I have always been intrigued by this song, performed by Groucho Marx in the film Horse Feathers . The film seems a bit dated nowadays, but the lyrics capture the spirit of our times. I live in the center of Paris, and I only had to go around the corner from my apartment to witness the Gilets jaunes (Yellow Jersey) protests in France every Saturday for several weeks in 2019. The behavior of the Gilets jaunes made me wonder whether some people only feel alive when they oppose something. Being against something, irrespective of what it is, seems to be a part of their chosen identity. It is the kind of behavior pattern we sometimes find among children and it has many similar developmental origins as stubbornness. However, in this instance, elements of what makes for stubbornness are transformed into a social movement.
Keeping in mind what I have said about stubborn behavior patterns in Chapter 21, defiant behavior patterns also remind me of the work on the human life cycle of Erik Erikson, the renowned psychologist and teacher, whose work I followed closely during my studies at Harvard University. In his scheme of life stages, Erikson presented the second stage of human development in the form of the polarity of autonomy versus shame and doubt.1 At an early age, young children experience conflicts around control that originate in basic bodily functions. Most children find ways to come to grips with this conflict and move on. But some are not so fortunate and continue to have issues with control. They continue to engage in oppositional behavior, mirroring some of the patterns I described in Chap. 22. For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Mental Disorders (DSM V), lists a category called Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), a disruptive behavioral pattern found amongst children and teenagers.2 Children with ODD tend to exhibit uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward their peers, parents, teachers, and other authority figures. Youngsters that are prone to this disorder display a pattern of argumentative, rebellious behavior, and anger and vindictiveness toward authority figures over an extended period of time. They refuse to follow the rules, misbehave, throw tantrums, blame others for their mistakes, seek revenge, or intentionally create disturbance. Their extremely hostile attitude disrupts their home, school, and social life.
To account for the emergence of ODD, imagine situations where children are forced to follow rules that have not been explained or are experienced as unfair and unreasonable. In such instances, children will attempt to break these rules or push back against them. Other situations in which ODD may develop are those where parents impose very strict discipline on the developing child for no good reason. When parents are too controlling, too possessive, and want to make all the decisions about their children themselves, it is not surprising that their offspring will think their freedom is threatened. To resist intrusive parental behavior, children who do not just give up resort to stubbornness as a defensive strategy to avoid the distress of feeling constantly controlled. You may be able to imagine other situations where children exposed to inconsistent parenting (unclear rules and inconsistent enforcement of rules) try to test the limits in the hope of breaking them down. In such cases, rule-breaking could become a dominant behavior pattern.
Although commonly observed in young adults, we can see how, under certain conditions, this pattern can manifest itself among adults, especially during periods of high stress and uncertainty.
Do you/they have difficulties in dealing with authority figures?
Do you/they always need to win whatever argument you/they get into?
Do you/they always question the rules, or refuse to follow the rules?
Are you/they often angry?
If a person crosses you/them, will you/they fight that person relentlessly?
Do you/they sometimes deliberately try to annoy others?
Do small things easily set you/them off?
Have you/they been accused of blaming others for your/their mistakes?
Do you/they believe that when someone double-crosses you/them, revenge is the only possible response?
Do you/they have the habit of saying nasty things when you/they are upset?
If the answers to most of these questions are affirmative, you might as well start singing along with Groucho.
Adults with ODD-like behaviors defend themselves endlessly when someone points out that they’ve done something wrong. They feel misunderstood and disliked, hemmed in, and pushed around. Given their Weltanschauung, some of these people may even see themselves as mavericks or rebels. Unfortunately, their constant opposition to authority figures makes it difficult for them to maintain jobs, relationships, and marriages
This oppositional behavior pattern is often rooted in one dimension of our identity, bearing in mind that our identity is multi-faceted and contains both positive and negative aspects. (See Chap. 17, where I comment on the dynamics of the true and the false self—the need to wear various masks.) Constructive and nurturing events help us develop a positive self-concept, while negative, hurtful experiences often lead to the reverse. But throughout life, our darker and negative sides will remain a part of our total identity, even if they remain hidden. However, certain adverse conditions, especially those that undermine our sense of control and security, can trigger the emergence and expression of our shadow side.
Thus, depending on what’s currently happening in your life, you might feel confident or unsure; optimistic or pessimistic about the future; think you have some control over your life or very little control. Your outlook—depending on your circumstances—will determine which aspect of your identity will manifest itself. Will you have a constructive or destructive outlook? Will you seek positive changes to make things better, or will you be against everything that comes your way?
The Psychological Dynamics of Being Against It
Applying this to populist movements like the Gilets jaunes , most are characterized by being against something, whatever it is. Many of them seem nihilistic, compelled to be defiant. Their position is to be at odds with the existing values and expectations of traditional society, rather than proposing and pushing forward a more positive alternative identity—the kind that enables us to move forward in life with purpose and direction. Their attitude is negative, aimed at destroying things (due to feelings of envy, spite, and vindictiveness), and based on the feeling that they have gotten a bad deal in life. These fringe movements have been helped in the context of our information-heavy environment; catchy slogans and inflammatory rhetoric on social media are far more likely to grab our attention than official press releases and formal speeches. The influence of social media is further amplified by the fact that populist-leaning people distrust or don’t value traditional media. The rhetoric of these demagogue leaders, perfected online, tends to pit the masses against the elite, immigrants against citizens, never taking any responsibility for policy errors themselves.
That being said, I believe that taking a position of stubborn defiance is the choice of the vulnerable and disempowered, those who believe that socio-economic and political forces are stacked against them. What makes this an attractive choice, however, is that it is much easier to organize around what we’re against than what we’re for. And unfortunately—given the surge in popularity of fringe movements—it looks like the politics around our world is increasingly defined by what we are against—an opposition to the status quo, perceived as a threat to people’s quality of life.
Major socio-economic and political forces have now become extremely disruptive, spreading fear and anxiety throughout large segments of the population. Many people are angry at the dramatic gaps in income levels—where wealth is concentrated amongst the top 1% of income earners. The middle class can no longer take the upward mobility of their children for granted. What adds to their fears is the pace of technological advances, the rise of artificial intelligence, and automation, which threaten many blue-collar jobs. Many are asking themselves, “If I am what I have, and if I lose what I have, who am I?” Their basic sense of self is at risk.
In addition to these concerns, many people are threatened by demographic changes in the form of migration, which has led to a surge in identity politics . Anxiety is also fueled by jihadist attacks and iconic terrorist organizations, such as Al-Qaida and ISIS. Every day, our news describes new atrocities that undermine our sense of security and safety. Since the end of World War 2, we have lived with the threat of a nuclear holocaust. The present coronavirus crisis has only exacerbated this situation, demonstrating fundamental weaknesses in our global economic systems. And, of course, the mother of all fears is climate change—and how we could bring about our own destruction—a fear so great that many people resort to mass denial.
It is clear that all these forces create a sense of helplessness and vulnerability. They also fuel resentment—a feeling of betrayal by the traditional institutions and leadership that, in the past, used to provide stability and a safety net. Consequently, many people no longer believe in the fairness and legitimacy of existing social systems.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that, in response, politics has become increasingly polemic, with voters organizing around opposing institutions and its leaders. Populist parties stoke fears about lost national identity, asserting that the establishment has sold them out, that they have been economically, politically, and socially, left behind. Many demagogue-like leaders of these populist parties pour oil on the fire of an already vulnerable electorate. Working off the fears of the helpless and disgruntled, they package over-simplified ideas: take back control from corrupt elites who are giving away their national heritage (financially and culturally) to dangerous immigrants.
What these people fail to realize is that following these demagogue-type leaders will only provide a temporary outlet for their situation. In the long run, the slogans of these demagogues create more division and only increase instability. Most of the people attracted to extremism seem to have forgotten the terrible atrocities of fascism, Nazism, communism, totalitarianism, and genocide. Instead, they consume an incessant supply of fake news in a sort of theater of the absurd. We no longer rely on the moderation, policy stability, and informal checks imposed by an establishment (notwithstanding all its imperfections) that, before the rise of the social media, would have been able to neutralize extreme populist views.
In the United States, President Donald Trump has been a prime example of this kind of modus operandi. A master of hyperbole, hysteria, slander, and destructive partisan polarization, he is the spirit of “whatever it is, I’m against it,” whether “it” is the Paris Climate Accord, NATO, the European Community, NAFTA, or the WHO. Trump’s divisive rhetoric and disturbing tweets have created a rise in hate-filled politics, with a cult-like following, in spite of being an example of incredible dysfunctional leadership—his management of the coronavirus crisis a prime example. But his behavior has had a ripple effect, emboldening other demagogues around the globe. Many of these strongmen—like those in Russia, the Philippines, Brazil, Hungary, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and North Korea—are now acting out with impunity because they see a kindred spirit in their illiberal counterpart in Washington.
In Britain, Brexit has been animated by opposition to the European Union rather than any clear alternative to its membership of it. But France’s Gilets jaunes offer a glimpse of post-establishment politics at its purest, as they can agree only on their anger at the status quo and their great distrust of institutions. Notwithstanding their impressive power to mobilize, their tear-it-all-down philosophy has left them with very little to show for, once more illustrating the danger that the politics of destruction only contributes to social breakdown.
Therefore, a major challenge in today’s society is how to deal with this phenomenon of “whatever it is, I’m against it.”. What can we do to prevent regressive, ODD-like feelings from becoming mainstream? How can we prevent the shadow side of our identity from becoming to the fore?
A stable positive identity includes the ability to maintain a sense of self (the true self) that stays the course and remains steadfast even under great stress. The ability to fight feelings of helplessness very much depends on how well we retain an optimistic outlook on life. The degree to which we can do this will give us the courage to imagine that we can make a difference, whatever the circumstances.
To create a better society, all of us need to make an effort to prevent our shadow side from gaining the upper hand. All of us should be aware that the language of the negative identity only results in self-limiting and self-destructive behavior. I realize that standing up to “whatever it is, I’m against it” movements will be a daunting task. It is a real challenge to take a stand against destructive leaders like Donald Trump, who aggressively assault justice, humanity, and the environment. We can only stand up against these people if we have a compelling story to tell. We have to present more constructive alternatives.
Populist movements have a point, in that a number of societal changes are highly overdue. Being against something can be a useful agent for much-needed change. Many societies have become deeply unequal, starkly divided into the haves and the have-nots. It is true that the hallmarks of postwar middle-class life—a steady job, a paycheck adequate to support a family, the prospect of a pension—have disappeared. It’s also true that finance capitalism, the successor to industrial capitalism, has created immense fortunes without even pretending to distribute the benefits equitably.
As an alternative scenario to divisive everything-or-nothing politics, more than ever, given the coronavirus crisis, we need to create communities of care within our societies that are prepared to take the kinds of action that will overcome the inequities that characterize our world. Instead of breaking and burning, denying and excluding, why not try to find common ground to create bridges that will span our differences.
Our challenge is to create societies governed by shared responsibility and reciprocity—so that people can feel secure in their communities. To acquire this kind of security, however, means rebuilding trust through collective, cooperative action. Therefore, we need to take the kinds of measures whereby the idea of the common good takes on a central place. This implies living in a world less dominated by materialism and selfishness; a world that goes beyond the special interests of the few; a world where it is common sense to be concerned about the common good. As the philosopher-doctor Albert Schweitzer poignantly put it, “To work for the common good is the greatest creed.”
We need to create societies where the present generation takes on a greater responsibility for the next, societies where the future of our children and grandchildren takes pride of place. This might sound idealistic, but when people work together in strong communities with shared goals and a common purpose, they can make the impossible, possible—something that will not happen, I believe, if the “whatever it is, I’m against it,” movement, has its say.