Ward:
>- How do we distinguish between "normal" enthusiasm and fanaticism or
>zealotry? Is it only a matter of degree or is there some key
>distinguishing characteristic?
It is only a matter of degree.
>- What exactly is it that makes a fanatic fanatical? I.e., what is the
>underlying psychological motivation (perhaps/probably unconscious)?
The chip on the shoulder which by its nature I think is mostly unconscious.
>And especially how does that differ from someone we would call
>"reasonable" but merely enthusiastic (say a skateboarder :-) )?
An enthusiast is a fanatic without the chip. ;-)
>- Are there differences between fanatics and proselytizers? That is, if
>one is a fanatic, does that automatically make them more prone to unwanted
>or disrespectful, "evangelical" proselytizing that demonizes or puts down
>those not in the fold?
Yes, it is a kind of acquired disposition.
>Or are there "benign" fanatics that are perfectly happy doing what they do
>without the compulsively felt need to convert everyone around them? If so,
>why is one type of fanatic benign and the other "toxic" to the people
>around them?
The size of the chip. ;-)
>Given enough experience with them, it's pretty easy for someone ELSE to
>distinguish a fanatic. Why can't the fanatic THEMSELVES tell that they are
>being fanatical?
Because being fanatic makes perfect sense to them. Telling conspiracy
buffs that there are no conspiracies, that cooked foods are not the root of
all evil, that evil aliens are not about to take over the world etc. is
regarded as pure insanity because the explanations reflect the
powerlessness they feel inside and match their experiences with life so
far. The farout theories make sense of the pain they feel and protects them
from feeling the truth/fear that they are just a random collection of
unimportant cells terrified out of their skulls from living in a world full
of violence and uncertainty disconnected from love and a sense of belonging
where they do matter.
>What is it like from the inside so that one believes they are being
>reasonable while everyone else thinks they are way out of line and
>crossing commonly accepted boundaries for normal or healthy behavior
>between human beings?
A crazed dog that has been kicked around mercilessly does not understand or
have any sense of "reasonable". A zealous fanatic is a narcissistically
wounded soul so hopelessly self-absorbed and blinded by his/her own drama
that if "normal boundaries" and "healthy behavior" are ever sensed, they
are treated with disdain and contempt. The only exceptions to this is when
they do not feel threatened. I have met racists who until I told them I
liked jews and blacks were the nicest people you could meet.
>Anyway, here are a few ideas. In line with that specific example, I wonder
>how many fanatics are driven by a sense of having been "wronged"?
Without exception every one of them.
>But there are plenty of people who had good childhoods or who haven't had
>too many hard knocks in life who still become fanatics.
No, it is just that their wounds are not so obvious.
>And yet even so, I too became pretty fanatical about a natural hygiene
>diet when I first got into it. Of course, I didn't hit people over the
>head with it except for defending myself and yakking a lot about it and
>going on a few tirades with the person closest to me (my girlfriend). It
>certainly didn't cause me to blame others for having caused a benighted
>world undermining the whole human race or anything like that.
The reason that you were able to come to your senses was that your
background was less traumatic than that of more full-blown fanatics.
>It's only when you realize you are being inhumane--particularly to
>yourself!--with all the rigid demands for perfection and self-criticizing
>that you begin to mellow. Simply to get some psychological breathing room
>and enjoy life more rather than oppressing yourself all the time! sweat,
>sweat, crack that whip! :-)
Luckily, that is what age and experience will do to many of us. For some,
though, the wounds run too deep.
>The us/them mentality (rather than we/us) affects how you behave at a
>pretty fundamental level when it comes to other people. (Also leads to the
>paranoia and conspiracy theory stuff often seen with fanatics.)
Yes, it is a mechanism that feeds on itself.
>Then with some people, becoming fanatical may have a lot to do with
>identity issues, which brings up the question of self-esteem. If you don't
>have a strong sense of who you are, then you'll tend to latch onto
>something external to define yourself by.
Fear and lack of self-esteem are at the very core of these issues.
>But again, that may not cover everybody. Some people have a pretty good
>sense of who they are, and still become fanatical. In fact they may have
>such an overblown sense of self or their intellectual powers, that many
>fanatics become extreme egotists. THEY have the answers, set themselves up
>as examples as the ultimate proof their system works, etc., etc., everyone
>ELSE should do what THEY do.
I disagree. People with overblown egos are just expressing their lack of
self-esteem in a different way. Just like women sexually abused as
children do not always avoid intimacy but act-out their pain through
promiscuity.
>The focus on self to the exclusion of really listening or hearing others
>is one of the most telltale earmarks. (One interesting question I haven't
>been able to answer yet is whether these types of egotists were made that
>way by their fanaticism, or whether they
>were that way to begin with and the fanaticism just brought it out.)
IMO the latter.
>On a person-to-person level, they are only civil until you start
>disagreeing with them.
That is always a dead give-a-way. Disagreeing with them resonates with
their pain and makes them feel unfairly attacked. It find it very telling
that of the Vietnam vets who were in combat, only the ones who had
dysfunctional backgrounds were afflicted with PTSD (post traumatic stress
syndrome) when they came home after the war. They were defenseless to the
horror of the war and took it personally because with their previous
painful experiences in life, their systems short circuited under the
compounded overload.
>So in the end, ideas win out over people when push comes to shove. (I will
>state here, too, that I am someone who is very skeptical of the idea of
>"universal love," and believe it is more an abstraction than a reality. I
>tend to think love is manifested more by actions in the personal sphere of
>the direct relationships in which one is involved; and particularly
>telling about loving one truly is, is how they behave when dealing with
>those whom they don't agree at the direct person-to-person level.)
Amen. I find that the people who use the word love a lot or talk about
universal love often are the most aggressive and intolerant ones around.
The old saying that people usually speak of what they do not have comes to
mind. ;-)
>Another thing on a completely different level could be that much of the
>fanaticism we see today might be driven socially. Given the rate of
>technological and social change, we are all living in the midst of a great
>amount of uncertainty. If there is one thing fundamentalist/fanatic types
>base their whole lives around and that characterizes the fundamentalist
>mindset, it is the psychological need for certainty, which on a social
>level springs out of fear of being able to manage one's life adequately.
All beings have a need for some predictability but uncertainty will always
be a part of life and those with a lot of inner uncertainty are the ones
who have the hardest time coming to terms with this and try to compensate
with fundamentalist and absolutist attitudes.
>Liza, I've also struggled with the idea of intentional evil for a long
>time, and as the years go by am more inclined to say, okay, I'm willing to
>accept that this can be, and the destrucive behavior of some people is not
>just ignorance or warped thinking.
Evil, is, naturally, very often intentional. That is the nature of the beast.
>How did people get that way to begin with?
Is this a trick question? ;-) All torturers were once themselves tortured
making cruelty their main way of expressing their hurt. Do I believe they
should be held accountable for their behavior? Of course, for without
accountability and acceptance of responsibility true change and healing can
never take place. Why do some people with seemingly horrendous backgrounds
seem to come out wholesome? Because something along the way was not that
bad. Maybe their mother was not beaten while they were in the womb, maybe
they were initially wanted into this world, maybe they had a aunt who was
kind and took care of them for a couple of months. I do not think that
there are many mysteries as to why people become who they are. The more
difficult question is how do we get (them) well?
>For example, your example of the greedy head of a corporation knowingly
>and calculatingly doing what they do. (Let's say, for instance, the
>tobacco companies spiking their cigs with extra nicotine to addict more
>and more users). It's hard to believe they started out that way as little
>kids. What would be interesting and helpful is knowing the etiology of it all.
Show me an "evil" or "cruel" person with a happy childhood and I will join
the fundamentalist movement of your choice. ;-)
Ward, thanks for the many great points you made. Great thread!
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
