to establish a healthy sense of self. 

California-based clinical psychologist Litvin (Escape from Kolyma, 2019, etc.) avers that every human psyche pines for a “solid identity,” which he understands as one in which all its diverse parts are harmoniously organized and united. The fracturing of the psyche into incongruent elements can be healthy, he says—such “splitting” can be a worthwhile response to trauma. However, he asserts, the long-term effects are destructive and can be the root cause of chronic anxiety, depression, and a lack of self-esteem. Litvin discusses this fragmentation in inconsistent terms; it often seems to involve compartmentalization, but sometimes, it seems like a sequestering of experience—something more akin to Freudian suppression. The good news, Litvin says, is that one can transform a fractured psyche into a “utopian harmony,” or “balanced identity,” by conducting a dialogue between the disconnected fragments. He constructs a fictional case study that follows the plight of Professor Kryvoruchko, whose family members were murdered by the Nazis; his psyche is “immune to split,” Litvin says, and “represents flexibility, tolerance, and unification.” The content of this book nearly replicates that of Litvin’s Life of the Sailor (2010), which also includes the fictional example of Professor Kryvoruchko. This volume expands upon that book’s idea of sailing as a metaphor for introspective search, and provides a broader account of the nature of individual equilibrium; these concrete illustrations are of great instructional value. However, the author’s prose can be stilted and obscure, offering broad generalizations: “Superficial knowledge of who we are is responsible for the luck of intricacy.” The study also lacks scientifically rigorous investigation; Litvin doesn’t cite any evidence for his theories in the text itself, and although he often discusses chemical processes in the brain, he only does so in vague terms—without even naming the specific chemicals involved.

An overly general hypothesis that’s unsupported by scientific evidence in the text.