On Totalitarianism

 My friend Sven Gerst sent me some interesting thoughts on totalitarianism that I thought were worth sharing. He says that when he teaches populism he also includes some aspects of totalitarianism because he thinks there is much to learn from totalitarianism.

The politics of Sri Lanka are convoluted, one dynamic being a conflict between the older feudalism of society and modern constitutionalism, but studying these various systems is quite useful to deciphering some of the local complexities. The very last paragraph in particular - think of the MCC Agreement, the Shafi affair for example seems very apt. Dayan Jayatilleka, raises some interesting points on the subject in his commentary.

Totalitarianism is most accurately defined as the idea that exercising control and direction over every aspect of the lives of a society’s inhabitants will yield the best of all possible futures. For totalitarianism to succeed in establishing itself, two preconditions are required. The first is widespread psychological dispositions that make society susceptible to totalitarianism’s temptations. The second is the skillful use of manipulative propaganda. Once put into practice, totalitarianism is a ruthless, all-encompassing socio-political force, intolerant of loyalty to anything but itself. This is the antithesis of the constitutional republics and parliamentary democracies that are the models of modern Western government.

Totalitarian regimes begin in mass movements, but it should be noted that not all mass movements are totalitarian. The American Civil Rights movement was a mass movement and undoubtedly a hugely positive force for urgently needed change. Mass movements typically coalesce around political or cultural narratives and causes that draw people together from broad segments of a national population. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt observed that the masses have very little in common in terms of interests or politics, but that a mass movement can bind diverse groups of people together with common goals and grievances. In practice, however, it is not always easy to distinguish a totalitarian from a benign mass movement at inception. The main distinction between the two is in the all-consuming nature of the totalitarian variant. The Nazi movement aimed to deprive the people of any facet of life outside of an exclusive commitment to its mission. In fact, the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, and the Jacobins all sought to radically remake society by compelling every last individual to become nothing more than a cog in their revolutionary machines. Any life outside of political life was seen, by the movements’ elite leaders, as not only superfluous but suspect and as a challenge to the movements themselves. [SG: That's a Schmittean insight] Even morality and reason are subordinate to the cause. 

[...]

Eric Hoffer began his book The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by pointing out that all mass movements are partly born of a desire for change in personal and social circumstances—totalitarian movements are no different. The individuals who are most susceptible to joining mass movements are characterized by loneliness, hopelessness, self-disdain, disappointment, and boredom. People who are contending with those kinds of feelings are initially attracted to the novelty and excitement of a mass movement, and quickly come to identify in it those aspects of their lives that are missing. In societies accustomed to progress, people who are actively dissatisfied with their personal and professional lives are especially susceptible.

In his book A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924, Orlando Figes pointed out that, for the revolutionaries, the most appealing thing about joining the revolution was not the promise of improving society, but rather the “sense of ‘wholeness’ which might give higher meaning to their lives and end their alienation from the world.” Arendt likewise noted that mass movements thrive in societies that have experienced social atomization because this laid the groundwork for “self-abandonment into the mass” and “the passionate inclination toward the most abstract notions as guides for life.” An appealing mass movement creates the chance for the disaffected individual to lose the unhappy person that they are and remake themselves anew as a part of a seemingly benevolent mission.

[...] 

Humans are social creatures, but we also have strong tribal tendencies. It turns out that how we self-identify is closely related to the cultural groups with which we associate. In his essay “The Dangers of Tribalism,” the philosopher of science Kevin deLaplante argues that our ideas, knowledge, and values are largely shaped by our individual sense of tribal belonging, and it’s this perception of belonging to particular groups that provides the context from which we draw much of our self-esteem as individuals.One of the most relevant forms of tribal identity to have emerged in America in recent decades is partisan identity. In her book Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, Lilliana Mason argued that partisan identity is more important to individual partisans than the actual issues. In fact, partisans often maintain their political identities in the face of contradictory policy positions. In the US, competing partisan identities have grown increasingly divergent since the 1980s as citizens have been sorting themselves into mutually exclusive geographical and cultural tribes.

....

A permanent feature of democracy accounts for much of what is potentially threatening about America’s relative political ineffectiveness as well as its fascination with social discord. In The Authoritarian Dynamic, Karen Stenner [SG: if you buy one book, buy this one] argues that about a third of people in Western liberal democracies have an authoritarian personality. People with this personality profile exhibit strong preferences for “unity and conformity” in society. They want society to believe in the same values and norms and they are avoiders of complexity. This type of personality is manifest in intolerant behaviors and attitudes, activated by perceived threats to “unity and conformity” in society. Accordingly, exposing authoritarians to a diversity of beliefs and the failure of political leadership to inspire the confidence of the citizenry, makes them less tolerant of any kind of differences in society. When authoritarians are experimentally exposed to news of social discord, they are much more likely to favor banning dissident political speech and to crack down on immigration.

This is a source of danger for democratic governments, which depend for their legitimacy upon the consent of the governed. Distrust in government as well as in the institutions of society allows totalitarian movements’ propaganda to thrive. Any information that is mysterious, hidden, secret, or granted attention by mainstream society offers a potential basis for totalitarian propaganda. Disaffected people want to escape from reality, but they also yearn for a consistent narrative—a desire that can be satisfied by movement leaders peddling paranoia and intrigue. It can be the inner workings of the Democratic National Committee or explanations for disparities in outcomes and other forms of potential social injustice.