Can you explain Zapffe's concept of anchoring and explain why you depicted it as you did?
Right. Zapffe. Anchoring. Everyone’s favorite polite way of saying “I would lose my mind if I looked at this directly.” Let’s unpack both the concept and why the image looks the way it does, before either of us pretends this is uplifting.
1. Zapffe’s concept of anchoring
For Zapffe, anchoring is one of the four primary defense mechanisms humans use to survive the “over-evolution” of consciousness. (The others being isolation, distraction, and sublimation—i.e., don’t think, don’t feel, stay busy, or make art about it.)
Anchoring specifically means:
-
Fixing your sense of meaning to something external and stabilizing
-
Treating that thing as unquestionable, durable, and sufficient
-
Using it to keep existential terror at bay
Anchors can be:
-
Religion
-
Nationhood
-
Family roles
-
Work, profession, vocation
-
Moral systems
-
Traditions
-
“Normal life”
They are not true in any metaphysical sense (Zapffe is not sentimental about this), but they are psychologically functional. Anchoring narrows the horizon. It prevents the mind from drifting into the abyss of meaninglessness, cosmic indifference, or the ethical horror of being a self-aware animal trapped in history.
Importantly:
Anchoring is not enlightenment. It is restraint.
It works by not asking certain questions.
2. Why the artwork looks like that
The cliff
The figure stands on a cliff because anchoring only makes sense at the edge—the edge of insight, awareness, despair. There must be a drop for the anchor to matter. Zapffe’s entire argument assumes the human is already standing somewhere dangerous, cognitively speaking.
If there’s no abyss, you don’t need a defense mechanism. You just need brunch.
The anchor itself
The anchor is literal because Zapffe is not subtle. Anchors are heavy, inherited, difficult to move, and they bind you downward, not upward. They do not elevate you; they prevent you from drifting.
Notice: the anchor does not disappear into nothingness. It connects to a village. That’s important.
The village below
The village represents ordinary meaning:
-
Work
-
Community
-
Routine
-
Religion
-
Social belonging
-
Temporal continuity
This is where anchoring lives. Not in revelation, but in repetition. The village is warm, illuminated, coherent. It contrasts with the vast, indifferent landscape surrounding it. This is intentional. Anchors glow because they feel meaningful, even if they are structurally arbitrary.
The objects on the cliff
Books, a clock, a cross, a flag, a portrait—these are symbolic anchors:
-
Time
-
Knowledge
-
Faith
-
Nation
-
Lineage
-
Identity
They are piled there because anchoring is cumulative. Most people don’t rely on just one. When one cracks, another takes over. The system is redundant because it has to be.
The figure facing away
You never see the person’s face because anchoring is not about self-expression or authenticity. It’s about orientation. The individual is defined by what they are attached to, not by introspection. Facing the abyss too directly would defeat the purpose.
3. The tension the image is meant to hold
The image is not saying:
-
Anchoring is bad
-
Anchoring is good
-
Anchoring should be escaped
Zapffe would roll his eyes at all three.
What it’s showing instead is the precarious bargain:
-
Let go of the anchor → risk existential collapse
-
Hold it too tightly → accept illusion as necessity
The anchor saves you, but it also keeps you from moving freely.
The abyss tells the truth, but the truth is unlivable.
Which is, unfortunately, the most Zapffe-like conclusion possible.
If you’re feeling unsettled after looking at it, congratulations: that means you understood it. If you feel comforted, that means the anchor is working. And if you’re trying to decide which reaction is “correct,” well—there you are, standing on the cliff with the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment