Defence Mechanisms – Rational-Understanding.com

In every nation or organisation, leaders with dark personality traits, i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, or Machiavellianism, are more likely to rise to power than others. The primary interest of leaders with these traits is self-interest, rather than the interest of members of the nation or organisation that they lead. This frees them from ethical constraints when competing for leadership positions. It also frees them from the same constraints when determining the actions of their nation or organisation.

The reactions of members of the nation or organisation to dark leadership are as follows (Challoner, 2024).

They can support the leader. This involves entering into an informal contract with him or her to provide support and assistance in return for the benefits of delegated power.
They can practice a psychological defence mechanism such as denial. That is a failure to acknowledge that the leader has dark personality traits, despite evidence to the contrary.
They can avoid the leader by, for example, emigrating to another nation or joining another organisation. This is also, a psychological defence mechanism.
They can oppose the leader. However, this brings with it the risk of contra-satisfiers such as coercion, threats, or punishments.

The relative proportions of people who react in these ways depends on the culture of the nation or organisation. So, for example, if a culture regards the leader’s behaviour as normal or acceptable, the proportion that support him or her will be greater than in a culture that does not.

However, the greater the proportion of the population that support a dark leader, the lower the proportion that opposes him or her, and the more overt and extreme his or her behaviour will be. Furthermore, if they die or are deposed, it is more likely that another dark leader will take their place. On the other hand, the greater the opposition to a dark leader, the less overt and extreme his or her behaviour. However, the greater the tendency for denial and avoidance. So, dark leadership can still exist in nations and organisations that generally oppose it.

The English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar’s Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) recognises that society has two main strands: (a) the network of relationships and interactions between individuals and groups that forms the structure of society and is the subject of sociology; and (b) the individual human volition or agency that is the subject of psychology (Collier, 1994). A similar model, proposed by the English Sociologist, Margaret Archer, comprises three strands: Structure, Culture and Agency (Archer, 1995). In both models there is a feedback process in which society enculturates individuals and individuals enculture society. That is, society forms the individual’s role, values, norms, and beliefs through the processes of socialisation, social learning, cultural manipulation, etc. After a time delay and, sometimes, after alteration, individuals then propagate social structure along with their values, norms, and beliefs, into society. This process is continuously ongoing. Although it can result in social change, it is also possible for society to become trapped in a positive feedback loop in which, for example, a population’s reaction to dark leadership becomes ever more biassed towards support or opposition.

Examples are given in Daren Acemoglu and James A Robinson’s excellent and well researched book, “Why Nations Fail”. This book focuses on extractive, as opposed to inclusive institutions. That is, those institutions that extract wealth from a society for the benefit of a minority or external agents, as opposed to those that share it more equitably within the society. Institutions are groups or organisations that have values, norms, and beliefs. They also have a specific function in society, e.g., water supply or policing. So, an institution comprises both culture and structure. In much the same way as Bhaskar and Archer, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that there is a feedback loop between institutions and individuals that can trap a society in an extractive or an inclusive mode. They refer to the former as a vicious circle and the latter as a virtuous one.

However, extraction vs. inclusive institutions are just one example of vicious vs. virtuous circles. Other examples include: imperialism vs. respect for other nations; war vs. peaceful co-existence; corruption vs. integrity; elitism vs. egalitarianism; and extreme economic inequality vs. its alternative. Many nations and organisations currently behave in the former ways, and I will leave the reader to decide which. However, this behaviour is ultimately a result of support for dark leadership and the vicious circle that it creates. Pre-existing social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that allow these behaviours to flourish are learnt by individuals who, in turn, propagate them unaltered.

So, to avoid extraction, imperialism, war, corruption, extreme economic inequality, etc., it is necessary to alter the culture from one that supports it to one that opposes it. That change can be accomplished by demonstrating to those who support dark leadership that there is a better way to satisfy their needs. This, of course, means the provision of real opportunities for them to do so. In this way, the social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that prevent extraction, etc. from flourishing will be learnt and propagated, and a virtuous circle will be established. There will, of course, be resistance by established vested interests. So, the process will be a slow one requiring much care, patience, and persistence.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2012, “Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. London, Profile Books.

Archer, M., 1995. “Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Challoner, J.A., 2024. “A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology Ecology and Evolution (Parts 1, 2 & 3) ”. https://rational understanding.com/my-books/

Collier, A. 1994. “Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.” Verso, London, UK. ISBN 0-86091-437-2.

Introduction

In this article, I discuss the reasons for our tolerance of leaders with dark personality traits, our tolerance of extreme economic inequality, and our inability to tackle the threats of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Why, instead of tackling these major issues, do we put so much effort into comparatively minor ones? The explanation lies in how socio-cultural attitudes are formed. These attitudes are a set of apparent beliefs, values, and practices outwardly expressed by a group of people. They have a strong influence on our behaviour but are not necessarily rational. Rather they have a strong emotional basis founded on our psychological defence mechanisms.

Psychological defence mechanisms were first identified by the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. They were later developed by his daughter, Anna Freud, who published her work in the 1936 book, “The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence”. Essentially, these mechanisms protect us from anxieties brought about by contra-satisfiers, i.e., those external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of our needs. This is especially the case for those contra-satisfiers over which we feel we have no control. Thus, for example, we may deal with the anxiety of public speaking by avoiding it.

The purpose of anxiety is to motivate us to deal with its cause. However, there are times when we are powerless to do so. Defence mechanisms provide a means of escaping ongoing anxiety in the interest of our mental wellbeing. The Freuds were, of course, psychotherapists and so their principal focus was on self-induced anxiety. However, anxieties can also be brought about by external causes and the same defence mechanisms can be used to allay them. It is on the latter that I will focus. Although the Freuds’ explanation of the processes behind these defence mechanisms is no longer widely accepted, the mechanisms themselves have stood the test of time, and have been expanded upon by subsequent psychologists.

Defence mechanisms are personal rather than social, and their use varies from individual to individual. They can be broadly categorized, but in practice, they can be partially of one type and partially of another. Furthermore, an individual can use several mechanisms to address a single potential cause of anxiety.

Defence mechanisms are socio-culturally reinforced. When a common circumstance results in contra-satisfiers for a group of people, their defence mechanisms are strengthened by social interaction. The actual contra-satisfier experienced may differ from individual to individual. What is important is that all individuals suffer a contra-satisfier in one form or another, feel powerless to prevent it, and, without some form of psychological defence, would suffer ongoing anxiety.

Methods of Reinforcement

There are several ways in which socio-cultural reinforcement can occur. These can be vertical, i.e., between senior and junior individuals in a hierarchy, or they can be horizontal, i.e., between peers. The main methods are as follows.

Upbringing (Vertical) is the most powerful means of socio-cultural reinforcement. Children rely on their parents and teachers for their initial worldview and, although this can change in later life, it is highly resistant to doing so.

Propaganda (Vertical) is the provision of information, particularly of a biased or misleading nature, to promote the interests of an individual or group. It can include the provision of ready-made rationales to explain a given situation.

Coercion (Vertical) involves a more powerful individual or group persuading a less powerful one to comply with their wishes by using force or threats. This can be the threat or imposition of a contra-satisfier or the threat of denial of a satisfier.

Media & Advertising (Vertical and Horizontal) are a relatively modern and very powerful means of creating socio-cultural attitudes. Normally, they are focussed on selling a particular product or ideology, but in doing so, they often portray the product or ideology as contributing to an ideal lifestyle. This lifestyle may, in turn, involve the adoption of psychological defence mechanisms, for example regression.

Social Learning (Vertical and Horizontal) involves the emulation of role models whose behaviour is perceived as bringing them benefits that we would also like to enjoy.

Socialisation (Horizontal) comprises social reward from our peers for compliance with their values, norms, or beliefs. Values are those things that help us to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, and norms are those behaviours regarded as being good or bad. Examples of social rewards are status, friendship, and approval. Socialisation also comprises punishment for non-compliance, such as shunning.

Emotional Contagion (Horizontal) is the unconscious mimicry of the emotional states and behavioural attitudes of others.

Types of Defense Mechanism

Numerous psychological defense mechanisms have been identified. Those which are probably most subject to socio-cultural reinforcement and the ways in which they can be reinforced are given below.

Denial is a refusal to recognise objective facts or events that would cause us anxiety. We simply block them from our awareness. When this is done unconsciously, it is referred to as repression; when it is done consciously, it is known as suppression. Clearly, we do not wish others to remind us of those facts or events. So, we discourage them from doing so by using the rewards and punishments of socialisation. In a hierarchy, coercion can also be used to encourage silence. Thus, the apparent failure of all members of a group to recognise facts or events reinforces each member of the group’s personal denial.

My articles at https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/ and at https://rational-understanding.com/2024/03/20/management-denial-syndrome/ discuss the socio-cultural reinforcement of the denial defense mechanism and its consequences in more detail.

Reaction Formation is a defence mechanism in which we go beyond denial, and behave in a way that is the opposite to what we unconsciously think or feel. It can occur when we find ourselves in a culture whose values, norms, or beliefs contradict those that we hold. It is, of course, reinforced by coercion, socialisation, media, and advertising. This behaviour outwardly supports the values, norms, or beliefs that we are opposed to, and through socialisation and social learning, encourages others to also do so.

Avoidance means physically avoiding circumstances that cause us anxiety. We do, of course, rationalise our reasons for this and express our rationales to others. This can, in turn, lead to them avoiding the same situation.

Projection involves the attribution of one’s own attitudes, motives, or behaviours to another individual or group. It is frequently reinforced by propaganda, socialisation, and emotional contagion. As a consequence, minority groups have often been scapegoated.

Displacement involves the redirection of a reaction against a contra-satisfier from its originator to another less powerful individual or group. Again, this can be reinforced by propaganda and can result in the scapegoating of less powerful individuals or minority groups.

Regression involves a reversion to behaviours at an earlier developmental stage. In effect it is a reversion to the satisfaction of more basic needs whilst avoiding the higher ones that we feel powerless to satisfy. It involves a focus on simple basic pleasures and can result in overindulgence. In the extreme, this can be referred to as decadence. Unfortunately, regression is now relatively common in Western culture, due to the effect of media and advertising.

Sublimation. In the psychotherapeutic context, sublimation means the channelling of urges that would contravene social norms into more constructive activities such as work or a hobby. This defence mechanism is strongly reinforced by socialisation. However, it means that we neglect major concerns that we feel unable to tackle, but rather, focus on more minor ones on which we feel we can have an effect, for example gender issues rather than climate change or biodiversity loss.

Introjection, also known as Identification, involves making the personality traits of another person one’s own. We do so to avoid anxiety over some difficulty such as potential contra-satisfiers from that person. However, our behaviour socially reinforces the personality traits, and helps to create a culture that values them. The defence mechanism Identification with the Agressor is a particular example in which we adopt the behaviour of a more powerful person in the hope of avoiding any potential hostility from them towards us. Ultimately, however, we begin to feel an emotional connection with and empathy towards that person. Thus, this defence mechanism plays a large part in our support for leaders with dark personality traits.

Compartmentalisation means separating the components of one’s life into different categories to avoid conflicting values or norms. It occurs when we face a culture in one part of our lives which conflicts with that in another, and which, without compartmentalisation, would cause us anxiety. Typically, for example, it can affect the behaviour of employees in a work culture that conflicts with their more general one. This can be deemed professionalism. However, the failure to criticise a work culture can socially reinforce it, even if it is generally unacceptable.

Rationalisation involves a conscious and seemingly rational distortion of the facts to justify a behaviour that contravenes our values and norms. We do this to avoid the anxiety that our behaviour would otherwise cause. Rationales can come ready made via upbringing, propaganda, media or advertising. Intellectualisation is an example of rationalisation in which we focus on the intellectual rather than the emotional aspects of a problem in order to avoid the anxiety caused by those emotions. For example, one may write a blog about social issues rather than admit to oneself the distress that they cause.

Summary

In summary, an adverse situation can result in different contra-satisfiers for different people. The psychological defence mechanisms that we use to cope with the situation also vary. However, because we all suffer a contra-satisfier of some sort and behave defensively in some way, we reinforce one another’s defence mechanisms by the way that we interact socially with one another.