So, I've been working on hatching a theoretical structure to address the quandary of MAGA for a long time. I think it is almost impossible to combat it unless one can identify grasp the causal factors of the eruption of a mass psychosis. This is going to be a really long thread and I'm developing it slowly. Please feel free to mute me if this irritates you - I'm thinking aloud here. And most of my ideas aren't original, I'm just sometimes gathering them together in novel ways. #musings
Yesterday I made a series of posts on the paradox of authority within a society. That while authority often fails, it must operate on the falsehood that it doesn't. In essence, I argue that hypocrisy is essential to an organized culture. Now I know I will lose the anarchists among you, and there's no fix for that, but I will argue that, with few exceptions, civil societies require a hierarchy of authority to function, and this is probably due to our experience of familial structures. #musings
The human infant is born, by mammalian standards, prematurely and requires extraordinary levels of protection and instruction. We have parental figures both as carers but also 'law-givers' who teach us the rules of the road, so to speak; what to expect in our interactions with others. This creates an internal and broadly shared series of expectations that allow us to make sense of our reality, even when there are radical divergences from this expected order or sequence #musings
Our relationship to these figures who, in effect, teach us a patterns that designate coherence, of expectations of sequence and consequence... this model of relationship persists. Even if it fails, we measure our relations with the world in accordance with how much or little it resembles the first figures of authority we encounter. We are taught principles of fairness and honesty from very young, and they persist and colour our response to unfairness and dishonesty even in adulthood. #musings
And even from very early on, we notice failures of fairness or honesty - in our own parental figures. But we also notice that there is an attempt to hide those failures. That drive to hide the failure actually underscores the value of the principles even as they are transgressed.
As humans we are very tolerant of disappointment, as long as it is acknowledged that a failure has occurred, that a mark has been missed, that a law has been transgressed. #musings
What is far more cognitively problematic is when the transgression is no longer acknowledged as a deviation from the norm, but reformulated beyond the parameters of principles or laws or morality. Consider that even the term outlaw contains the word 'law' in it. An outlaw is measures by how far from the law he has strayed. But the concept of law is still the referent here. The coherence here is that 'law' is the pole star and 'out' describes its distance from it. #musings
I am going to use the metaphor of a substance-addicted parent, which may be disturbing but will be apt later, as I develop this train of thought. An alcoholic parent can be absolutely traumatic to a child, but inherent in that relationship, at moments, will be a sense of shame on the part of the parent (if they still call themselves a parent) because inherent in the concept of parent is the idea of a carer. In this case, a figure who fails to be caring, and often evinces shame about it #musings
That shame, in a moment of sobriety, that acknowledgement of not being a 'good parent' in a moment of clarity, reinforces the principle that parents in general, are caring and should be. So even failures reinforce the association of authority with caring and fairness.
I'm going to move on, taking the model of expectations of how those who possess authority should behave and that, even when they fail to meet our expectations, their attempts to hide or deny it still reinforce an ideal #musings
History haunts us with the specters of catastrophic leaders. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Of ideologies that were used to excuse barbaric atrocity. But history has grappled far less with why such a mass of their citizens willingly participated, tolerated or were ambivalent to the horrors of their actions over long periods of time. Historians have attributed their collaboration to ideology also. But I do not find this satisfying. #musings
And with the rise of leaders like Trump or Johnson or Putin, that rationale of ideology really fails. These men have no ideology, unless one can conceive of greed as an ideology (which is a concept I'm prepared to entertain). I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler or Mao in terms of historic catastrophe, but in terms of the effects he has on his followers. I simply don't believe ideology accounts for this. #musings
@Remittancegirl
Have you read Umberto Eco on fascism? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism His point is that fascism isn't an ideology, its more like a collection of attitudes flying in close formation and reinforcing each other. So fascism doesn't have a fixed view of e.g. the relationship between the state and the production of goods. It also rejects reasoning, evidence and logic as ways to decide such things.
So basically "rule by emotion". Then we can ignore rationality, science, etc. and decide based on what "feels right". And of course dear leader knows what we feel better than we do.
@Remittancegirl I think in large part it’s because Trump is an Emperor (or, if you prefer, a kind of god-king). He’s the source from which all authority and legitimacy flows, and thus it’s not possible for him to do anything wrong as he’s the definer of what is “right”.
Which is frankly hard for me to wrap my head around, but six or eight thousand years of world history do seem to make clear that a huge number of people work like this.
@Remittancegirl maybe? It seems more all encompassing than primal paternalism, but I am not particularly learned in myths and myth patterns. (It’s also possible I had a healthier relationship with my father and am just not aware of common issues there)
@Lizette603_23 these particular social structures predate hitler by millennia. Which isn’t to say he didn’t steal them from hitler (trump is, if nothing else, profoundly incurious and unlikely to look very far for anything) but there is a long, long history of this kind of collective behavior all across the world, in many societies, and in many time periods.
@wordshaper Yes, Dan. I'm speaking to folks on the internet though, so I don't assume they are aware of more than the average person lolol Perhaps a mistake on my part.
@Remittancegirl I always connected a fascism-susceptible mindset with a need to somehow feel “better than“ or “superior to” someone else in a way that allows you to completely eviscerate in yourself all compassion for that “other”. That would also explain why this mindset is so often linked to experiences of humiliation where the person felt or was meant to feel “less than” or inferior to” themselves. Not sure that it needs any particular ideology other than this need.
Moreover, ideology - the compromise of morality in the service of a greater good - provided a coherent (if entirely unacceptable) excuse for obedience in many cases.
My sense is that something has changed in a fairly profound way. When it comes to Trump, while those outside the MAGA movement might perceive him as an obscene transgressor, those within it don't. For them, he isn't a leader with flaws, he is a leader beyond where flaws are measured. He is an authority beyond law. #musings
Have you read Altermeyer's book The Authoritarians? You're coming quite close to some of what he wrote; and his work was based on psychology experimentation.
Altermeyer is an old man but still alive, and came out of the woodwork to make his book available for free online when Trump won, because fuck Trump.
It has unhelpful terminology (he uses the phrases "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" in ways unconnected to their normal political usage) but I think you're describing what he would call a Right-wing Authoritarian, or an "authoritarian leader."
@passenger Yes, I have. It's excellent. But I believe he really began to settle on a genetic disposition for authoritarians, and I'm not sure I buy that. But yes... masterpiece.
Ah, that's an interesting analysis. My takeaway was a cultural one: that authoritarianism arises from education and family structure early in life. I might be wrong.
Sorry to have quoted old white guy at you when you were musing.
@Remittancegirl@passenger for me the law doesn't need to derive from authority - i think that is hobbesian at it's core, perjurious to nature - but from life itself, where concepts like 'enough' don't even need language to be readiy understood.
It is the law in Florida, for example, that trans students may not play sports as their real gender. If a school violates this law then its sports teachers can be imprisoned. I'm not sure how this comes from life, but I can absolutely tell you how it comes from power.
I want to pause right there - an authority beyond law. I want to point out that the phrase itself is incoherent because the concept of authority has at its core the concept of law. Beyond the law... authority cannot exist. And so we've arrived at what I feel is a profound incoherence that begins to reach at an explanation of why, from the outside, MAGA looks like mass psychosis.
It may very well be. The links that build meaning have been destroyed. #musings
I'm going to stop here for today. I want to develop the linguistic framing further, and see where I get. I'd like to find some apt metaphors to flesh out my ideas, but I've quotidian stuff to do. #musings
@Remittancegirl I agree that it's very useful to root the authoritarian personality in family experience. The abusive father who must be fawned to is a strong model that pushes the buttons of lots of MAGA followers and similar political adherents.
@Remittancegirl MAGA followers seem to vote for Trump as a way to give the finger to the authorities in power because their lives lack the outcomes they thought they would have by now.
What Trump says or does makes little difference to them because they mainly see their only choice is a protest vote. You can frame that as a rage against authority or the system if you like.
It can fill a surface-level explanation layer, of what they talk about casually in conversation.
But there has to be an underlying trust somewhere. People aren’t purely logical, in fact I would argue we’re only logical on the surface, but driven by primal drives for the most.
There has to be a component satisfying the limbic system, the pack-animal’s instinctive reasoning. 🤔
Otherwise, our DNA could not have produced this large amount of people who would ”just be f*****g with us”. It would be at odds with how the species survives.
If anything, going against the grain is liberal trait, not conservative.
The ”owning” could be caricature. Of what conservatives feel like when they are intellectually owned and outmanouvered by libs.
@gimulnautti@EverMama8_ I’m not so interested in what they think or ‘libs’ or members of whatever race they’ve decided not to like. That’s always imaginary. But what does this address in them.
@gimulnautti@EverMama8_ I guess what I’m trying to say is that this hostility towards an imaginary enemy is a symptom, but what’s the cause of the disease?
@Remittancegirl@EverMama8_ Some neuroscientists during the past 10 years have uncovered evidence that it might be (part) physiological.
Differences in both brain activation and physical tissue dimensions have a statistically significant correlation with political ideology on the liberal/conservative axis.
I presented a view that a fundamental difference in the phenomenological basis of experiencing life itself could exist here:
@Remittancegirl@EverMama8_ The amount of studies on the topic is large enough to certainly validate that. This meta-study combines data from more than 100.
Whether the difference is genetic, we don’t know yet. It could also be that the brain’s growth is influenced by environmental factors in a way that results in a physical difference later on in life.
Evolutionary psychology has however also suggested there might be a hereditary link.
@Remittancegirl@EverMama8_ Just by chance I happened to listen to Dax-Devlon Ross this morning, and he makes some very perceptive observations about the self-observed realities that go on in anti-progressive spaces.
@Remittancegirl I have a sense that we're partly blinded to what Trump is because we come from a predominantly monotheistic culture: Trump is an Imperial figure in the Roman sense, human but also a god, who is therefore automatically and always right. (His Christian Dominionist following obscures this, but Christianity originally spread via the Roman empire and has tools for accommodating a god-emperor, so ...)
@cstross@Remittancegirl If you grew up in an authoritarian household, like I and other ex-Fundy/ex-Vangelicals did, it's not incoherent. It's just, what the ruler says or does is what we agree with. It is the law. What others outside the walls think of that is irrelevant, lawless, even profane. Worldly laws do not matter in the slightest, other than maybe incurring unavoidable worldly consequences at times. You say whatever you have to to get along with outsiders in the moment. It's that simple
@_L1vY_@cstross I think it is both simple and complex. Because what that doesn't answer is why - what fundamental need is being served? That is what intrigues me.
And it may be that for you, with your experience, this feels simple. But I am ignorant and so for me, it doesn't seem simple at all.
@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross If when you are a child and when you do not act that way, if every time you are not normal, you are beaten, starved, isolated, and damaged, you either die or you turn into an adult who has an unconsidered axiom that you have to be normal. You may not be able to articulate why; you a probably extremely uncomfortable asking the question. But all your behaviour is constrained by a belief that anything can, must, and will be done to those who are not normal.
@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross It's a mistake to look for philosophical reasons, and it's a mistake to imagine there's some immutable nature that produces these outcomes.
It's a specific pattern of systematic abuse, it's very simple, and it self-perpetuates in generational time. There's a massive strangling cloak of rationalizations explaining why it's inevitable or necessary or actually good, but the thing is the creation of its own pattern of abuse and nothing more complicated than that.
@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross And you can see the freakout from the far right as the civil power imperfectly and feebly starts to articulate norms and language that would forbid the abuse. It is, from their perspective, an existential threat.
@_L1vY_@graydon@Remittancegirl@cstross This is why they are dismantling anti-bullying measures in schools. There are a lot of reasons but partly because it makes it harder for conservatives to abuse their own kids or other people’s kids without the kids recognizing what’s happening.
@graydon
That sounds true - but what's the motivation for starting this cycle of abuse in the first place? Why punish individuality/diversity so harshly in the first place? Why not just let people be? I don't think I understand the motivation? @Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross
@duncanlock There is no identifiable "start', the cycle is as self-perpetuating as language, and has been going on for thousands of years. It's simply a mode for organizing human societies through systematic brutality—one many of us have come to consciously reject over the past century or so. People enculturated in it are effectively brainwashed into not recognizing alternatives as viable, and perpetuate it in self-defense.
@duncanlock@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross Somewhere back in the neolithic, the desire to have more parties—sedentary agriculture to provide reliable beer ingredients—tips population and population density thresholds. It becomes possible to, and someone does, invent armies. Armies invent kings; kings maximize their return by making the army out of those for which there is no other use. The kings invent "women, cattle, and slaves" to pay the army, and priests, to explain why this is good.
@graydon@duncanlock@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_ Also, "army" back then subsumes "law enforcement" (ie. suppressing revolt against the god-king ordained natural order). Money to pay the army and tax to recover the army's pay from the peasants (who are compelled to take soldiers' cash in return for food) follows, bootstrapping what today we call an economy. Money in circulation gets diverted to pay for other things: "women, cattle, and slaves".
@duncanlock@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross Many people's alternatives collapse into "obedience or death" systems where the selective pressure operating greatly favours obedience over anything else. Human self-domestication has picked up a cull-on-error system, and it's simpler (and thus more likely to be copied) than anything else. None of the selective processes know or care that it's terrible for the people involved.
@duncanlock@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross "Human rights" as ideas are the product of industrial modes of production creating conditions in which you need to put nearly all the military age males into rifle regiments to exercise power. That changes the selection pressure; the Great War murders kings.
What we've got now is a reactionary priestly insurrection to return the economy to conditions under which no one questions "women, cattle, and slaves". People must be poor to accept a king.
@graydon@duncanlock@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_@cstross There's not that much evidence for that, frankly. Check out Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything. Lots of evidence of large, city building civs with no evidence at all of military or hierarchies. The Strong Leader thing is by no means universal.
@pdcawley@graydon@duncanlock@Remittancegirl@_L1vY_ It may not have formerly been universal, but it universalized itself as a model: as Graydon notes, the only real defense against an army is another army.
@Remittancegirl One of the attitudes that Eco writes about is "contempt for the weak". As long as Trump's transgressions are against the weak, he is seen as strong, and therefore good. So his transgressions reinforce his followers' belief in him rather than the reverse.
If you check Eco's list against Trumpism you can tick off almost all (the exception is eternal war, but that's probably just a matter of time). Trumpism is fascism.
@Remittancegirl Gonna jump in and comment in-line. Hope thats OK.
I agree modern society needs organisation, and some needs to be hierarchical. But I see that as driven by the complexity of society and the tech that supports it. The shape and nature of the hierarchy is down to our monkey brains, including parental patterns as you say, but the basic requirement comes from elsewhere.
Non-hierarchical ways to organise soc are interesting. Capitalism seems to be the only successful one so far.
Add comment