How do you know you’re not an extremist?
The obsession with true love and other dangerous stories.
Hello everybody,
This week we’re looking at extreme ideologies with Leor Zmigrod.
You can find the companion article here: The 4 psychological markers of ideological extremism
Some people are desperate to lose themselves.
These are the people who want to throw their entire being at some cause. They want to represent something. They want to join in the swarming mass of an ideology, fad, or social ideal. I’ll give you an example. I’ve met a few people in my life who are in love with love. They have grown bloated on a diet of Disney movies and soaked too long in the bath of fairy tale endings. They believe that life is all about finding the one, and that it’s all about losing yourself to True Love™. These people often imagine themselves as one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and spend their days pathologically seeking their perfect other half.
“Yang, M, 23 looking for Yin, 22. No hookups. Looking for something real.”
In her book, The Ethics of Ambiguity, the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir labels this sort as “the passionate man.” Of course, it’s not just men. It’s everyone. And it’s not only about love.
This week, I spoke with Leor Zmigrod about her new book, The Ideological Brain. We chatted about why and how people start to believe in “extreme ideologies.” Extreme ideologies are those in which a person ties their identity so closely to a cause, rule system, or belief that they begin to lose their individuality. Like some precious Simpsons gif, they merge backward into an ideological bush.
So, Kevin no longer sees himself as Kevin, but Kevin-the-White-Supremacist. Lola is now Lola-the-Anarcho-Communist. Peter is Peter-the-Good-Dad, and Marge is Marge-the-Vegan. The ideology is not a part of who they are; it is who they are.
This week, we unpack this idea more and explore the philosophy of extremism.
Lose yourself to ideology
My friend Claire is not an extremist.
She has a passion for cats and strong opinions about some of her colleagues, but she doesn’t—as far as I can tell—subscribe to any extreme ideologies. But is she at risk? Is she a cause for concern? As we were chatting this week, I told her I was writing an article about the “markers of potential extremists.”
“How emotionally volatile would you say you are, Claire?” I said.
“I don’t think I am,” she replied, “but people who are probably aren’t aware of it or wouldn't admit it, right? Like people who worry they're narcissists aren’t likely to actually be narcissists.”
And herein lies the problem. Most of us can agree that extreme ideologies are a problem, but how many of us are self-aware enough—or willing—to admit that we might hold extreme ideologies? This is why science is so important. When Zmigrod studies extreme ideologies, she doesn’t ask people to self-appraise their own rigidity of thought. She gets them to record behaviors or participate in more rigorous experiments. Sometimes, this might lead to an epiphany moment.
It seems there are two issues at play here.
The first is that it takes an incredible—perhaps impossible—degree of self-evaluation to say, “Oh, wow, maybe I am an ideologue.” It’s made more difficult because when you believe something, you will also see the world differently. Your ideology will affect how you process data and what you consider good or bad evidence.
This is often called “confirmation bias,” but the language of bias is too narrow in this case. As Zmigrod and I touched on, it’s more about an entire “form of life,” as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it, or a “conceptual framework,” as psychologists prefer. It’s where our entire mental apparatus is defined by our worldview. A devout Muslim will see the work of Allah in the world; a materialist will see only scientific processes. A communist will see class struggle everywhere; a Stoic might see the machinations of fate. So, to “see your own ideology” is as difficult as seeing your own seeing.
The second problem is the moral or philosophical argument against extreme ideologies. What is wrong with extremism? We explored two different answers to this question.
The first is how extreme views can often lead to extreme and harmful behaviors. As Zmigrod told me, “one of the hallmarks of thinking ideologically is where you start to really see someone as the other. And that's a terrible recipe to dehumanize each other and ultimately then to commit acts of violence against each other and even against yourself.”
The second answer relates back to our existentialist friend, Simone de Beauvoir. The reason the “passionate man” is a bad thing—the reason the extreme ideologue is bad—is that they are sacrificing an essential element of their own humanity: their capacity to choose. According to the existentialists, the ability to create our own identity and carve out who we are is the very point of all human existence. We have the power to choose who we want to be. Extreme ideology entirely kills this. It demands that someone surrender their freedom and their identity to a rigid set of rules.
“Actually, no one has really asked me this,” Zmigrod finishes, “but I feel like the book is an existentialist book. Because I think they're grappling with the question of, like, how do you live?”
If you lose yourself to ideology, you are not the one to ask, “How do I want to live?” You get told.
IN YOUR OPINION
Every week, with every poll, I get around a dozen messages asking me to clarify my terms. “What do you mean by ‘good’?” or “What do you mean by ‘God’?” Usually, I reply something like, “I think you have a vague idea—try and answer as best you can.”
This week, I get it. I think it is a problem. How can we define “extreme ideology”? In our full interview, you can hear Zmigrod define it as “a set of rules or narrative about the world that is very resistant to evidence” that gives them “this fixed identity about who they are and where they should judge others as whether they're followers or non-followers of the ideology.”
Zmigrod does not define extremism by its content. It’s not about fascists or communists, religion or atheism; it’s about how we believe something—anything. And so, with this poll. When the everyday person thinks of extreme ideology, we often gravitate toward the content of that ideology. So when we say, “Do you know any extremists?” it often degenerates into the kind of tribalism that Zmigrod talks about. We label others as extreme—our political, religious, social, or moral rivals are “extreme.” Not me, not I.
Which means that while 2/3 of people think they know someone who holds extreme beliefs, it’s highly likely that those same people are someone else’s extremist.
Next week, we’re exploring sex and intimacy with Aella, and so I’m asking:
What does intimacy mean for you?
Send me your thoughts via email or comment below.
MINI READING LIST
The world’s favourite sex researcher - by The Atlantic
Why sex work is good, explained by Aella | Heretics
RESOURCES
This newsletter contains my reflection on the topic at hand. Here is a list of the material shared in this email, as well as extra content about the topic that I've shared on my other social platforms:
The companion article inspired by my conversation with Leor Zmigrod
My short video explaining what defines extremism, featured on Mini Philosophy's Instagram page
The full, unedited audio interview with Leor Zmigrod:
Jonny is the creator of the Mini Philosophy social network. He’s an internationally bestselling author of three books and the resident philosopher at Big Think. He's known all over the world for making philosophy accessible, relatable, and fun.
More Big Think content:
Big Think | Big Think Business | Starts with a Bang | Big Think Books
A therapist might frame it just slightly to the left of that, and say that this is a kind of psychological identification. When you identify with something so strongly that you can’t separate your true self from the “ideology” — and it makes your choices for you.
Timely and fun read, because I have been gradually disengaging from ideological attachment for some time, and I kinda like the word ideology. I think people can understand that word a little better than identification.
Regarding your question "What is intimacy to me," it's more than physical. It's feeling seen and understood, it's feeling you can share your thoughts and feelings without filter, knowing the other loves, likes, and supports you.