I stumbled across this piece by psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman at The Atlantic, describing a phenomenon with which I was unfamiliar—”group narcissism”:
Collective narcissism is not simply tribalism. Humans are inherently tribal, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Having a healthy social identity can have an immensely positive impact on well-being. Collective narcissists, though, are often more focused on out-group prejudice than in-group loyalty. In its most extreme form, group narcissism can fuel political radicalism and potentially even violence. But in everyday settings, too, it can keep groups from listening to one another, and lead them to reduce people on the “other side†to one-dimensional characters. The best way to avoid that is by teaching people how to be proud of their group—without obsessing over recognition.
Groups may differ in their narrative about why they are superior—they might believe that they’re the most moral, the most culturally sophisticated, the most talented, the most powerful, or the most protective of democratic values. They may think that their greatness is God’s will, or that they’ve earned it through exceptional suffering in the past. Regardless, collective narcissists are resentful of other groups, and hypersensitive to perceived intergroup threat. As a result, collective narcissism often breeds prejudice. In one study, for instance, participants in Poland who rated high in collective narcissism were more likely to hold anti-Semitic beliefs. In other research conducted on Americans, high collective-narcissism scores predicted negative attitudes toward Arab immigrants.
Collective narcissists tend to respond to the perceived threats of other groups in outsize, often aggressive ways. In Portugal, a sample of collective narcissists who perceived Germany as having a more important position than their nation in the European Union “rejoiced in the German economic crisisâ€â€”and supported “hostile actions†toward Germans. Meanwhile, group narcissists glorify positively valued in-group members and tend to overlook their moral transgressions. A recent study conducted in Poland, Britain, and the United States found that those high in collective narcissism were more likely to judge a group member’s action—such as a verbal altercation provoked by a pub customer—as moral if it served in-group interests.
Read the whole thing. I think there’s a lot of this going around; it would certainly explain a lot.
Applying hostile, hyperbolic labels to one’s opponents often just grows that group into a larger one, engaged in solidarity against such unwarranted accusations – i.e. being called a racist, white supremist, deplorable, domestic terrorist for basically not agreeing with social progressive policies or policing.
That phenomenon is by no means limited to the “woke”. You don’t need to dig to hard to find references to “libtards”, commies, etc.
All of this is among the reasons I focus on ways and means and try to eschew attributing motives to anyone about anything.
Attempting to equate accusations of racism, white supremacy, domestic terrorist or deplorables to “libtards” is, quite frankly, weird.
I don’t visit Facebook or Twitter, but I would suspect that is where one might find “libtard.” I have never seen it in general use. Claims of racism etc are standard fare as personal descriptors at major networks, cable outlets, print media, university campuses, candidates for office including a former presidential candidate and so forth. Just look at last week after the VA election. Context and venue matter.
“…and try to eschew attributing motives to anyone…”
I know that’s intended to sound high minded and above the fray, but its vapid. It reminds me of a statement I read earlier today by Peter Strozk, who noted that although he was well aware that the sources used in the Steele dossier were Clinton acolytes and operatives, he was not able to establish its veracity, but neither could he prove it wasn’t true, either. Hence, what choice did the poor guy have but to go on with the FISA’s?! An analytical eunuch, or a willful hack. Politics and social policy is not the Michelson Morely experiment.
I knew you would bring up labels the “other side†slings at the social progressives. I have seen such descriptive terms, riffing off the bottom of the language barrel, in the comment sections of blogs, opinion columns and news articles. However I really have not heard the left described as “commies,†“libtards†during public newscasts, or even moderately right wing shows. The social progressive oriented media, though, does not hold back when condemning many on the right as “racists (Joy Reid), homophobic, anti-vaxers, white supremist (Joe Scarsbough), and domestic terrorists (US AG).
Drew, just posted a comment, not seeing your’s ahead of me. I guess it parrots what you already noted in your’s.
I don’t know that it’s high-minded but it isn’t vapid. How do you know what somebody’s motives are? You can talk about what a policy is likely to accomplish but motives? They are imputed—your assessment may say more about you than they do about the person whose motive you are questioning. It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
I think this phenomenon is a pretty good hypothesis for several negative trends in our society- hyperpolarization, corruption of institutions, and loss of liberal ideals.
The first is pretty self evident- groups adopting “Us vs them†thinking and behavior leads to the opposing groups doing the same.
The corruption of institutions relates because the leaders of institutions consider the survival of the institution and its outward reputation too important to allow any misdeeds to be litigated even though eventually this leads to the institution losing the moral high ground it may have held (Catholic Church is a prime example but there are scores of others.)
And finally I see our post-liberal society relating to this because the left has become increasingly intolerant. I thought it was a bit humorous that the author, even while noting that these tendencies can affect all parts of the political spectrum, chose to highlight only right wing examples. It’s reasonable to discuss right wing populism but really, how big of a blind spot do you have to have to not see certain left wing movements fitting descriptions like “they might believe that they’re the most moral, the most culturally sophisticated, the most talented, the most powerful, or the most protective of democratic values�
There is another psychological phenomenon that explains that: projection.
“Attempting to equate accusations of racism, white supremacy, domestic terrorist or deplorables to “libtards†is, quite frankly, weird.”
I agree that is weird. The real comparison would be that conservatives accuse Dems of faking millions of votes every election and in the last election Trump should have won. Conservatives claim that every action taken by Dems is really motivated by the desire to destroy the country. That Dems are not real Americans.
Did we hit the 3 year mark on the Durham investigation? Or is it Dunham?
Steve