Disavowal
and Backfire: One and the Same
In
an article by psychoanalyst Rex Butler, Butler independently comes to the same
conclusion as the Michigan Study researchers. In regards to facts and their
relationship to belief systems (or ideologies), Butler says that:
there
is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization … Our
descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but … things in
retrospect begin to resemble their description. Thus, in the analysis of
ideology, it is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best
matches the ‘facts’, with the one that is closest being the least biased and therefore
the best. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already – whether we
know it or not – made our choice; we are already within one ideological system
or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as
the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on.
This
places the field of psychoanalysis on the same footing as that of cognitive
science, in regards to this matter. But where cognitive studies end, with
Nyhan’s question about the cause of backfire, psychoanalysis picks up and
provides a possible answer. In fact, psychoanalysts have been publishing work
on backfire for decades; only psychoanalysis refers to backfire by another
name: “disavowal”. Indeed, these two terms refer to one and the same phenomena.
The
basic explanation for the underlying cause of disavowal/backfire goes as
follows.
“Liberals”
and “conservatives” espouse antithetical belief systems, both of which are
based on different non-rational “moral values.” This is a fact that cognitive
linguist George Lakoff has often discussed, which incidentally brings in yet
another field of study that supports the existence of the disavowal/backfire
mechanism.
In
accordance with these different non-rational belief systems, any individual’s
ideology tends to function also as a ‘filtering system’, accepting facts that
seamlessly fit into the framework of that ideology, while dismissing facts that
do not fit.
When
an individual—whether a “liberal”, “conservative”, or any other potential
ideology—is challenged with facts that conflict with his/her ideology, the
tendency is for that individual to experience feelings of anxiety, dread, and
frustration. This is because our ideologies function, like a lynch pin, to hold
our psychologies together, in order to avoid, as Nyhan puts it, “cognitive
dissonance”. In other words, when our lynch pins are disturbed, our
psychologies are shaken.
Psychoanalysts
explain that, when this cognitive dissonance does occur, the result is to
‘externalize’ the sudden negative feelings outward, in the form of anger or
resentment, and then to ‘project’ this anger onto the person that initially
presented the set of backfired facts to begin with. (Although, sometimes this
anger is ‘introjected’ inward, in the form of self-punishment or self-loathing.)
This
non-rational eruption of anger or resentment is what psychoanalysts call
“de-sublimation”. And it is at the point of de-sublimation, when the
disavowal/backfire mechanism is triggered as a defense against the cognitive
dissonance.
Hence,
here is what mentally occurs next, in a matter of seconds:
In
order to regain psychological equilibrium, the mind disavows the toxic facts
that initially clashed with the individuals own ideology, non-rationally
deeming the facts to be false—without assessing the validity of the facts.
The
final step occurs when the person, who offered the toxic facts, is then
non-rationally demonized. The person, here, becomes tainted as a ‘phobic
object’ in the mind of the de-sublimated individual. Hence, the other person
also becomes perceived to be as toxic as the disavowed facts, themselves.
At
this point, ad hominem attacks are often fired at the source of the toxic
facts. For example: ‘stupid liberal’ or ‘stupid conservative’, if in a
political context. Or, ‘blasphemer’ or ‘heretic’, if in a religious context. At
this point, according to psychoanalysis, psychological equilibrium is regained.
The status quo of the individual’s ideology is reinforced to guard against
future experiences of de-sublimation.
Article
originally appeared on Seismologik (http://www.seismologik.com/
).
No comments:
Post a Comment