George Armstrong Custer
Dr. Charles Hofling, a psychiatrist actively interested in western
Americana, wrote the first full-length psychohistory of George Armstrong Custer
in 1981 entitled, Custer and the Little Big Horn: A Psychobiographical Inquiry.
Some of what Hofling says about Custer could be said of virtually anyone in
any age, “What kind of man was Custer?
It is the thesis of this book that a fuller understanding of the man can
shed further light on the Battle of the Little Big Horn. When one seeks this understanding
objectively, without any interest in making of Custer either a hero or a villain,
what emerges is the picture of an interesting and moderately complex
personality, with specific strengths and weaknesses, personal conflicts and
defenses, reacting to the stresses of life in ways which have a certain inner
consistency.” (Hofling, 84)
We learn that Custer had a
narcissistic personality disorder that offended many persons, but was mild
enough “to have permitted friendships, camaraderie, and even love….” (Hofling,
86) Why did he have this sort of
personality? “One of the key features in
any personality consists of the psychological maneuvers, particularly the
deep-seated ones…by means of which anxiety is warded off and an equilibrium
maintained. In Custer’s case, it is
postulated that the principal anxiety came from his tendency to regress to the
passive situation of infancy….The principal defense mechanism used to ward off
regression and its attendant anxiety seems very clearly to have been
reaction-formation….In other words, tendencies toward assuming the passive,
help-seeking, nourishment-needing attitude of the first year…were turned into
the confident, aggressive attitude typical of an outward-directed older
boy. As is usually the case when a
defense mechanism is used unconsciously, there is a tendency toward
exaggeration in the resulting attitudes.
Thus independence, confidence, and socially acceptable aggression tend
to become flamboyance and belligerence.” Hofling goes on to write, “The
exaggerated quality of Custer’s daring, his tendency to bravado and unnecessary
heroics, is suggestive of the use of reaction-formation in a rather specific
way, producing what is often called a counterphobic reaction. In such a reaction the subject does not show
or even consciously feel the anxiety or fear which would be natural, but
instead rushes to meet or even seeks out the dangerous situation. One cannot, of course, be certain, but some
of Custer’s actions seem to fall in this category. Sometimes a cavalry charge is not the ideal
way of handling a military situation….” (Hofling, 91)
Because of some unknown and unknowable event
in his infancy Custer’s life was a self-perpetuating cycle. “A sense of humiliation and shame led to
vigorous efforts at achievement, restoring feelings of well-being; after a
time, a sense of guilt led to self-destructive behavior. The resulting loss of status gave fresh
stimulation to the sense of humiliation and shame and the cycle started over.”
Hofling goes on to write, “Custer reacted to a sense of humiliation…with a
surge of glory-seeking activity designed to wipe out the negative
emotions.”(Hofling, 93) Custer was a
prisoner of his psychology, which impacted his judgment and led to his
defeat.