I realized that the whole “Bartleby” perspective was simply posturing: a cute, literary reference which really goes nowhere. Negation does not lead to reflective space. It leads (after destruction) to avoidance. In fact, Melville’s Bartleby character is a poster child for one of Karen Horney’s three central characterological types: the avoidant personality.

Among its distinguishing traits are: detachment, emotional distance, and aloofness. “Don’t bother me”, like Bartleby’s “I prefer not to” is his mantra, while maintaining a defended sense of superiority. Occasionally, there are moments of ease from what HS Sullivan calls this “distance machinery”. Indeed, the Bartleby type is capable of intense short term relationships (as well as spontaneous moments of creativity) as long as they do not unduly interfere with his life.

As far as reflection goes, Horney comments upon his swings between appreciation for such human traits as goodness, sympathy and generosity while operating with cunning self-interest. Rather than wrestle with this contradiction, the Barleby character prefers rationalization.

No, Bartleby is not the model for reflection and reassessment of societal dysfunction. His viewpoint only contributes to the distortion of clear vision.

Yet, this week, the financial world both in the UK and in the US achieved a milestone: the peculiar mixture of positively valued and negatively valued assets upon the balance sheets of our quickly failing banks— an unsteady blend which might be seen as “ambivalent”—is to be split. The split, into “good” banks and “bad” banks ( here the British label is more consistent with the Kleinian sense of “bad” object whereas the US term “aggregator” calls to mind our Rambo/Terminator tradition). Presumably, this will allow the goodness inherent in our current banks, presently duking it out against the rising tide of asset toxicity, to emerge virtuous and productive, cleansed of badness.

In human development, this split of conjoint goodness/badness, held in tension within one entity, would be seen as regression to an earlier, more primitive era. That’s where we seem to be headed: barter anyone?

So, I wonder, as I have not seen the full explanation of how bad banks are slated to operate (does one deposit to LOSE money? Does one invest in the surety of writeoffs?) what the market for bad banks will be. One thing for certain, given international finance and the human desire for more—- the good banks will not remain virginal for long!