“Unchain My Heart”
“Unchain My Heart” is a deeply emotional song expressing a desire for freedom from the confines of a painful relationship. Written by Bobby Sharp, it was famously recorded by Ray Charles in 1961, reflecting its significant impact and enduring appeal. Bobby Sharp sold the song for $50. It consists of 13 stanzas that together weave a narrative of longing for liberation, personal autonomy, and the complex emotions tied to unrequited love. Ray Charles’s version, alongside renditions by artists like Trini Lopez and Joe Cocker, highlights the song’s versatility and its resonance across different musical styles and periods. The creation of the song underlines the real real-life struggles of its writer, adding depth to its message of seeking release. To explore “Unchain My Heart” in its entirety and to appreciate the nuances of each stanza, listening to these artists’ interpretations can provide a comprehensive understanding of its emotional depth and artistic expression.
In Joe Cocker’s “Unchain My Heart,” the lyrics delve into the plea for emotional release and autonomy, which can be technically paralleled to concepts of liberation and restraint within the frameworks of personal identity and external imposition. The singer implores, “Please unchain my heart / Let me go my way,” expressing a desire to break free from the shackles of an unfulfilling relationship, illustrating a struggle between the individual’s internal state (Umwelt) and the external forces imposed by another’s indifference (Lebenswelt).
“Unchain My Heart” perhaps metaphorically references gaslighting by expressing the anguish of feeling trapped and the longing for emotional freedom within a relationship where one’s feelings are neglected. The song’s plea for release and recognition of the partner’s indifference echo the experiences of those seeking escape from manipulative control. This thematic interpretation highlights the struggle for autonomy and the emotional resilience required to break free from such dynamics, offering insight into the psychological aspects of gaslighting.
The repeated requests to “Unchain my heart / Please set me free” resonate with the concept of the parallax view, emphasizing the disparity between two opposing perceptions: the narrator’s perceived value of the relationship versus the actual disregard from the partner. This discrepancy highlights a critical aspect of human relationships and self-perception, echoing the psychological and existential dimensions explored by thinkers like Žižek and Zupančič.
In this song, Cocker articulates the complex interplay between one’s inner world of feelings and desires and the outer world of relational dynamics and social expectations. The call for release, “Oh set me free / Oh woman why don’t you do that for me,” underscores a profound emotional entanglement and the longing for detachment from sources of pain and limitation, mirroring the human endeavor to reconcile internal desires with external realities.
See full lyrics…”Unchain My Heart”, for further insight into the emotional depth and artistic expression Joe Cocker brings to the theme of seeking freedom from emotional constraints.
Gaslighting, a form of psychological manipulation, involves the gaslighter systematically distorting the victim’s perception of reality. The gaslighter challenges, denies, or invalidates the victim’s experiences and feelings, causing confusion and leading the victim to doubt their own memory, perception, or sanity. This manipulation creates a power imbalance where the victim becomes increasingly reliant on the gaslighter to define reality.
Deixis
In the context of mimesis and deixis, gaslighting disrupts the natural interplay between these concepts and the individual’s understanding of their environment. While mimesis relies on the imitation of reality to enhance narrative engagement and deixis uses context-dependent references to anchor meaning, gaslighting deliberately alters the victim’s perception of the mimetic representation of reality and the contextual anchors provided by deictic references. This can make the victim question the reality of their experiences and the validity of their interpretations of context-specific references.
Our connection to the environment encapsulates both intensive and extensive aspects, reflecting how we are embedded and interact with our surroundings. The “intensive” pertains to the subjective, qualitative experiences and perceptions we have of our environment, akin to the concept of Umwelt. This encompasses our personal, emotional, and psychological engagement with the spaces we inhabit, highlighting how different individuals can experience the same physical space in unique ways based on their personal histories, moods, and perceptions.
The “extensive” aspect, on the other hand, relates to the objective, quantifiable characteristics of the environment, mirroring the Lebenswelt. It includes the physical dimensions, geographical locations, and the shared social and cultural contexts that shape our communal experiences of the world. This external reality is the backdrop against which our personal Umwelts are set, providing a common ground for intersubjective experiences and interactions.
Our connection to the environment through both intensive and extensive dimensions emphasizes the interplay between our inner worlds and the external world. While our subjective experiences (intensive) shape our personal reality and perception of the environment, the objective reality of the environment (extensive) influences and constrains our experiences and interactions within it.
The concept of parallax, as discussed by Žižek and Zupančič, elucidates the dynamic between these aspects by showing how shifts in perspective can reveal different aspects of reality without necessarily resolving into a single, unified view. This highlights the complexity of our relationship with the environment, where the internal (subjective experiences and perceptions) and the external (shared, objective reality) continually inform and shape each other, creating a rich tapestry of human-environment interaction that is both deeply personal and universally shared.
Essentially, gaslighting reconfigures the victim’s reality by manipulating the mimetic elements that reflect the real world and the deictic signals that navigate this reality. The victim’s ability to relate to and comprehend their environment is compromised, as the gaslighter’s manipulations distort the foundation upon which narrative comprehension and engagement are built.
Narcissistic manipulation of reality and its subsequent impact on an individual’s perception can be connected to the concept of the Lacanian Real, a term coined by the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. The Lacanian Real represents what lies outside language and symbolization; it is the impossible, the inexpressible that resists symbolic articulation, yet is at the same time the most basic, raw form of reality.
When gaslighting rearranges an individual’s perceived reality, it distorts the symbolic and imaginary layers through which people understand and navigate their world — layers that are part of Lacan’s triadic structure of the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic. The gaslighter’s manipulations cause the victim’s Symbolic (the structured system of language and symbols through which we make sense of the world) and the Imaginary (the realm of images and illusions that includes our sense of self) to misalign with the Real. This misalignment induces a form of alienation and distress because the victim’s symbolic representation of the world no longer corresponds with their deep, often inarticulable sense of reality — the Real.
In this context, the act of gaslighting can be seen as an intrusion into the victim’s ability to reconcile their inner sense of the Real with the Symbolic and Imaginary orders. The manipulator distorts the victim’s symbolic and imaginary understanding of reality, leaving them in a state where the Real becomes ever more elusive, contributing to the victim’s sense of being unmoored. The victim struggles not just with a manipulated perception of external reality, but with a profound disruption in their relationship to the Real itself, as their capacity to symbolically mediate and imaginatively comprehend their experience is compromised.
Thus, gaslighting does not just rearrange the victim’s reality on a superficial level; it fundamentally disturbs their access to the Lacanian Real, creating a chasm between their lived experience and their ability to symbolically articulate or imagine it. This deep psychological manipulation underscores the potency of gaslighting as it affects the very core of an individual’s being and their grasp on what is most fundamentally real.
In psychoanalysis and critical theory, the work of Jacques Lacan offers alternative possibilities for understanding the nature of noumenal or psychological states — those phase spaces we attempt to model using symplectic manifolds — particularly through his concept of the Real. This notion, central to Lacanian theory, denotes an aspect of experience that remains outside of symbolic articulation, a raw and unmediated reality that defies direct representation in language. The significance of Lacan’s theory becomes especially pertinent when examining the psychological manipulation known as gaslighting, where the perpetrator seeks to distort the victim’s perception of reality. Gaslighting, by its very nature, creates a rift between the victim’s lived experience and their capacity to symbolically represent this experience, thereby echoing the gap between the Lacanian Real and the symbolic order. This manipulation not only transforms the victim’s perception of the external world but also induces profound trauma, as it alienates them from their own sense of reality.
Slavoj Žižek, perhaps indirectly, illuminates the relevance of Lacan’s ideas in understanding the dynamics of gaslighting.
Žižek continues to contribute to contemporary discussions on global issues through his recent articles, engaging with topics that touch upon women’s empowerment, geopolitics, and the complex dynamics of contemporary anti-Semitism. In October 2022, Žižek discussed the political terrain shaped by events involving women, highlighting how sex and gender politics can either challenge or reinforce power structures. He pointed out the role of women in the rise of new right-wing governments in Europe and analyzed the implications for Western liberals [Women, Life, Freedom, and the Left by Slavoj Žižek — Project Syndicate](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/four-women-centered-news-stories-highlight-essential-political-trends-by-slavoj-zizek-2022-10).
In his commentary on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Žižek offers a nuanced critique of Western triumphalism and explores the ideological battlefields extending beyond the physical war. He criticizes the Western complicity and the potential economic colonization through the lens of the conflict, warning against the simplistic demonization of Russia and emphasizing the complexities of national identity and geopolitical interests [‘What I don’t want is Western triumphalism’ Slavoj Žižek on Putin’s expansionism, Western complicity, the denial of death, and preventing a global ultra-conservative turn — Meduza](https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/03/what-i-don-t-want-is-western-triumphalism).
Žižek also addresses the situation in Israel and Palestine, underscoring the urgent need for a distinction between fundamentalists on both sides and those advocating for peaceful co-existence. He condemns the violence while also calling for a deeper understanding of the historical and social contexts that fuel the conflict [The Real Dividing Line in Israel-Palestine by Slavoj Žižek — Project Syndicate](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/israel-palestine-hamas-and-hardliners-against-peace-by-slavoj-zizek-2023-10).
Additionally, he delves into the roots of contemporary anti-Semitism, critically examining the ironic twists in the evolution of Zionism and its global implications. By tracing historical perspectives and current developments, Žižek illuminates the intricate connections between political ideologies, historical narratives, and their consequences in shaping attitudes towards anti-Semitism [The New Roots of Anti-Semitism by Slavoj Žižek — Project Syndicate](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/israel-settler-annexation-movement-reprises-blood-and-soil-ideologies-by-slavoj-zizek-2023-11).
Žižek’s writings demonstrate his engagement with pressing global issues, offering insights that connect Lacanian theory and contemporary societal dynamics. His work exemplifies the relevance of Lacanian concepts, such as the Real, in understanding the trauma experienced by individuals and societies under manipulation and conflict. By combining psychoanalytic theory, cultural critique, and political analysis, Žižek provides a compelling and relevant perspective from which to view and interpret the complexities of our time.
Žižek’s engagement with Lacanian theory underscores how ideological structures can shape and even distort our perception of reality, much like how gaslighting operates on a personal level. He argues that our encounter with the Real is mediated by fantasy and symbolization, mechanisms that gaslighting exploits by inserting a false narrative that distances the victim from their authentic experience of the Real.
Lacan’s concepts offer a critical framework for analyzing how gaslighting affects the psyche, revealing the transformation and trauma experienced by those subjected to such manipulation. The relevance of Lacan, as highlighted by Žižek, lies in his ability to identify and articulate the profound effects of these gaps and distortions in our understanding of reality, offering a vital perspective on the psychological impact of gaslighting.
