Conservatives and Humiliation

[wolly.green]

This thread is about psychology not politics! Please do not discussion your political views here!

Why are Conservatives obsessed with humiliation? But in particular, Conservative men. Donald Trump repeatedly says things like "everyone is laughing at us" as if its the worse thing in the world. Conservative men, in general, act as though humiliation is the worst thing imaginable. Consider the world of Wrestling. Its not uncommon to hear things like "I will humiliate you". Is that really the best insult you can come up with? I'm not saying its stupid, I just want to understand.

 

[Rowan Tree]

Why are Conservatives obsessed with humiliation? But in particular, Conservative men. Donald Trump repeatedly says things like "everyone is laughing at us" as if its the worse thing in the world. Conservative men, in general, act as though humiliation is the worst thing imaginable. Consider the world of Wrestling. Its not uncommon to hear "I will humiliate you". Is that really the best insult you can come up with? I'm not saying its stupid, I just want to understand.

Conservativism is a broad umbrella of distinct ideologies, some of which share these obsessions. Those tendencies that emphasize this variety of masculine performance are often trying to reaffirm an arbitrary identity to benefit from in-group/out-group biases; invoking an alleged threat to someone's social status (that is, humiliation) can work to suppress their critical thinking and strengthen any personal investment in their perceived group. If your target audience is conscious of having lost some special status (irrespective of whether or not they have) and feels acutely entitled to it, this rhetoric will be all the more persuasive.

 

[wolly.green]

Conservativism is a broad umbrella of distinct ideologies, some of which share these obsessions. Those tendencies that emphasize this variety of masculine performance are often trying to reaffirm an arbitrary identity to benefit from in-group/out-group biases; invoking an alleged threat to someone's social status (that is, humiliation) can work to suppress their critical thinking and strengthen any personal investment in their perceived group. If your target audience is conscious of having lost some special status (irrespective of whether or not they have) and feels acutely entitled to it, this rhetoric will be all the more persuasive.

Ok that makes sense, but that raises a further question. Why are those Conservative groups more sensitive to status than liberals. I've seen the data on this, but never an explanation why.

 

[Wyote]

Why isn't this thread in the Politics section? @wolly.green

 

[wolly.green]

Why isn't this thread in the Politics section? @wolly.green

Because I don't want to discuss politics. I want to discuss psychology! I can see this devolving into political partisanship. But thats not really what I'm looking for here.

@charlatan Do you have an explanation?

 

[Wyote]

Because I don't want to discuss politics. I want to discuss psychology! I can see this devolving into political partisanship. But thats not really what I'm looking for here.

Ok cool. I think that's an important facet of this thread to highlight.

 

[wolly.green]

Ok cool. I think that's an important facet of this thread to highlight.

Ok ill add it into the OP.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Ok that makes sense, but that raises a further question. Why are those Conservative groups more sensitive to status than liberals. I've seen the data on this, but never an explanation why.

Maybe they tend towards more traditional views of gender roles and thus "losing face" or not being No. 1 (in a more male-dominated political orientation) is a bigger deal?

 

[wolly.green]

Maybe they tend towards more traditional views of gender roles and thus "losing face" or not being No. 1 (in a more male-dominated political orientation) is a bigger deal?

Sure. But why is a "male-dominated political orientation" correlated with "status sensitivity". Why are conservative males so sensitive to status?

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Sure. But why is a "male-dominated political orientation" correlated with "status sensitivity". Why are conservative males so sensitive to status?

Idk. This might be worth checking out.

"With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was left as the world’s sole superpower, which was the dawn of an international order known as unipolarity. The ramifications of imbalanced power extend around the globe—including the country at the center. What has the sudden realization that it stands alone atop the international hierarchy done to the United States? In Psychology of a Superpower, Christopher J. Fettweis examines how unipolarity affects the way U.S. leaders conceive of their role, make strategy, and perceive America’s place in the world.

Combining security, strategy, and psychology, Fettweis investigates how the idea of being number one affects the decision making of America’s foreign-policy elite. He examines the role the United States plays in providing global common goods, such as peace and security; the effect of the Cold War’s end on nuclear-weapon strategy and policy; the psychological consequences of unbalanced power; and the grand strategies that have emerged in unipolarity. Drawing on psychology’s insights into the psychological and behavioral consequences of unchecked power, Fettweis brings new insight to political science’s policy-analysis toolkit. He also considers the prospect of the end of unipolarity, offering a challenge to widely held perceptions of American indispensability and asking whether the unipolar moment is worth trying to save. Psychology of a Superpower is a provocative rethinking of the risks and opportunities of the global position of the United States, with significant consequences for U.S. strategy, character, and identity."

 

[Rowan Tree]

Why are those Conservative groups more sensitive to status than liberals.

I'm not convinced that they are, but it plays out differently outside the context of masculine performance. Look at the types of behavior and rhetoric used by liberals when they punch left, that is, attempt to shore up their base against the left. E.g. the attempt by Clintonites to shame Bernie Sanders supporters or by British Labour 'moderates' and Lib Dems to shame Jeremy Corbyn supporters. Here we find status is often evoked in a range of weak IDPOL and McCarthyite strategies. When Gloria Steinem accused female millennials of preferring Sanders to Hillary Clinton because of his popularity with young men, wasn't she essentially suggesting that women were debasing their autonomy? She was evoking a feeling of humiliation.

 

[wolly.green]

I'm not convinced that they are, but it plays out differently outside the context of masculine performance. Look at the types of behavior and rhetoric used by liberals when they punch left, that is, attempt to shore up their base against the left. E.g. the attempt by Clintonites to shame Bernie Sanders supporters or by British Labour 'moderates' and Lib Dems to shame Jeremy Corbyn supporters. Here we find status is often evoked in a range of weak IDPOL and McCarthyite strategies. When Gloria Steinem accused female millennials of preferring Sanders to Hillary Clinton because of his popularity with young men, wasn't she essentially suggesting that women were debasing their autonomy? She was evoking a feeling of humiliation.

Sure, but that word [humiliation] is almost never used by the left. The left is more obsessed with things like: toxic masculinity, sexism and racism. Those issues resonate much more with liberals than than cobservatives. And I want to know why.

 

[Rowan Tree]

Sure, but that word [humiliation] is almost never used by the left. The left is more obsessed with things like: toxic masculinity, sexism and racism. Those issues resonate much more with liberals than than cobservatives. And I want to know why.

Certain historical distinctions are necessary.

Liberalism is the philosophy that became hegemonic after modernity. It was opposed by traditionalism (conservativism, monarchism), but was eventually reconciled with what became the dominant strand of conservativism (Burkeianism, Classical Liberalism and offshoots constitute most contemporary conservativism). Anti-capitalist conservativism (radical traditionalism, Ancien Régime monarchism) is almost unrepresented in contemporary political debates, although they still exist and sometimes influence mainstream discourse (so-called Red Tories, Blue Labour, the Traditionalist School, etc).

Liberalism adopted state interventionist forms, which was influenced by the left and became social democracy and its later Third Way manifestations. This is what many in the US currently (and I would argue wrongly) describe as the left—the actual American left and its attendant labour movements have been all but annihilated by red scares and anti-union legislation. The left represents a distinct departure from liberalism, although it is also an umbrella (encompassing Marxist and non-Marxist democratic socialism, various flavors of anarchism, etc) and different tendencies overlap with liberalism. The far right, of which Trump is a nascent manifestation, remains within the conservative camp: prioritising the nation-state, retaining a capitalist economy with private production and salaried labour, etc. However, it also adopts certain left strategies and it is popularist; although usually, it's fairly ersatz-popularism since it's used to shore up the power of an elite.

Although liberals invoke the threat of humiliation (see my earlier Gloria Steinem example), the language they use is informed by metropolitanism and academic respectability, therefore it's unlikely to deploy vulgar language. Whereas the extreme Right (Trump, Bannon, et al) are informed by their pseudo-popularism and adopt a baser rhetorical style in order to create the perception that they are representative of their demographic, which in Trump's case is an insecure masculinity defined by its perceived loss of cultural and economic power.

 

[phiphi]

I hope this answers your question, it's been bothering me too. But basic psychobiology has helped me understand a bit.

I think you should checkout "Liberal and Conservative brain". According to a few studies, mind you I've only read summaries of them: conservatives are supposed to have a more active amygdala (fear response - but it's more complex than that). I'm inclined to believe that is the case. Liberals have a larger `anterior cingulate cortex` according to those studies.

I am not demeaning 'conservative' or 'conservative-leaning' people because, having a few friends, they have legitimate concerns that I personally went through. I am not apologist though. But there are strange things out there, just be careful.

After looking back at my conservative/libertarian friends (the libertarian ideology is disgusting to me), there is definitely a family and childhood influence. Masculinity (or percieved lack thereof). I find in conservatives have a general lack of..self esteem? I didn't quite understand it at first.. but as I grow older and see patterns it begins to make sense in their responses they make.

I love to play sports, football, wrestling, I was pretty good at it (until adulthood >._). The obsession of masculinity doesn't make sense to me. I mean, being tough and competitive is super fun, and being humiliated is honestly..good comedy But people take it too far...lack of self esteem...

There is alot of biology to factor in, truly fascinating stuff. I think God or the cosmos or the simulation loves to throw these curveballs and add variations...to wisen us up.

I am not well versed in psychobiology, I took a very difficult (and serious, emotional) psych class but didn't pursue the field.

 

[phiphi]

tldr : small (?) differences brains and cognitive function? childhood...
When you get into psychobiology, or take a very hard psych class, you can get those 'AHA' moments as to why people act the way they do.