29 Comments

The dynamics and issues at the intersection of religiosity and authoritarianism are massively complex. Nothing here can be distilled and explained simply. That caveat being offered, Ruth's essay speaks to sets of psychological predispositions that similarly draw people to certain religious beliefs AND to feeling safely held, rather than alarmed and imperiled, by authoritarian-leaning actors, and in particular those who also gravitate into theocractic-fascistic territory.

Many Christian sects, but especially Catholicism, uphold precepts regarding human sexuality and other features and expressions of natural human desires and impulses that are summarily denounced as sinful. And which should be eradicated or, minimally, denied, disavowed, squashed or suppressed. Over centuries, a canon of teachings, beliefs, and practices have inculcated adherents into passively normalizing the pathologization of human desire. One outcome of this serial transgenerational trauma is the establishment of deep shame on a macro-social scale.

It is well-known that early shame experiences are a common denominator of both tyrannical actors and those drawn to their orbit. The sado-masochistic dyad--the re-enactment of lacerating cruelty absorbed in subjugation ennobled as pious grace is a core trope of religious doctrine.

Authoritarianism carries this form of abusive relationship out of the church and church-going homes into the state. But its familiarity and the sense of calming normalcy--the impassioned acquiescence to the ostensibly powerful all-controlling authority who promises redemption, salvation, and escape from the pain of mortal life--phantasmagorically transforms the authoritarian into a wonderful welcome figure. He is loved, not loathed.

In this regard, while reductionistic, I will suggest that certain aspects of religious thinking and beliefs have directly contributed to some of the most viciously destructive psycho-social pathogens in human history, and are causal to the formation of the authoritarian personality and to the perverse social acceptance of that figure and the authoritarianism he brings.

Expand full comment

It is essential to understand the argument that informs RBG’s piece. She does not interpret either historical phenomena, or peoples’ attitudes, in terms of simplistic dichotomies. She does not treat either reason or faith, either church or state, as being intrinsically authoritarian or democratic. Both church and state may be either authoritarian or democratic. Thus she writes:

“Not every faith tradition is suitable for serving strongman purposes. The decline or demise of democracy can be paralleled by a realignment of power in the religious realm. Faith traditions with their own authoritarian cultures prosper, while progressive ones are sidelined or suppressed.”

Accordingly, she depicts the complex interrelationships between church and state in the modern era in specific, concrete, historical detail, beginning with Mussolini:

“Mussolini created the template. [He persecuted] the Italian left . . . . Yet . . . both the Fascists and the Catholic Church needed to neutralize another threat: a progressive Christian movement, embodied in the fast-growing Popular Party, which was led by the revered priest Don Luigi Sturzo.”

Similarly, there is no simple dichotomous relationship between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism (or democracy). As soon as we are born, we are necessarily under the authority of our parents, and our parents must exercise authority over us. Endlessly complicated webs of authority, and the hierarchical relationships it engenders, are essential and unavoidable elements of human society and existence. The relationships between teachers and students, supervisors and workers, doctors and patients, bus drivers and passengers, hosts and guests—all the myriad relationships we routinely enter into—require the exercise of authority and cooperation with that authority. The question is not whether we live under and exercise authority. The question is whether the relationships of authority and hierarchy we live under are healthy or unhealthy. A useful starting point for examining the complex nature of authority is Freud’s “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego.”

Authority, being both creative and destructive, inspires us with both awe and dread, and therefore with a frightening sense of unresolvable ambivalence. D.L. Dusenbury writes, in a still larger historical context than that of modern fascism, of the seemingly implacable destructiveness of human authority, whether exercised by temporal or the religious authority. He writes that Nietzsche, discussing Socrates and Jesus, suggests that

“European culture is inaugurated . . . by a pair of legal ordeals in which innocent persons are condemned. . . . [The European] drama of truth begins not once, but twice, with an innocent [person] being sentenced to death. The mirroring of these events is heightened by the fact that Socrates, the protomartyr of European philosophy, and Jesus, the protomartyr of Christian theology, are . . . [both] convicted of the highest political crime (treason) and the highest religious crime (blasphemy)” (The TLS, No. 6106, April 20, 2020).

One of the essential points of the Gospels is often considered to be that when God enters the world, human beings will inevitably crucify him—thus the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov.” Human innocence will inevitably be crucified—thus Melville’s “Billy Budd.” We all crucify Christ despite ourselves. Similarly, throughout the Old Testament, God must instruct his prophets to tell his chosen people that they have once again chosen death over life.

As with faith, so with reason. if the Goddess Reason is the royal road to democracy and human happiness, the empirical evidence for it is vanishingly scant. In fact, the evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. Reason itself tells us that reason in itself cannot produce desirable results. There is no rational reason for us not to murder, enslave, or exploit other human beings. In fact it is often entirely rational to do these things, as entirely rational human beings have determined again and again throughout history. The reason we refrain from doing these things is that we desire to refrain from doing them; and there is little or no compelling rational reason for that desire.

At any rate, addressing age-old fundamental issues of human existence does require a virtue that is central to both our secular and religious traditions—humility.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this, Ruth. You bring clarity to what I find unfathomable. I am very worried for us.

Expand full comment

Lovers of authoritarianism and patriarchy drift toward organized religion as a natural ally. All three merit strong resistance. Bertrand Russell's observation has never been more apt, that turning to religion is a complete delusion, borne of terror.

Expand full comment

For a grand discussion of the work of Christian evangelist believers and their influence on American politics, I suggest "The Family: the secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power," a truly disturbing expose of the bizarre thinking behind these folks.

Expand full comment

Is religion and Personality cults connected by the fact they are driven by belief rather than reason?

For sake of argument if there is no provable rational basis for a religion is it any different from a personality cult

Expand full comment

When religious organizations are formed around an authoritarian mindset, like so many in this nation, it is an easy transition for those people to accept an authoritarian political stance. Chris Hedges addressed this concept in his book, "American Fascists". Christo-fascism has become a major pillar for our current proto-fascism. I know some of these people and they seem to live in a world of post-truth, where their feelings supersede truth. But fascism has never been about the truth and that is what fascist leaders depend on; that followers will believe their fantasy.

Expand full comment

Much of organized religion is nothing more than a system of power, a cult and authoritarian control. It is full of the same corruption and abuses as government and the officials who occupy its positions of power. Often times the abuses and scandals can be worse, morally evil in fact, just look at the years and years of cover up that went on in the highest levels of the Vatican and its churches to protect it's priests, who sexually abused children.

Where ever there is concentrated power there will ineluctably be corruption and abuse. Sin and ambition abound. As Dante observed "Human history can't change until human nature changes.”

Expand full comment

A current case on point reported in today's The Guardian about the political efforts of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, to create a Christian theocracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-idaho-theocracy-us-america

Expand full comment
Nov 2, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

This was excellent and very important information.

It seems to me that two of the goals of certain denominations and sects--goals that those groups andi ndividuals always try to hide, of course--are:

1. to attempt to control the behavior of others, especially non-group members; and

(2) to attempt to control the thinking of non-group members.

Expand full comment

A useful and informative guide to how American far right Christianity has waged war on America take a look at Chris Hedges' book, "American Fascism." He does an outstanding bit of analysis laying out the grievance this particular group has with America's culture.

Expand full comment

And overseas we can see the radical Hindus supporting Modi in India as he establishes his own authoritarian regime and the radical Buddhists in Myanmar working hand in glove with the military to purge Christians and especially Muslims from the country and let us not forget the radical Shi'ite clerics running Iran. Point being that while Christian groups seem to have perfected the art, they are not alone in wedding religion to authoritarianism.

Expand full comment