Psychologist Andrew Hartz writes,
Splitting is a defense mechanism by which people unconsciously frame ideas, individuals or groups of people in all-or-nothing terms—for example, all good or all bad. The term was popularized in its current usage by the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein in the 1930s and ’40s. Its name describes how intolerable thoughts and feelings are split off from the subject’s awareness, leading to a partial view of the world. To see our opponents as pure evil, we have to split off the parts of them that are admirable. To see ourselves as purely righteous, we have to split off our shortcomings.
Hartz argues that this explains polarization. We learn to tune out any sort of positive perceptions of people whose political views differ from ours.
I think of splitting as another term for, or at least related to, cognitive dissonance. Believing something good about someone who disagrees with you creates cognitive dissonance. The easiest way to resolve that is to avoid believing something good about someone who disagrees. In The Three Languages of Politics, I call this the need for closure.
Agree. And the “Three Languages” approach is the best framing I’ve seen for breaking out of this polarizing tendency.
Arnold, the limits of our attentional capacity have been an issue in psychology and social sciences for a long time. For a recent survey focused on the economics of attention see
https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/1139
We cannot pay attention to everything so we are selective. This may be the most common source of discrimination, in particular of arbitrary discrimination. Polarization is a consequence of our personal experience of paying attention to “many” things but not to everything. Have you ever realized how many things you don’t pay attention to? Going back to your characterization of urban politics, I’d say from my personal experiences in several large cities that daily I don’t pay attention to hundreds of people and most likely if they meddle in my life I’d paint them with an X. So why would I pay attention to people that are promoting ideas that I don’t like, in particular, if they are politicians that will try to meddle in my life by resorting to coercion?
Dennis Robertson wrote about the economics of love 60 years ago to remind economists about the many scarce things, and others wrote about the economics of attention. As Paul Hayne used to say: Scarcity makes economizing necessary (see his “Economics Is a Way of Thinking”).
Let me repeat my question: Why would I pay attention to people that are promoting ideas that I don’t like, in particular, if they are politicians that will try to meddle in my life by resorting to coercion?
The answer is clear: because at some point they are a threat to my life and I need to be ready for them. And if I need to protect myself from them, I must start by making clear why I’m getting ready so the line is drawn. This is polarization and this is why we should be ready for rotten and corrupt politicians willing to collude with radical leftists which today as yesterday are attempting to grab absolute power.
Who is afraid of polarization? The ones ready to serve new masters in exchange for sparing their lives. They are afraid the new masters may think they are a threat to their power. I could support my view with the experience of Argentina. Perón was unknown in early 1945, but he was elected President in February 1946. By the time of Perón’s re-election in late 1951, the division between the pro-and the anti-Perón sides had become quite clear, and since the pro-Perón vote proved to be an absolute majority (still today is an absolute majority when the main factions unite in support of one candidate), the anti-Perón vote relied on the military forces to cancel the participation of the pro-Perón vote in the elections (Perón was overthrown in 1955, and until 1973 the pro-Perón vote couldn’t participate in the elections; the overthrown of Isabel Perón in 1976 led to a new military period that ended in December 1983). After Perón’s death (July 1974), new leftist factions became important in the pro-Perón vote, leading to a new polarization based on the relative importance of the leftist factions within the pro-Perón vote. I lived there until 1967, and thanks to my anti-Perón family I was a first-row viewer of how the polarization aggravated since 1951, and how it conditioned politics after Perón was overthrown in September 1955. Although I left Argentina long ago, I have been following that polarization closely because it’s the main cause of Argentina’s failure.
Arnold, do you feel threatened by the return of the Propeller Heads?
Read: https://freebeacon.com/columns/return-of-the-propeller-heads/
Before they come for you and your family, remember this
“This impulse toward the state as über-parent is based on a profound fallacy and a profound truth. The fallacy is that anyone can care about someone else’s children as much as his own. The former Texas Republican senator Phil Gramm liked to illustrate the hollowness of professions to the contrary with a story. He told a woman, “My educational policies are based on the fact that I care more about my children than you do.” She said, “No, you don’t.” Gramm replied, “Okay: What are their names?”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/04/your-kids-arent-your-own-rich-lowry/
Your constant attempts to shoehorn American politics into the framework of Argentinian history are grotesquely distorting your understanding of American politics. There are two very different histories and traditions involved.
At least it isn’t the Thiago Ribero at Marginal Revolution and Brazilian politics
So, I was expecting a deep dive on “splitting” and got a strange and bizarre narrative. I know that I’m not supposed to laugh at the suffering of others, so apologies. But, I literally couldn’t help it. Is this real or a caricature? Holy cow!
“I first noticed splitting a few years ago, when I provided psychotherapy to a depressed college student. At first our sessions focused on her depression, but my patient, a white woman, took frequent detours into racial politics. She “loved” Malcolm X and railed against “white privilege.” Then she told me that she “identified” as black.
She said she felt “black on the inside” because she “got it” and wasn’t ignorant or hateful. Everything she said about black people was positive, even idealizing. They were always blameless, strong victims. By contrast, everything she said about white people was aggressively critical and shaming. They were ignorant oppressors, fragile, selfish and guilty. One had no power; the other had all of it, and so forth. This led me to believe that she felt black because whiteness for her was intolerably negative, whereas blackness was appealing.”
I don’t understand this way of thinking. I can’t even comprehend it.
How does a person observe daily life and come to the conclusion that the entire class of people who look one way are oppressive and morally bad whereas another class of people who look another way are morally good victims?
You’d think most minds would reflect upon themselves, at the very least, and say “well I’m an obvious counter example, and so are these other persons I know” but in this case, the person decides instead to pretend she’s part of the other group to keep her worldview intact.
“Few people have the imagination for reality.”
– Goethe
I think it’s not only about cognitive dissonance but also about group dynamics. To express any positive beliefs about the enemy is to signal limits of your loyalty to your in-group. On the other hand, expressing agreement with the most outlandish beliefs of your in-group (e.g. Trump is literally Hitler) marks you as a dedicated, reliable, unquestioning member. Of course, anyone who can really convince themselves of the truth of these the most outlandish group beliefs has an easier time of it.
Also, Scott Alexander’s I can tolerate anything but the outgroup remains a classic. The ‘Bin Laden vs Margaret Thatcher’ example is particularly on point.
I have never met anyone who believed “Trump is literally Hitler.” Are there a lot of them?
Does this work?
“CNN’s Christiane Amanpour compares Trump-era to Kristallnacht”
https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/cnns-christiane-amanpour-compares-trump-era-to-kristallnacht-649016
Arnold, my comment on your recent post on Urban Politics pointing to the comparative study of cities applies also to the comparative study of countries as well as to the reference of country experiences to argue about particular social phenomena like polarization.
In the case of polarization -a well-known phenomenon in the history of humankind for the reasons I mentioned in previous comments– and not to irritate some of your readers that have suddenly discovered how exceptional the U.S. history is, I can refer to countries other than Argentina in which I have lived and worked for some time.
Let me start with China and HK. Yes, since 10/1/1949, there has been no polarization in China. By that day the survivors of the defeated side in the long civil war had moved out of China, and since then the one-party rule has left no room for any opposition and polarization. In HK, however, today the polarization is as intense as in other democracies. Why? I lived and worked there when there was great interest in how the Chinese slogan “one country, two systems” would work. I used to believe that the Chinese government would comply with the Joint Declaration for at least 50 years, but there would a lot of “fine-tuning” in reaction to changing circumstances. My time framework was determined by my expectations about how long it would take for the Chinese government to accept the economy strong enough not to need HK’s special status for its international objectives (regardless of what these objectives were). In the meantime, the Chinese government would tolerate the HK they got in 1997, but repress any attempt to distance from Beijing. I was wrong about how long it would take the Chinese government to accept the strength of the economy: because of my work, I bet that there was not going to be a banking crisis but that the growth rate —whatever it was in 1994-96— was going to decline in the next 25 years. In my last visit (2018), I concluded that the rate might have declined but much less than I expected. More importantly, I realized that the current Chinese government had accepted (around 2012) that the economy was strong enough to pursue openly its international objectives. In the few days I spent there in 2018, I was concerned about the future of HK as much as I ever was. I have not been surprised by the rise of the opposition to the Chinese government in the past 2 years, but I think that the opposition was abandoned by the foreign governments that in 1997 promised to support them. Yes, in HK the polarization may end soon, not because of compliance with the slogan “one country, two systems” but because the opposition will be crushed. Don’t expect the rotten and corrupt D-politicians to do anything to support the opposition. Don’t ask Bill Clinton where he stands now.
If I have time later I will discuss Spain and Chile.
EB-Ch, when you say that “since 10/1/49 there has been no polarization in China” you are using a framework that views the suppression of polarization as equivalent to its absence.
The Tiananmen Square demonstrations weren’t an increase in polarization in this framework. Instead, the massacre there is read as the absence of polarization. Polarization is not to be found in people’s individual views but in what the government permits or doesn’t permit. My point is that this has not traditionally been how Americans define polarization. Nor should it be.
But it is how Trump views it which is why you like him so much. When he was interviewed by Playboy Magazine in 1990 he expressed admiration for the strong leadership of those ordering the massacre and scorn for Gorbachev’s very different and more tolerant response to polarization in the Soviet Union.
Here is what he said about the Tiananmen Square massacre: ““When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it,” Trump said. “Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.”
Sorry, I don’t rely on Playboy to understand the world and to seek meaning in life. If you have a different theory of polarization or you want to criticize what I speculate about polarization taking the economics of attention as my starting point, please write about that.
We rely on words and actions to relate to others. Polarization is about disagreements in individuals’ political views. It assumes the opportunity to express those views freely and points to the situation in which the free exchange of views becomes too costly because of extreme intolerance for others’ views. Yes, I don’t tolerate people that meddle in my life and want to resort to coercion to change my life. If you want to persuade me that your political views are reasonable, you are welcome to try it but you should be open to being rejected.
Rebellions against those exercising political power are about actions. The repression of rebellions is about actions. The few attempts to rebel in China and HK have been crushed by the Chinese government. But the HK people had enjoyed a decent degree of free speech before June 30, 1997, and expected to keep it after that date.
BTW, the failed attempts to overthrown Trump by the rotten and corrupt D-politicians that you love so much were not a reflection of polarization. They reflected the personal ambitions of rotten and corrupt politicians and their intent to do whatever necessary to recover the power they lost in the 2016 election. They knew, however, they could fail and that’s why they have been attempting to change the electoral system as analyzed by K. Strassel in her last column:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvesting-the-2020-election-11605221974?mod=opinion_featst_pos1
>—“Sorry, I don’t rely on Playboy to understand the world and to seek meaning in life. ”
Now there is a transparently obvious red herring. The only reason at all for my reference to Playboy was to cite the place to find the quote just in case anyone doubted he had said it, not to recommend Playboy as a way to “seek meaning in life.”
But your purpose wasn’t to question the accuracy of the Trump quote which reflects a world view that you share with him. That would be world view where a “situation in which the free exchange of views becomes too costly” refers to a situation you and he believe we have ALREADY reached in America.”
No thank you to your proposed solution of South American style authoritarianism.
As usual, you are wrong. I don’t share Trump’s views but I tolerate them because he is not trying to change others’ lives. He thinks Americans will have better opportunities to be themselves with his policies. I doubt his policies will be good or good enough to get what he wants.
I don’t tolerate the views of the many around the world that want to meddle in others’ lives and threaten to resort to coercion to change them. Indeed, this group includes the rotten and corrupt D-politicians. I have already seen their puppets indoctrinating school and college children (yes, I have a large family living in the U.S., including professors, former and current students).