Peter Aagaard explores whether the language of social psychology can help us understand the longevity of the MAGA movement and Putinism
Political movements are more than just social psychology. Social psychology, however, still has a lot to do with what is going on in political movements. Erich Fromm, whose theories are being rediscovered today, wrote about this extensively.
So, what insights can social psychological framing give us?
The media often describes leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as narcissistic. But these reports often lack clinical evidence and are missing a vital component: the followers. Why do followers of narcissists stay loyal to their leader – and to the movement?
Followers of narcissist leaders are trauma-bonded by a particular set of social relations
Psychologists see such followers as vulnerable people practising selective blindness to get through life with minimal damage. All humans do this, to a certain extent, in various aspects of their lives. Followers of narcissist leaders, however, share a particular set of social relations that increasingly trauma-bond them.
In studying these relations, psychologists classify narcissist-led movements as trauma-bonded, toxic environments, characterised by personality cults around the leader, by an intrinsically toxic dynamic, and by traumatised followers.
Let us take a closer look at each of these three elements.
A trauma-bond movement is all about the leader and the leader’s persona. The leader might express some vague and abstract political ideas or values of greatness, national pride, family or ‘anti-wokeness’. These ideas are so open to interpretation, however, that they become almost meaningless.
The leader’s unpredictable, unstable, and incoherent communication is all about confusing the followers
Narcissistic leaders often show just enough kindness, humour, or likeability for their followers not to leave them. But we should not be fooled. Such leaders see followers as property, and punish any attempt at rebellion.
Inconsistent, confusing, and mixed patterns of engagement (positive / negative) from the leader – also known as intermittent reinforcement – shape followers' motivation. The leader gaslights the followers, and feels entitled to do so, telling followers the direct opposite of what may be provable facts.
Hard news often delivers the truth about a narcissistic leader, so it is painful for followers to pay attention to it
Leaders depend on followers avoiding legitimate news sources. Hard news often delivers the truth about a narcissistic leader, so it is painful for followers to pay attention to it. The truth could trigger feelings of guilt and shame, if they start believing it.
A ‘kiss the ring’ dynamic replaces meritocratic selection in an electoral representative system. Followers represent the leader. The leader does not represent the followers. The result is autocracy.
Followers give the leader their attention, so the leader must then sanction severely any rebellion among them. Leaders mock their enemies and rebellious followers, and may refer to them as losers. Dismissed followers might be stonewalled or given the silent treatment. Any claim of misconduct by the leader is projected back at the followers. Leaders do not hesitate to blame or call out followers, if the followers challenge their authority.
War and violence are an intrinsic part of the dynamic between a narcissistic leader and their followers, both as an enabler and an outcome
War and violence are an intrinsic part of the dynamic, both as an enabler and an outcome. The threat of war and violence creates a sense of urgency and a rightful need to make use of means and measures normally neglected (for example, more violence).
Leaders filter and normalise social pathologies to break down followers’ boundaries. Followers actively participate in breaking down boundaries themselves, too, in a quest to prove their worth to the leader.
Followers become pleasers, and compete to be the best pleaser. They may even feel the urge to act violently or to kill enemies of the leader to please them.
Followers do everything they can to avoid upsetting the leader and may even start censoring their own thoughts. If a follower attempts or even thinks of rebellion, they will experience guilt and shame afterwards.
Narcissistic leaders filter and normalise social pathologies to break down followers’ boundaries
Followers deny the abusive wrongdoings of the leader because the emotional cost of realising the full extent of the abuse is too high. Furthermore, followers convince themselves that the wrongdoings are justifiable or at least acceptable because they continue to feel that the leader is the only one on their side. Complaints about the leader are therefore just whining.
If a friend or a family member behaved the same way as the leader, the followers would likely call it out straight away and break relations with that person. But in a trauma-bond movement, wrongdoings may even intensify the relationship with the leader, confirming their strength and ability to do 'the right thing'.
Followers become subject to dissociation, because of increased exposure to stress and shame. They block out their traumatic treatment by the leader and their co-followers.
Followers may even confuse abuse by their leader with affection. They may justify the leader's behaviour by claiming, for example, that ‘they do so – because they are really on our side’ or that ‘politics is a dirty business, and you need to play it tough.’
Followers may cling to the hope that their leader will grow and mature when elected to public office. It is unlikely, however, that they will.
The social-psychological framing I outline above may provide some insights into why people continue to follow narcissistic leaders. However, for trauma-bond movements to evolve, certain structural conditions must also be present.
We know, for example, that there is a connection between regional inequality and political discontent, which can increase the number of trauma-bond movements. We also know that the rise of alternative media influences polarisation, while personalisation of political leadership is also on the rise. These are all conditions that create fertile ground for trauma-bond movements.
