It’s my team, this my game
Reflections upon teams, celebrity worship, cult followers and the true personal assets needed for sound government
Photo above Edward Bernays
This writing is an expansion of a letter to the editor written some time ago. And found at least one, maybe two rabbit holes to enter in this addition, but perhaps it was a useful spelunking. I hope to bring some light to what I regard as a very dark and confusing corner of American politics today.
“We better figure it out in these next two years! We can’t afford to continue playing the game like we’re playing it!!” — FOX News host Tomi Lahren on Twitter about the Republican Party.
Should one consider the leadership of the United States government, the process of such and the underlying objective, as only a game?
But upon reflection it would seem that today's far right ideologues do indeed now depend upon a cult of personality, or perhaps celebrity worship (I’m undecided) to help sell a widely unpopular program by concentrating upon the salesman, and the selling by any means, but not the product.
Say what you may, Donald Trump certainly is a salesman, albeit a very unscrupulous one. One has to realize that the Republican Party at this time is all about finding the best salesperson (perhaps more correctly salesman), whomever it might be. They must also cultivate a fandom, or cult following toward the salesperson of choice. So it would seem rather logical that a “my team” approach to maintaining or increasing power would occur within this group, in this game, as indicated by Lahren’s tweet. History is littered with charismatic leaders who brought great harm to their nations, so this subject has high value to try and isolate and comprehend.
I understand being a fan, having my own predilections toward certain sports teams, entertainers, writers, and intellectuals. Yet fandom and cult following seem to be closely aligned.
From some research, this non-psychology layman wished to get a better understanding of fandom and cult following. This seems to me to be rather important in this day and age. That is to correctly “diagnose” the underlying drivers for the right’s march toward autocracy, or neofascism. This is my attempt to approach this question by recent work by those qualified to know.
We have heard from many, many people of the cult of Trump. Much effort is put forth to maintain this phenomenon, and a price (on the right) is being paid for adherence to this path, although it seems not to deter its continued use. So I think broadly about the followers of such Republicans as Trump, DeSantis or others, as they are the most important component. The true moneyed interests are very important too in the process, and seem to escape responsibility in most discussions, but the rabid base, who belong to the America First team are paramount. So cult follower versus celebrity worshiper seems important to try and untangle.
From “I’m Your Number One Fan”— A Clinical Look at Celebrity Worship, Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, by Randy A. Sansone, MD and Lori A. Sansone, MD
While not an uncommon phenomenon, the definitions of celebrity worship vary somewhat. At one end of the spectrum, celebrity worship is likely akin to being a passionate fan. A fan is an individual who is enthusiastically devoted to something, such as a media personality, sports figure, or a singer. The word fan is derived from the Latin word fanaticus, meaning “insanely but divinely inspired.” At the other end of the spectrum, celebrity worship appears to touch the borders of the psychopathological.
Celebrity worship—is it more than just being a casual fan? To explore this question, a number of scales have been developed to assess celebrity adulation. The most prevalent scale of this type in the literature is the Celebrity Attitudes Scale. Findings reveal that individuals with high scores on celebrity-worship scales tend to display a number of psychosocial characteristics.
… [celebrity worshippers] have a personality style characterized by sensation-seeking, cognitive rigidity, identity diffusion, and poor interpersonal boundaries. Likewise, celebrity worshippers may exhibit narcissistic features, dissociation, addictive tendencies, stalking behavior, and compulsive buying. Studies also indicate that individuals with high levels of celebrity worship are more likely to have poorer mental health as well as clinical symptoms of depression, anxiety, and social dysfunction. Of note, no study to date has examined celebrity worshippers for bona fide Axis I and II psychiatric disorders. However, given that celebrity worship exists along a continuum, it appears that being on the high end of this continuum is likely to be associated with a number of potential psychological maladies.
…celebrity worship is probably best perceived as a continuum phenomenon, ranging from normal admiration to the psychopathological.
…researchers found positive statistical associations between these two phenomena [celebrity worship and criminal behavior.]
Below is some discussion from The Cult of Personality & Celebrity Worship, by Rev. Sheri Heller, LCSW
Therapist, Coach & Author. Complex Trauma & Addiction.
This proclivity to imbue celebrities with iconic omnipotent properties aligns with psychoanalyst Carl Jung’s warning about identifying with archetypes. Archetypes are representative of universal symbolic patterns that according to Jung are hardwired into our psyches.
“There are perilous implications when we identify as opposed to relate to archetypal motifs.” - Jung
Jungian archetypes are a concept from psychology that refers to a universal, inherited idea, pattern of thought, or image that is present in the collective unconscious of all human beings. The psychic counterpart of instinct, archetypes are thought to be the basis of many of the common themes and symbols that appear in stories, myths, and dreams across different cultures and societies. Some examples of archetypes include those of the mother, the child, the trickster, and the flood, among others. The concept of archetypes and the collective unconscious was first proposed by Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.
Following with more of Heller’s writing:
Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and known as the father of public relations, pioneered the manipulation of the masses through PR campaigns which capitalized on the emulation of archetypal motifs. Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda for the Third Reich created a Fuhrer cult based on Bernay’s writings.
For the intricacies in comparison of celebrity worship versus cult following an online paper from Durham University, Celebrity Worship by Pete Ward discusses it in the following:
Celebrity Worship is fundamentally about the self. It does not describe a religion that is concerned with the worship of celebrities as semi-divine beings.
Worship then is not focussed on who he [celebrity] is, but on who we might, or might not, be. This dialog concerning the self, takes place in relation to media representation; it is not simply caused by it. Celebrity should be seen as forming part of a much larger, and widespread shift in society and culture, towards the self, as the primary concern and central project of life. It is this focus on the self that has become the new sacred. Celebrities are important, because they are one of the primary resources used in processing the project of the self.
Celebrity Worship, then, is a means to process the complexities of identity. Celebrity Worship does not describe the admiration of the mass audience for a few people who are in the media. This notion of a cult of enthusiastic followers is a misunderstanding. Celebrity Worship is an active project of the self, where the individual celebrity is simply a means to work on what really counts: the self.
On the question of celebrity worship versus cult following, and if self does not count to a cult follower, perhaps the manipulations of a cult in the formation of the resulting psyche may indeed suppress sense of self, often with actual changes in the brain. Trauma results as a consequence, its effects appearing after one leaves the cult.
In Labroots, How Cults Change Your Brain by Annie Lennon, is an understandable explanation of the cult follower:
Instead of promoting this idea of the self and others however, cults tend to assert that harmony can only exist via one way of living- theirs- with any differentiation worthy of exile or isolation. The idea of the individual “self” is disregarded. Interpersonal value is only recognized after the individual has done away with their personal differences in favour of deriving their full identity from the group- from likes and dislikes to who they speak with (many are urged to cut contact with the outside world, including family), how they dress and their day-to-day routine (Decision Making Confidence: 2019).
It would seem that a special environment and process is involved in developing an actual cult follower. Hence the idea of a political cult, like of Trump’s MAGA variety, seems to be improbable strictly speaking. It would perhaps be more like a sort of celebrity worship, according to my limited knowledge. But perhaps the effects are equally harmful in the resulting product, deeming the distinction not important.
Thinking again in terms of one’s team, of fandom, it does have its benefits. From Psychology Today, Lynn Zubernis Ph.D. on The Science of Fandom:
I’ve written frequently about the benefits of fandom—for mental health, exploring one's identity, discovering creativity, and taking a much-needed break from the stresses of everyday life. Being part of a group of fans united in their love of something brings a sense of belongingness and acceptance that’s good for us.
Zubernis goes on to describe the lightness or the darkness of fandom:
While coming together to share a passion for something can bring a sense of group cohesion, so can banding together over a mutual hatred. It can be a heady feeling to be a follower in such groups, determined to right the perceived wrongs of the internet. Unfortunately, it often results in attacks against other fans who are trying to find a sense of belonging. Fandom can become more about engaging in attacks on what you don’t like than celebrating what you do.
Sharing hate is certainly not a rare occurrence in America, such as in Charlottesville, Virginia 2017, with all the “fine people.” This is an obvious bonding mechanism for millions of Americans, shared hatred. Its dangers are obvious to the observer.
So in regards to the simpler concept of “my team” and “your team” in the “game” we play in America’s government, one finds this less complex than the actual behavior one might exhibit on a spectrum of fan worship or as a cult following in order to grasp. I wish to infer that this over-identification (my description) in a leader which may be paramount in such a process is in itself problematic. The charismatic leader can bring an unhealthy devotion, and an associated wide reaching “group-think” ultimately detrimental to rational governing.
The need for (always) entertainment is damaging. Such is my satisfaction with Joe Biden, in his competence and experience, without the added baggage of excess charisma. I feel more comfortable with a more traditional “nuts-and-bolts” statesman. We have many entertainers on which to choose for this need we all have, for the sake of the nation, we don’t need one within the White House. I may not be in a majority with this view, certainly from the right and perhaps from the left as well, but it seems very logical to me. But I was in government for many years, so consider this as well in my opinion.
For our country, too many are lost in the true purpose of those we elect to represent us in offices as public servants, addressing our concerns in a competent manner.
This commentator Tomi Lahren speaks to millions of Americans, solidifying the “my team theory” in “the game” as to what elections are and what the whole point of government is. This certainly is a disservice to her audience, but more importantly it’s cheapening the view of many toward our country, its government, its effectiveness, helping create apathy and encouraging disunity. And violence, like unleashed on the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 certainly could be considered a byproduct of espousing such views.
We must force those who are tasked to inform us to benefit us in our decisions and with the ultimate goal of improving the country to be much better stewards of forwarding the ideals of the true purpose of government.
“The amelioration of the condition of mankind , and the increase of human happiness ought to be the leading objects of every political institution, and the aim of every individual, according to the measure of his power in the situation he occupies.”
— Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), Founding Father and founder of the Federalist Party. The Federalist Party was a conservative political party which was the first political party in the United States.
18th post, February 28, 2023