Two-headed cerberus, part 5: pathologizing dissent
I remember I once thought Jim Jones must have been really brilliant to figure out how to brainwash all those people into following him. Then, when I read a book on Jonestown, I was surprised to find that Jim Jones' brainwashing techniques were essentially the same ones that the evangelical Christians used on me back when I attended an evangelical high school. The full story will have to wait for a later blog entry, but for now let me point to one of the key brainwashing techniques used in both cases: pathologizing dissent.
If you want to make sure that people don't leave your group and don't question the dogma, it's very important to make sure that they never believe that reasonable people could disagree on the dogma. Everyone who disagrees- everyone who is not a member of the group- is not merely incorrect, but is laughable, wicked, and sick.
For example, we were always told that atheists were silly, neurotic people who denied Christ because they wanted to have license to sin, and were trying (and failing) to fool themselves into believing that God wouldn't punish them for it. My history teacher once warned me that any book on Egyptian history which didn't explicitly mention the parting of the Red Sea was actually covert anti-Christian propanda written by atheists who were hell-bent on the destruction of Christianity. There's also a set of Sunday-school stereotypes of "why people reject Christianity," loosely based on the parable of the sower. If you read Left Behind, the protagonists have little personality beyond these stereotypes: there's the guy who thinks Christianity sounds too dumb for a cool guy like him, the guy who goes to church but isn't really committed, etc. Nowhere do they admit the possibility that reasonable people simply might disagree on whether Christianity is true. This is a nice way to make sure people don't leave the cult: tear down everything outside the cult so that your followers don't think there's anywhere else to go.
Where do Skeptics fit into all this? Here's Richard Dawkins:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
Like I said: the evangelicals teach that everyone who dissents is laughable, wicked, and sick. The Skeptics have actually made a cottage industry of pathologizing dissent. They don't write books with titles like, Why We All Make Mistakes. They write books like, Why People Believe Weird Things, and they have pat answers to explain away the fact that people disagree with them just like the Christians do. It's always the other guy who has a problem, and the problem is so spectacular that instead of merely rebutting it, the Skeptics need to analyze the underlying pathology that motivates people to disagree with the Skeptics. Remember the Skeptic I quoted before:
"Logical people are skeptics. True believers don't look at facts and inference, but authority figures to decide what to believe."
Skeptics use logic. Always. Non-Skeptics are "true believers" who don't look at facts and inference. Ever. They let authority figures decide what they believe. Always.
Why not phrase it like this?
"People get scammed because even the best of us can get fooled- nobody's perfect. Unfortunately, it's easier to get fooled if you don't know about critical thinking, and schools just don't teach that kind of thing."
How often do we see Skeptics admit that they themselves can think illogically at times, or admit that non-Skeptics often do quite well at thinking logically with regard to some, but not all, of their beliefs? They can't admit that, any more than the fundagelicals can admit that reasonable people can disagree about Jesus. If they ever admitted it, the wall between "us" and "them" would crumble, and they would have to see themselves as midpoints on a continuum.
The pathologization of dissent gives the fundagelicals and the Skeptics an easy way to dismiss people who disagree with them. If dissent can only be motivated by pathology, then the very fact of dissent proves that there is no point in listening to the dissenter. I've had Christians tell me "I'm not going to listen to your story of why you left Christianity- the Bible already tells me why you left, and if you have a different story, that just proves you're in denial." I've also heard them say, "Oh, you're for gay rights- you're one of those people who wants to have gay sex, so you attack Christianity because we're the world's one bastion of morality." Similarly, Skeptics believe- and oftentimes explicitly state- that anyone who attacks Skepticism is someone who believes in a Weird Thing, and since Weird Things are never true, the only way they can defend their belief is to attack the world's one bastion of rationality, Skepticism. Thus when I criticise Skepticism as a subculture, they roll their eyes and declare that I must believe in some kind of "alternative thinking," or they bring up 9/11 out of the blue. They beg me to read The Demon Haunted World and to embrace critical thinking, just as the fundagelicals beg me to read the Bible and embrace Jesus, even though the only evidence that I haven't already done so is the fact that I dare to criticise them.
If you want to make sure that people don't leave your group and don't question the dogma, it's very important to make sure that they never believe that reasonable people could disagree on the dogma. Everyone who disagrees- everyone who is not a member of the group- is not merely incorrect, but is laughable, wicked, and sick.
For example, we were always told that atheists were silly, neurotic people who denied Christ because they wanted to have license to sin, and were trying (and failing) to fool themselves into believing that God wouldn't punish them for it. My history teacher once warned me that any book on Egyptian history which didn't explicitly mention the parting of the Red Sea was actually covert anti-Christian propanda written by atheists who were hell-bent on the destruction of Christianity. There's also a set of Sunday-school stereotypes of "why people reject Christianity," loosely based on the parable of the sower. If you read Left Behind, the protagonists have little personality beyond these stereotypes: there's the guy who thinks Christianity sounds too dumb for a cool guy like him, the guy who goes to church but isn't really committed, etc. Nowhere do they admit the possibility that reasonable people simply might disagree on whether Christianity is true. This is a nice way to make sure people don't leave the cult: tear down everything outside the cult so that your followers don't think there's anywhere else to go.
Where do Skeptics fit into all this? Here's Richard Dawkins:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
Like I said: the evangelicals teach that everyone who dissents is laughable, wicked, and sick. The Skeptics have actually made a cottage industry of pathologizing dissent. They don't write books with titles like, Why We All Make Mistakes. They write books like, Why People Believe Weird Things, and they have pat answers to explain away the fact that people disagree with them just like the Christians do. It's always the other guy who has a problem, and the problem is so spectacular that instead of merely rebutting it, the Skeptics need to analyze the underlying pathology that motivates people to disagree with the Skeptics. Remember the Skeptic I quoted before:
"Logical people are skeptics. True believers don't look at facts and inference, but authority figures to decide what to believe."
Skeptics use logic. Always. Non-Skeptics are "true believers" who don't look at facts and inference. Ever. They let authority figures decide what they believe. Always.
Why not phrase it like this?
"People get scammed because even the best of us can get fooled- nobody's perfect. Unfortunately, it's easier to get fooled if you don't know about critical thinking, and schools just don't teach that kind of thing."
How often do we see Skeptics admit that they themselves can think illogically at times, or admit that non-Skeptics often do quite well at thinking logically with regard to some, but not all, of their beliefs? They can't admit that, any more than the fundagelicals can admit that reasonable people can disagree about Jesus. If they ever admitted it, the wall between "us" and "them" would crumble, and they would have to see themselves as midpoints on a continuum.
The pathologization of dissent gives the fundagelicals and the Skeptics an easy way to dismiss people who disagree with them. If dissent can only be motivated by pathology, then the very fact of dissent proves that there is no point in listening to the dissenter. I've had Christians tell me "I'm not going to listen to your story of why you left Christianity- the Bible already tells me why you left, and if you have a different story, that just proves you're in denial." I've also heard them say, "Oh, you're for gay rights- you're one of those people who wants to have gay sex, so you attack Christianity because we're the world's one bastion of morality." Similarly, Skeptics believe- and oftentimes explicitly state- that anyone who attacks Skepticism is someone who believes in a Weird Thing, and since Weird Things are never true, the only way they can defend their belief is to attack the world's one bastion of rationality, Skepticism. Thus when I criticise Skepticism as a subculture, they roll their eyes and declare that I must believe in some kind of "alternative thinking," or they bring up 9/11 out of the blue. They beg me to read The Demon Haunted World and to embrace critical thinking, just as the fundagelicals beg me to read the Bible and embrace Jesus, even though the only evidence that I haven't already done so is the fact that I dare to criticise them.
posted by Wintermute at 9:12 AM
2 Comments:
Pathologize Dissent--
I think this habit of pathologizing dissent is so rampant in our culture that I don't see how "skeptics" are not among the guilty. In fact, ask yourself how many here accuse others of "not taking their meds", or are currently advised to "take their meds" when something said is not liked. That is a repulsive, dismissive answer to someone if that person is being genuine in their speech. It censors speech and opinion by attempting to embarrass the speaker.
Karl Rove has it down to a Science. Maybe he calls it "SwiftBoat" instead. Whatever, this tactic of trivializing dissent has become so common in the United States as to be habitual.
Thought Gulags
Pathologize Dissent--
I think this habit of pathologizing dissent is so rampant in our culture that I don't see how "skeptics" are not among the guilty. In fact, ask yourself how many here accuse others of "not taking their meds", or are currently advised to "take their meds" when something said is not liked. That is a repulsive, dismissive answer to someone if that person is being genuine in their speech. It censors speech and opinion by attempting to embarrass the speaker.
Karl Rove has it down to a Science. Maybe he calls it "SwiftBoat" instead. Whatever, this tactic of trivializing dissent has become so common in the United States as to be habitual.
Thought Gulags.
Post a Comment
<< Home