Bezrybe-2

So, no matter what happens, no matter how the authorities prove their mediocrity and inconsistency, there will always be people (sometimes the majority of them) who strive to attribute all sorts of positive properties to its representatives and discern complex plans behind the actions of the authorities.

Of course, you will tell me about charisma. Right. But we must remember that charisma, as the great Max Weber taught, is a property of exclusivity in the eyes of adherents or followers. Charismatic power is power exercised on the basis that people are ready to irrationally attribute to its bearer the right to this power due to the personality traits that allow it to be exercised. This is the most ancient type of power, rooted in the primitive herd of anthropoids, who barely left the path of mutual extermination to set foot on the road of constructing a primitive social order. Success on this road was achieved by those herds in which the leader could maintain power for some time necessary to maintain stability and order. Since, due to chance, power was not necessarily given to those who were worthy of it based on their personal qualities, the herd compensated for this by coming to terms with the power (otherwise, self-destruction again), attributing the missing virtues to the leader. This is charisma.

Modern man carries within himself all the remnants of the social psychology of the primitive herd, some to a greater, some to a lesser extent. But, gradually learning to reflect, he begins to compare his social preferences with reality and often discovers contradictions. Then “cognitive dissonance” sets in. This concept was introduced by American social psychologist Leon Festinger. It means the contradiction a person experiences between conflicting ideas of which he is the bearer, or between ideas, beliefs and reality. A person cannot remain in conditions of cognitive dissonance for a long time and finds a solution to the problem by changing one of the pairs that lead to the contradiction.

As a result, for example, the statement “We voted for politician X because he is good” is replaced by us in the process of getting rid of cognitive dissonance with another: “Politician X is good because we voted for him.” (Really! We couldn’t vote for a bad person! After all, then we ourselves would turn out to be bad. But since this is not so and we, of course, are good, it means we are voting correctly. And, that means, politician X is good, since for him good people vote, no matter what life throws at us and no matter how all sorts of outcasts slander him.)

Cognitive dissonance and the desire to get rid of it easier and faster, which controls our beliefs, works wonders. I witnessed how one lady, experiencing orgasmic delight at the sight of the president of one country, but realizing that it was difficult for her even to explain this all-consuming feeling, exclaimed: “But what sexy elbows he has!” Here! The solution has been found! It's hard to argue about the sexuality of elbows (no one has thought of that yet). And cognitive dissonance can be smoothed out.

You can, of course, do things differently: you can look for the reason in yourself, in your mistakes, in your limitations, laziness, lack of awareness. There may be many reasons that lead a person to wrong decisions, assessments, ideas about the people around him, about life. There is no limit to our imperfections. But we don't like to admit it.

In this sense, cognitive dissonance is related to another concept from psychology - frustration. It denotes a strong negative experience caused by an obstacle to achieving an important goal. People fall neatly into two categories with regard to their search for methods to overcome a frustrating obstacle. Some look for reasons in themselves, in their mistakes and shortcomings. These are strong people, but there are few of them. The weak majority is happy to look for reasons outside: from fate to the machinations of enemies.

Here, by the way, is a simple criterion with which you can easily find out whether the government is weak or strong: look at how it relieves its frustrations. If you are constantly looking for enemies, then the diagnosis is obvious: weaklings.

But there is another reason in our social institutions that prompts many to attribute to power virtues that it does not possess. We live in a world of social roles. There are far fewer roles than people. And this significantly simplifies our interaction, making it more predictable and reliable. There is the role of “mother” (kind), the role of “father” (strong), “journalist” (informed), “reader” (grateful, of course), etc. We interact with people filled with role expectations. If expectations are not met, frustration or cognitive dissonance occurs.

Along with role expectations, we are influenced by the social mythology of this background type that we ourselves create. In everyday life, the maxims are so obvious that they are not even discussed. One such statement was quoted above: “Good people vote for good politicians.” It is clear that if we begin to take this thesis apart, if we begin to compare it with the facts, then nothing will remain of it. But we are afraid to begin such work, because there is always a risk of questioning the premise that is extremely important to us: “We are good people.”

Associated with the above-mentioned thesis is another background myth: “Only bad people have bad leaders.” A strict analysis of this statement is even more dangerous, since it can push us to the suicidal conclusion: “We are bad.” Therefore, we subconsciously accept this thesis and unconsciously use it just to avoid getting closer to an unpleasant conclusion.

Now, enriched with a scientific arsenal, let's try to understand the essence of the subject under discussion.

So, the question is: “What is our government doing?” Answer: “She wages a constant propaganda campaign, the purpose of which is to convince society of the adequacy of her role behavior and, thereby, the adequacy of society’s role expectations.” The message is simple: “You are good, and we are good. You support us correctly, and we work correctly. Let it always be like this."

Meanwhile, citizens systematically face three frustrating factors. First: the discrepancy between the legend and the real circumstances of everyday life. It is proposed to resolve this cognitive dissonance in the following way: narrow your circle of trust to one person, considering everyone else to be “bad boyars.”

The second factor: confrontation with information exposing the authorities. Here the solution is just as simple: the machinations of enemies. The convenience of this explanation is universal, since it is consistent with the usual method of overcoming frustrations. At the same time, the ineffectiveness of the government can be blamed on enemies, as well as the causes of all other troubles: slanderers turn out to be terrorists at the same time.

The third factor is usually encountered by a minority. First of all, the most knowledgeable part of society. First of all, journalists. They are the ones who have all kinds of information that simply screams: “They are stealing! Stupid! Untalented! Ineffective!” That’s why they are the ones who most often experience severe cognitive dissonance. It is easiest for those who are lucky and who have not fallen into excessive and premature praise of power. Those like Yulia Latynina suffer from a mild form of cognitive dissonance, which is treated with moderate fantasies about the non-existent merits of individual government officials or their insignificant successes, such as timely leaks of information. The more insignificant the power, the more difficult it is for such journalists to put up with the need to comment on the actions of nonentities. And the stronger the urge to find a bright spot in this shit and report it to the city and the world (see epigraph). The complete lack of fish encourages them to pass off not only crayfish, but even their droppings as fish.

It’s harder for others who succumbed to the usual Russian sin: a fleeting love for power. But among journalists and “political scientists” it usually occurs in an open form. These are the ones who are overcome by the most severe form of cognitive dissonance. And they overcome it by resorting to extremely strong means. Lying is only one of the easy drugs in this set. The last resort is the degeneration of personality, flowing into degeneration. By the way, when you meet these unfortunate people, do not rush to the conclusion that they have sold themselves to the criminal regime. They are lucky, they have no contradictions. They forge their own well-being at the expense of the country, at our expense. That's all.

But there are people among them who sincerely convince us that the government is impeccable, its plans are pure, and everything unpleasant is the machinations of enemies. There are fewer of them, and their sincerity is the result of a lot of internal work on oneself in the process of overcoming cognitive dissonance. It’s interesting: the more disgusting the government and its actions, the more sophisticated the arguments these unfortunates seek for us and for themselves. I feel sorry for them, because they are the first candidates for the insane or suicides. This often happens when contradictions become insurmountable. Remember the author of the novel “The Young Guard”.

However, the boundary between groups is blurred, and one can easily fall into the risk zone without noticing how it happened. After all, having once unreasonably elevated power to even a small pedestal, you will have to repeat it again and again, overcoming cognitive dissonance over and over again and confirming by any means both your worth and the truth of past erroneous assessments.

Therefore, in conclusion, four tips and one reminder.

First: if you want (or really need) to praise the authorities, refrain from praising the person, praise the actions. And even better - the results of actions.

Second: if it is possible not to praise the authorities, do not praise them.

Third: do not forget, a person is not perfect, even if he is a journalist. Especially if he is a politician.

Fourth: people love it when others (and not themselves) repent of past mistakes. Don't be afraid to repent. Readers love it.

Finally: see the epigraph.

PS Dedicated to people whom I once respected, but now regret.