“Why do some people hold political views of which I, a leftist, disapprove?”

 

 

Which illusion?

 

The September/October 1964 issue of Fact magazine notoriously published an article according to which American psychiatrists, purportedly speaking as experts in their specialty, held by a ratio of 2:1 that Senator Barry Goldwater, a very prominent mid-twentieth-century conservative who was then the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States, was psychologically unfit for the presidency:

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-personality-analyst/200908/libel-in-factthe-1189-psychiatrists

 

This was such an egregious instance of the ideologically-motivated abuse of purported science in order to smear somebody that it resulted, eventually, in an ethical standard, promulgated by the American Psychiatric Association, that is commonly called “The Goldwater Rule.”

 

We sometimes speak of “demonizing” others.  And, in the past at least, it was often thought that those who behaved oddly or thought weirdly or, at least, deviated from somebody’s norm, were, literally, possessed by demons.

 

Nowadays, relatively few people believe in demons, and decrying someone who disagrees with you politically or theologically as “demon-possessed” will gain little traction in most circles.  It’s more effective to suggest that your opponent is sick.  That he or she, essentially for the sheer act of failing to hold your views, is deranged.  Thus, those who — rightly or wrongly, for reasons good or bad — oppose one or more elements of the contemporary homosexualist agenda don’t, can’t, legitimately disagree with it.  No, they’re sick.  “Homophobic.”  (The word homophobia was coined on the analogy of such genuine psychological debilities as agoraphobia and acrophobia.)

 

American conservatives have been the targets of such reductionist dismissals for a long time now.  Richard Hofstadter’s famous 1965 book The Paranoid Style in American Politics purported to analyze them; its central essay’s original publication in Harper’s Magazine in November 1964 (the very month of the Goldwater/Johnson presidential election) may have been coincidental, but then, so might the shooting of Abraham Lincoln have been, too.  Conceivably.  In some alternate universe.  One in which I have some swamp land here in Florida to sell to you.

 

Even earlier, the famous 1950 study by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality, purported to demonstrate the psychological disorders characteristic of political conservatives (and, as critics very soon noticed, only of political conservatives).

 

One can hardly fail to be reminded of Sigmund Freud’s famous description of compulsive neurosis as “an individual religiosity,” which sets things up perfectly for his notorious dismissal of religious belief as a “universal obsessional neurosis.”

 

Seen in the cold light of day, such phenomena clearly represent attempts to win by rhetoric — even by “poisoning the well” and by textbook examples of fallacious ad hominem — what hasn’t been accomplished, and maybe not even attempted, by evidence and argument.  In many cases, of course, those who use such techniques do so because they hold their opponents, and their opponents’ views, in such complete contempt that they think evidence and argument unnecessary, not worth the time to marshal or the effort to deploy.

 

Carried to its extreme, the view that those who hold different views do so because of mental or emotional dysfunction leads to Vietnam-style reeducation camps.  And, perhaps, to the conclusion of George Orwell’s 1984, in which Winston finally returns from his torture sessions with O’Brien, the government official assigned to his case:  “Everything was all right, the struggle was finished.  He had won the victory over himself.  He loved Big Brother.”

 

The other obvious problem with reductionist dismissals of the views of others is that the sword of reductionism cuts both ways.  If the views of your opponents are held because of their age, ethnicity, and/or socio-economic status rather than on account of actual evidence and logic that have to be seriously addressed, might the same thing not be said about the views of those dismissing them?  Or have the latter somehow transcended the human condition?

 

Posted from Orlando, Florida.

 

 

Print Friendly

  • George Srent

    1964 != 2012

  • Michael Towns

    I am amused that the 1964 psychiatrists found Goldwater unfit for the presidency, but apparently quite fit for the Senate. That explains a few things, at least. Harry Reid, for starters.

  • George Srent

    Dr. Peterson, are you suggesting that conservative politicians have suffered a great disservice at the hands of satanic liberals, or are you suggesting that liberal politicians have suffered a great disservice at the hands of satanic conservatives; or perhaps you are suggesting that both conservatives and liberals can be both “god-sends” and “luciferian cultists”?

    I’m gonna take a stab in the dark here, but it seems that you are blaming conservatism demise and lackluster history on liberals … is that correct?

  • http://www.sixteensmallstones.org J. Max Wilson

    In light of this post, Brother Peterson, you will probably find this recent study very interesting:

    Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study (Make sure you click the “Download this Paper” link to get the PDF.)

    Basically the study performs an experiment to test various hypotheses (“Public Irrationality Thesis”, “Republican Brain Hypothesis”) that claim that conservatism is an expression of a disposition toward irrational or lower level thinking in the form of “closed-mindedness”, “fear of change”, “dogmatism”, “aversion to complexity”, and “craving for certainty or closure.”

    It also proposes and tests a competing theory (“Expressive Rationality Thesis”) that posits “that individuals who are disposed and equipped to make ready use of high-level, conscious information processing can be expected to do so in the service of their unconscious motivation to form and maintain beliefs that foster their connection to identity-defining groups.”

    The results are very interesting, and push back against the theories that conservatives are less intelligent or suffer from mental illness.

    Also, if you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend the book “The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life” by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

    (On a completely unrelated note, I sent you a private message through Facebook, but haven’t heard back from you. Will you email me at the address included with this comment? Thanks.)

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    I suggest that, while many conservatives in the public sphere use the rhetoric of mental imbalance in describing their opponents, tbey do not argue that those adversaries actually have a real mental disease, while those of the left wing who use such rhetoric are quite serious in arguing that no rational thought process could oppose their own and that the possessors of irrational thought processes therefore have no legally protected right to express or act out those thoughts. Therefore, suppression of conservative expression is not a denial of free speech but a quarantine on a contagion. Sanctions against persons who refuse to endorse homosexual relationships asnequally valid with heterosexual marriage have already been imposed by government bodies and courts in the US and Canada. My own view is that the objective if the same sex marriage movement is not liberty for its practitioners, who are nowhere prohibited from living together, but is the suppression of any criticism of homosexual action. It is censorship that aims to punish the traditional view of sexual.morality.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X