First, some clarification is in order. One of the reasons I decided to write a post clarifying what is meant by large group regression is to provide a metric by which to assess the state of our, and other, societies, in the face of an ongoing, massive economic trauma. Under such strain, past history tells us that some societies will become less free and others will regress toward tyranny. After the last 8 years, when parts of the left spent much of their time worrying about a knock on the door in the middle of the night, it would be troubling to see parallel reactions from the right. To that end, it is important to understand that even if a leader is anti-democratic (and most Presidents at one time or another have wished that their critics would be silenced and that their opponents would be marginalized) the determinative factor of a regression to tyranny remains the reactions of the greater society. To that end it is worth noting that liberal members of the MSM have recently been making more pointed critiques of the President and his shortcomings; this is not the mode of a controlled press (though the press remains far too liberal and unidimensional for my tastes.) As just one example, Paul Krugman, with whom I rarely agree, is quite pointed in his criticism of Barack Obama today:
resident Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told, especially by TV news, during the run-up to the stimulus vote. Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.
Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.To see how bad the numbers are, consider this: The administration’s budget proposals, released less than two weeks ago, assumed an average unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for the whole of this year. In reality, unemployment hit that level in February — and it’s rising fast.
...
... economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.
To continue with a look at symptoms of large group regression:
8) Reactivation of "chosen glories" pertaining to the history of a large group's past. This was seen in Baathist Iraq, where Saddam Hussein tried to identify himself with Saladin.... this history was incorporated into his battle cry to defeat the U.S., the new infidels.
It is hard to see how the administration could leverage such an approach into expanded power since this administration is quite clearly internationalist and has done a fairly good job convincing itself that, to paraphrase Michelle Obama, only now can we be proud of our country.
9) Reactivation of a "chosen trauma" whereby a large group unconsciously "chooses" to make a shared mental representation of an event that caused it terrible losses, helplessness, humiliation, and victimization....Slobodan Milosevic exemplified this phenomenon in his reactivation of the shared memory of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, in which the Serbian hero, Prince Lazar, was killed.
Here is a more likely option for the Obama administration to claim greater power and authority. Slavery, of course, was the "chosen trauma" and racism is its illegitimate offspring. By cleverly using threats of racism to place troubling issues in a sequestered social minefield, Obama was able to place his campaign beyond a great deal of criticism, yet as we have seen from the comments of the Attorney General, which the President had to repudiate over the weekend, what worked during the campaign ends up seeming clumsy and faintly ridiculous once in power. Obama's election is unlikely to facilitate turning "remember slavery" into a "remember the Maine" battle cry.
10) Dehumanization. Exemplified by the Nazis, this is a two-step process. Step one is identifying undesirable humans; step two is turning them into nonhumans, as in the Hutus' degradation of the Tutsis, referred to as cafrads, or insects. Interestingly, the Tutsis were also called the "Jews" of Rwanda.
Here again America is relatively protected from dehumanization, though we must be alert to efforts in that direction. It was, after all, the American people who refused to demonize all Arabs and Muslims after 9/11. The traditional objects of demonization and dehumanization have been the Jews and, while there is evidence of such occurring in Europe, and some tendency in the Obama administration to find comfort with those who engage in such behavior (Chas Freeman, for example) the societal checks and balances have not been circumvented. Chuck Schumer's questions about Chas Freeman and the growing recognition of his multitude of bizarre positions and comments suggests the nomination is in trouble and that moves to demonize Jews or Israel are likely to fail. Efforts to dehumanize the rich, or rich bankers, are the stuff of typical populism and will fail simply because rich bankers are unlikely to wear yellow stars and there are too few of them to actually identify as a particular class.
11) Border Psychology, in which borders become shared psychological skins.
An administration and the elites of both left and right have essentially agreed that our borders should remain porous. Further, candidates who were able to be depicted as favoring closed borders were successfully marginalized as "far right radicals" in the last two elections. Whatever your position on immigration, it must be admitted that setting up such boundaries is not likely to be accepted by either the elites or the greater society; if this were to significantly change and was accompanied by an over-reaction (round up and deport them all!) then it could be a sign of regression rather than a reasonable attempt to secure the borders, as every state must.
12) The narcissism of minor differences.
As described by Freud: "It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness. I once discussed the phenomenon that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and in ridiculing each other—Germans and South Germans, the English and the Scotch, and so on. I gave this phenomenon the name of 'the narcissism of minor differences,' a name which does not do much to explain it. We can now see that it is a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier. In this respect the Jewish people, scattered everywhere, have rendered most useful services to the civilizations of the countries that have been their hosts"
Multiculturalism, which has a much stronger grip in Europe than America, expressly emphasizes the narcissism of minor differences as a way to enhance group cohesion at the cost of the larger society's cohesion. The American history of the melting pot has been quite protective against this manifestation of primitive splitting. In Europe, where multiculturalism holds sway, dangerous regressive splitting to ethnic and religious groups is likely to accelerate and much more significant ethnic clashes are a likely outcome.
13) Ruining of basic trust. This was seen in Nazi child-rearing practices and in the elementary schools of Enver Hoxha's Albania, where students were brainwashed into pledging their allegiance to the leader and were rewarded for spying on and betraying family members who expressed any doubt or opposition to the ruler.
By the time this appears, a society is well down the road to totalitarianism. We may see a very mild form of this in America, where school children are indoctrinated to believe that pollution is a sin against Gaea, and there are occasions where children correct their parents for not recycling, but this is a long way yet from the kinds of regressive destruction of basic trust that took place in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.
14) Heightened importance of the leader's personality. When a large group is regressed, the personality organization of the leader becomes extremely influential, as he or she can tame or inflame the regression. Contrast Slobodan Milosevic's use of violence and terror with Nelson Mandela's use of nonviolent means.
Barack Obama's personality is important, of course, yet he does not appear to share the propensity for violence that a Milosevic or Mugabe have shown. If anything, Obama could be accused of having an overly cautious, even passive, style. He has shown no propensity for acting in opposition to his supporters and, despite his oratory that we are facing crisis upon crisis, he has dithered rather than shown decisive leadership.
The danger of societal regression is just that, a danger of society regressing. The greatest danger occurs when an unscrupulous (or even sociopathic) leader leverages societal regression in a self reinforcing cycle to introduce anti-democratic programs and devolve toward tyranny. Our history suggests that even in the face of an anti-democratic leader (Nixon) or a passive, ineffectual leader (Carter) we have successfully resisted severe, lasting regression. My suspicion is that Barack Obama, who has never been in an executive position before, will be ineffectual rather than overtly anti-democratic or dangerous. He has exhibited the typical sin of arrogance and has declared his intention to take on three major transformative government initiatives will lead him to expend his political capital on Quixotic struggles with little chance of success. His actions, as even Paul Krugman appears to believe, will continue and worsen the current economic crisis which will undermine all of his attempts to change America, in his view, for the better. I doubt he will be bale to direct or precipitate an American regression severe enough to endanger our democracy, but should such a trend develop, keeping in mind the symptoms of large group regression should help us evaluate the significance of the trends. There is little doubt we are in for a dangerous time that will test our society, as well as almost every other society around the globe, in ways that are impossible to foresee; having a framework for understanding when stress leads to severe regression rather than more temporary expectable regressions can be helpful in maintaining perspective.
Recent Comments