Hopefully it has been made abundantly, painstakingly clear that this multidisciplinary exploration of authoritarian thought and behavior is in no way an indictment of those with that predisposition. The psychology of Altemeyer, cognitive science of Lakoff, psychoanalysis of Fromm, philosophy of Hoffer, neuroscience of Hibbing and Montague illuminate not only authoritarians but persons of all sociopolitical predispositions by firmly entrenching the predispositions themselves in the fertile grounds of those disciplines. When we pick up on the fact that how we think and feel and act emerges from a natural, biological place, rather than a mystical moral mish-mash, we can easily see that we all emerge from that place, whatever our biases and preferences.
Put another way, if we argue that conservative Republicans think the way they do because of their brains naturally take them there (at least in part), then we have to accept that the same is true of progressive Democrats. And moderates. And Libertarians. Even anarchists.
We can demonstrate this across-the-board framework by breaking down the two extremes – the conservative Republican and the progressive Democrat – into the same layers: Rhetorical (William F. Buckley, Paul Krugman), Psychological (Robert Altemeyer, George Lakoff), and Neurophysiological (John Hibbing, Reed Montague)…
The Rhetorical Layer
“I am a conservative Republican because [I believe in a strong national defense; I do not believe in change for its own sake].”
The Psychological Layer
“I am a conservative Republican because [I find emotional comfort in relying on someone else to make sense of the world for me; I am wary of people who are clearly different from me].”
The Psychological Layer
“I am a conservative Republican because [I have more tissue in the right lobe of my amygdala than most people do, and less tissue in my insula and anterior cingulate cortex].”
Now let’s do the same with a progressive Democrat:
The Rhetorical Layer
“I am a progressive Democrat because [I prefer that my group or community make decisions by consensus; I believe that society should take responsibility for and defend the interests of the poor and minority-bound].”
The Psychological Layer
“I am a progressive Democrat because [I like to explore, and am even a risk-taker; I am emotionally wary of powerful people].”
The Psychological Layer
“I am a progressive Democrat because [I have less tissue in the right lobe of my amygdala than most people do, and more tissue in my insula and anterior cingulate cortex].”
Is it really this simple? Of course it isn’t. While a person’s neurological profile is certainly a part of why they think the way they do, it’s only a part; upbringing, life experience, social influences, and the state of the world all play a role as well. It is not uncommon, for instance, for a person’s sociopolitical biases to be upended entirely by a new life partner, or relocation to a new part of the world.
As the layered view above demonstrates, however, an individual’s personal neurophysiology sets the initial direction and eventual boundaries of the evolution of their worldview, and the on-going drift of their social and political affectation. We can see it in the genes: most of the children parented by two parents of the same worldview will share their parents’ worldview, and it can’t be explained by upbringing alone; identical twins separated at birth, raised in different families, likewise tend to have the same social and political biases.
It also explains the “black sheep” that are sometimes seen in families that are otherwise ideologically in step: three kids share Mom and Dad’s worldview, while one leans the opposite direction, even though all four kids were raised the same way in the same place – just as one kid can have green eyes while the others all have blue eyes.
This even applies to the social dominator, whose lack of empathy has the same neurophysiological origins and the same genetic linkage.
This isn’t to say that authoritarianism shouldn’t be the focus of this and other discussions. Whatever the origins of that worldview, and whatever the ultimate value of its emotional underpinnings, it is still – in the context of the world we’ve built – a danger to democracy, freedom, personal liberty, the rights (and even safety) of others, and a path to economic catastrophe. Understanding authoritarianism doesn’t make it any less dangerous or disturbing.
But understanding authoritarians is something else entirely; it can open the door to greater empathy, a broader perspective, and a less contentious and confrontation response in dealing with the rhetoric and behavior they present. It can move us beyond resistance (not that we shouldn’t resist) to a more aggressive and measured focus on long-term solutions and protections for society.
Comments