In our last few articles in this series unpacking some of the insights of the book The Coddling of the American Mind and considering them in light of Biblical truth. We looked at the untruths of fragility and emotional reasoning. In this article, we will take a look at the final untruth Lukianoff and Haidt discuss in their book, the idea that life is a battle between good and evil people. In essence, it is a form of tribalism that divides people into warring factions on the basis of differing ideologies or identity markers. It’s a problem that we’ve seen a lot of in our modern culture of polarized politics, partisanship and cyber-shaming.

How do we understand it, and more importantly, what do we do about it?

Listen to the article here:

Listen to the previous articles here and here.

Groupthink

Polish psychologist, Henri Tajfel, after being a Jewish prisoner of war in World War II, conducted a series of experiments which divided people into arbitrary groups based on trivial criteria – such as flipping a coin. He wanted to understand how people could discriminate against others they perceived to be ‘outside’ their groups. “Tajfel found that no matter how trivial or ‘minimal’ he made the distinctions between the groups, people tended to distribute whatever was offered in favor of their in-group members.”

This phenomenon was further developed by neuroscientist, David Eagleman using an fMRI to examine brain activity of people watching a video of someone’s hand being pricked by a needle. He found that even when the groups were created immediately by the most trivial of means (such as flipping a coin), if the person was told that the hand being pricked belonged to their same arbitrary group, their brain still showed a larger spike – even though this arbitrary group identity hadn’t existed just moments prior!

We saw this in full display during the COVID pandemic of 2019—2020 and beyond. There was mass group-think perpetrated and perpetuated by Big Tech, media, politicans and influencers—shaming any dissenters and vilifying those who dared to question the official narrative. Of course now, a few years down the line, it has become very clear the level of group think that was happening—especially as more and more evidence of the intentional deception has come to light. However, it was stark the level of callousness and even aggressive malice that this created in our societies between people on opposite sides of the line over COVID.

Lukianoff and Haidt argue from an evolutionary perspective that the human mind is predisposed to tribalism. When we form groups we bind ourselves to that group and embrace and defend that group’s moral matrix. It becomes a form of group-think as we seem to become blind to arguments and information that challenge our group’s or team’s (or tribe’s) narrative.

Now, I don’t think that an evolutionary model is not the only explanatory option for this phenomenon, nor the best. The Bible also shows us how groups can show prejudice and be disposed to tribalism. It’s an outworking of our sinful nature ever since the Fall which takes good things (such as loyalty) and corrupts it into a perverted distortion (such as tribalism).

Tribalism

From an observational perspective, we can see this phenomenon of ‘group-think’ happening all around us and even in evangelical circles. We naturally are disposed to want to defend the groups we perceive ourselves to belong to against all threats to its shared values and unconditionally support our fellow members of the group. This sort of group loyalty can be a good thing – such as when a church community bands together to support one of its members or defend the honour of a congregant who is wrongfully accused. 

However, it can also be a bad thing when group-think causes people to blindly support the values of their groups without first analyzing them critically. Not only that, it can sometimes prevent even the ability to see the problem due to an unwillingness not to ‘betray’ loyalty. In this way, these group loyalties can sometimes establish one firmly within a plausibility structure – where it is impossible to see an alternative point of view or opinion that goes against your group’s prevailing narrative. This sort of group-think can result in a form of tribalism that perpetuates the us versus them mentality.

I’ve seen this happen first-hand in churches and church movements where a high degree of uniformity is required, whether formally or informally. Even though it may not happen maliciously or even consciously, those caught up in this sort of tribalism are often blind to the problems within their group and perceive any push-back, no matter how gentle, as a threat.

Identity Politics

Identity politics has become the norm in today’s political discourse.

Jonathan Rauch defines it as “political mobilization organized around group characteristics such as race, gender, and sexuality, as opposed to party, ideology, or pecuniary interest.” We see this in action when various identity groups or persons claiming to represent those groups mobilize political action due to perceived discrepancies or grievances. It is often framed in very stark “us vs them” language which divides society into oppressor and oppressed groups.

Lukianoff and Haidt point to Martin Luther King Jr as an example of a counter-force to today’s identity politics. They call King’s strategy “common-humanity identity politics”. Instead of the divisiveness of modern identity politics, they observe that, 

“Part of Dr. King’s genius was that he appealed to the shared morals and identities of Americans by using the unifying languages of religion and patriotism… Instead of shaming or demonizing their opponents, they humanized them and then relentlessly appealed to their humanity.” (Coddling of the American Mind, pgs 60-62)

This point is quite important for our current cultural moment where critical theories have caused far more division and splintering of society than unifying.

Repression and a Reversal of Power

A surprising and troubling trend that has emerged out of this is the view of free speech as being repressive. Those of us from the sensibilities of older generations are often appalled to hear such a viewpoint embraced by the younger generations. However, there is a reason why we’ve got to this point.

Herbert Marcuse was one of the most influential thinkers when it comes to this phenomenon that is core to the neo-Marxist (and woke) ideologies of today.

In a 1965 essay titled “Repressive Tolerance,” Marcuse argued that when power differentials between groups exist, tolerance only empowers the already powerful and makes it easier for them to dominate institutions like education, the media, and most channels of communication. He argued that indiscriminate tolerance is “repressive,” because it blocks the political agenda and suppresses the voices of the less powerful. So then,

“If indiscriminate tolerance is unfair, then what is needed is a form of tolerance that discriminates. A truly “liberating tolerance,” claimed Marcuse, is one that favors the weak and restrains the strong.” (Coddling of the American Mind, pg 65)

Intersectionality

Marcuse’s end goal was not equality but rather a reversal of power. These ideas eventually would flourish into what is known as the theory of “intersectionality” today. This is illustrated in the diagram below which shows various people groups and their varying degrees of privilege versus oppression.

This theory of intersectionality is used as a framework or grid to determine which voices society should elevate and which should be suppressed to right prior wrongs and grievances.

With regards to intersectionality,

“Since “privilege” is defined as the “power to dominate” and to cause “oppression,” these axes are inherently moral dimensions. The people on top are bad, and the people below the line are good. This sort of teaching seems likely to encode the Untruth of Us Versus Them directly into students’ cognitive schemas: Life is a battle between good people and evil people.” (Coddling of the American Mind, pg 70)

This concept comes from a bigger philosophical stream known as Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism, based upon principles from classical Marxism sees all of society as divided into groups of either Oppressed or Oppressor. It sees all of life as centred around a struggle for power.

“For both post-Marxists on the left and Nietzscheans on the right, all institutions, all governments, all art, all moral beliefs, and all religions are nothing more than a mask for power. All of culture—the family, social institutions, philosophical systems—is nothing more than one group exercising power over another group (men over women, whites over racial minorities, heterosexuals over homosexuals, humans over animals, etc.). Thus, every dimension of life is politicized and critiqued as part of a system of oppression. The only way to resist this oppression is to be transgressive and to seize power for your own group, which will include exercising oppression against your enemies (silencing them, marginalizing them, and otherwise punishing them).” (Veith Jr., Gene Edward. Post-Christian, p. 19-20)

Intersectionality is a means by which one can measure the level of oppression a person experiences in a society by looking at their intersecting areas of oppression due to belonging to specific minority or oppressed groups/classes. This has led to what is called “Identity Politics”. It defines us by our group identity. So, for example, in this theory – a black, lesbian woman experiences more oppression than a white, heterosexual male – who is part of the majority culture. Therefore, in this framework, the solution is to take away power and privilege from the person from the majority culture group and give it to the one from the minority group so that their opinions and voice gain more weight. It is showing partiality in order to try to offset the perceived imbalance of power.

This framework of cultural Marxism and Intersectionality helps us understand why everything seems to be politicized today. If everything is seen through the lens of power struggle, then the best way to affect change is to seize political power.

While this is a very brief sketch of this social theory, it is critical to understanding what is happening in our culture today. These factors of groupthink, tribalism, identity politics, and the theory of intersectionality all are working together in our culture and producing a society that is immensely fractured and suspicious of one another. However, this should be no surprise, since these social theories have their roots in classical Marxist thought which saw the need for revolution to overturn the status quo and replace it with their new version of an equitable utopia. The destabilisation, disruption and deconstruction of the current order was seen as a necessary stepping stone on the road to progress to this utopia where all inequalities are eradicated.

Biblical lenses to correct the distortions

So, how are we to respond to this as Christians?

To begin with, we cannot dismiss every grievance that has been brought up. There are many legitimate claims to disenfranchizement and discrimination today and the Bible does give us categories to think in for the destitute, the poor and the oppressed. It is simply part of Christian duty and obligation to affirm legitimate cases of oppression and injustice and to work to correct those out of compassion and love for Christ and fellow image-bearers.

However, the Bible also gives us warning against the sin of partiality, which many of these “untruths” of groupthink, tribalism, identity politics and intersectionality actually encourage. The Apostle James says,

“My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:1-4)

To show partial treatment to anyone on the basis of external characteristics such as socio-economic status, ethnicity, culture, physical disability, etc. is a sin in God’s eyes and should not be practised by God’s people. This cuts both ways though. It is not just against the “oppressors”, but even those in the “oppressed” group should not show partiality. Exodus 23:2-3 says,

“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.”

And Leviticus 19:15,

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

God calls us to judge impartially, not according to various identity groups or intersectional criteria. No “identity group” is totally innocent, because we all have sin (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, it is wrong for us to make distinctions and show partiality in our judgments based on any criteria such as skin colour, demographics, economics, sexual orientation, etc.

In response to the tendency towards tribalism, God called the Israelites to remain set apart from all other nations and gave them a unique set of laws that would bind them to each other and to Him (Deuteronomy 4:7–9; 2 Kings 17:13). However, anyone was welcome to join Israel as long as the newcomers assimilated themselves into Israelite culture and worshipped the Lord alone (Deuteronomy 26:11). Tribalism is different to loyalty. Christ is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:13), and any tribalism in His Body must be kept in perspective and not be allowed to erode Christian unity (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12–14, 27).

With regards to the phenomenon of groupthink, God’s word also gives us wisdom. The Bible does say, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). So there is definitely wisdom in consulting a “group” or a multitude of counsellors. However, it also says, “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails” (Proverbs 19:21), and “Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain” (Psalm 127:1). We must be careful that God and His word is always a central part of the plans we make in a group.

Second, the participants in groupthink ignore warnings and construct rationalisations in order to discount them.

The Bible calls us to heed warnings (Prov. 8:36), to listen to rebuke (Prov. 17:10) and hear instruction (Prov. 13:1). Third, victims of groupthink have an unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of their ingroup actions, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. But the Bible tells us of our innate corruption because of sin and the deceitfulness of our hearts (Jer. 17:9). Furthermore, people caught up in groupthink hold stereotyped views of the leaders of enemy groups. They are seen as so evil that there is no warrant for arbitration or negotiation or as too weak or too stupid to put up an effective defense. Yet God’s word calls us to be charitable in our assessments of others (1 Cor. 13:7) and gracious in our interactions with those who disagree (1 Pet. 3:15).

Yet in groupthink, unanimity becomes an idol. Victims of groupthink avoid deviating from what appears to be the group consensus; they keep silent about their misgivings and even minimise to themselves the importance of their doubts. Victims of groupthink sometimes appoint themselves as “mindguards” to protect the leader and fellow members from adverse information. However, this is not the way of wisdom, but rather of folly. “Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.” (Prov. 15:32; cf. 15:5) We should not lock ourselves into echo chambers that only affirm our preconceived biases, but be open to dialogue, debate and discussion to test our beliefs.

The Bible gives us a far more beautiful and productive means of interacting with those with whom we disagree. Rather than falling into groupthink, tribalism, identity politics or using intersectionality to show partiality, instead, the Bible calls us to impartial judgement and a fair hearing of both sides. If our societies continue down this path of us versus them, it will continue to fracture our societies, making everyone suspicious and antagonistic against each other.

In this world, Christians have an opportunity to shine brightly as lights if we reject these worldly ways and follow God’s ways. In the long run, wisdom shall be known by her children (Luke 7:35) and we will be shown to have been on the “right side” of history. God’s wisdom always leads to flourishing and peace, whereas the world’s ways that reject His truth will lead to disharmony and destruction. We need to be on guard against this, both in the world around us and in our hearts.

Call-Out Culture, Virtue Signaling & the Cycle of Polarization

There are a few more factors that contribute to this untruth of group think and tribalism in our culture today: call-out culture, virtue signaling and the cycle of polarization. We’ll briefly explore a few of these as we close this series.

Call-Out Culture

Call-out culture has emerged from trends in online interactions via social media, in which powerful algorithms tend to reward content that sparks engagement. Now, at face value this is not necessarily a bad thing and can often be helpful in highlighting content that is worth consideration in an online world that is flooded with content. However, as with all things, the sinfulness of man can corrupt any good thing.

People know that one way to generate a high volume of engagement is to be controversial, edgy, or offensive. However, another way is to earn “merit” by calling out offenders and scoundrels opposed to an in-group’s values or norms.

Lukianoff and Haidt note that on many college campuses the combination of common-enemy identity politics and microaggression training creates an environment highly conducive to the development of a “call-out culture.” This is one in which students gain prestige for identifying small offenses committed by members of their community, and then publicly “calling out” the offenders. One gets no points, no credit, for speaking privately and gently with an offender-in fact, that could be interpreted as colluding with the enemy.

Call-out culture requires an easy way to reach an audience that can award status to people who shame or punish alleged offenders. This is one reason social media has been so transformative: there is always an audience eager to watch people being shamed, particularly when it is so easy for spectators to join in and pile on.

Many in the audience may feel sympathy for the person being shamed but are afraid to speak up, yielding the false impression that the audience is unanimous in its condemnation. Here is how a student at Smith College describes her induction into its call-out culture in the fall of 2014:

During my first days at Smith, I witnessed countless conversations that consisted of one person telling the other that their opinion was wrong. The word “offensive” was almost always included in the reasoning. Within a few short weeks, members of my freshman class had quickly assimilated to this new way of non-thinking. They could soon detect a politically incorrect view and call the person out on their “mistake.” I began to voice my opinion less often to avoid being berated and judged by a community that claims to represent the free expression of ideas. I learned, along with every other student, to walk on eggshells for fear that I may say something “offensive.” That is the social norm here. (Pages 71-72)

Virtue Signaling

Virtue signaling refers to the things people say and do to advertise that they are virtuous. This helps them stay within the good graces of their team.

Lukianoff and Haidt note that mobs can rob good people of their conscience, particularly when participants wear masks (in a real mob) or are hiding behind an alias or avatar (in an online mob). Anonymity fosters deindividuation-the loss of an individual sense of self-which lessens self-restraint and increases one’s willingness to go along with the mob.

Trent Eady, a Canadian queer activist noted:

“Thinking this way quickly divides the world into an ingroup and an outgroup-believers and heathens, the righteous and the wrongteous…. Every minor heresy inches you further away from the group. When I was part of groups like this, everyone was on exactly the same page about a suspiciously large range of issues. Internal disagreement was rare.”

Nelson Mandela said, “When we dehumanize and demonize our opponents, we abandon the possibility of peacefully resolving our differences, and seek to justify violence against them.”

And Eric Hoffer noted, “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.”

Lukianoff and Haidt note that a set of new ideas about speech, violence, and safety has emerged on the far left in recent years, and the debate on campus is largely a debate within the left, pitting (mostly) older progressives, who generally have an expansive notion of free speech, against (mostly) younger progressives, who are more likely to support some limitations on speech in the name of inclusion.

“But if we step back and look at American universities as complex institutions nested within a larger society that has been growing steadily more divided, angry, and polarized, we begin to see the left and the right locked into a game of mutual provocation and reciprocal outrage that is an essential piece of the puzzle we are trying to solve in this book.” (Pg 127)

One only needs to look at our current political landscape to see this clearly illustrated. The rhetoric and aggression between parties on the left and right of the spectrum in both the United States and Canada has risen to a level of tension not seen outside of outright wartimes. It seems like gone are the days of polite debate between opposing parties. Now, everything is framed in terms of friends and enemies.

While some of this may be justified where there are actual evil policies or politicians trying to achieve nefarious ends, in general this has stoked the flames of polarization in our societies. One only need bring up the names of Trump and Biden or Trudeau and Poilievre at a bar or pub to see it in action.

“Prior to the era of polarization, ingroup favoritism, that is, parti sans’ enthusiasm for their party or candidate, was the driving force behind political participation. More recently, however, it is hostility toward the out-party that makes people more inclined to participate.” (Shanto Iyengar and Marsha Krupenkin, pg 131-132)

Now, people are motivated to leave their couches and take political action not because of love for their party’s candidate but because of hate for the opposing party’s candidate. This is a significant shift.

Lukianoff and Haidt note that, “Politically homogeneous communities are more susceptible to witch hunts particularly when they feel threatened from outside.” (Pg 113)

This is true and a danger we must be aware of—even when we acknowledge the genuine evil of some political parties who endorse and encourage things like the medical castration of gender confused minors, the murder of the unborn and the elderly, and the destruction of Christian values in society. We must be careful, lest in our zeal to call out sin, we fall prey to it ourselves.

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” (Galatians 6:1)

Cycle of Polarization

Lastly, let’s look at the cycle of polarization created by these trends.

Lukianoff and Haidt give the following example:

But as campus activism increased in 2015 and offered up an unending stream of dramatic cell phone videos (including students cursing at professors and shouting down speakers), right-wing media outlets began to devote far more attention to campus events, which they portrayed gleefully, usually stripped of any explanatory context. The rising expressions of anger from the left on campus, sometimes directed against conservative speakers, led to rising expressions of anger from the right, off-campus, sometimes directed in threatening ways at left-leaning professors and students, which in turn triggered more anger from the left on campus… and the cycle repeats. (Pg 132)

Lest we think that these problems only occur on the left of the political spectrum, we must also acknowledge that right-wing media can also utilize some of these tactics. It produces a sort of “rage-farming”, to paint those on the left as enemies of freedom and threats to Western Civilization.

While I think that there may be some genuine enemies of freedom and threats to Western Civilization—such as the WEF—the majority of everyday citizens I encounter who may hold to some leftist politics are not usually those people. They simply don’t have the type of influence to be a real threat and are usually naive as to the errors of their position (though sometimes willfully so). The fact is that we have to discern these things on an individual basis, as the motives behind each person’s decisions and political positions can be quite varied.

If we don’t, we ironically end up becoming the threat to freedom of speech ourselves—since people who feel constantly threatened for expressing their views and opinions tend to keep them to themselves and free expression in the marketplace of ideas shuts down.

Sadly, many people today feel so threatened because of our polarized culture that they self-censor and we end up in communities that don’t actually have real conversations and debates about important and even difficult topics.

As soon as we have to second guess what we say within our community of faith, there’s a problem. Making the decision to keep certain opinions to ourselves because we’re afraid of the response is a sign that the community is breaking down. The sad thing is that if what I am keeping to myself is wrong, I’ll never know it—but if it’s right, neither will you.

In light of all these things, even when we are absolutely convinced that our position is right and that the opposing position is wrong and even dangerous, we must learn how to engage with other graciously.

“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29)

Soli Deo Gloria.