How the Authoritarian Desire is Fueled by a Fundamentalist Psychology
We really don't like being wrong
Every time I think the silly season of American politics is just that, a season, I’m reminded by experience that silliness will not be kept in a box. If silliness were Schrodinger’s cat, it would happily leap out of the box and declare that it’s undead, gleefully destroying the original binary question.
As Damon Linker correctly notes:
As we in America inaugurate another President in a long line of those who have expanded the power of the Executive at the behest of their particular set of civic followers, one side or the other in a polarized country will either be apoplectic in despair or happiness, depending on whether they identify dear-leader as despot or savior. It’s a four or eight-year cycle that got old a long time ago, but here we are again, wondering if socialism or fascism, depending on your personal boogeyman, will get ushered in.
Regardless of one's ideological side, the complex nature of national and, for that matter, personal problems will not be solved by a savior, of whatever nature they may be. At the heart of this desire is a giving over of oneself to a mission, a group, or a way of thinking, such that the difficulties of dealing with reality’s uncertainties are removed, or at least mitigated. Politics is just one example where the subjugation of the self to the crowd is seen as a legitimate practice. There are many other examples, though, including being a fan/watcher of sports and involvement in various forms of religious practice. Notice that the commonality is that of being set apart, of feeling being on the outside, and through particular actions (cheering, yelling at the TV, prayer, and volunteering) being let inside and becoming part of the process for change.
This striving for salvation, to have the obstacles removed from one’s aspirations, and doing so through the abdication of one’s individuality is a central psychological process leading to the acquiescence of authoritarianism. That such is considered good is labeled as such so long as the authority is good for you.
As Erich Fromm noted in “Escape from Freedom”:
The annihilation of the individual self and the attempt to overcome thereby the unbearable feeling of powerlessness are only one side of the masochistic strivings. The other side is the attempt to become a part of a bigger and more powerful whole outside of oneself, to submerge and participate in it. (p. 177)
The annihilation of the self in order to, in theory, elevate and empower one’s individual desires is undoubtedly impossible in practice or outcome, but that doesn’t stop us from attempting to do so. When faced with the inevitable reality that authority, once instantiated, has its own desires to pursue, we come up with all sorts of stories to make things make sense to us. From the “entrenched interests” in politics getting in the way of dear leader to the “mysterious ways” of deity when our wishes aren’t granted, we continue to remove ourselves from the equation and avoid acknowledging that our desires just aren’t always going to be met, and for any change to occur in society, it is far more likely to be difficult and incremental than easy and automatic.
“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” ― Lewis Carroll
The Impulse towards Fundamentalism
Finding humor in the notion of impossible thoughts is seen in our refusal to consider any of our own thoughts as belonging there. Why, of course, someone else might think the impossible, but not me, says the self-assured mind of every human being. This time, the authority that is completely removed from us will listen and remember we exist. This time, the ref or player will hear our shouted wisdom and obey. This time, the person for whom we’d never vote and who is dedicated to keeping their own power will pay attention to our protest.
Rather than facing the fact that the influence we have on reality will never match the egoistic hubris we aspire to and avoiding the negative outcomes of our impulse to give over what little power we have to various forms of authority, we double down on the belief in the power of our thoughts. That process is what I refer to as the psychological form of fundamentalism.
We are dedicated to our picture of reality, shaping through our actions the contours of what we consider to be right, true, and correct. A host of cognitive biases help us avoid facts that don’t fit, set boundaries around what questions we may ask, and make all kinds of errors in reasoning that keep at bay the anxiety caused by uncertainty.
The depth to which we rely on our sense of being right and our belief that the vision of reality we hold is wholly accurate cannot be overstated. Consider for a moment when you found out you were wrong about something important, that sense of being off-balance and the gut-wrenching concern over what else you may have mistaken. For most of us that experience is short-lived, our minds eagerly move on to what is more basic to human experience, that of feeling right, even if it is feeling right about having been wrong.
The road of the impossible provides us the space to avoid all that seemingly unnecessary struggle. Fundamentalism, contrary to its solely associated with religious ideologies, is, at heart, the projection forward of one’s desired future. It is a declaration that such and such will or must be true, regardless of, or perhaps even specifically in the face of, competing information and experience. Fundamentalism is an anxiety binder, a way of shunting aside uncertainty and all the accompanying work it takes to stand amidst the rapids of life.
As Ephesians 4:14 (KJV) says:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…
Fundamentalism is our bulwark against the perceived aggression of a broader reality that actively reminds us that our perspective is never large enough to capture all possibilities. It is a tool each person utilizes with every realization that what we believe may not be so. The anxiety, often referred to as cognitive dissonance, is found at the point of tension between what we think and what part of an experience doesn’t fit. That feeling of incense, of affront, is as if reality is transgressing our boundaries in a fit of aggression. As Samuels notes:
"In its avoidance of difference and diversity, in its turning its back on tolerance, fundamentalism is actually terrified of aggression. In fact, fundamentalism seeks to manage aggression out of existence." (Samuels, 2005)
Contrary to the picture of the fundamentalist, particularly the religious kind, being a gun or flag-waving belligerent, the outward display is often far more subtle. Cutting off people who disagree on an opinion, demanding ideological purity in politics, and, as seems to be all the rage these days, leaving one social media app for another that is simply a different form of ideological silo, are all the actions to avoid the aggression of things that don’t fit the projected futures of our constructed thoughts. The verbalized result is most often seen whenever someone begins a point by noting, “Well, all the people/posts I see…” as if their personal experience is not only all that matters but is all that could matter.
The Road to the Authoritarian
However, since reality continues to not adhere to our wishes, the fundamentalist impulse, in its avoidance of conflict, will lead to the support of authoritarian empowerment. We are expressing a deep-seated need for the world to no longer be pushing against the boundaries we’ve set up. Let's face it: if the world completely and utterly conformed to our every whim, there would never be a perceived need to do anything by force. It is precisely because the world and every person in it exists in varying degrees of freedom that some form of force is committed to being used, though always with the hope of eventually creating a world where nothing ever steps outside the constraints of our perspective.
"Fundamentalism offers fundamentalists a chance to avoid the knock-on effects of an encounter with social, cultural and political differences. The fundamentalist self is thereby protected from inner and outer experiences of conflict and aggression within the self. Aggressive rhetoric and pronouncements made by fundamentalist leaders are not the same as the ordinary reciprocal aggression engendered by a real and mutually enhancing meeting with someone or something strange and new… Such pronouncements construct a perimeter within which aggression does not show itself." (Samuels, 2005)
Whether we use it to some degree or are fascinated by someone else’s wrapping themselves in it, the enticement of the fundamentalism-authoritarian path is universal. Make no mistake, dogmatism-fundamentalism is not itself constrained by ideology. It is not a force found only in religious circles or despot-leaning political ideologies.
When we encounter something that doesn't fit neatly in our picture of the world, that initial internal pushback is fundamentalism's sweet voice. Our avoidance is concerned with not wanting to deal with the aggression of a reality bigger than any of us. When labeling a person to dismiss them, it is fundamentalism making barriers. When calling someone ‘emotional,’ it is fundamentalism removing the potential for dialogue. What differentiates a 'true believer' from a 'false' one, a “real” adherent to a group label from a fake, becomes a way of establishing the echo chambers of personal security. Declaring our personal lived experience sacrosanct and incapable of being criticized is the attempt to limit reality to the confines of what we consider right.
The Road Less Traveled
To escape from freedom is an avoidance of uncertainty. The lure of fundamentalist thinking is one we are all prone to, and it is insidious precisely because the end result of feeling right is so fundamental to how we live day to day. We do not act on false beliefs, and behavior is predicated on the hoped-for truth of the present collapsing into the next moment of the immediate future. But that future is, thankfully, a whole lot bigger than you and me. That broad expanse is where possibility resides. Sure, not all the futures may be what we desire, but they may also fulfill us in ways we never considered previously.
Uncertainty is the birthing place of both anxiety and hope.
References:
Samuels, A. (2005). Fundamentalism - Its Appeal to “Them” and Fascination for “Us.” Psychology, 20(4),