The Psychodynamic Underpinnings of Fascism
Interview With Sheldon Solomon, PhD

Delve into the psychological underpinnings of fascism and examine its components through insights from Dr. Sheldon Solomon. In this interview, he highlights key characteristics of fascism, the manipulations of shared realities by fascist leaders via the spread of information and misinformation, and the role of education for preserving democracy.

Please summarize what your career and research journey looked like?

I’m a first-generation college student and was a chemistry major in college. In the 1970s, there was no such thing as psychology in high school, and I had no idea that the discipline of psychology existed beyond, let’s say, therapy. But I took Introductory Psychology in my second year of college because my roommate happened to have the books, and I was immediately attracted to the discourse—particularly the idea that you could use the scientific method to understand the way that people behave. I was also attracted to social psychology, in particular, because of its historical roots, founded after World War II with a big commitment to the value of theory. But at the same time, I was equally enthused by social psychology’s commitment to practical applications, particularly at the time, trying to figure out racism on the domestic front, and fascism and authoritarianism in the aftermath of World War II on the international front.

How would you define fascism, and what are key characteristics to look for?

When I talk about these ideas, I try and say to folks, “Leave your politics at the door.” This is a non-political effort to understand a timely and important phenomenon that is happening around us. With that in mind, I rely on Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale who wrote a book called How Fascism Works, the Politics of Us and Them (2018). He said that fascism has three components:

1. Populism: fosters domestic divisiveness
2. Nativism: tends to surround racial, ethnic, or religious purity, and is often complemented by xenophobia
3. Authoritarianism: submission to authority, often by mindless adherence to larger-than-life leader who thinks they’re solely capable of running the world

“Fascist politicians,” Stanley notes, “transform the population’s shared understanding of reality by twisting the language of ideals through propaganda and promoting anti-intellectualism, attacking universities and educational systems that might challenge their ideas. Eventually…fascist politics creates a state of unreality, in which conspiracy theories and fake news replace reasoned debate.”

In recent years, the use of the term “fascism,” as well as the awareness of it, has increased significantly. Some people express that individuals are throwing that term around loosely, and others are genuinely afraid. How might you comment on concerns of the rise of fascism?

I’m of the persuasion, following Hannah Arendt in The Origin of Totalitarianism (1951) that fascists often come into office through democracy, but then they use democracy to ultimately undermine and eventually destroy it. I argue that a successful fascist politician parallels Hitler’s behavior. His plan relied on turning truth on its head through a variety of mechanisms in order to create a vision of reality that satisfies the psychodynamic yearnings of his constituency but generally has no connection to reality.

Based on independent observations of nonpartisan organizations, fascism is on the rise around the world. Research suggests that, during times of historical upheaval, political preferences shift from what evolutionary psychologists describe as wisdom versus dominance in terms of leadership.  Harvard anthropologist Joseph Henrich, in The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smart (2015) argues that we follow some leaders because we genuinely admire and respect them based on their knowledge and expertise; and, others because we genuinely fear them, not so much that they are wise but rather that they are entirely capable of pummeling us or our enemies into oblivion without one iota of remorse.

And I don’t mean that cynically, because there are times we might need a confident leader to galvanize our energy and enthusiasm, even if it does happen to be behind a belief system that has little to do with reality. When in troubled times, all of us tend to lean in that direction.

How have defined characteristics of fascism changed from its early rise to its later developments?

Everything that was described above—the divisiveness, the nativism, the submission to authority, the devotion to a worldview that denigrates actual thinking or adherence to truth—just becomes more pronounced to the point where the average citizen loses the capacity or the inclination to differentiate between fact and fiction.

What psychological theories relating to human behavior do you utilize in your research, and how does your research help to further develop these theories?

In terms of our understanding of the psychodynamic underpinnings of fascism, we frame our work in terms of the theory of evolution along with current conceptions of developmental and cognitive psychology utilizing the distinction between fast and slow thinking. We are however, fundamentally anchored in existential psychodynamic thought and attachment theory.

My colleagues, Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski, and I developed what’s called terror management theory (TMT) in the 1980’s. TMT is derived from cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker’s ideas that humans are uniquely aware of the fact that we are going to die someday. This knowledge creates potentially debilitating terror that we manage by embracing humanly constructed beliefs about reality that help us minimize that anxiety by giving us a sense that we’re persons of value in a world of meaning, and hence eligible for immortality, whether symbolically or literally. Human beings are consequently motivated, whether we are aware of it or not (and mostly we are not), to maintain faith in our cultural worldviews and/or confidence in our self-esteem. Whenever our worldviews or self-esteem are threatened, a host of compensatory defensive responses are initiated.

All these ideas play into the way fascist leaders are, and they render their folks incapable of making rational decisions. The cognitive theory we use is based on Daniel Kahneman’s distinction between fast thinking and slow thinking:

• Fast thinking is our default mental apparatus. It is what we use when we walk around on autopilot, enveloped in our cultural worldview. It operates automatically and effortlessly through heuristic shortcuts. It works quite fast and often useful, however, prone to error.
• Slow thinking is what we use to solve specific problems. This is our rational, logical, higher order thinking. It requires effort, exercise, education, and self-control. It is genuinely fairly accurate and precise. While slower, it is reliable.

Both systems are fundamentally critical and ideally operate in a coordinated fashion. Fascists, however, work to cripple the slow thinking system by essentially lobotomizing their followers intellectually and mangling them emotionally. Fascists operate by disabling the capacity for rational thought. Essentially, when people are frustrated and anxious, maybe because of economic or psychological insecurity, they crave for something or someone to live for. When that happens, they are particularly prone—and when I say they, I mean all of us—to become devoted to a leader who confidently proclaims that they’re singularly able to rid the world of evil.

Populist leaders tend to, first of all, be extraordinary liars. They construct a worldview of alternative facts to attain and maintain power. This also requires that there be an identifiable external enemy. So, while this fascist leader says they are the best and only they can fix a major problem in the economy, country, or world, they are also likely to identify and declare other people to be the all-encompassing repositories of evil, the eradication of which would make life on Earth to be heaven. This is the emotional mangling that fascist politicians project. They take the fears of their constituents and help convert it into rage projected on an out group declared to be evil.

Then, these leaders build a fact-proof screen between their followers and the realities of the world by disabling the capacity and motivation for critical thinking. By doing this, they imprison their followers in the context of what is, ultimately, a warped and malignant worldview. This is how fascist followers become incapable of discerning falsehood and making rational decisions.

In what ways do you see untruths utilized and weaponized? And how does fascism develop in political climates?

Fascism develops in a political climate in a variety of ways depending upon who the leader is as well as the vagaries of the historical moment. There are many commonalities, as well as a few differences in notable fascist leaders, like Mussolini from Italy and Hitler from Germany.

Mussolini said fascism should more appropriately be called “corporatism” because it is a merger of state and corporate power. In one sense, according to political scientists, in all fascist contexts, there is a collusion between authoritarian political leaders and generally amoral, ruthlessly profit-seeking corporate entities that end up transcending the interests of the people in the society itself. What happens in this political context is a conjunction of business interests with political power, not to benefit the people themselves, but rather to keep the people that are in power in power and to keep the rich richer.

In other cases, it really is about maintaining a big lie. Here we get to Hitler who said if you tell a big lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

What are your thoughts on social media’s impact in the spread of both information and misinformation?

Like any technology, social media has its virtues. And like any new technology, there are sometimes unanticipated consequences. I would argue that social media has had a terrifyingly problematic and increasingly accelerating effect on the spread of both information as well as misinformation. The good news is that the potential access to information has never been more democratic in principle. Anybody who has a phone and internet access can get more accurate information than was ever procurable in the history of Earth. On the other hand, your mind is more likely being constantly bombarded with misinformation, resulting in tragic consequences.

It is a vast accelerant, and one element of that is algorithms. If you wonder about immigration problems at the border and you type something into Google, things will start popping up, algorithmically, and move in a direction that tends to be polarizing. This is unique as far as I can tell to the development of social media as we now know it.

Additionally, before 2000, most of America was exposed to the same information. For example, in 1960 when John F. Kennedy was running against Nixon for presidency, everyone would watch the debate and take that in as it came; when Nixon was in the Watergate hearings, 90% of Americans watched it on TV. The population might not have agreed or had the same take on what they were watching, but they did get to evaluate the same thing.

That doesn’t happen anymore. Depending upon your point of view, you see completely different information. Without the same information, democracy is impossible to maintain because it is based on a rational consideration of the same body of information. That is to say, we are not meant to agree, but democracies are all about civil disagreement to come to a consensus about what is best for everybody. It is hard to have a consensus when people are not even partaking in the same body of information.

What do you think drives leaders to weaponize untruths (or lies) on the journey to advance their personal interests rather than be open about their interests and intentions?

I would argue that what these leaders have in common is that they tend to be malignantly narcissistic sociopaths who are also somewhat psychotic in their paranoid delusions and delusions of grandeur. There is a book called Kings, Conquerors, and Psychopaths, by Dr. Joseph Abraham, which highlights that historically, a lot of the leaders have the same rather unfortunate attributes in common. The only thing that matters for these leaders is what is in their individual best interest. They are psychologically incapable of admitting defeat, and any intimation to the effect that they have lost, or made a mistake, results in what’s called “narcissistic rage.” These are people who will happily destroy the planet to maintain their astronomically fragile egos.

Do you think leaders are aware that their interests are taboo or unfavorable and conscientiously find ways to make it more palatable for their followers? Would narcissistic tendencies take an effect?

It is often times automatic, as a domineering leader, not knowing what they were doing.

Hitler is an interesting case, though, because he knew exactly what he was doing. For example, he held rallies at night when people are tired, so they are easier to persuade. He made sure to speak in really simple words because he didn’t see most people to be intelligent. This way, they are driven by hate and fear rather than reason. Even one of Hitler’s confidants said to always accuse the other people of exactly whatever it is that you are guilty of. Hitler had a clear sense of what he was up to, so I would propose that the answer to this question varies according to the leader in question.

What tips could you provide for people to discern facts from falsehoods given that misinformation has become so vast, normalized, and believable?

At the core, I think it is important that we understand the psychological underpinnings of fascism. If we don’t, democracy is truly endangered.

We need to activate the slow thinking system that entails rational cogitation. Now, how do we secure this? As a researcher teaching in a college setting, I think education is crucial. If fascism is essentially twisting the brains of people to the point where they are no longer capable of differentiating between true and false, we need to metaphorically reengage that thought system in a way that turns the world back right side up.

Another thing is we can’t keep doing is to normalize public lying. It is quite shocking how many statements, how many auditory utterances that tumble out of the face of our politicians, are factually incorrect. Additionally, we need to be sure that individuals have a sufficient education to where they are capable of differentiating between truth and falsehood. Democracy depends on a shared reality, one that is negotiated upon and which we compromise, where there is a shared basis to begin with.

What are you hoping to achieve through your research?

On one hand, we’d like to just understand as much as we can. On the other, we want to use that understanding to come up with a broader theoretical framework to delineate the motivational underpinnings of human behavior. Ultimately, we are just like the original social psychologists striving to enhance psychological well-being and foster social progress. It sounds a little corny, but really, we’d like to do anything to nudge us in a more benign or benevolent direction.

Sheldon Solomon, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at Skidmore College. His studies of the effects of the uniquely human awareness of death on behavior with Jeff Greenberg (at the University of Arizona) and Tom Pyszczynski (at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs) have been supported by the National Science Foundation and Ernest Becker Foundation, and featured in the documentary film Flight from Death: The Quest for Immortality. He is coauthor of In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror and The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life. Sheldon is an American Psychological Society Fellow, a recipient of an American Psychological Association Presidential Citation, a Lifetime Career Award by the International Society for Self and Identity, the Association of Graduate Liberal Studies Programs Annual Faculty Award, and Career Contribution Awards by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and International Society for the Science of Existential Psychology.

Copyright 2024 (Vol. 28, Iss. 3) Psi Chi, the International Honor Society in Psychology