I’ve been reflecting on R.D. Laing’s The Divided Self and its unexpected echoes in today’s gender-affirming care (GAC). Laing’s existential lens—viewing psychological distress as a response to a fractured social world—offers a provocative frame, but it also prompts me to consider its limits in our current moment. His influence on GAC’s affirmation of identity is clear, yet I wonder if his approach, rooted in ontological insecurity, fully grapples with a newer phenomenon I’d call Identity Neurosis.
This distress, tied to gender and selfhood, emerged alongside social media and personal smart devices—a cultural shift that atomised interaction and upended traditional ways of navigating identity. Might a broader perspective, like Carl Jung’s Depth Psychology, shed light on this? Here are my thoughts.
Laing argued that conditions like schizophrenia reflect a rational reaction to an irrational environment, with the self-splitting into an authentic inner core and a constructed outer shell. He termed this fracture “ontological insecurity”—a shaky sense of being.
It’s easy to see why this resonates with GAC, which honours transgender individuals’ self-identified gender over outdated psychiatric labels. Laing’s rejection of pathologisation aligns with GAC’s patient-cantered ethos, a shift I find culturally significant for its emphasis on subjective truth.
Yet, as a commentator on culture rather than a mental health advocate, I’m struck by the timing of these ideas. Laing’s work predates the digital age, but the issues it engages—identity, disconnection—took on new urgency with the rise of social media and smart devices in the early 2000s. These tools compartmentalised social life into virtual fragments, a change most of us weren’t ready for.
Where gender and adolescent identity once unfolded in person—through family, peer groups, and communities, with room for nuance and resilience—online spaces thrust them into a brittle, antagonistic arena. Established sense-making processes, grounded in face-to-face exchange, couldn’t keep pace with this sudden virtualisation.
The result, I’d argue, is Identity Neurosis: a pervasive unease about selfhood, amplified by a digital culture that demands constant performance and validation.
Laing’s framework might frame this neurosis as a sane response to an insane digital world, and there’s truth in that. GAC’s focus on affirming identity could be considered a counterweight to the alienation of online life. But I question whether his existential approach, centred on understanding the divided self, fully addresses this cultural shift.
By emphasising the rationality of distress, it risks leaving individuals suspended in their fragmentation rather than guiding them toward coherence. For those wrestling with gender in this virtual age, the roots of their struggle may lie not just in societal rejection, but in the disorienting speed of change itself.
This is where Carl Jung’s Depth Psychology enters my thinking. Jung saw the psyche as a dynamic interplay of conscious and unconscious forces, shaped by archetypes and a drive toward individuation—wholeness.
Unlike Laing’s focus on the self’s reaction to external pressures, Jung’s model explores inner depths that transcend immediate context. In a culture of atomised interactions, where traditional social settings once softened the edges of identity formation, Jung’s approach might offer a way to reconnect fragmented selves.
His concepts—like the anima and animus—could help individuals navigate gender, not as a fixed battleground, but as part of a broader developmental arc, less brittle than the online binary often demands.
Laing’s legacy in GAC is a cultural milestone, challenging us to see identity beyond pathology. Yet, as a commentator, I see Identity Neurosis as a distinct product of our digital era—one that his existential lens might not fully illuminate.
The virtual world’s compartmentalisation has outstripped the interpersonal frameworks that once supported gender questioning adolescent growth, leaving us with a mode of selfhood that’s both hyper-visible and deeply unstable. Jung’s holistic perspective, with its emphasis on integration, feels like a necessary complement, inviting us to look beyond the surface of online identity wars to the psyche’s deeper currents.
This isn’t a critique of Laing or GAC, but an observation from the sidelines of culture. We’re in uncharted territory, and no single theory can map it all. Laing highlights the pain of disconnection, but Jung might help us weave it back together. As social media continues to reshape how we become ourselves, I suspect we’ll need every tool at our disposal to understand what’s unfolding.
Leave a Reply