I recall a piece by comedian and Monty Python alum, John Cleese, presented many years ago, that does very well to explain what many might see as the current state of social engagement—well, social media anyway. This memory was unlocked by a friend who sent me a snippet of the video on one of my socials. It seems it appeared in a discussion on the Joe Rogan podcast, as he prefaces the snippet with a reminder that this was from a time before social media and, indeed, before wide access to the internet.
In the bit, Cleese tongue-in-cheekly recommends becoming an extremist. Yes, I know how that might sound, but what he’s talking about is with respect to political leanings—for example, “hard left” or “hard right.” Notably, in the late ’80s/early ’90s, a “hard” perspective would not have been thought of as the norm for the average voter (based on outward self-representation anyway); rather, it seemed there were more “centrist” perspectives and voters back then. This note will be important to consider later, but for now, back to Cleese’s recommendation.
He recommends becoming an extremist because of its many advantages—one of which is that being an extremist makes you feel good. It makes you feel good because it provides you with enemies. If you become hard left, you’re given a list of enemies. If you’re hard right, worry not, you’ll also get a list of enemies, but those enemies will be different. Having enemies facilitates in a person the ability to pretend that all the badness in the world is a result of your enemies, while all the goodness in the world is reflected in you. Moreover, if it wasn’t for your enemies and the badness they represent, you’d be your normal, courteous self all the time; but, because they do exist, all that anger and resentment is brought out in you, thus providing a justification (or excuse) for your bad behaviours. So, you can be as nasty as you like and still feel your behaviours morally justified, because your enemies are the bad guys.
Need for Belonging
What makes Cleese’s bit so interesting to me is that, from a psychological perspective, there’s a lot to break down. First and foremost, being a part of any group will make us feel good because of our need to feel belonging, but it’s the maintenance of that belonging (i.e., in this context, to a particular group) that is the issue here. Social identity theory will tell us that we readily break people down into groups that represent an “us” vs. “them” perspective. Extremes of this just make it easier—the lines are less blurred that way (i.e., fewer shades of a grey in an extremist outlook). Given our tendency toward self-serving biases and, likewise, because we associate with a particular group—a group-serving bias—the group we identify with will represent what is “good” and those outside our group (i.e., them), especially those on the opposite extreme, represent the “bad” (the more extreme the convictions of the group, as is the case in this context, the more influence on the convictions of the individual).
The label “enemies” is also very interesting. Consider, for a moment, a set of beliefs you might have. Would you consider someone who doesn’t share these beliefs as your enemy? I certainly hope not. People are different, and they’re free to believe whatever they want, just as long as they’re not forcing that on you. The point is, how you perceive people who do not agree with you can play a very large role in how you interact with one another. For example, consider the self-fulfilling prophecy: If you don’t like someone (in this case, because they don’t agree with your beliefs), and you treat them poorly, then they’re more likely to treat your poorly in return—not necessarily because of the differing ideology, but because you initially treated them poorly. If you treat them well, they’re more likely to treat you well, regardless of political stances.
Need for Someone to Blame
Of course, though, political villains are useful. Our stories need a bad guy. When something eventful happens in the world of politics, we need someone to blame (and politicians are great for getting their spin-doctors to work on this)—akin to what is referred to as “scapegoat theory,” which suggests that when there is a negative outcome, we typically look to pawn the blame onto someone else before ourselves. This is typically the case when frustrations are high—consider again Cleese’s reference to anger and resentment. Who better than our enemies, right?
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, really. There’s an entire book’s worth of information to be considered in terms of the line about moral justification, so we’ll leave that for now, but the big point I wanted to get to is Why does it ring so true now?
Role of the Internet and Social Media
Earlier, I noted that many things have changed since Cleese did this bit, particularly with respect to technology. The world is a smaller place in terms of information transfer. The internet and social media make it that we can hear about everything if we want to (or even if we don’t), as it happens. There’s so much out there that the algorithms for the sites we use have to curate it for us according to our preferences—and this is two-tailed. We see what we want because we like it, but we also see what we hate, be it intentionally or implicitly. Both elicit an emotional response, which reinforces our engagement. That’s the goal of social media sites. As a result, a narrative of the world is created for us.
Before, we depended on conversations with people—in work, school, wherever—to share ideas. You couldn’t “curate” human interaction before the ’90s like it is now. There was no screen to hide behind when sharing your “views.” People had to watch what they said to other people, be it to not insult them or for social standing more generally. On the internet, you’re anonymous if you want to be—even if you use your real name, John Smith in Oregon isn’t going to be terribly meaningful to someone living in another country, let alone Ohio. This anonymity facilitates a deindividuation where people say things they probably wouldn’t otherwise, all under the mask of their “group,” because that’s all John Smith from Oregon represents in that “single serving interaction”—a member of whatever group.
In the past on this blog, I’ve often wondered why, politically speaking, it seems that so many wandered from centrist positions years ago out to the extremes, as it seems today. I stress “seems,” because we can’t know for sure. Indeed, it might just be a matter of “the squeaky wheel getting the grease.” Moreover, it’s also a matter of how people represent themselves to others (e.g., akin to social desirability). If it’s not the case, then maybe that’s just another of the many indictments thrown against social media with respect to social cohesion. But, if it is the case, maybe it’s unfortunately close to what John Cleese said, as a joke, about the advantages of extremism.