Matthis Desmet is an expert of the psychology of mass formation, where sections of societies, or whole societies, collectively take leave of their senses for a period of time, typically driving highly damaging beliefs and consequent actions, sometimes culminating in truly tragic circumstances. His work is highly recommended, especially is book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’.
A mass formation is prone to occur when society has experienced a long period of increasing atomisation, a loss of a sense of meaning in life, and the consequent development of free-floating anxiety and anger. Desmet argues that thse circumstances have developed over time since the Enlightenment, when it began to be assumed that humans were primarily rational instead of emotional beings, and could be expected to make rational decisions. Humans are not rational beings, so central governance came rely on emotional manipulation rather than rational argument, hence the development of ever more sophisticated propaganda. A propagandised population loses connection with the truth, as those who see through the propaganda and say so are increasingly excluded or punished for ‘heresy’ by the masses. This is very much a set up for mass formation.
As societies have increased in scale and complexity, so has the scale of potential mass formations. Now they have the potential to consume whole nations, or even groups of nations, and to co-opt the machinery of government to increase the reach of the movement and its control over dissent. Such a situation can be exploited in order to force through changes that could never be achieved otherwise, allowing greater consolidation of power. The Hegelian dialectic is problem, reaction, solution, or ‘never waste a good crisis’. In other words a threat, either natural or manufactured, manifests, and fear of the threat is deliberately amplified before one or more ‘solutions’ are presented. The previously free-floating anxiety now has a focus, and that focus can be extremely intense. The focus on the proposed solutions is typically even more so, and because the connection is emotional rather than rational, it makes no difference if the proposed solutions actually make sense. Performing them, even if obviously harmful, becomes a form of ritual, demonstrating adherence to the collective. Education and intellect are no protection against this kind of propagandisation. In fact schooling appears to lead to a greater likelihood of acceptance, since it’s a form of indoctrination, training people to think similarly.
Those who believe the fear narrative then feel connected in a collective fight against the threat, although they’re connected to the idea of threat, not to each other as individuals. Nevertheless, they feel less lonely than before, so their sense of meaning increases and holds the collective together. The devotion to the collective can be intense enough that people become radically intolerant of those who disagree, either as to the extent of the threat of the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. If the mass formation proceedes to its logical conclusion, dissenters may be physically attacked or eliminated.
The covid era was a prime example of this process in action. The threat was manufactured, the fear pumped up, and a compliance test was initated. The ‘solutions’ were lockdowns, mask mandates, arbitrary social distancing, mass testing with an inappropriate method, forced closure of small businesses, restrictions on gatherings and travel, inappropriate medical treatments, restriction of effective treatments, and mandatory vaccination. The public failed the compliance test, going along with most of these, even though many measures were non-sensical and counter-productive. Governments, the media, and the public all became radically intolerant of opposition. Highly coercive methods were used to force compliance, and increasing threats against dissidents were made. Eventually the mania broke, as the disease was revealed to be much less severe than had been thought, and the ‘solutions’ both far less effective than promised and very damaging.
The focus of mass formation then switched almost seamlessly to the war in Ukraine and the demonisation of Russia, and later to the demonisation of Iran, because the conditions for mass formation had not changed. Anyone expressing an actual fact-based understanding of the situation in either Ukraine, Iran, or Israel, is demonised within their own society. Putin and the Iranian leadership must be considered to be monsters, while Israel is supposed to be above all criticism no matter how barbaric its behaviour. None of this makes sense to anyone paying attention to the facts on the ground, but mass formations are not about making sense. They’re about emotional committment to a narrative, and facts be damned.
Each situation is being hyped for maximum impact, with amplified threats being used to force through an enormous wealth transfer from the poor to the already rich. Covid was an excuse for massive money printing, and war is an even bigger one. This is driving up the cost of living, while also about to crash supply of many essential goods, including the critical energy supply, without which economic activity is not possible.
In a mass formation, typically some 30% of the population has completely swallowed the narrative and is imper pvious to evidence. Another 60% or so may go along to get along, valuing the sense of belonging that confers over the desired to question a flawed narrative. Belonging is, after all, a survival strategy, while truth-seeking, critical thinking, and counter-narrative speech are not. The remaining people recognise the irrational nature of the narrative, and the proposed solutions, and begin to dissent, accepting the social exclusion and punishments that go with rebellion. While these people typically cannot convince others outright, their skepticism can disrupt the hypnosis sufficiently to prevent the mass formation from going to its logical conclusion, which would be extreme violence against the dissenters. Eventually the hypnosis breaks if its own accord, but terrible things may have been done in the meantime.
Trust determines effective organisational scale. The trust horizon expanded thoughout the decades of globalisation, hence the huge increase in scale and complexity. Now the process has gone into reverse as economic contraction drive the collapse of trust. The large scale that led to such all-encompassing mass formations will be much less effective as it loses political legitimacy and attempts to substitute surveillance and control. This may work for a time, as totalitarian systems have before, but is doomed to fail in the end, as all attempts at extreme centralisation do.
Ultimately, trust can be rebuilt, but at a smaller organisational scale more typical of the past, as the surplus energy that drove complex globalisation and a just in time network of supply chains will no longer be available. Unfortunately the human toll of this cycle of boom and bust will be immense, even under conditions of early failure of the control grid out elites are trying to implement under cover of crisis. When rebuilding, humanity is more likely to operate at human scale, which is the best antidote to the kind of all-consuming mass formations that cause the worst harm. It will be extremely important to rediscover respect for the sincerity, and respect for truth, that allows for personal trust to develop. A necessary precondition for this is free speech, which is currently being widely suppressed. Our complex predicament as we hit non-negotiable limits to growth requires honest dialogue and debate, a willingness to listen, and a move away from pervasive and divisive tribalism.
