The Three Characteristics of Extremism
If you, like me, grew up in the 1960's, were a bit of a nerd, dreamed of a brighter future, and loved science fiction, you were a Star Trek fan. If so, you may remember an episode titled "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". The story features two antagonists, one named Lokai, the other, Bele, whose species have been at war for eons on their shared planet, Sharon. They resemble humans in physique, but their pigmentation is very different; half white, half black, split vertically down the middle of their faces. Bele tries to explain the reasons of the war to Mr. Spock:
"It is obvious to the most simpleminded that Lokai is of an inferior breed." Bele says.
"The obvious visual evidence is that he is of the same breed as yourself." Spock objectively replies
"Are you blind, Commander Spock? Well, look at me. Look at me!"
"You're black on one side and white on the other."
"I am black on the right side."
"I fail to see the significant difference."
"Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side." Bele says in indignation.
The episode ends as Sharon is completely destroyed by war. Communications Officer Uhura -- the voice of compassion -- looks at the ruined landscape and says,
"It makes no sense",
Spock turns to her, and says,
"Did you expect sense from men of such extreme viewpoints?"
Although this episode is usually seen as an allegory for the insanity of racial prejudice, a deeper message lies just below the surface: the dangers of extremism. Both Lokai and Bele are literally black and white thinkers: one sees only rationality, the need for control, and the call of justice; the other sees only emotion, the need for change, and the call of freedom. Both are completely dug-in to their own view point, so common ground can never be found. The point of the episode is to tell us that extremists -- who believe that they represent opposite viewpoints -- are actually the same, except one is "white" on the side where the other is "black".
This dualistic view of the world as black and white is a very young stage of development that all children go through, but some folks get stuck at this stage, which they then bring in to adulthood. All extremism is born in the deep insecurity that comes from such a black and white world view. In general, extremists, whether religious fundamentalists or dogmatic atheists, straight-line Republicans or Democrats, conspiracy theorists, racists, and xenophobes, share several common characteristics and beliefs. The following description captures these characteristics. It is important to recognize that each of us, at one time or another, adopts one or more of these, but it is the combination of all the qualities that creates dangerous extremism.
1. Unquestioned certainty about one's position
An extremist is certain that his position is absolutely and completely true, and will go to great lengths to defend it. The underlying insecurity that accompanies this certainty stems from the fear that any element of doubt would negate the person's self-identification and, therefore, his very existence. As Joseph Soloveichik famously noted,
All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist.
This insecurity drives the extremist to assert that not only is his view right, but is, in fact, the only view that holds truth. In the most extreme form, he will silence, and even kill, those who present the possibility that he may be wrong, in order to keep from ever exposing the fragility of his own position.
2. Demonizing those who disagree
A hallmark of an extremist is the often vile language used to attack those who disagree or hold different viewpoints, blaming the other for all the ills of the world. In a gentler form this takes the form of sarcasm and attacking the other's character, but the intention is the same. It seems that many crave this type of language, perhaps in order to clarify one's position, arouse passion, or create a "team" in which to belong. An extremist, though, can't allow himself to see one who disagrees as a fellow human being, with the same essential needs, desires, and hopes, as himself. This would open the door to compassion, which may lead to doubt -- something an extremist cannot allow.
3. Desire for a Final Battle, or "Holy War"
Most disturbing of all extreme views is the belief in the inevitability of a Final Battle that will -- usually violently -- sweep away unbelievers and usher in an era of world-wide unity under the Truth of one view. There seems to be a glee behind this, and one only needs to listen to a "hell and brimstone" preacher, of any faith, to feel this strange eager anticipation of chaos. Apocalyptic visions are not the sole property of religion, though. Just listen to the mad ranting of Nazi propaganda, or the cold plotting of the Soviet Union's plans to topple the evils of capitalism and bring in a worker's paradise -- or to some of the current voices of extreme atheism that urge the end of any form of religion and spiritual belief.
I am not proposing that we adopt a radical post-modern, completely relativistic position in which there is no right or wrong, or that we not challenge others and defend our position. That is a bland vision of undifferentiated grey, keeping us from powerfully moving forward in confidence. The choice is not between absolute conviction and complete moral relativism, but instead involves the willingness to openly examine divergent viewpoints, clearly determine the merits, and arrive at a more comprehensive view that sees the world in its infinite array of vivid colors. This takes mature confidence, knowledge, and compassion; the three positive qualities that are most needed if we are to avoid confronting one another in our own Last Battlefield.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You can't go wrong with the philosophy of Star Trek. A lesser know fact about Gene Roddenberry was that he was an agnostic and a humanist, which shows throughout the entire series. Funny how the public morality nannies of the time were so preoccupied with whether some alien showed too much cleavage, they never caught on that he was preaching the humanist cause.
The article is a good starting point on discussing extremism. I like your statement that "The choice ... involves the willingness to openly examine divergent viewpoints, clearly determine the merits, and arrive at a more comprehensive view...". If only there were some fairly well established methodology for examining viewpoints (or evidence) and determining the merits (truthfulness) of these. Sounds like the scientific method to me.
One problem that often creeps up in attempting to be fair when considering two opposing claims is the false equivalence problem. If one side says 2+2=5, and the other says 2+2=4, and both refuse to budge on their answers, do we label them both as extremists, do we say that they both have the right to their opinion (false equivalence) or do we demand that both sides present their evidence & determine who is correct (science)? Now when the 4'ers have been proven correct over the 5'ers, and the 5'ers still refuse to change their mind, (as well as the 4'ers), do we still call both sides extremists? Do we still say the 5'ers have the right to their opinion?
Before anyone belittles my example, I'll tell you I actually had this exact situation with my daughter when she was in the second grade. No amount of illustrations with apples or toothpicks or quarters was going to change her mind, because she said the teacher said so. Maybe she misheard the teacher, maybe the teacher misspoke, I don't know, but not until I called the teacher to have her correct the error, did my daughter change her mind.
Such is the power of authority over reason.
Hey, rolodex,
I borrowed that story from you, and posted it some time ago, here on HuffPo (didn't think you'd mind).
Now I'll do some bragging for you, and reveal the outcome ... the apples, toothpicks and quarters, paid off ... and the daughter graduated as valedictorian of her class.
See Alan Lurie's Profile
Yeah, Gene Roddenberry was a vocal agnostic, and a person deeply committed to human potential. Two positions that I very much respect.
The 2+2 issue is worth further dialogue. As I wrote:
"I am not proposing that we adopt a radical post-modern, completely relativistic position in which there is no right or wrong, or that we not challenge others and defend our position."
There is certainly right and wrong (I am definitely not a post-modern relativist in that way). The issue becomes when we misunderstand the other person's position and think that they are arguing that 2+2 = 5 when they are talking about something else. This is a category problem, like the debate between science and religion in general. Because a person believes that a Divine Will underlies all reality, does not necessarily mean that he rejects science, evolution, etc. One needs to dig deeper, with a desire to UNDERSTAND, not CONVERT or WIN Then, if you are convinced that he truly believes erroneously that 2+2 = 5, you've got a cognition and developmental problem in your hands, and compassionate education is needed - just as you did for your daughter. If the belief that 2+2=5 is somehow threatening, then action is needed, but only as a last resort, and only after you have become objectively convinced. This is a deliberate process which many people (yours-truly included) rush past in order to convince another that they are right.
"If the belief that 2+2=5 is somehow threatening, then action is needed, but only as a last resort, and only after you have become objectively convinced.
A hallmark of religionists is the often-used label "sinner", a term that implies crimes against some invisible god person (or consciousness or something).
A hallmark of dogmatic, insecure, dualistic, fundamentalist, new atheist, gay JFC is his objection to this threatening label. I'm objectively convinced that it is threatening. It seems like action is needed. What do you suggest?
I would suggest that the best possible action would be for the religionists to stop believing this ridiculous concept, but I'm realistic. That will never happen.
I don't expect or desire any Final Battles, so I guess I should just view religionists as a fellow human beings, with the same essential needs, desires, and hopes as me even though they also have a non-essential desire to demonize me with their god crimes.
I spent years as a liberal christian trying to understand a concept of god that I could really get behind. It was always a battle between wanting to believe in a god and what I really did believe, that there was none. I wanted to believe, because, I thought, the liberal, tolerant religions in the world were really not a big problem. They contribute to a net positive influence in society and for many, fulfill the need for a social structure in an increasingly impersonal world. It was the extremists you had to watch out for, and I was ok, because I was certainly not one of those nuts.
It was ok if I thought 2+2=5, so long as I didn't make change based on my bad math. Actually it was more like dealing with pi. The extremists refused to accept that pi was anything except exactly 3.0, where as I knew it was 3.14159. Pretty close, but still not really right.
What made me finally realize that the bad math thinking was a problem, was something Sam Harris said in one of his books (very paraphrased here) - That the liberal theists continued public support for magical thinking about virgin births, resurrections, power of intercessory prayer etc, just gave credence to the more extreme theists, that their beliefs were valid. By accepting that pi had a defined small number of significant digits, it was valid for the extremists to do the same. Close enough is good enough, either way, right. I finally had to be honest with myself and say, I don't know what pi is exactly, but I know it has an infinite number of significant digits. The totally invalidates 3.0, period. My goal should always be to keep adding digits to my approximation of the truth.
I would say that, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, the 5'ers have a right to be wrong. I sure wouldn't let a 5'er build my house, balance my books, or teach my children, but what they do with their own house, finances, and children is their problem.
I wonder what it was called before the adults created the concept of a demon.
See Alan Lurie's Profile
Hi,
Thanks for following my posts.
fyi, the word demon (which is the root of the term "demonized" that I used), probably did not start as a spiritual or religious term, but may come from the Greek daimon, thought to be from the verb daiesthai meaning "to divide, distribute
You are quite welcome. I think they're very interesting.
Talk about extremism ...
Yesterday on CNN, Fareed Zakaria hosted a debate on the worthiness of America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. I admit I had already made up my mind that I do not believe we should be there, and I heard nothing to change my mind. Not because I believe things are swell in Afghanistan. I don't believe such a thing. I simply believe that we are doing ourselves more harm than good by being there. I believe it is time for common sense to take over our thought process.
Nice article.
Of course one's education level is tied to ones views. Those more ignorant tend to gravitate towards extremism.
I think our society tends to breed it, in a way. If you're a Yankee Fan you must hate the Red Sox.
Funny how no one draws a correlation between sports fanaticism and other sorts of extremism.
Or how Republicans hate Democrats. Or vice versa. But Mr. Obama has shown we don't have to necessarily despise those with opposing views.
Still, it's hard not to hate republicans.
"But Mr. Obama has shown we don't have to necessarily despise those with opposing views."
It's quite a revelation, too! Who knew that we're not required to despise?
On the other hand, BHO isn't only about "not despising". He's also about "reaching out" and finding common ground with people who extract a compromise and then stab in the back. There's no real progress, but there is less bickering extremism.
Sorry, I meant to add Dr Seuss to that, seeing as how it's his work....
I hope no one needed that clarification.
The Sneetches, may be the best Seuss story ...ever!
True, but if I hadn't I would likely have been deleted and banned from HuffPo for failing to credit the original author or something.
"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one... or what one was who."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
