A smart, well-off, intelligent woman had asked to see me. She sat back neatly on the couch rather than on the edge, as other, more anxious patients tend to, and addressed me as though interviewing me for a job. She told me a little about her situation before saying she had come because her husband was “having difficulties” with his work. Many people see analysts because of work-related problems; it is only later they reveal their emotional and sexual difficulties. However, she did not believe she had contributed anything to her husband’s plight but wanted to “talk it over.” She was, she kept insisting, “normal” or “not abnormal at all.”
Later, on my walk, I wondered why I felt I had to be suspicious of “normality.” The striking thing about the normal is that there is nothing normal about it: normality is the gentrification of ordinary madness-ask any Surrealist. In analysis “the normal child” is often synonymous with the obedient good child, the one who only wants to please the parents and develops what Winnicott called “a false self.” According to Henry, obedience is one of the problems of the world, not the solution, as so many have thought. But couldn’t there be a definition of the normal which didn’t equate it with the ordinary or uninspiring? Or which wasn’t coercive or ridiculously prim?
It was, of course, in the nature of my work to spend time with “nutters,” as Miriam put it, just as medical doctors work with sick bodies. But, as Freud said, and as experience had taught me, my patients were not in a separate category to everyone else. It was those who didn’t seek help who were most likely to be mad or dangerous. I was reminded of a story about Proust at the end of his life, wildly looking through the pages of Remembrance of Things Past in despair as he saw how eccentric, if not abnormal, all his characters were. As though one could make a novel, or indeed a society, out of the dull and merely conventional.
My work with the “normal” woman would be to help turn her into a poet: she’d see what was puzzling but also fascinating in the experience she wanted to dismiss as “normal,” even as she attempted to convince both of us that the “normal” was beyond inquiry.
Unlike the “normal” woman, I have never stopped being amazed by the nature and variety of human pleasure, the most difficult problem of all. I am visited by a foot fetishist and compulsive masturbator who was about to lose his job, so much time did he spend in the toilet; a couple of men who dress as women; a powerful businessman who risked everything in order to secretly watch women through windows; a girl terrified of cats; a patient who had a breakdown on being informed for the first time, at the age of thirty, that her mother had always had a glass eye; the promiscuous, the frigid, the panicked, the vertiginous; abusers and the abused, cutters, starvers, vomiters, the trapped and the too free, the exhausted and the overactive and those committed for life to their own foolishness. I hear from all of them. I am an autobiographer’s assistant, midwife to my patients’ fantasies, reopening their wounds, setting free their voices, making an erotics of speaking, unmasking their truths as illusions. Analysis makes the familiar strange, and makes us wonder where dreams end and reality begins, if, indeed, reality ever does begin.
I saw my first analyst, a Pakistani called Tahir Hussein, a few months after I’d left university and things had gone more than just weird with Ajita. I have to say-I was in great need.
Ajita and I had gone our separate ways without considering that we would never see each other again. We hadn’t fallen out; our love had never become exhausted but had been violently interrupted.
How I missed her adoration of me, her kisses, praise and encouragement, and the way she said “thank you, thank you” when she came. Of all my women, she was the most memorably tender, vulnerable and uninhibited, like a Goya-esque Spanish beauty, her dark hair covering her face as she worked on my penis. She called me her pretty boy and said she loved my voice, loved what she called the “timber” of it.
For months I had waited for her, thinking one day she’d turn up. I’d see her on the street, in departing trains, in dreams and in nightmares; I’d walk into a bar and there she’d be, waiting. I heard her calling me, her sweet Indian lilt in my ear, from when I woke up until bedtime.
At last, however, I got the real message, which was, after all, clear enough: she wasn’t interested. She’d told me she loved me, but, in the end, she didn’t want me. Her father was dead, the relationship was dead. Ajita was gone. I didn’t want to get over it, but I would have to. By now she’d be with another man, married perhaps. I was already her history and, I supposed, was more or less forgotten.
In my early twenties, I had left Mother too, having known for a while it was time to get away from the house and the neighbourhood. If the suburbs were the gentle solution to the question of how to live, I was out of there.
Through a university acquaintance, someone I’d directed in a female production of Waiting for Godot, I had found a room in a house shared by a group of white, middle-class politicos. They were carpenters, teachers, social workers, feminists and radical lawyers, two of whom later became MPs, keen Blairites, often on TV defending the Iraq war. They had set up several similar houses in streets nearby.
However, I wasn’t able to move straight into the room I wanted. There were other applicants, and these politicos were democrats, from time to time. I was to be interviewed, though I knew the lefties would offer me the room as soon as I asked whether there were any black people in the house. The guilt shuddered through them like a bout of food poisoning and I was in, despite my pale skin and the queue of whites outside.
It wasn’t exactly a commune; people had their own rooms, and the cooking and chores weren’t shared, though some tasks were. There were a lot of meetings and mad talk, cycling and recycling. New posters-“Protest and Survive!” or a picture of a monkey being experimented on-along with leaflets advertising meetings appeared in the hall every day, along with piles of wood for “reuse.”
Often we cycled to the woods, with wine and dope in our baskets. One time the others couldn’t wait to get their clothes off and jump in some filthy pond. Generally I was uptight, but this time I joined them.
Most weekends were taken up with some kind of antinuclear protest. During the week there were Labour Party branch meetings held in draughty halls on run-down estates. If I went, it was because everyone else went; I wanted to know what was going on. It was serious work. The old guard, the working-class stalwarts who smoked pipes and spoke interminably in difficult accents-and had many personal memories of Harold Wilson-along with the eccentrics, the codgers, the plain crazies and those who had nowhere else to go in the evenings, were being replaced by the people I knew.
These were young, smart lawyers, housing officers, radicals from provincial universities. A few of these “activists” were actually Trots or Commies, clinging to respectability and the possibility of real power; others were channelling their ambition into conventional political careers. The idea was to move the Party to the left by integrating radical elements that had emerged during the mid-70s: gays, blacks, feminists. Michael Foot was elected leader of the Party, followed by Neil Kinnock. The Party was beginning to modernise but still wasn’t electable. To become that, it was the left politics which had to go. How we all despised Thatcher, but she led the way.
I was amazed by the bitterness, viciousness and cruelty of small-time politics. Even here idealism was, as it always is, an excuse for quite extreme aggression. I leafleted local estates, and “knocked up” during local elections. Sometimes we were invited into the flats. I’d never seen such places before in the city, and I can tell you, it was an education.