Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Stereotypes and the Martyr Complex: A Dangerous Combination
If you’re like me, you’ve spent the last few months trying to figure out the reasons for the near collapse of law and order in this country. Most of us realize that events following the George Floyd death have been in the planning stage for a long time; the Marxists saw a moment of weakness in our society and capitalized on it with merciless determination.
I get all that.
But I wasn’t able to figure out why most of the people who have praised Black Lives Matter and volunteered to be rioters and protestors are white. Political leaders (as in mayors and governors) have celebrated the lawlessness and bowed to the causes of criminals. Tongue lashings from women of the white elite are witnessed by many, as are spoiled teenagers who have indulged in their first looting attempts.
What is going on?
I’d like to propose a theory for the willingness of Americans to debase themselves and engage in these extreme activities. It is a combination of the pseudo-science of stereotyping and bias, as well as the timely emergence of a Martyr Complex. Let me first explain the misleading conclusions that have been reached about stereotyping and the role it plays in the activities of the last few months.
In recent years, the study of stereotypes has revealed some fascinating factors:
Psychologists once believed that only bigoted people used stereotypes. Now the study of unconscious bias is revealing the unsettling truth: We all use stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it.
Actually, this conclusion doesn’t surprise me. Our brains are complex organs and the unconscious is, by definition, unknown to us. The article goes on to say:
Previously, researchers who studied stereotyping had simply asked people to record their feelings about minority groups and had used their answers as an index of their attitudes. Psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level—so that a bleeding-heart liberal might harbor just as many biases as a neo-Nazi skinhead.
I was still reluctantly onboard, until Jon Bargh, Ph.D. of New York University reached a more questionable conclusion:
‘Even if there is a kernel of truth in the stereotype, you’re still applying a generalization about a group to an individual, which is always incorrect,’ says Bargh. Accuracy aside, some believe that the use of stereotypes is simply unjust. ‘In a democratic society, people should be judged as individuals and not as members of a group,’ Banaji argues. ‘Stereotyping flies in the face of that ideal.’
I disagree with every sentence of their statements: (1) a stereotype almost always has some truth. For Dr. Bargh to say applying the generalization to an individual is always incorrect, is, well, too broad a generalization for me; (2) stereotypes in our thinking are not, in themselves, just or unjust, unless we apply them unfairly; they simply exist; (3) democracy does not require judging others at all, but is only intended to protect our rights; and (4) since stereotyping has nothing to do with democracy, it doesn’t fly in the face of any ideal (unless you are a Progressive).
I have made the effort to parse this paragraph because it reeks of the politicization of science. The scientists intend not only to tell us that we are victims of our unconscious mind, but they go on to say even more:
Of course, we aren’t completely under the sway of our unconscious. Scientists think that the automatic activation of a stereotype is immediately followed by a conscious check on unacceptable thoughts—at least in people who think that they are not prejudiced. This internal censor successfully restrains overtly biased responses. But there’s still the danger of leakage, which often shows up in non-verbal behavior: our expressions, our stance, how far away we stand, how much eye contact we make.
So, we must become fully conscious or our unconscious minds will lead us to be racists. We are hopeless human beings who are unable to be perfectly conscious, i.e., free of our stereotypes of others.
* * * * *
Now that we have explored the mindset of stereotypes and how we are victim to those stereotypes we hold (whether we know it or not), let me go on to explain the role of the Martyr Complex, also known as Martyr Syndrome, in the societal chaos, as well as its relationship to stereotyping. (Do not confuse the Martyr Complex with those who are called to martyrdom, such as Todd Beamer, shown above, who sacrificed his life on United Flight 93.)
I think most people agree that we live in a secular society, and that many of our citizens not only reject religion but have disdain for it. Nevertheless, many people crave some kind of religious experience (in the broadest sense), although they would call it something else. Belief systems like Marxism, Leninism, Leftism, and Progressivism today are thriving. One aspect of these “isms,” however, has been the missing role of the martyr. What is the definition of a martyr?
Historically, a martyr is someone who chooses to sacrifice their [sic] life or face pain and suffering instead of giving up something they hold sacred. While the term is still used this way today, it’s taken on a secondary meaning that’s a bit less dramatic. Today, the term is sometimes used to describe someone who seems to always be suffering in one way or another.
I am suggesting that the historic definition applies today, practiced in the extreme. Elaborating on this definition, there is this statement:
Know that people with martyr syndrome suffer mostly by choice. When someone has martyr syndrome, they often choose to continue suffering, rather than fixing the problem, because they think that their suffering provides them with the completeness and fulfillment required to lead a meaningful and whole life. More than anything, a person with martyr syndrome longs for recognition and approval from those around them. (Italics are mine.)
By this time, you might be asking about the connection between stereotypes and martyrdom.
If people become convinced there is absolutely no way that they can rid themselves of their racism, they are filled with overwhelming guilt. If they aspire to achieve an ideal life, they feel hopeless. They must do something to atone for, be punished for what they believe and who they are. They must present themselves as martyrs to the cause. They must declare it publicly, verbally flagellating themselves and decrying the unbelievers.
The leaders of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and all the other organizations who are marching in our streets know just what they are doing. They seized an opportunity to maximize Progressive guilt, self-hatred, and pain. They will continue to recruit the people who cannot “free themselves” of their inherent stereotypes and urge them to seek martyrdom. And they will welcome them with open arms.
If we do not stand up for truth and traditional values, they will try to take the rest of us, kicking and screaming, with them.
Published in Culture
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
— John 15:18
I’m good.
I can’t speak to individual experiences. Again, the empirical evidence that I have seen indicates that these claims are not accurate.
Personally, I think that a large part of the problem is that blacks are conditioned to be racist and prejudiced, and to attribute a racist motive and take offense at events that I would not even notice.
I find David French’s claims to be particularly unconvincing, and to illustrate the point, though in his case he is a white person reacting this way. His stories are along the lines of: someone asked my adopted Ethiopian daughter to point out her parents. What a racist, he claims.
Or gee, maybe a person was looking out for his daughter. We expect kids to look like their parents, as they typically do. You see a kid without apparent adult supervision, and you want to make sure that the kid is OK and has someone keeping an eye on her. Especially in a pool, in which kids can drown.
For those of you who have never heard “Creaky Voice” (see Don Tillman’s #29 comment)
Many of them see themselves as superior based on education–see the video of protestors screaming at cops that they ‘have less education than a hairdresser”…mainly, it is about being affiliated with what they think is the group of the Right-Thinking People.
And a lot of it is just an excuse for cruelty…what they see as justified cruelty, but I think the cruelty itself is often the real justification. And, finding something to believe in and sharing it with a group of right-thinkers….what Kundera called ‘ring dancing’ is a very important factor.
Here’s something Sebastian Haffner observed during a rare period of stability in Germany between the wars:
A generation of young Germans had become accustomed to having the entire content of their lives delivered gratis, so to speak, by the public sphere, all the raw material for their deeper emotions…Now that these deliveries suddently ceased, people were left helpless, impoverished, robbed, and disappointed. They had never learned how to live from within themselves, how to make an ordinary private life great, beautiful and worth while, how to enjoy it and make it interesting. So they regarded the end of political tension and the return of private liberty not as a gift, but as a deprivation. They were bored, their minds strayed to silly thoughts, and they began to sulk.
Of course, that still leaves the question of *why* these individuals had become so dependent on the public sphere for their deeper emotions.
Here’s a post suggesting that in America today, much of this is driven by *loneliness*, by anomic individuals looking for someone to affiliate with.
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/loneliness-fueling-rise-political-polarization-us
Excellent point, Jerry. I have innumerable situations when I assumed that a person’s gesture, expression or even words had one meaning, and when I bothered to check it out, I was way off the mark! It seems to me that the same thing can happen when any person speaks to another, or a white person to a black. Why do we assume the worst? Why isn’t it possible that one person has misunderstood another?
I lived in Encino one summer, and even worked at The Galleria, and I strongly dispute this brutal character assassination of Strine.
Oops–sorry, Zafar. But of course, I didn’t mean you! 😊
Now you’ll laugh every time you hear it.
And that will be a lot.
I really appreciate you engaging, @arizonapatriot
First, you mention “a widespread problem” and by that, I’ll assume you mean death by racists. That’s not the problem, but the most extreme symptom of the problem.
What that event was for me was the data point that I couldn’t shoehorn into my working hypothesis of the state of race in America. That hypothesis was pretty generically conservative. We’ve solved the problem, there are a lot of whiners and agitators, if people would behave they wouldn’t have problems with police, and so on. I can remember exactly where I was when Rush replied, “Black Lives Matter? Why shouldn’t All Lives Matter?” when the phrases were first coined. And that was good enough for me for a long time.
But over time, especially as I got to know more and more Black people, and heard there stories (none of whom were dead, by the way), and more and more incidents in the news, and the occasional swerving into racists who think I might be in on the game, the complicated epicyclic machinations required to maintain that worldview became more cumbersome and rickety.
It all came crashing down when a couple of racists chased down a black man, hit him with their truck, and then shot him dead.
The hypothesis has failed the data.
No. Doesn’t it make you feel good to condemn another person for some moral failure that you are sure you aren’t guilty of yourself?
They want to replace us, not damage us, are well on the way and will succeed if we don’t figure out how to manager our left and may do so even if we don’t. Of course, they have 100 years in mind, but are almost half way there and probably ahead of schedule because we naievely helped them.
Right, we should all assume the best.
That said, @arizonapatriot picked arguably the most anodyne of French’s examples, and left out “My dad says black neighborhoods are dangerous” and the daughter getting questioned by security while shopping.
And we’ll not even get into the unmentionable drek that started giving him the vilest grief on line.
Same here in my neighborhood.
Definitely. [sarc off] I’m also wondering if there’s a sick factor in my original premise of guilt driving people’s behavior, that some people can behave with more built, or be a better martyr than the next person. I don’t know if the person really feels guilty or not, but you can “act guilty” and be a better martyr than anyone else. That’s sick, but possible. Thanks, @jimmcconnell.
We should bring back elocution lessons. Also, once we have sex robots, we should make it illegal for them never talk that way.
Well, it would be worthwhile to find out what they’re thinking.
But it would be much more interesting to talk to some Black Americans about their stories.
I’m going to try to go carefully here, but I have a question.
Here goes:
You cite research above that concludes that humans are born with “unconscious” bias circuitry, which leads us to be suspicious of “others” in our subconscious regardless of our intentions and beliefs out here in our conscious world. This is unchangeable, it’s baked into our psychological hard-wiring.
This would be all humans, right?
Okay, the question: If this is true, why are we fighting it? Isn’t it part of what makes us human? All of us, of every race and stripe?
Humans are also pattern-seeking animals. Should we be fighting that? Give ourselves an electric shock every time we see Elvis in a piece of toast, or a cloud that looks like a duck?
Humans are also social animals; we gather in groups and live in tribes by nature. Should we be feeling guilty and full of self-loathing over that? Why?
What if these and other things like this are all necessary – a psychological or social immune system that is critical to our survival. Why on earth would we want to deny it – or change it? Seems suicidal.
We are told that homosexuals are born that way. Undoubtedly true. But I don’t notice the Hetero Lives Matter crowd rioting and shaming the homosexuals into repenting of their sexual preference. We all find despicable even well-meaning attempts to forcefully convert them. We accept that people are different, and find ways to get along with each other when we are thrown together.
So if we’re all “suspicious of others” by nature, why not just accept it and move on? Wouldn’t that kind of take the steam out of the whole issue? And certainly the sting out of being called a racist. If everybody is, then nobody is. If it can’t be changed, why are we still wringing our hands over it?
Not accepting this can lead to serious problems. It doesn’t really come up in mono-cultural societies, but once you decide to experiment with a multi-culture, you had better get this out in front at the beginning. You might still be able to live together in peace as long as everybody agrees that because we humans are by nature tribal, and by nature suspicious of the ferengi, we will always have some trust issues. At least until we get to know each other better.
And getting to know each other better takes time. And patience, and compassion, and understanding.
Excellent, thoughtful comment, @thescarecrow, and I don’t know if my answer will do it justice, so I invite others to chime in! First, part of this is the political Left’s obsession with perfecting humans. And they are certain that they are the ones to do it. Boring, huh? So you have misguided idealism and arrogance to deal with. That’s why we give them so much flak when they talk about tolerance: they have so little of it.
Humans are a complicated, wonderfully creative breed. There is no creature on the earth like us. As the Left insists they want diversity, they ignore the diversity that is right in front of their noses; it’s just not the kind of diversity they value. I celebrate our differences!
And then there is this. Thank you.
Stereotyping is nothing more than pattern recognition in consideration of human subjects. It’s an inevitable consequence of intelligence. It’s non-judgmental and benign.
Prejudice involves judgment, but not always final, inflexible judgment. When considering a subject that relates in some way to a pattern, we can choose to assume that subject does or does not fit the pattern until proven otherwise. Like optimism vs pessimism, one can choose to be hopeful, dubious, to err on the side of caution, etc. Such assumptions can be quickly abandoned upon evidence regarding a particular person or situation.
To condemn or admonish people for acknowledging social patterns is absurd and cruel.
A more intelligent and/or better informed person is more capable of adapting estimations to overlapping criteria. But even a dumb and ignorant person might be more capable and willing than a foreigner or a fool to make reasonable estimations.
Prejudices become problematic when they become inflexible and impervious to new evidence or new considerations. Prejudice is harmful when it leads beyond caution to hate.
That sort of prejudice has become a cornerstone of Democrat and leftist politics. Black Lives Matter, NAACP, and their supporters are racists who treat people without care for individual differences. To them, the patterns trump the particulars.
When you read books written by white Social Justice Warriors, they’re often filled with examples from the author’s own life where they caught themselves having “racist” thoughts or engaging in “racist” behaviour. This is especially prominent in DiAngelo’s book “White Fragility”. These stories are so pervasive that it conveys the impression that the authors are obsessively trying to work out their own demons, and they’ve chosen to do so by projecting their own experiences on to everybody else. “If I’m secretly a racist, then all white people must also secretly be racists, so I will make it my mission to change everybody else since I’m clearly unable to change myself.”
It’s the same impression one gets from reading Freud. “If I secretly want to have sex with my mother, all men must secretly want to have sex with their mothers, so I will make it my mission to change everybody else since I’m clearly unable to change myself.”
(Those who follow the Joe Rogan podcast may notice that I cannot take credit for this hypothesis/explanation.)
I have no issue being told that I’m a problem. I do have an issue being told that every other human being isn’t a problem.
This. Thanks, Mis.
One more point on stereotyping: Little evidence can be sufficient evidence in some circumstances. Sometimes to seek proof is foolish.
For example, suppose you are walking alone through a high-crime area at night. You see a stranger and change your path to walk by at a distance. In that situation, to maintain your original path and walk immediately beside the person might be hopeful and kind. But you would have placed yourself at greater risk.
If the stranger proves kind, you will have enabled a neighborly interaction like smiling and nodding as you walk past or stopping to talk. But if the stranger is among the area’s many predators, you will have increased the odds of an opportunistic attack; you will have decreased the space and time to escape, resist, or call for help.
Likewise in politics, policies necessarily regard whole nations and not their individual members. We must make choices based on patterns and collective actions, rather than pursue information about each person in that nation.
Life is hard. Wear a helmet.
It reminds me of John Derbyshire’s definition of Political Correctness: Don’t notice; don’t remember.
A particularly egregious example, Stanford, California:
(Hard to tell, but that’s a rope stretched between two large trees.)
This is a house in a Stanford neighborhood that belongs to a white family. (Stanford University owns the land, the houses can only be sold to people associated with Stanford; professors, deans, etc.)
(Now that I see it at this angle, it looks a little like a lynching. :-) )
What else should we expect from you Californians?!
I thought it was a Carolina Windom.
I find that the houses with Black Lives Matter signs in their windows are the houses that had This House Welcomes Refugees signs when the Syrian war was the primary kerfuffle in the world. I always wanted to know just how many refugees those houses had actually welcomed.
Jeff Lebowski wouldn’t engage in these shenanigans, and he’s a Californian!
The Dude abides.
So if you were a dictator, and could change society such that black people got exactly what they wanted, what would that be? How would you change society? Do you know? Do they know? Would what they wanted be un-racist?