Phobia Indoctrination, Part I: What it is, and why it matters in American politics

 It is time for another long-form series.  I have been thinking about this issue for some time, and with no sign that the daily turmoil of American politics will abate, I will probably continue with the occasional short post mid-week, but there are bigger issues that deserve discussion.  I have hinted at this one, but it requires more than a few hints.  Let's have some serious analysis of phobia indoctrination.

Do you like reading about politics, listening to political news, thinking and talking about politics?  I am not asking whether or not you feel as though you have some 'civic duty' to engage in these activities.  In rational choice theory, we deride such psychological factors as 'the d-term,' included in one's decision-making calculus to make an equation balance when it wouldn't otherwise do so.  I am not asking whether or not you feel obligated, whether or not you think you are doing good, or anything like that.  Do you like it, in the same way that you might enjoy reading a good book, talking about that book with someone else who just read it and similarly enjoyed it, the way you enjoy listening to great music, or otherwise doing what brings you joy and satisfaction?

If you do, there is something deeply wrong with you, and I say this as a political science professor.  Once upon a time, I enjoyed it.  What happened?  Politics happened.  Politics got worse, more toxic, more vile, more destructive, and all of the joy that came from studying the game turned into revulsion at what the game had become.  I do not give a shit about this thing called, "sport," but I am aware that there is a thing called, "soccer," and that part of the religious ritual called, "soccer," is this thing called, "the soccer riot."  Consider two types of fans:  those who prefer the game part of "soccer," and those who prefer the post-game portion, known as "the riot."  The practice of religion inevitably changes over time, as is the case in any social phenomenon, and some traditionalists will object.  As the religion evolves from practicing "the riot" on an occasional basis to making "the riot" the center of the religion, those who preferred the pre-riot rituals of "the game" may turn away in revulsion at what the religion becomes.

That is what has happened with what we call, "sane" people and politics.  There was the game, and the occasional riot.  When the riot became the whole thing, the people who were actually invested in the game either turned away, or got sucked into the riot while hating every second of it, while the avid rioters got to enjoy themselves both for the riot itself, and for the trolling of the people they sucked into the new ritual.

Now imagine a political science professor who read The Federalist Papers and John Locke and all that great stuff, and then fuckloads of game theory and statistical models of electoral politics in order to understand how the abstract ideas work in practice, and loved it until the goddamned soccer hooligans took over everything.

Normal, sane people turned away from politics years ago.  It's still my job.

I may know fuck-all about sport, but this isn't a sporting event.  It's just a goddamned soccer riot.  Actually, Walter, this is 'Nam, and there are no rules.  Not anymore.  The game had rules  The riot doesn't.

As we consider the ugliness and brutality of American politics, though, consider the following irritating aphorism.  Politicians use fear to manipulate you.

The proper reaction to such a banality is to scoff.  You should have scoffed.  Did you scoff?  If not, go back in time and scoff at yourself for not scoffing, then go kill baby Hitler.

All of politics is predicated on the notion that there is a problem in the absence of government.  Government exists to solve either some collective action problem, market failure, or those people over there doing something they shouldn't.  The counterfactual is always, by necessity, a bad thing.

Of course a policy platform uses fear, because the counterfactual is worse.  Otherwise, nobody would have a policy platform.  If the alternative weren't worse, nobody would propose anything, and we'd be in one of those men/angels situations!  So of course all policy platforms, and hence all politicians "use fear."

And notice that the statement is usually made as an accusation.  They're using fear!  The other side is using fear to manipulate you!  Be afraid of them because they are using fear to manipulate you!

Did you catch that?  Do I need to go through that again?  Too subtle?

With a title like, "phobia indoctrination," you probably think I'm going to write about that.  I'm not.  Phobia indoctrination is something specific.  It comes from analysis of the operation of cults.

Generally speaking, healthy, happy, well-adjusted people do not join cults.  Those who join cults do so because for whatever reason, they are dissatisfied with their lives.  Cults prey on people who have been abused (by the proper definition, and we'll get to the importance of that), addicts, and others who have some vulnerability that can be exploited.  The cult then tells the person, we have an answer.  We will provide you what you need.  Moreover, we have an answer for all of the problems you have experienced in your life.  It isn't your fault.  It isn't your doing.  You have been surrounded by bad people who wish you harm.  Here is everything they have done to you.  You are only safe with us, we are the only ones who love you.

That's the insidious thing about how cults operate.  They tell their members that everyone outside the cult is dangerous.  Maybe they are secretly controlled by demons, or they are all just toxic and they'll never understand, or whatever.  There are variations, but they all play out the same way.  Anyone outside the cult is a danger to you.  Not just different, not just someone who thinks differently, or has another belief system, but a fundamental threat to you, and if you even let them back into your life, they will hurt you.

This works in two ways.  It cuts cult members off from their support systems (their friends and family), and it makes it easier for the cult to engage in truly abusive behavior because the cult members have no external check.  Over, and over, and over again, cults tell their members how horrible and dangerous and evil those outside the cult are, thereby ensuring that members are too scared not just to leave, but to get even the external check one would need to recognize the need to leave.  It means they don't even realize what is being done to them.

Everyone in the out-group is dangerous, stay with us, talk only to us.  Everyone in the out-group is dangerous, stay with us, talk only to us.  Everyone in the out-group is dangerous, stay with us, talk only to us.

This is a very specific tactic.  I am going to make the argument that understanding the tactic will help us understand a lot about the deterioration of American politics, but when engaged in analysis of this sort, we must be ever-wary of Nick Haslam's concept creep.  Concept creep occurs when you begin with a narrowly defined technical term, trade on the rhetorical power of that term for political purposes, and thereby expand the definition of the term to meaninglessness.

Consider terms like trauma.  Trauma actually has a technical definition in psychology because it has a diagnosis and various treatment modalities.  Yet the word also has political power, and because of that, those who wish to borrow the importance of the legitimate medical condition sequentially reduce the threshold of circumstances in which they use the word until they say, "I was traumatized," after some trivial event with no connection to what "trauma" actually is.  

Example:  I will not go see the new Indiana Jones movie because I was traumatized by how bad The Crystal Skull was.

Was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull really that bad?  Well, it was horrendously bad, and I wanted to walk out of the theater.  I was forbidden from doing so, but I wanted to walk out, minutes after the movie started.  Actually, I never wanted to go see it in the first place because I knew it would suck.  Was I "traumatized?"  No.

I actually had a student once make a comment, in class, about how Jews have this thing about sticking together.  I had to find a way to do a polite, gentle response.  That was... AWK-ward.

Was I traumatized?

No.

The concept of "trauma" creeps into weaker and weaker circumstances until it has been defined out of any meaning, thanks to those seeking rhetorical tools rather than analytic tools.

As soon as I use a phrase like, "phobia indoctrination," that sounds like concept creep-bait, doesn't it?  Doesn't it sound like it is just itching for someone to come along and stick the label on damn-near anything, along the lines of that stupid aphorism, "politicians use fear to manipulate?"

That is the obstacle.  Phobia indoctrination is not using fear to manipulate, or rather, it is a very narrow subset of actions that could be classified as "using fear."  It is the cult tactic of telling you that this group, the in-group, is the only group that loves you, and everyone outside is out to get you because they hate you, and it's so, so dangerous outside this group that loves you so much.

DANGER DANGER DANGER!

But not with us, because we love you!

It is that contrast, of instilling in people an exaggerated at best, and perhaps even imagined risk of leaving the safety of the in-group, combined with statements of positive affect which can then mask psychological abuse because they are hidden behind "we are the only ones who love you" contrasted with "they hate you and they are a danger to you."

I have narrowed the concept significantly from "politicians use fear," and yet if you think about this presentation, perhaps you already have a few observations about when you are told "they are a danger to you."  When a political in-group tells you that it loves you, but you cannot leave because you will be at risk if you leave.

And perhaps most critically, when this is all tied to misperceptions of risk, which is a theme I've been trying to address year after year.  Risks have two components:  the probability of the adverse outcome, and the magnitude of the consequence, given the adverse outcome.  Both must be considered, and people are bad at both, but particularly bad at assessing the former because people just suck at guessing probabilities.  So when someone comes along and plays rhetorical games which bias your perception of the probability of an adverse outcome, you are ill-equipped to make a cognitive correction, particularly when it plays on in-group/out-group associations.

None of this is to say that the world is safe, everything is fine, rest easy.  The world is not safe, there are risks and dangers, the political system is deteriorating, and there are a variety of people who really do mean harm, to say nothing of those who are a danger merely because they do not give a flying fuck.  Yet the proper response to any claim of a risk is to ask, a) what is the probability, and b) what is the utility if the adverse outcome occurs?  You need to know both.  If you are presented with rhetoric which inflates the risk, or inflates the disutility of the adverse outcome based on in-group/out-group associations, linked to an attempt to keep you in the in-group, that's phobia indoctrination.

I have a lot to say on this topic.  There are legitimate reasons to be concerned, as the world has real dangers.  The political world has real dangers.  The challenge is assessing them with clear calculations.

Univers Zero, "Phobia," from Rhythmix.