The Psychological Roots of Polarization

Psychoanalyst Melanie Klein offers profound insights into why trauma, especially in early life, can lead to what she termed “splitting.” Splitting is a defense mechanism where individuals view the world in black-and-white terms, dividing people and experiences into “all good” or “all bad.” This concept originates from an infant’s experience with the mother’s breast, which the child perceives as either entirely nurturing or entirely withholding. When trauma arrests an individual’s emotional development, this simplistic, polarized way of thinking can persist into adulthood.

Societal movements, including extremism, are driven by collective emotions and unconscious processes. Extremism is seen as a by-product of the tension between the desire for security and the fear of losing it, which can lead to authoritarianism or radicalism. These reactions can be triggered by unresolved emotions such as fear, anger, or anxiety, which are often projected onto out-groups or dissenters.

Furthermore, extremism can be a manifestation of socio-cultural “arrest,” where societies or groups fail to progress to more advanced stages of emotional and socio-cultural development. In these cases, extremist behaviors and ideologies may serve as a coping mechanism for unresolved collective trauma or anxiety, leading to destructive outcomes like violence, war, or oppression.

Polarization is, in essence, the antithesis of empathy. Empathy requires understanding and relating to the emotions and perspectives of others, even when they differ from our own. However, a polarized mindset cannot accommodate these differences. It creates an environment where only those who agree with us are deemed acceptable, and those who don’t are viewed as threats or enemies.

The Socio-Political Impact of Polarization

The consequences of polarization extend far beyond personal relationships; they permeate our socio-political landscapes. Leaders who hold polarized views often rise to prominence in such environments, reinforcing and amplifying community divisions. This process is exacerbated when the public, driven by fear and anxiety, is easily swayed by these leaders or by manipulative media tactics, especially in times of uncertainty.

Emotionally, cultures that operate on lower tiers of development—where empathy and understanding are less prevalent—tend to have more polarized views of others. This can manifest as racism, xenophobia, or other forms of discrimination based on unchangeable human characteristics such as race, color, or birth endowment.

For example, many extremists, including mass murderers, have been found to hold deeply polarized worldviews. These views often stem from early life traumas that were never addressed or healed. On a broader scale, political or religious extremism can be reinforced by continuous socio-cultural traumas, such as those caused by wars or natural disasters.

Healing from Polarization

Understanding the roots of polarization in trauma provides us with a path toward healing. The first step is acknowledging the impact that personal and collective traumas have on our worldviews. By recognizing how past hurts influence our present attitudes, we can begin to challenge and soften the rigid, black-and-white thinking that characterizes polarized views.

Healing also involves fostering empathy, both within ourselves and in our communities. This means actively listening to and engaging with perspectives different from our own, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the world. Leaders and influencers who promote empathy over division can play a crucial role in guiding societies away from the brink of extremism.

Additionally, addressing the socio-cultural traumas that fuel polarization is essential. This requires systemic efforts to provide support and healing for communities affected by wars, natural disasters, and other forms of collective trauma. In doing so, we can help to create environments where individuals are less likely to adopt extremist views and more likely to engage in constructive, empathetic dialogue.

Conclusion

Trauma, both personal and collective, plays a significant role in the development and intensification of polarized views. However, by understanding these roots and committing to healing, we can begin to move away from extremism and toward a more empathetic, connected world. It’s a challenging journey, but one that is essential for the health and well-being of both individuals and societies. Let us strive to replace division with understanding and fear with empathy, healing the wounds that divide us and creating a more harmonious world for all.

The post Healing from Polarization: Understanding the Roots of Extremism in Our Personal and Socio-Political Lives appeared first on PsychoEduGlobal.

A study (Dargis & Koenigs, 2018) confirmed the early claim of the existence of two types of psychopathy finding that the high-NA subgroup of psychopathic offenders scored higher on Negative Affect scales and reported significantly greater emotional and physical abuse, as well as emotional neglect, compared to the low-NA subgroup. The low-NA subgroup, on the other hand, scored significantly higher on the Positive Affect scale than the comparison group.

The post Two Types of Criminal Minds appeared first on PsychoEduGlobal.

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, akin to a sibling rivalry in psychology, the absence of a neutral, empathetic entity to guide and mediate the disputes has perpetuated a cycle of violence and mistrust. The initial approach by Britain, which can be perceived as a “parental” figure, was arguably neutral but employed a divide-and-control policy, which may have sown seeds of discord rather than unity.

Historically, the British Mandate in Palestine (1920-1948) aimed to implement the Balfour Declaration, which promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. However, the mandate also recognized the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. The conflicting promises to both Jewish and Arab communities and the subsequent withdrawal of the British without a clear path to resolution left a power vacuum and a legacy of division.

Roland Kim’s model emphasizes the evolution of societies through stages, culminating in a Stage 5 society where emotional maturity, empathy, and collective well-being are paramount. In such a society, effective communication, adherence to agreements, and a commitment to understanding and valuing diverse perspectives are key.

The model emphasizes emotional maturity and collective well-being. In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, this would mean both parties engaging in dialogues and negotiations with a genuine understanding and empathy toward each other’s histories, traumas, and aspirations. The Oslo Accords in the 1990s, which aimed to establish a framework for peace, could have been a step towards this, but the failure to realize the promises of these accords demonstrates the challenges in achieving such dialogue.

The emotional and psychological dimensions of the Israel-Palestine conflict are profound. The Palestinians might perceive themselves as abandoned children, especially considering the substantial support Israel receives from powerful Western nations. On the other hand, the Jewish population, still shadowed by the horrors of the Holocaust, may harbor unresolved traumas that influence their defensive and protective stance.

For Palestinians, the Nakba (the 1948 Palestinian exodus) and subsequent events have been traumatic, while Israelis have faced constant security threats and military conflicts. Both communities harbor deep-seated fears and traumas that influence their perspectives and reactions toward each other, perpetuating a cycle of mistrust and aggression.

An empathetic entity, capable of understanding, validating, and addressing the traumas and emotional pains of all parties involved, is crucial. This entity should facilitate a space where both Israelis and Palestinians can express their fears, grievances, and aspirations without judgment or retaliation.

The role of an empathetic mediator, which could be an individual, a country, or an international organization, is to facilitate dialogue without imposing solutions. The Quartet on the Middle East, comprising the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia, was established in 2002 to mediate the peace process but has faced challenges in maintaining neutrality and effectively facilitating negotiations.

The involvement of external entities, such as the U.S., is complex due to various political, financial, and social ties, which may hinder their capacity to act as neutral mediators. The analogy of the U.S. grappling with its own internal issues, such as gun control, reflects the challenge of navigating policies amidst powerful opposing forces.

The U.S., despite being a key player in mediating the conflict, has often been perceived as biased towards Israel, given the significant political and financial support. Similarly, other countries or entities that might mediate are often perceived as having biases, complicating the peace process. The U.S. provides Israel with substantial military aid, while also being home to a significant Palestinian diaspora, reflecting its complex role in the conflict.

In envisioning a resolution, the principles of a Stage 5 society can be instrumental. A collaborative, inter-independent approach, where both Israelis and Palestinians work towards a shared future while respecting and valuing their distinct identities and narratives, is vital. This involves transcending the “eye for an eye” mentality and fostering a space where shared humanity is recognized above all else.

A future solution might involve recognizing the legitimate aspirations and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. The two-state solution, which envisions independent Israeli and Palestinian states coexisting side by side, has been the predominant international approach since the mid-20th century, but its realization has been hindered by numerous challenges, including issues related to borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is deeply complex and multifaceted, with varied narratives and perspectives. It’s crucial to approach the topic with sensitivity and a commitment to presenting a balanced view, acknowledging the legitimate aspirations and grievances of all parties involved.

Though the path towards peace and resolution in the Israel-Palestine conflict is undeniably complex and fraught with challenges, by integrating the principles of emotional maturity, empathy, and collaborative coexistence from the Stage 5 societal model, there may yet be a pathway towards a future where both nations can coexist harmoniously, healing from the traumas of the past and building a future anchored in mutual respect and shared aspirations.

Kim, R. (2021a). The Five Stages of Civilization: An integrated psychological and psychoanalytic perspective, Personality development. Living Free Publishing.

Kim, R. (2021b). The Five Stages of Civilization: From an Integrated Psychological and Psychoanalytic Perspective Vol. II Socio-cultural Development. Living Free Publishing.

Kim, R. (2023). The Psychology of Mature Societies: Reflecting on Sociocultural Blueprints Living free publishing Co.

Kim, R. (2022). Silent Trauma of Childhood: A Seed of Depression, Anxiety, Suicide, and Homicide. Living Free Publishing.

The post A Stage-5 Approach to the Israel-Palestine Conflict appeared first on PsychoEduGlobal.

Photo by Katie Godowski from Pexels

It has been deplorable watching so many Ukrainians suffering from this indescribable tragedy and pain out of nowhere. How can we understand Russia’s cruel act of invasion into Ukraine from a psychological perspective?

If we understand the psychology of the development in our society and culture, we may find where the problem came from and what is the best approach to the situation from a psychological perspective.

First, the current situation in Ukraine may be an inevitable result of the breakdown of dialogue between Russian leaders and Western leaders.

It resembles the deadlock situation between couples or parent and child when the communications break down due to the difference in the emotional or socio-cultural conditions.

I have mentioned in my book, The five stages of civilization, Vol. II A Socio-cultural development (Roland kim, 2021B), that our society and culture follow a similar development pattern as individual emotional or personality development.

From the socio-cultural developmental perspective, Russia has been living in the competitive stage of 2 domestically while in Stage 1 of the authoritarian state in their international political affairs. Regarding international politics, Putin as a leader may have represented the sentiment and emotions of the older authoritarian generation at Stage 1.  

On the other hand, the Western world, including the British and the U.S. leadership, represents the individualistic, libertarian socio-cultural stage at Stage 4 domestically while a competitive stance at Stage 2 in international affairs. When they were threatened of their security from 9/11, however, the U.S. had regressed toward an authoritarian state under the leadership that matched the citizens’ sentiment at the time. Putin used it as his excuse for his invasion, so in my speculation, the Western leadership may also be partly responsible for this type of development. Putin’s rationalization is to remove the neo-Nazi leadership, while the U.S. was to find the weapon of mass destruction.

As I pointed out in my prior publication, most violent attacks happen under authoritarian leadership, whether international or interpersonal, as in the case of domestic violence. The violence often occurs, mainly when the two parties cannot communicate to exchange their respective emotional or socio-cultural perspective due to their difficulty expressing their pent-up emotions of fear and anger rationally, as it may be possible in the later developmental stages.

Russia, in Authoritarian tradition, might have felt insecure about its survival when their former ally or a part of its family has been leaving them toward the Western and NATO side in the name of seeking democracy and freedom.

At least among the leaders, the Russians may have felt that their long-term ally or family has betrayed the mother country. As President Putin stated in his address, he may have thought of his invasion as his desperate survival measure and to protect the part of the Russian family who is in danger of genocide. Many people in the authoritarian-dependent state at stage 1 feel fear of survival, as I have witnessed through years of work as a psychologist and researcher.

While the Western countries feel that they have been in a territorial game with their rivals, the Russians may have felt desperate to defend their survival. It may be like a paranoid state that President Putin has been in regarding international affairs.

When Ukraine tried to join NATO, Putin may have felt rejected by the Ukrainians, their longtime family, and ally. Despite its effort to get more support from the Western and NATO countries, Ukraine will not get the support they desire except the weapons and equipment which will not be enough to beat the military giant like Russia which has superiority in air, missile, and nuclear power. Therefore, the Ukrainians may have to figure out a way to reduce the casualties and damages through their own creative solution.

Regardless of the result of this war, however, the overall development of the international community will be delayed unless the Western leaders show a more empathetic approach to have a dialogue or deal with the Russian leadership. If the Western leaders try to use this opportunity to build more power to bolster their side, it will extend another power game that will not end soon while the Ukrainians as a scapegoat country undergo further damage.

The Russian president Putin may have felt there had been no one to share his perspective with among the Western leaders. When President Biden stated, “Dictators must pay a price,” he did not recognize and accept that dictatorship or an authoritarian leadership is a kind of political system that many families, cultures, and societies have adopted and operated under, even among the Americans. The system is not out of one leader’s conscious decision without the supportive feedback from its family, society, or culture. When Donald Trump was the U.S. President, Putin might have felt accepted by a Western leader who understood his sentiment and perspective.

Therefore, for the better of our future domestic and international community, we need to develop a more inclusive approach to those leaders and the countries in a different political and socio-cultural stage. The police in the U.S. started to intervene only 30 years ago regarding domestic violence. However, in international affairs, it is more challenging for any country to play the role of police with any justification for intervention unless it is justifiable through genuine concern out of empathy.

The sentiment of the Russian leadership is beyond their control, as is that of the Russian citizens who have accepted him as their leader for many years. They will learn more through their own experiences toward their better political future; however, the change can be best achieved if it comes from within among themselves. For this reason, a more critical role for rival leaders should be a more inclusive, culturally-informed, and empathetic one.

As Ukraine has moved away from Russia toward NATO for more freedom and independence, Russia will feel betrayed as just the way any authoritarian parents at Stage 1 will feel when their adult children move away from them for more freedom and independence. It is natural for us humans to evolve or develop toward more freedom and individual happiness as we grow up; however, the best result of the independence movement can be achieved only with parental blessing and without any intervention by other potential rivals.

When the U.S. declared independence from Great Britain, Thomas Paine (1969) shared his conviction that the homeland will not hurt their freedom movement. He said, in his Common Sense, “[b]ut Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families” (p. 38). An interesting hypothesis is that at the moment if the U.S. movement toward independence was assisted by any outsiders with who the mother country was in rival, it is unknown how the mother country might have reacted to the movement.By Roland Kim

Ukraine needs to acknowledge that she owes her parent country as their security blanket while going through their incubational period and that Russia had been part of their family for a long before they became ready to seek freedom and democracy. Internationally, Russia as an authoritarian culture at Stage 1 may still think of Ukraine as its family. The Western leaders using only sanctions, instead of an attempt to understand its psychology through dialogue at an equal level with the Russian leaders from an empathetic stance, may make the Russian leaders feel further isolated and resort more to the desperate measure to prove their point. Russia is different from Western societies in its emotional and socio-cultural stages.

History and therapy have equally proven that empathy, not punishments or sanctions, will make one readily change the way they see the world. It is expected that most authoritarian nations operate on a policy out of fear for survival, and competitive, narcissistic countries operate out of anger and greed-based imperialistic policy, as I pointed out in my book, The Five Stages Civilization (Kim, 2021B). According to the emotional and socio-cultural development theory, for any country initiating war or violence-prone individuals, fear at Stage 1 is the main driving force than anger and greed at stage 2 or anxiety and guilt concern at stage 3. Like domestic volence in a deadlock marriage, most war may be initiated by fear-based authoritarians when their survival is threatened; however, as in the case of the marriage with communication breakdown, its excuse is to defend against unempathetic selfish partners/countries at Stage 2. Therefore, the authoritarian’ motivation for a violent attack may not effectively be thwarted by the interest-oriented policy using financial sanctions.

Whether in individual matters or international politics, a dialogue based on
Understanding through empathy than through power or logical consequences (sanctions) will motivate any voluntary change. Under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine seemed to have started its counter-dependent, competitive stage at 2, going defiant and separating from its parent country, which may have been felt as a threat to the authoritarian regime under President Putin. 
Therefore, Ukraine’s request for joining NATO may have provoked the Russian leadership to show less sympathy but more fear and insecurity to justify the increase of its attack. It is a classic case of the deadlocked relationship between the authoritarian partner at Stage 1 and the competitive, counter-dependent partner at Stage 2 as in the deadlock marriage.

The Russian leaders accused that Western leaders might have listened but never heard the complaints made by Russia for a long time. In other words, as in many cases of the domestic mass shooting in the U.S., the pent-up hostility from traumas experienced may have been escalating for a while before its eventual explosion.  Sadly, the consequence-based sanctions or punishment may not turn the minds of those at the explosive state as we have experienced through many domestic shootings. Among the Western, Ukrainian, and Russian leaders, if at least one party can start to show empathy to rebuild trust to deescalate or neutralize the hostility as is explained in my trauma-hostility diagram (Kim, 2021A, p. 160), it may facilitate to get them out of the deadlocked situation to start a more successful dialogue to reach a prompt solution to prevent further collateral damages in the process.

References

Kim, R. (2021A). The five stages of civilization: An integrated psychological and psychoanalytic perspective: A personality development. Living Free Publishing Co.

Kim, R. (2021B). The five stages of civilization: An integrated psychological and psychoanalytic perspective: A socio-cultural development. Living Free Publishing Co.

Paine, T. (1969). Common sense, human rights, and other essential writings of Thomas Paine with an introduction by Sidney Hook. A Meridian Book.

Post navigation

Next post:An interview on the psychology of mass shootings in America with Roland Kim

Related Posts

The post Understanding the Psychology of Russian Invasion of Ukraine through Object Relations Perspective appeared first on PsychoEduGlobal.