![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
womzillaThe New Republic's John Judis this week published "Death Grip", a fascinating article about the psychological theories of Ernest Becker and those who have built on them. It's worth reading in its entirety, but here are the key points and a consequence I drew from it.
Basically, in the 1960s and 70s, Becker hypothesized that, in Judis's words,
Becker's work was taken up experimentally by a trio of researchers in the 1980s who found evidence of one of the consequences of Becker's model:
The article is an elaboration of some of the experiments, which tend to revolve around a standard approach: ask two groups of people a series of questions; the target group, during the test, is lead to think directly about their own death, while the control group is not. In test after test, the people in the target group were less compassionate, more authoritarian, more morbid, more xenophobic, and more insular than those in the control group. And this effect appears to function at a level almost completely removed from "conscious" awareness.
As I quoted Judis above, the applicability of this to the 2004 election is obvious:
The article moves on to discuss ways in which this effect is diminishing with time and with experience--the unmitigated disasters of the Iraq War, the failure of the government to protect or restore New Orleans, and the general incompetence of the current maladministration have undermined the appeal of Bush and Co. However, the popularity of Giuliani on a national level indicates (to me, at least) that the reminder-of-death ==> deeper conservativism process is still functioning on deep levels.
And that brings us to Hillary Clinton's recent statement that, if there is a major terrorist incident in the US between now and November 2008, it will redound to the benefit of the Republicans. I think she's right. On a rational level, the failure of the Republicans to protect us from terrorism should hurt them. On a deep level, though, fear and death will always work to the benefit of the conservative movement. Because of that, I can't say that Hillary was wrong to make the comments she did.
However, Solomon et al.'s work indicates that this effect can be ameliorated:
It's important, now, to start preparing for disaster on a political level. It's vitally important for all Democrats--for all people who don't want to see a continuation of the current administration come into office in 2009--to lay the groundwork now so people will have a rational response to terror: that the current government is a failure and needs to be repudiated. And Hillary did the opposite of that. She conceded that fight implicitly before it even occurred.
This is why we need better Democrats: because the ones we have don't even understand the ground the battle is being fought on.
Basically, in the 1960s and 70s, Becker hypothesized that, in Judis's words,
how fear of one's own demise lies at the center of human endeavor. . . . how human beings defend themselves against this fundamental anxiety by constructing cultures that promise symbolic or literal immortality to those who live up to established standards. Among other things, we practice religions that promise immortality; produce children and works of art that we hope will outlive us; seek to submerge our own individuality in a larger, enduring community of race or nation; and look to heroic leaders not only to fend off death, but to endow us with the courage to defy it. We also react with hostility toward individuals and rival cultures that threaten to undermine the integrity of our own. (my emphasis and ellipses)
Becker's work was taken up experimentally by a trio of researchers in the 1980s who found evidence of one of the consequences of Becker's model:
. . . the research that is perhaps most relevant to the 2004 election has been conducted by psychologists Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski. In the early 1980s, they developed what they clumsily called "terror management theory." Their idea was not about how to clear the subways in the event of an attack, but about how people cope with the terrifying and potentially paralyzing realization that, as human beings, we are destined to die. Their experiments showed that the mere thought of one's mortality can trigger a range of emotions--from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores. Initially, the three scholars didn't attempt to apply their theory to elections. But, after September 11, they conducted experiments designed to do exactly that. (emphasis mine)
The article is an elaboration of some of the experiments, which tend to revolve around a standard approach: ask two groups of people a series of questions; the target group, during the test, is lead to think directly about their own death, while the control group is not. In test after test, the people in the target group were less compassionate, more authoritarian, more morbid, more xenophobic, and more insular than those in the control group. And this effect appears to function at a level almost completely removed from "conscious" awareness.
As I quoted Judis above, the applicability of this to the 2004 election is obvious:
In their experiments, Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski make a good case that mortality reminders from September 11 enhanced Bush's popularity through November 2004. But, on the basis of their research, it is possible to draw even broader conclusions about U.S. politics after September 11. Mortality reminders not only enhanced the appeal of Bush's political style but also deepened and broadened the appeal of the conservative social positions that Republicans had been running on.
The article moves on to discuss ways in which this effect is diminishing with time and with experience--the unmitigated disasters of the Iraq War, the failure of the government to protect or restore New Orleans, and the general incompetence of the current maladministration have undermined the appeal of Bush and Co. However, the popularity of Giuliani on a national level indicates (to me, at least) that the reminder-of-death ==> deeper conservativism process is still functioning on deep levels.
And that brings us to Hillary Clinton's recent statement that, if there is a major terrorist incident in the US between now and November 2008, it will redound to the benefit of the Republicans. I think she's right. On a rational level, the failure of the Republicans to protect us from terrorism should hurt them. On a deep level, though, fear and death will always work to the benefit of the conservative movement. Because of that, I can't say that Hillary was wrong to make the comments she did.
However, Solomon et al.'s work indicates that this effect can be ameliorated:
One such [reduction in effect] occurred when the experimenter repeatedly told the subjects to make a "careful" response to the questions rather than a "gut-level" or "natural" or "first" response. In those cases where the experimenter urged care and deliberation, the psychologists concluded, subjects acted on a "rational" basis that reduced the influence of unconscious anxieties.
It's important, now, to start preparing for disaster on a political level. It's vitally important for all Democrats--for all people who don't want to see a continuation of the current administration come into office in 2009--to lay the groundwork now so people will have a rational response to terror: that the current government is a failure and needs to be repudiated. And Hillary did the opposite of that. She conceded that fight implicitly before it even occurred.
This is why we need better Democrats: because the ones we have don't even understand the ground the battle is being fought on.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-26 04:37 am (UTC)If you read the book and allow yourself to reflect on some of the ideas in it in terms of your own life, it can be pretty terrifying.
Trivially, you may recall DofD is one of the books Woody Allen's character presses on Diane Keaton's character in "Annie Hall". Which hardly recommends it, in my view, but still.
I look forward to reading the article you linked to, but not tonight. Too late. Too much desire for the oblivion of sleep at the moment. In the morning, in the morning...