If there is one date that begs in the minds of an American an essay on extremism more than September 11, I can’t think of it. It was a date that engendered a twenty-year war that ended with the potential for more extremism at a time of extreme measures bordering on complete authoritarianism by many governments, authoritarianism perceived as the imposed will of either oligarchs or dictators on the populace. But why connect authoritarianism to extremism? The genealogy of the two reveals the hereditary relationship: Authoritarianism begets extremism begets authoritarianism begets extremism, and so on. And now, a bit of research seems to confirm that genealogy.
The first two decades of the twenty-first century do not differ much from the perceptions of authoritarianism as inimical to the freedom of any group, save the group in charge. At any time of variously motivated civil protests and counterprotests, there has been the potential for violent encounters as those who would unseat an Establishment confront those who would defend it. And apparently, such encounters emerge as anarchists and defenders switch over time and circumstance between Left and Right. Today’s anarchists become tomorrow’s defenders and vice versa. History provides numerous examples, even recent history.
Here are six headlines I found on the Web:
1. Brexit as much due to resistance to supranationalism as immigration
2. Far-right violence in Portugal draws strength from skinhead roots—study
3. Researchers call on science fiction to understand extremist psychology
4. Conservatives and liberals motivated by different psychological factors, new study shows
5. Social psychology sheds light on Trump’s appeal
6. Study: Left-wing authoritarians share key psychological traits with far right
Just a cursory reading of those headlines with no knowledge of the content they introduce reveals that perspectives on who is an “authoritarian” and who is an “anarchist” appear to differ in the minds of social psychologists. And those differing perspectives put the “science” behind social psychology in doubt from my perspective.
In general, the headlines lean toward identifying the Right with extremism more than the Left, the Right with authoritarianism and Establishmentarianism more than the Left, and the Right with dictators and oligarchs more than the Left. And yet both sides have demonstrably shown themselves to take alternating positions of anarchy and oligarchy as the group in power finds itself defending that power against a rebellious group not in power. The rise of both the Nazis and the Soviets, both socialism and Leftism incarnate, reveals the switch anarchists make to become dictatorial Establishmentarians. Certainly, neither the Nazis nor the Soviets had any desire to give up the power and the establishment they acquired through revolution. The pattern repeats throughout history, as just in the last twenty years the Taliban have gone from Afghan Establishment to anarchists to Establishment again. Crazy world, isn’t it? It’s a world in which just about every social, political, and religious movement terminates in its antithesis.
Where’s Empedocles when you need him? Oh! Right. He threw himself into a volcano to prove he was a god. Talk about extremism! Talk about running your immortality into its mortal grave. In that version of his death rumor has it that the locals found his sandal. More on the old philosopher later…
So, let’s begin with the last headline first. Here’s a comment by lead researcher Thomas Costello, as reported at Phys.org: “We found that in terms of their psychological characteristics and their actual behaviors, left-wing authoritarians are extremely similar to authoritarians on the right.” * Costello says that authoritarianism begs power, but ironically, people on the right and on the left will both submit to “people they perceive as authority figures.” I suppose there are many historical and contemporary examples, such as crowds gathered at political conventions, working themselves into a frenzy over their nominees for office.
More importantly, Costello says that being an “authoritarian” is primary; ideology is secondary. Authoritarians adopt an ideology, and that ideology can be extreme on either side of the social, political, and religious spectra. Thus, the difference is the focus that initiates anger and violence: Those on the left are anti-Establishment; those on the right, in contrast, are pro-Establishment—at least, that’s the supposition behind the study. And the focus of violent behavior? One strikes blows to destroy; the other strikes blows to protect. There are, of course exceptions and shades of grey in both Leftist and Rightist movements; extremism comes in degrees or color intensities. And as I just noted by citing the histories of Nazis, Soviets, and Taliban, all such movements bear in them the potential for becoming the opposite of their initial identity. Maybe a more germane example on this twentieth anniversary of 9-11 lies in the shift from the Left’s fearing a dictatorship of the Right to the Right’s fearing a dictatorship of the Left. Who, for example, instituted more “lockdowns,” “mandates,” and restrictions on personal freedom across the world during the pandemic, the Right or the Left? And who is perceived to be anarchist?
Costello states that submissiveness is inextricably tied to both Left and Right authoritarianism. Those people who strap on bomb vests and those who fly planes into buildings to disrupt the Establishment demonstrate their subservience to their favored Establishment and its untouchable leaders—who never choose to strap on bombs or fly planes into buildings because, well, someone has to be left behind to run the show that sacrifices individuals for some “greater cause.”
The back-and-forth political battles over Brexit also fits into an examination of extremist views. According to a study done by the University of Kent, those labeled right-wing authoritarians prefer “cultural traditions and loyalty to national authority…and a desire for group-based dominance and hierarchy in society.” ** Those in favor of Brexit wanted the return of the England they once knew and were imbued with “Euroskepticism” and a desire for the UK to “take back control.” In an interesting mix of anarchy and Establishmentarianism, those in favor opposed the supranational EU Establishment and sought to break its hold on their lives in favor of a return to the historical national Establishment. This switch between objecting to the “transnational authority” and desiring a return of the former national authority is like watching a volley from the sideline stands at Wimbledon. But lest you think all this Brexit stuff had the propriety of a genteel English afternoon tea break, consider, also, this additional headline from NPR: “Violent Protests Over Brexit Continue in Belfast.” *** Yes, people took to the streets over Brexit to break things and hurt others. Brexit, the attempt to de-establish the transnational Establishment and to re-establish the national Establishment engendered anarchy.
Portugal provides an example of people shifting from one establishment to another through anarchy. The breakup of its colonial empire displaced millions and cost maybe as many lives. At one time favoring its multiculturalism, the country took a turn against incoming refugees of late, with “skinheads” from the Far Right trying to “preserve” the country against the influx of immigrants. The authoritarians shifted ideologies from 1974 through the 1980s to the present. They remained authoritarian as Costello explains, but adopted different ideologies. This is the opening line of the article (#2 above) by the University of Birmingham: “Influenced by the international ‘skinhead’ movement from the mid-1980s, current extremists drawn largely from the working classes have turned to violence to ‘protect’ white Portugal and Europe against the ‘threat’ posed by multi-racial and multicultural society.” **** Here’s the irony. The predecessors of the twenty-first century Portuguese “skinheads” were “politically violent organizations aimed at stopping the advance of Communism in Portugal and safeguarding the Portuguese multi-racial and pluri-continental empire” (italics mine]. Yep. The Rightists turned Leftists; the Leftists turned Rightists. And in their recent incarnations, there’s been a strange merger of the ultra-nationalists and the anarchic skinhead cultures.
With regard to authoritarian leanings behind the tendency toward violence, the third headline above leads a story about an experiment. The researchers Matteo Vergani of Deakin University and Ana-Maria Bliuc of Western Sydney University framed the language of articles in ISIS’s “Dabiq” and al-Qaeda’s “Inspire” as a science fiction tale. Vergani says, “ISIS-related mobilisation [sic] requires high levels of authoritarianism and religiousness to counterbalance the high psychological costs on its followers—psychological costs due to the members being aware and supportive of the group’s adoption of extreme violence, especially against other Muslims (which al-Qaeda has criticized).” ***** Participants in the study appear to have favored the more extreme ISIS language if they were more in tune with authoritarianism. Seems that this study backs the conclusion of study #5 by Costello: Authoritarianism underlies the tendency toward submissiveness and anarchic violence.
Is the jury in? Do we have Leftists and Rightists pinned like moths on display? Do we know which side is more violent, which more capable of extreme behavior? If there is a problem in almost every social science study, that problem is rooted in its authors’
assumptions. What might you infer from this statement in article #4?
"The motivational basis of conservative preferences for “binding” intuitions has for years been assumed to be independent of needs to reduce uncertainty and threat and to represent a broad, prosocial sense of morality. However, the new findings in PLOS ONE indicate that the endorsement of 'binding foundations' is linked to the very same motives associated with many other conservative preferences, including authoritarianism, social dominance, system justification, and underlying psychological needs to reduce uncertainty and threat." ******
Whoa! Just a minute there, Mr. Social Psychologist and Mr. Social Scientist. What does one do with the conservative and Jeffersonian mantra that “that government is best that governs least”—is that the mantra of system justification and a desire for reduced uncertainty? Does the statement in the PLOS ONE article rely on the assumption that a conservative stress on individualism is a cry for social dominance? Or is it the manifestation of a psychological projection by social scientists who themselves lean Left? Could one not just as easily argue that those in favor of smaller government are advocates of smaller, less intrusive Establishments and greater freedom for individuals?
Haven’t, if I might use a sign of the times, Left-leaning social media outlets been censoring conservative talk shows, videos, and public tweets? Who by the evidence of the present is really seeking social dominance and authoritarian rule by suppression of dissent? And which group seeks to dominate first by neighborhood riot and then by legislation and mandate? Were summer-long riots in Washington and Oregon that saw firebombs thrown at office buildings housing government officials the acts of Rightists or Leftists?
Any group can have an innate desire to protect its status quo. Those shades of grey or color intensities of extremism do not negate the reality that on the Right and on the Left there are rugged, unyielding individuals that sometimes adopt extremism and violence, and at other times an indifferent neutrality. Put this to a personal test. Do you lean Right or Left? Now, given your leaning, would you participate in acts of random anarchic violence? And if you do lean either way, are you submissive to the will of your side’s oligarchs or dictators? You might upon introspection find that you are a model of a dichotomous world: Sometimes you favor peaceful obedience; at other times, violent defiance. Sometimes you adamantly take a stand for your personal individualism; sometimes you take a stand for some overriding Establishment.
What about article #4? The one about the election of Donald Trump. According to the author, Trump, the “reality-star candidate” won because of “authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.” *******
Now the question becomes one of perspective. Prejudice, for example, against whom? Oh! Right. Anyone not “Right.” And, of course, anyone not “White.” And the reason for the assessment? The early move to ban entrance into the country by those from terror-exporting states and to ban entrance to those bypassing legal entrance through the immigration system, plus the statement widely spread but rarely qualified by the media that on the issue of statues remaining up or taken down, there were “good people” on both sides. The argument was made about decade prior with the Confederate Flag flying on the South Carolina Capitol, a flag erected by southern Democrats and whose continued display was blamed on supposedly prejudiced Republicans. The stereotyping changes with the group in power and, as in Portugal, with the passage of time. The ideology favored by African-Americans at one time slowly shifted. The sins of the KKK were forgotten by the generations that benefitted from Civil Rights supported mostly by the party of Lincoln. So, in an era of a Left-leaning media the executive actions of Trump and his statement about the statues were taken as endorsements of bias and as an affinity for a white-only nation. Professor Thomas Pettigrew of the U. Of California, Santa Cruz, says that these five “social-psychological phenomena” added up to “the unprecedented outcome.” That simplification that the “five social-psychological phenomena” motivated Trump voters says nothing about the alternative candidate and her appeal or lack thereof. What matters to many social psychologists seems to be the stereotype. If you are conservative, you are a right-wing extremist. But then doesn’t the other side of the coin bear the stamp of anarchy, similarly stereotypical, similarly generalized to lump everyone together? Wow! Looks as though we have to choose between two very different groups even though Costello’s study indicates that they are much the same.
The article on Trump’s election declares that “Trump supporters are also characterized by prejudice.” That statement is followed by the mainstream media’s explanations centered on racial bias and xenophobia. Yet, many of those Trump voters were black, Hispanic, and, who knows, people with genetic origins spread throughout the planet. What does Pettigrew have to say about the 28% of Hispanics that voted for Trump or the 6% black males who also voted for him? Were they also “prejudiced”? And were the 48% of “political fence-sitters,” the 13% of “mostly liberal,” and the 2% of “consistently liberal” voters who voted for Trump also prejudiced? Were there no economic concerns during the election cycle, no foreign policy concerns, no intrusive government concerns? Did the American populace choose between an Either and an Or or nuanced concerns?
Are there Right-wing extremists? Sure, just as there are Left-wing extremists. Does either group resort at times to violence? Sure. But what can we learn from these studies about Right, Left, Extremism, and Authoritarianism?
First, the nature of social science research lends itself to errors born of definition. Remember that those Portuguese skinheads evolved from earlier skinheads with an opposite point of view and purpose—yet both groups were lumped together as “skinheads.” Think of Antifa during the recent riots. The stated purpose of the group is anti-Fascism, but all that the group has done could just as easily be designated as the perfect model of Fascism. How did the group’s actions differ from those of Hitler’s brownshirts? And that group that invaded the US Capitol on January 6 is little different. Ostensibly in the name of supporting the Establishment, the group became anarchists seeking to de-establish. And among the mob were people who on an ordinary day would go about business as usual, no thought of anarchy or considering themselves to be anarchists. No encompassing social science explanation hits the complex target of human motivations when it starts with dubious assumptions and questionable definitions. The 162,000,000 people killed under socialist regimes in the twentieth century indicates that authoritarianism and Establishmentarianism make the violence on the Left as brutal as—if not more brutal than—the violence on the Right.
Back and forth we go, Leftist bad, Rightist bad. Leftist extreme; Rightist extreme. I’m reminded of the lyrics by Stealers Wheel, “Clowns to the left of me! Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.” That is, I hope, if you, like me, would prefer less extremism and more moderation, more rationality and less emotion and assumption.
Oh! Almost forgot. I mentioned Empedocles. What could the philosopher have to do with all this? Empedocles modeled the Cosmos on the Four Elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) and on two opposing forces: Love and Strife. Pure love breeds a perfect harmony; pure strife breeds chaos. In the cycle of the universe, Love and Strife contend for dominance. But that’s a simplification of his simplification. When strife dominates, chaos abounds. Think of those riots in Portland and Seattle. Think of any mob violence. When love dominates, the world order is at peace—but without all those interesting individuals that come with mixing. Mixing? The philosopher’s four elements don’t change the way we know that uranium, for example and through radioactive decay, can become lead. They do, however, mix in the eyes of Empedocles to become all the diverse entities in the Cosmos, much the way we think of compounds like salt (NaCL) forming. The mixing of the elements that makes all those separate entities occurs under the dominance of Strife.
So, the world is a bit more interesting place when Strife prevails and a bit more boring when Love prevails; it is also a bit more dangerous. And that’s the nature of the Right-Left extremism that breeds violence first in the name of de-Establishment and then in the name of Establishment. Unity (Love) has, to use a term from radioactive decay, a short half-life. It splinters into disunity. And as in Empedocles’ Cosmic Circle, it fights for new unity.
Along the way—if I may use another philosopher’s ideas—Nietzschean prophets, people like Hitler, rise to proclaim that an historical destiny “to unify” and “to establish” speaks through them. And always the prophecy is that a new world order is just around the bend—if only individuals seeking a unifying authority would yield their individualism in the name of the unreachable Overman, the group’s destiny being more important than the individual’s. The greater cause demands a self-sacrificing suicide bomber. And thus it is in every coup and every election cycle: The crowds of submissive individuals gather on the Left and on the Right, with many determined to sacrifice themselves if not in violence then in loss of personal destiny for some “greater cause.”
Notes:
*Emory University. 10 Sept 2021. Pys.org. Online at https://phys.org/news/2021-09-left-wing-authoritarians-key-psychological-traits.html . See also Thomas H. Costello et al, Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2021). DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000341 Accessed September 11, 2021
**Press Office, U. of Kent. 12 Feb 2019. Online at https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/21131/brexit-as-much-due-to-resistance-to-supranationalism-as-immigration Accessed September 11, 2021.
***Langfitt, Frank. Morning Edition. 9 April 2021. Interview transcript online at https://www.google.com/search?q=Violent+Protests+Over+Brexit+Continue+In+Belfast+-+NPR+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org+%E2%80%BA+2021%2F04%2F09+%E2%80%BA+violent-protests-over-...&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS965US965&oq=Violent+Protests+Over+Brexit+Continue+In+Belfast+-+NPR+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org+%E2%80%BA+2021%2F04%2F09+%E2%80%BA+violent-protests-over-...&aqs=chrome..69i57.2728j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. Accessed September 11, 2021.
****U. Of Birmingham. 16 Jan 2020. Online at https://www.google.com/search?q=Far-right+violence+in+Portugal+draws+strength+from+skinhead+roots%E2%80%94study&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS965US965&oq=Far-right+violence+in+Portugal+draws+strength+from+skinhead+roots%E2%80%94study&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.1409j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Accessed September 11, 2021.
*****Deakin University. 1 Feb 2018. Online at https://www.deakin.edu.au/research/research-news-and-publications/articles/researchers-call-on-science-fiction-to-understand-extremist-psychology Accessed September 11, 2021.
******NYU. 11 Nov 2020. Online at https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/november/conservatives-and-liberals-motivated-by-different-psychological-.html. Accessed September 11, 2021.
*******McNulty, Jennifer. 10 Aug 2017. UC Santa Cruz Newscenter. Online at https://news.ucsc.edu/2017/08/pettigrew-trump.html Accessed September 11, 2021.
The first two decades of the twenty-first century do not differ much from the perceptions of authoritarianism as inimical to the freedom of any group, save the group in charge. At any time of variously motivated civil protests and counterprotests, there has been the potential for violent encounters as those who would unseat an Establishment confront those who would defend it. And apparently, such encounters emerge as anarchists and defenders switch over time and circumstance between Left and Right. Today’s anarchists become tomorrow’s defenders and vice versa. History provides numerous examples, even recent history.
Here are six headlines I found on the Web:
1. Brexit as much due to resistance to supranationalism as immigration
2. Far-right violence in Portugal draws strength from skinhead roots—study
3. Researchers call on science fiction to understand extremist psychology
4. Conservatives and liberals motivated by different psychological factors, new study shows
5. Social psychology sheds light on Trump’s appeal
6. Study: Left-wing authoritarians share key psychological traits with far right
Just a cursory reading of those headlines with no knowledge of the content they introduce reveals that perspectives on who is an “authoritarian” and who is an “anarchist” appear to differ in the minds of social psychologists. And those differing perspectives put the “science” behind social psychology in doubt from my perspective.
In general, the headlines lean toward identifying the Right with extremism more than the Left, the Right with authoritarianism and Establishmentarianism more than the Left, and the Right with dictators and oligarchs more than the Left. And yet both sides have demonstrably shown themselves to take alternating positions of anarchy and oligarchy as the group in power finds itself defending that power against a rebellious group not in power. The rise of both the Nazis and the Soviets, both socialism and Leftism incarnate, reveals the switch anarchists make to become dictatorial Establishmentarians. Certainly, neither the Nazis nor the Soviets had any desire to give up the power and the establishment they acquired through revolution. The pattern repeats throughout history, as just in the last twenty years the Taliban have gone from Afghan Establishment to anarchists to Establishment again. Crazy world, isn’t it? It’s a world in which just about every social, political, and religious movement terminates in its antithesis.
Where’s Empedocles when you need him? Oh! Right. He threw himself into a volcano to prove he was a god. Talk about extremism! Talk about running your immortality into its mortal grave. In that version of his death rumor has it that the locals found his sandal. More on the old philosopher later…
So, let’s begin with the last headline first. Here’s a comment by lead researcher Thomas Costello, as reported at Phys.org: “We found that in terms of their psychological characteristics and their actual behaviors, left-wing authoritarians are extremely similar to authoritarians on the right.” * Costello says that authoritarianism begs power, but ironically, people on the right and on the left will both submit to “people they perceive as authority figures.” I suppose there are many historical and contemporary examples, such as crowds gathered at political conventions, working themselves into a frenzy over their nominees for office.
More importantly, Costello says that being an “authoritarian” is primary; ideology is secondary. Authoritarians adopt an ideology, and that ideology can be extreme on either side of the social, political, and religious spectra. Thus, the difference is the focus that initiates anger and violence: Those on the left are anti-Establishment; those on the right, in contrast, are pro-Establishment—at least, that’s the supposition behind the study. And the focus of violent behavior? One strikes blows to destroy; the other strikes blows to protect. There are, of course exceptions and shades of grey in both Leftist and Rightist movements; extremism comes in degrees or color intensities. And as I just noted by citing the histories of Nazis, Soviets, and Taliban, all such movements bear in them the potential for becoming the opposite of their initial identity. Maybe a more germane example on this twentieth anniversary of 9-11 lies in the shift from the Left’s fearing a dictatorship of the Right to the Right’s fearing a dictatorship of the Left. Who, for example, instituted more “lockdowns,” “mandates,” and restrictions on personal freedom across the world during the pandemic, the Right or the Left? And who is perceived to be anarchist?
Costello states that submissiveness is inextricably tied to both Left and Right authoritarianism. Those people who strap on bomb vests and those who fly planes into buildings to disrupt the Establishment demonstrate their subservience to their favored Establishment and its untouchable leaders—who never choose to strap on bombs or fly planes into buildings because, well, someone has to be left behind to run the show that sacrifices individuals for some “greater cause.”
The back-and-forth political battles over Brexit also fits into an examination of extremist views. According to a study done by the University of Kent, those labeled right-wing authoritarians prefer “cultural traditions and loyalty to national authority…and a desire for group-based dominance and hierarchy in society.” ** Those in favor of Brexit wanted the return of the England they once knew and were imbued with “Euroskepticism” and a desire for the UK to “take back control.” In an interesting mix of anarchy and Establishmentarianism, those in favor opposed the supranational EU Establishment and sought to break its hold on their lives in favor of a return to the historical national Establishment. This switch between objecting to the “transnational authority” and desiring a return of the former national authority is like watching a volley from the sideline stands at Wimbledon. But lest you think all this Brexit stuff had the propriety of a genteel English afternoon tea break, consider, also, this additional headline from NPR: “Violent Protests Over Brexit Continue in Belfast.” *** Yes, people took to the streets over Brexit to break things and hurt others. Brexit, the attempt to de-establish the transnational Establishment and to re-establish the national Establishment engendered anarchy.
Portugal provides an example of people shifting from one establishment to another through anarchy. The breakup of its colonial empire displaced millions and cost maybe as many lives. At one time favoring its multiculturalism, the country took a turn against incoming refugees of late, with “skinheads” from the Far Right trying to “preserve” the country against the influx of immigrants. The authoritarians shifted ideologies from 1974 through the 1980s to the present. They remained authoritarian as Costello explains, but adopted different ideologies. This is the opening line of the article (#2 above) by the University of Birmingham: “Influenced by the international ‘skinhead’ movement from the mid-1980s, current extremists drawn largely from the working classes have turned to violence to ‘protect’ white Portugal and Europe against the ‘threat’ posed by multi-racial and multicultural society.” **** Here’s the irony. The predecessors of the twenty-first century Portuguese “skinheads” were “politically violent organizations aimed at stopping the advance of Communism in Portugal and safeguarding the Portuguese multi-racial and pluri-continental empire” (italics mine]. Yep. The Rightists turned Leftists; the Leftists turned Rightists. And in their recent incarnations, there’s been a strange merger of the ultra-nationalists and the anarchic skinhead cultures.
With regard to authoritarian leanings behind the tendency toward violence, the third headline above leads a story about an experiment. The researchers Matteo Vergani of Deakin University and Ana-Maria Bliuc of Western Sydney University framed the language of articles in ISIS’s “Dabiq” and al-Qaeda’s “Inspire” as a science fiction tale. Vergani says, “ISIS-related mobilisation [sic] requires high levels of authoritarianism and religiousness to counterbalance the high psychological costs on its followers—psychological costs due to the members being aware and supportive of the group’s adoption of extreme violence, especially against other Muslims (which al-Qaeda has criticized).” ***** Participants in the study appear to have favored the more extreme ISIS language if they were more in tune with authoritarianism. Seems that this study backs the conclusion of study #5 by Costello: Authoritarianism underlies the tendency toward submissiveness and anarchic violence.
Is the jury in? Do we have Leftists and Rightists pinned like moths on display? Do we know which side is more violent, which more capable of extreme behavior? If there is a problem in almost every social science study, that problem is rooted in its authors’
assumptions. What might you infer from this statement in article #4?
"The motivational basis of conservative preferences for “binding” intuitions has for years been assumed to be independent of needs to reduce uncertainty and threat and to represent a broad, prosocial sense of morality. However, the new findings in PLOS ONE indicate that the endorsement of 'binding foundations' is linked to the very same motives associated with many other conservative preferences, including authoritarianism, social dominance, system justification, and underlying psychological needs to reduce uncertainty and threat." ******
Whoa! Just a minute there, Mr. Social Psychologist and Mr. Social Scientist. What does one do with the conservative and Jeffersonian mantra that “that government is best that governs least”—is that the mantra of system justification and a desire for reduced uncertainty? Does the statement in the PLOS ONE article rely on the assumption that a conservative stress on individualism is a cry for social dominance? Or is it the manifestation of a psychological projection by social scientists who themselves lean Left? Could one not just as easily argue that those in favor of smaller government are advocates of smaller, less intrusive Establishments and greater freedom for individuals?
Haven’t, if I might use a sign of the times, Left-leaning social media outlets been censoring conservative talk shows, videos, and public tweets? Who by the evidence of the present is really seeking social dominance and authoritarian rule by suppression of dissent? And which group seeks to dominate first by neighborhood riot and then by legislation and mandate? Were summer-long riots in Washington and Oregon that saw firebombs thrown at office buildings housing government officials the acts of Rightists or Leftists?
Any group can have an innate desire to protect its status quo. Those shades of grey or color intensities of extremism do not negate the reality that on the Right and on the Left there are rugged, unyielding individuals that sometimes adopt extremism and violence, and at other times an indifferent neutrality. Put this to a personal test. Do you lean Right or Left? Now, given your leaning, would you participate in acts of random anarchic violence? And if you do lean either way, are you submissive to the will of your side’s oligarchs or dictators? You might upon introspection find that you are a model of a dichotomous world: Sometimes you favor peaceful obedience; at other times, violent defiance. Sometimes you adamantly take a stand for your personal individualism; sometimes you take a stand for some overriding Establishment.
What about article #4? The one about the election of Donald Trump. According to the author, Trump, the “reality-star candidate” won because of “authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.” *******
Now the question becomes one of perspective. Prejudice, for example, against whom? Oh! Right. Anyone not “Right.” And, of course, anyone not “White.” And the reason for the assessment? The early move to ban entrance into the country by those from terror-exporting states and to ban entrance to those bypassing legal entrance through the immigration system, plus the statement widely spread but rarely qualified by the media that on the issue of statues remaining up or taken down, there were “good people” on both sides. The argument was made about decade prior with the Confederate Flag flying on the South Carolina Capitol, a flag erected by southern Democrats and whose continued display was blamed on supposedly prejudiced Republicans. The stereotyping changes with the group in power and, as in Portugal, with the passage of time. The ideology favored by African-Americans at one time slowly shifted. The sins of the KKK were forgotten by the generations that benefitted from Civil Rights supported mostly by the party of Lincoln. So, in an era of a Left-leaning media the executive actions of Trump and his statement about the statues were taken as endorsements of bias and as an affinity for a white-only nation. Professor Thomas Pettigrew of the U. Of California, Santa Cruz, says that these five “social-psychological phenomena” added up to “the unprecedented outcome.” That simplification that the “five social-psychological phenomena” motivated Trump voters says nothing about the alternative candidate and her appeal or lack thereof. What matters to many social psychologists seems to be the stereotype. If you are conservative, you are a right-wing extremist. But then doesn’t the other side of the coin bear the stamp of anarchy, similarly stereotypical, similarly generalized to lump everyone together? Wow! Looks as though we have to choose between two very different groups even though Costello’s study indicates that they are much the same.
The article on Trump’s election declares that “Trump supporters are also characterized by prejudice.” That statement is followed by the mainstream media’s explanations centered on racial bias and xenophobia. Yet, many of those Trump voters were black, Hispanic, and, who knows, people with genetic origins spread throughout the planet. What does Pettigrew have to say about the 28% of Hispanics that voted for Trump or the 6% black males who also voted for him? Were they also “prejudiced”? And were the 48% of “political fence-sitters,” the 13% of “mostly liberal,” and the 2% of “consistently liberal” voters who voted for Trump also prejudiced? Were there no economic concerns during the election cycle, no foreign policy concerns, no intrusive government concerns? Did the American populace choose between an Either and an Or or nuanced concerns?
Are there Right-wing extremists? Sure, just as there are Left-wing extremists. Does either group resort at times to violence? Sure. But what can we learn from these studies about Right, Left, Extremism, and Authoritarianism?
First, the nature of social science research lends itself to errors born of definition. Remember that those Portuguese skinheads evolved from earlier skinheads with an opposite point of view and purpose—yet both groups were lumped together as “skinheads.” Think of Antifa during the recent riots. The stated purpose of the group is anti-Fascism, but all that the group has done could just as easily be designated as the perfect model of Fascism. How did the group’s actions differ from those of Hitler’s brownshirts? And that group that invaded the US Capitol on January 6 is little different. Ostensibly in the name of supporting the Establishment, the group became anarchists seeking to de-establish. And among the mob were people who on an ordinary day would go about business as usual, no thought of anarchy or considering themselves to be anarchists. No encompassing social science explanation hits the complex target of human motivations when it starts with dubious assumptions and questionable definitions. The 162,000,000 people killed under socialist regimes in the twentieth century indicates that authoritarianism and Establishmentarianism make the violence on the Left as brutal as—if not more brutal than—the violence on the Right.
Back and forth we go, Leftist bad, Rightist bad. Leftist extreme; Rightist extreme. I’m reminded of the lyrics by Stealers Wheel, “Clowns to the left of me! Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.” That is, I hope, if you, like me, would prefer less extremism and more moderation, more rationality and less emotion and assumption.
Oh! Almost forgot. I mentioned Empedocles. What could the philosopher have to do with all this? Empedocles modeled the Cosmos on the Four Elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) and on two opposing forces: Love and Strife. Pure love breeds a perfect harmony; pure strife breeds chaos. In the cycle of the universe, Love and Strife contend for dominance. But that’s a simplification of his simplification. When strife dominates, chaos abounds. Think of those riots in Portland and Seattle. Think of any mob violence. When love dominates, the world order is at peace—but without all those interesting individuals that come with mixing. Mixing? The philosopher’s four elements don’t change the way we know that uranium, for example and through radioactive decay, can become lead. They do, however, mix in the eyes of Empedocles to become all the diverse entities in the Cosmos, much the way we think of compounds like salt (NaCL) forming. The mixing of the elements that makes all those separate entities occurs under the dominance of Strife.
So, the world is a bit more interesting place when Strife prevails and a bit more boring when Love prevails; it is also a bit more dangerous. And that’s the nature of the Right-Left extremism that breeds violence first in the name of de-Establishment and then in the name of Establishment. Unity (Love) has, to use a term from radioactive decay, a short half-life. It splinters into disunity. And as in Empedocles’ Cosmic Circle, it fights for new unity.
Along the way—if I may use another philosopher’s ideas—Nietzschean prophets, people like Hitler, rise to proclaim that an historical destiny “to unify” and “to establish” speaks through them. And always the prophecy is that a new world order is just around the bend—if only individuals seeking a unifying authority would yield their individualism in the name of the unreachable Overman, the group’s destiny being more important than the individual’s. The greater cause demands a self-sacrificing suicide bomber. And thus it is in every coup and every election cycle: The crowds of submissive individuals gather on the Left and on the Right, with many determined to sacrifice themselves if not in violence then in loss of personal destiny for some “greater cause.”
Notes:
*Emory University. 10 Sept 2021. Pys.org. Online at https://phys.org/news/2021-09-left-wing-authoritarians-key-psychological-traits.html . See also Thomas H. Costello et al, Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2021). DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000341 Accessed September 11, 2021
**Press Office, U. of Kent. 12 Feb 2019. Online at https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/21131/brexit-as-much-due-to-resistance-to-supranationalism-as-immigration Accessed September 11, 2021.
***Langfitt, Frank. Morning Edition. 9 April 2021. Interview transcript online at https://www.google.com/search?q=Violent+Protests+Over+Brexit+Continue+In+Belfast+-+NPR+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org+%E2%80%BA+2021%2F04%2F09+%E2%80%BA+violent-protests-over-...&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS965US965&oq=Violent+Protests+Over+Brexit+Continue+In+Belfast+-+NPR+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org+%E2%80%BA+2021%2F04%2F09+%E2%80%BA+violent-protests-over-...&aqs=chrome..69i57.2728j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. Accessed September 11, 2021.
****U. Of Birmingham. 16 Jan 2020. Online at https://www.google.com/search?q=Far-right+violence+in+Portugal+draws+strength+from+skinhead+roots%E2%80%94study&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS965US965&oq=Far-right+violence+in+Portugal+draws+strength+from+skinhead+roots%E2%80%94study&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.1409j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Accessed September 11, 2021.
*****Deakin University. 1 Feb 2018. Online at https://www.deakin.edu.au/research/research-news-and-publications/articles/researchers-call-on-science-fiction-to-understand-extremist-psychology Accessed September 11, 2021.
******NYU. 11 Nov 2020. Online at https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/november/conservatives-and-liberals-motivated-by-different-psychological-.html. Accessed September 11, 2021.
*******McNulty, Jennifer. 10 Aug 2017. UC Santa Cruz Newscenter. Online at https://news.ucsc.edu/2017/08/pettigrew-trump.html Accessed September 11, 2021.
RSS Feed