America Needs Couples Therapy (Part Two): Psychological Perspectives
The Current Predicament
Political polarization is nothing new for society. Humans have always been politically liberal/conservative, risk-tolerant/risk-averse, and spontaneous/calculated. What feels unique, and has been observed by many, is that fragmentation and division have increased, recognizable by average citizens and our elected officials' lack of acknowledging and validating the arguments of the opposing side's perspective. In essence, we haven't been living in a bipartisan era. Discourse seems to have intensified to the degree that merely expressing an opinion feels like social or career suicide.
While this is not a new phenomenon, it is new to us. Just as the pandemic was new to us, earlier generations of people have been exposed to the same fear of contagion, media hysterics, and residual physiological and psychological impacts of such periods.
This begs the question, with the gap of civil discourse widening, leaving little room for consensus, how did we get to this place? Also, what does it take to find and reclaim some common ground with space for civil discourse? In this article, I examine how we became more polarized, what this does to our psychological well-being, and how we might return to a place that might feel more mutually agreeable.
In the first part of this series, I look at several ideas, including American enlightenment ideals and historical cycles theories, to examine historical perspectives.
Psychological Perspectives
Populism is an ideology of the lower classes who pit themselves against the "elite" through the elevation of specific needs or desires. Often it is of monetary concerns, particularly surrounding income inequality and inequality of capital ownership, through which populist rhetoric arises. Furthermore, it is characterized by an intense fear of being left behind and a sense of decreased autonomy—evoking tribalistic tendencies among the general population and elected officials.
Tribalism has many different names. It has been referred to in various forms and slight delineations related to meaning, such as groupthink, herd mentality, mob rule, hive mind, etc. It is a sociological system of organization with deep evolutionary origins, starting amongst hunter-gatherer groups and now developed in a broader and more modern societal context. Tribalism's cognitive-behavioral focus is on in-group loyalty and negative attitudes toward out-group members. Other members of the group protect in-group members through their membership, which enables survival (from a modern sense, survival means invincibility against criticisms, no matter how accurate).
Much like political polarization, tribalism is nothing new; however, fringe members of certain groups and loners have now been able to form tribes of their own due to social connecting tools like the internet and, more specifically, social media. Incel (short for involuntarily celibate) is not a term most would have been familiar with ten years ago, yet, these disaffected men have organized themselves into a group. Similarly, as it pertains to political organizations and special interest groups, we now have ANTIFA, the Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, and a slew of other strongly and loosely organized groups and slogans that garner support and disdain alike, depending on in- or out-group membership.
What makes tribalism particularly dangerous is that a crowd's psychological and behavioral aspects can be easily manipulated with the input of a charismatic leader. In meritocratic processes, leaders emerge to influence the behavior of their respective tribes, regardless of whether these leaders are using their authority in a socially responsible and scientifically-based manner. This person could be a politician, an expert in their respective field, an outspoken advocate, or a Joe Schmo. Leaders ought to have their respective group's best interest at the forefront; however, depending on a leader's motivation, they can often promote harm to themselves or others, censor freedom of speech, or galvanize their constituents to donate to their cause.
With a crowd's psychology so easily susceptible to exploitation, this can lead to the politicization of science. This politicization ignores the latest scientific findings or takes partial scientific truths to justify political group behaviors. An example would be those who doused their groceries in bleach in the middle of the pandemic; another would be intellectualizing the justification of harmful behaviors practiced by a marginalized group/cultural identity (i.e., looting in the wake of the George Floyd protests). When science becomes politicized, it can pose a risk and harm to the individual with the ill-informed belief or to others.
Bad actors are not the only ones who play the proverbial puppeteers of crowd behavior. At the same time, we can all find ourselves in positions of leadership and simultaneously have the ability to be wrong. Several specific psychological profiles, such as narcissism and megalomania, are characteristic of bad actors' roles. This often means a refusal to acknowledge any missteps or glaring errors as it could adversely impact, according to them, an ideal self-image and grand delusions of their perceived amount of current and future power.
Naturally, often at a subconscious level, these psychological profiles trickle down and are adopted by these leaders' constituents. Marketing professor at the John Molson School of Business, Gad Saad, points out in his book The Parasitic Mind that victimhood seems to have increased in popularity, a common defense of the narcissist. Saad continues to state that the tendency of these followers to have a collective Munchausen's syndrome—known presently in the American Psychological Associations Diagnostic Manual (i.e., the DSM V) as a factitious disorder.8 Munchausen's syndrome is when someone will feign an illness as a way of drawing increased attention to themselves due to a variety of pathological motivations, mostly feelings of isolation due to the perception of others being emotionally unavailable.
From a cultural perspective, this fits quite well with the current research on loneliness. Roughly 1 in 3 Americans report feelings of "serious loneliness," which is a 13% increase since 2018.9 While the pandemic certainly contributed to this increase, it should be noted that concerns about those adopting a victimhood mindset long preceded the pandemic. Regardless, this perception of being lonely and the emotional unavailability of others appears to be projected onto others, often in the form of rage, a surface-level emotion characterized by a profound level of suppressed fear and/or sadness.
Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt document this trend in their book The Coddling of the American Mind. According to the authors, fearful parents exposed to the reported crime waves of the '70s and '80s became overly protective of their children while raising them amidst the declining crime rates of the 1990s. The sensationalized media didn't help their decision-making. Regardless, children, particularly those of the millennial generation, were, directly and indirectly, taught that the world was dangerous. This learned fragility was solidified by helicopter and lawn-mower parenting, preventing children from facing adversity so that when the children grew up, increasingly gaining more autonomy, they were faced with challenges they could not foresee and had little insight into facing these obstacles, often manifesting as avoidance and projected as the problems of others, not the individual encountering the perceived adversity. The safetyism promoted by many parents at this time turned out to be inhibitory to the psychological well-being of many children belonging to the millennial generation.
While not new, the victimhood mindset was capitalized upon by many members of this generation and began to be observed and documented in universities. This makes sense as the university is the first place a child is to live outside of the protection of their home. Universities are also places where one is, outside of one's personal research, exposed to ideas and thoughts that might be considered novel and provocative. When exposed to these ideas, particularly if they are provocative, one could attempt to provide a rounded rebuttal or simply state that they disagree and attempt to shame their professor. One response glaringly requires less effort than the other; thus, a callout culture was born.
Callout culture, which mainly started as publicly disagreeing with others without much room for debate, eventually morphed into its more extreme reactionary sibling, cancel culture. Professors, politicians, celebrities, and anyone with a relative position of power were not only solely disagreed with for having a different opinion but were now subject to being fired, publicly shamed, and villainized for holding a particular belief.10 Power gradually began falling into the hands of those with limited coping skills, elevating the status of the victim archetype.
Undoubtedly, those with the most repugnant behaviors, such as Harvey Weinstein, indeed were worthy of the legal action and the public vitriol they faced; however, in many cases, minimal discrepancy was used in determining fact from fiction as well as a degree in severity. For example: during the #metoo movement, actor/comedian Aziz Ansari was canceled after a woman who had a regrettable sexual experience with him was considered to be just as heinous as rape. The social justice outcries of the crowd effectively revoked due process. One could effectively be canceled if anyone posted something online and there was enough outrage to fuel the story going viral enough for media outlets to pick up on the story. These are reasonable concerns as close to 80% of the content on social media is generated by 10% of the users, who, as it happens, tend to lean toward extremes on most social issues.11
While certainly human, this type of rage and sense of injustice grew to such grandiose heights without facts to back up claims. Typically, those in psychotherapy who exhibit a consistent pattern of feeling a sense of injustice without evidence for their claims might meet the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Those with the disorder are prone to rageful responses when they feel their idealized image is being threatened. This makes sense, as many of those who were attempting to get others canceled, when confronted with their lack of evidence or nuance, doubled down on their position and accused those who were expressing skepticism of enabling abusers, fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and any other societal bastard you should never be.12
Psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman points out that in-group narcissism is a social psychological phenomenon, meaning groups can formulate to express the general disdain of an out-group and be unwilling to acknowledge criticism for their own behaviors.13 In order for there to be any in-group narcissism, there needs to be a shared sense of identity.
Identity differentiates itself from the concept of the self through a shared sense of "we" as opposed to "me." Identity is who you are in the context of belonging to others. The self is how some of your individual differences mean that you don't necessarily share all characteristics of a specific community.
A phenomenon that I have observed in my private practice as well as publicly is what I describe as identity obsession. Identity obsession is when the self becomes obsolete to the point that you only further explore and double down on who you are in the context of belonging to a group with similar proclivities. To understand this further, I will use myself as an example: I'm a gay white cisgender man of German heritage and practicing psychotherapist. While I believe myself to be well integrated and synthesized with society in a way that I can occupy a variety of spaces without anxieties surrounding belongingness, this could all be subject to change if I were to care primarily about one of the identities I mentioned previously.
Say I increased my focus on my gay identity and decreased my focus on the other identities I listed to the degree that they became fairly unimportant or negligible to me. If this were to be the case, I suspect several things would happen: I would find myself feeling uncomfortable with "non-queer spaces" (environments where the majority of patrons are heterosexual), I would likely vote solely for Democrats or left-leaning candidates, and I suspect I would develop abusive behaviors surround sex and substances. Why would this be the case? Lesbian, gay, or bisexuals have a higher chance of being diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, 50% more likely to be Democrats than Republicans (15%) (Independents 22% and 13% fall into an "other category); compared with the general population, and they are more likely to have issues with substance abuse and sexual compulsivity.14 15 16 17
While there are certainly external factors involved, such as minority stress, discrimination, shame, etc., I suspect an increased focus on a specific identity can also create these types of issues. I'll explain why momentarily, but first, let's take another example that I provided: I'm a cisgender White male. Technically this increases the likelihood that I'm a Republican. I have an elevated risk of committing suicide, and it increases my odds of a diagnosis of Narcissistic personality disorder.18 19 20
While I hold both the identity of being a gay man and a cisgender white male, I do not abuse drugs and alcohol, nor identify as a Republican or a Democrat (for those that must know, I prefer not having a party affiliation, although I lean slightly left over right, and slightly libertarian over authoritarian), have never received a diagnosis of Narcissistic personality disorder (although, I was once called arrogant, which deeply affected me and caused me a few weeks of deep personal reflection and evaluation), I do not feel uncomfortable in "non-queer spaces," and I have no desire to harm myself and generally consider myself to be a hopeful person.
I attribute my deterrence of these specific risk factors for the identities I hold to have much to do with how integrated and, to a certain degree, my lack of significant attachment to them. Integration has very much to do with your identities interacting with each other in a way that feels well-balanced and whole. All cultures associated with their corresponding identity have both strengths and weaknesses. After all, nobody is perfect. When we do not have identity synthesis, we tend to live in a state of identity pride, which is to fixate on that identity and celebrate many aspects associated with it, for better and worse.
As reasonable as this may sound, focus on identity became the norm in universities and, to many, was validated by sociological studies on intersectionality. While the idea of intersectionality is undoubtedly useful, as far as being able to see how the various identities that we hold cross paths and/or contradict one another, the idea became weaponized by focusing primarily on which identities have experienced the most historical oppression and discrimination.
Knowing the past is undoubtedly essential, particularly as it can assist in avoiding a challenged or seemingly futile future; using the past as a reference for identifying present and future enemies is a grotesque wish fulfillment that fuels disdain and vitriol for those who are different than us. Historically I know that the identity I hold as a white man has been problematic, which is one of the reasons why I believe it is crucial for me to find value in other cultures. However, I don't feel shame for my German heritage; the past in the form of lineage is something that no one has any control over.
Additionally, I suspect my German heritage has been a significant protective factor. From a psychoanalytic perspective, after WWII ended, there was a deep shame associated with the nationalism that emerged out of Germany at the time. Germans very likely increased their understanding of the dangers of identity and how an over-emphasis and attached narcissism can lead to the persecution of others. These new attitudes and perspectives were likely instilled in future generations to ensure such atrocities were never committed again.
When identity obsession takes hold, the lens of winner takes all, us versus them, victimhood, and in-group narcissism perspectives can dictate many of your thoughts and behaviors. If it seems like I’m throwing out mental health disorders too freely, it’s important to consider that political polarization is increasingly being linked to poorer mental health outcomes including, but not limited to, anxiety and depression.21 22 This occurs on both sides of the political aisle.
In Ezra Klein's book Why We're Polarized, he notes that politics, mainly if you identify as either a Republican or Democrat, behaves much like a team sport. While neither of the political parties acts in the same ways or holds the same positions that they did yesteryear, ultimately, it doesn't matter to voters. "Negative partisanship," behaviors driven not by support of your party but more from disdain for the opposing party, has increased.23
Many marginalized groups, particularly leading up to and after the election of Barack Obama, resonated with his message and the Democratic Party's platform. Most felt that opportunity and upward mobility were now possible, seeing a black man in the highest form of elected office compared to the historical context of white men representing the vast majority of elected officials.24
As minority populations came flocking to the Democratic Party, Republicans began playing into identity as well. Fears surrounding a less homogenous and changing cultural makeup, this is the party of traditionalism, after all, as well as low-income white men who were finding it more challenging to find employment due to increased environmental concerns as well as technological innovation, provoked a new identity politics within the Republican party.25
Like liberals, conservatives also have proclivities toward instigation. Those with more conservative leanings are more drawn to participate in troll culture. In his book The Constitution of Knowledge, Jonathan Rauch describes a troll as "an epistemic sociopath."26 With total disregard for facts, a troll's goal is often to incite rage and polarize others for their own amusement. Philosophically it's a form of passive nihilism that only has its interest in causing destabilization. For example, a troll could state something so inherently false that it might incite emotional disturbance in someone of left political leanings into countering a troll's proclamation with something equally as incorrect. These responses then are elevated within the social media sphere to the point that you have online threads of people arguing over absolutely meaningless and irrational dribble.
This was precisely the strategy of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Some of what Trump stated during his campaign tours and televised debates was true, but for every truth stated, they seemed to be followed by countless falsehoods. Disruption was the name of the game, which only became more destabilizing when he argued against and criticized reporting from liberal mass media and proclamations of any of the other candidates as "fake news"—providing validation to the conservative-leaning media and their constituents that they had a monopoly on objectivity and journalistic integrity.
While mainstream media outlets have already taken a political orientation, it has become even more exploited. The left-leaning and right-leaning media only exaggerated these new political identities by showcasing the most extreme examples of the opposing side's rhetoric. ANTIFA, the Proud Boys, "defund the police," "silence is violence," claims surrounding racism being only a white problem (as opposed to an everybody problem), attacks on racial minorities, sexual harassment and assault, anti-vaxxers, hypochondriacal/obsessive-compulsive fears of COVID contagion, moral panic surrounding transgender people in sports and drag queen story hours, election fraud, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and desires for unrestricted open border access are all examples of conflated alarmist news stories, provoking negative partisanship, that has made their way into our culture in recent years.
Seeing this portrayed in any media context, televised, published, social, etc. can create a false sense of what's important to most voters. Todd Rose's book, Collective Illusions examines the psychological phenomenon of people's private opinions differing from the public opinions of the groups to which they belong. Relating to politics, Rose writes, "Americans across the political spectrum privately agree that individual rights, high-quality health care, leadership accountability, neighborhood safety, an unbiased criminal justice system, and equality are all important for themselves personally and for the future of America. We also share the same conception of fairness and want the same things from our institutions, from work and education to health care and criminal justice. Indeed out of the top twenty ranked aspirational values, we privately agree on fifteen–including respect for one another, creating a thriving middle class, developing a modern infrastructure, and ensuring equal opportunity for all."27
Many of us may disagree with the respective groups that we are a part of, but it feels far safer to go with the flow. Again, the reason that one would refrain from vocalizing or sharing their opinion is due to fear of being ostracized from their respective group. Johnson, Lavine, and Federico's Open Versus Closed offers a provocative framework for the dilemma Rose illustrates by stating, "in forming an opinion, the question for the unengaged citizen is: what will this policy do for me? Among the engaged, however, reaction to economic issues are better understood as expressively motivated signals of identity. The question for the engaged citizen is: what does this policy position say about me"?28 This begs the question: if we aren't voting for ourselves, then for whom are we voting?
Endnotes
8. Saad, G. (2020). Campus lunacy: the rise of the social justice warrior. In The parasitic mind: How infectious ideas are killing common sense (pp. 93–119). essay, Regnery Publishing.
9. Renken, E. (2020, January 23). Most Americans are lonely, and our workplace culture may not be helping. NPR. Retrieved October 24, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/01/23/798676465/most-americans-are-lonely-and-our-workplace-culture-may-not-be-helping
10. Fairbanks, E. (2022, October 24). Why wasn't I canceled? The Atlantic. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/fear-cancel-culture-free-speech/671828/
11. Big Think. (2022). 10% Of people are ruining social media. Who are they? YouTube. Retrieved December 22, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6mIdVqktk.
12. Eddy, B. (2022, June 17). How narcissists can drive polarization. Psychology Today. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/202206/how-narcissists-can-drive-polarization
13. Barry Kaufman, S. (2021, November 6). What collective narcissism does to society. The Atlantic. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/11/group-narcissism/620632/
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016, February 29). Mental health for gay and bisexual men. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm
15. UCLA School of Law. Differences between LGB Democrats and Republicans in identity and community connectedness. Williams Institute. (2020, November 2). Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-party-affiliation/
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016, February 29). Substance use among gay and bisexual men. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/substance-abuse.htm
17. Grov, C., Parsons, J. T., & Bimbi, D. S. (2010). Sexual compulsivity and sexual risk in gay and bisexual men. Archives of sexual behavior, 39(4), 940–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9483-9
18. Gramlich, J. (2022, October 26). What the 2020 electorate looks like by party, race and ethnicity, age, education and Religion. Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/
19. Watkins, N. (2021, July 1). Men and suicide: Why are white men most at risk? Baton Rouge General. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://www.brgeneral.org/news-blog/2021/july/men-and-suicide-why-are-white-men-most-at-risk-/
20. Hull, M., & Pickering, A. (2022, September 13). Signs of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) statistics. The Recovery Village Drug and Alcohol Rehab. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/npd-statistics/#:~:text=Approximately%200.5%25%20of%20the%20United,narcissistic%20personality%20disorder%20are%20men.
21. Fraser, T., Aldrich, D. P., Panagopoulos, C., Hummel, D., & Kim, D. (2022, March). The harmful effects of partisan polarization on health. Oxford Academic. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/1/pgac011/6545770
22. Smith, K. B. (2022, January). Politics is making us sick: The negative impact of political engagement on public health during the Trump administration. PLOS ONE. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0262022#sec008
23. Klein, E. (2021). Why we're polarized. Avid Reader Press.
24. Klein, E. (2021). Why we're polarized. Avid Reader Press.
25. Klein, E. (2021). Why we're polarized. Avid Reader Press.
26. Rauch, J. (2021). Troll epistemology: "flood the zone with shit". In The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth (pp. 155–188). essay, Brookings Institution Press.
27. Rose, T. (2022). Collective illusions: Conformity, complicity, and the science of why we make bad decisions. Hachette Books.
28. Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H., & Federico, C. M. (2017). Open versus closed personality, identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. Cambridge University Press.