THEIR GRIEVANCE IS CERTAINLY THEIR PURPOSE
Exploration of American grievance, current and past.
I wrote a verse today on the sense of grievance which dominates the MAGA Republican movement of today. However, it is my impression that the grievance goes back in time. The election of Barack Obama undoubtedly was a grievance to many. After George W. Bush’s presidency ending Iin intractable war, and the Great Recession, the appearance of a competent black man certainly caused a sense of grievance in many. People who may have believed that Obama was a socialist, or that he wasn’t born in the United States, or the many other disparages which were thrown at him, brought on a sense of loss of control, and brought grievance. To me this was the psyche which opened their ears to a populist demagogue full of criticism and grievance, and allowing many Americans to feel at home in their unhappiness. Below is my verse.
Today Trump was indicted on four charges for his actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021. And I knew if I went to Twitter, I’d find some expressions of grievance from Trump’s supporters and champions. And indeed it was hard to find examples on the feed, without even a search being necessary. Below is an image showing what I found.
I wanted to travel back in time prior to the American Civil War, to find examples of grievance at that time. Certainly the abolitionists had their sense of grievance, as did many who wished to stem the spread of slavery to new western states but allow the south to keep the institution. But I’ve concentrated on ‘Southern Grievance.’ Hopefully it will be of interest, and have some relationship with the grievance for which my verse was the subject to.
Of a ‘Southern Grievance,’ over the property holdings of human beings culminating in 1860 of succession of South Carolina. Some excerpts from the Declaration of Secession.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession, 1860
Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 contest on November 6 with just 40% of the popular vote and not a single southern vote in the Electoral College. Within days, southern states were organizing secession conventions. On December 20, South Carolina voted to secede, and issued its “Declaration of the Immediate Causes.”
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
I thought it might be instructive in the public speeches of Jefferson Davis prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War. He made a trip to New England, taking his politics with him. He was directly communicating with the Yankee of the day. I’ve included excerpts from two of his New England speeches, and end with his speech to the Mississippi State Senate coming out recommending succession, or strongly inferring that this was his wish. I tried to find hints of southern grievance in his rhetoric.
Jefferson Davis
Speech at State Fair at Augusta, ME.
[From the Eastern Argus, Sept 29,1858.]
But difference in pursuits, in population, and domestic institutions, have been made the basis of hostile agitation, and urged as a cause of separation. To my mind the reverse would be the rational conclusion. Each exchanging, the surplus of that which it can best produce for the surplus of another which it most requires, the benefit must be mutual, and the advantage common. Here is a commercial, a selfish bond to hold us together. But I will stop here, because the current of my thought is carrying me beyond the limit of topics proper to the occasion, and I must offer as an apology the fact, that though myself a cultivator of the soil, my mind has for several years been given so much to political subjects, that in speaking without having previously arranged what to say, the thought inadvertently runs from the matter I wished to present, into collateral questions of governmental concern. Before turning back, however, into the original channel, permit me to say that the diversity of which I have been speaking, formed no small inducement to the union of the States, and that it has been through that union that we have attained to our present position, and stand to-day, all things considered, the happiest, and among the greatest in the family of nations.
I am not among those who desire to incorporate into our Union, countries densely populated with a different race. Deserts, ’tis the province of our people to subdue. A mere handful of inhabitants, such as existed in Louisiana, are soon enveloped in the tide of immigration; of this character of acquisition I have no fear; but the mingling of races is a different thing. I have looked with interest and pleasure upon the crosses of your cattle and horses, and saw in it the evidence of improvement. Let your Messengers, your Morgans, your Drews, and your Eatons be mingled with each other and with new inportations; so with your Durhams, Devons, Ayreshires and your Jerseys. The limit to these experiments will be where experience shows deterioration. There is one cross which it is to be hoped you will avoid: ’tis that which your Puritan fathers would not adopt or even entertain. They kept pure the Caucasian blood which flowed in their veins, and therein is the cause of your present high civilization, your progress, your dignity and your strength. We are one, let us remain unmixed. In our neighbors of Southern and Central America we have a sufficient warning; and may it never be our ill-fortune to learn by experience the lessons taught by their example.
I certainly do not expect to change my residence from the State in which I was reared; and I long since avowed the intention never again to receive official trust from any other authority than that of the people of the State of which I am a citizen. It has been represented to you that you were showering attentions upon one who was hostile to your interests, and regardless of your rights. I am grateful to you for the constant evidence you have given that you discredited the statement, and I am therefore the more anxious that you should not remain in doubt. The public record contains all I have said and done, and in it nothing can be found to sustain the statement. Of this I am quite sure, because it has always been with me a principle to exercise public functions in the spirit of the Constitution and the purposes of the Union. If I know myself, I have never given a vote from a feeling of hostility to any portion of our common country; but have always kept in view the common obligation for the common welfare, and desired by maintaining the constitution in each and every particular, to perpetuate the blessings it was designed to secure, and to transmit the inheritance received from our fathers unmutilated and uncontaminated to remotest posterity. In some positions it has devolved upon me to study interests in Maine, with a view to secure for them proper provision, and I feel that I am justified in saying they were considered as became one who had sworn to protect the Constitution, and who had a function to perform in relation to a sovereign State of the Union.
Jefferson Davis
Speech at the Grand Ratification Meeting, Faneuil Hall,
Faneuil Hall (/ˈfænjəl/ or /ˈfænəl/; previously /ˈfʌnəl/) is a marketplace and meeting hall located near the waterfront and today's Government Center, in Boston, Massachusetts. Opened in 1742, it was the site of several speeches by Samuel Adams, James Otis, and others encouraging independence from Great Britain. It is now part of Boston National Historical Park and a well-known stop on the Freedom Trail. It is sometimes referred to as "the Cradle of Liberty", though the building and location have ties to slavery.
Monday evening, Oct. 11th, 1858.
Why is it, I say, that you are thus agitated in relation to the domestic affairs of other communities? Why is it that the peace of the country is disturbed in order that one people may assume to judge of what another people should do? Is there any political power to authorize such interference? If so, where is it? You did not surrender your sovereignty. You gave to the federal government certain functions. It was your agent, created for specified purposes. It can do nothing save that which you have given it power to perform. Where is the grant of the Constitution which confers on the federal government a right to determine what shall be property? Surely none such exists; that question it belongs to every community to settle for itself: you judge in your case; every other State must judge in its case. The federal government has no power to create or establish; more palpably still, it has no power to destroy property. Do you pay taxes to an agent that he may destroy your property? Do you support him for that purpose? It is an absurdity on the face of it. To ask the question is to answer it. The government is instituted to protect, not to destroy property. In abundance of caution, your fathers provided that the federal government should not take private property, even for its own use, unless by making due compensation therefore. One of its great purposes was to increase the security of property, and by a more perfect union of forces, to render more effective protection to the States. When that power for protection becomes a source of danger, the purpose for which the government was formed will have been defeated, and the government can no longer answer the ends for which it was established.
Why, then, in the absence of all control over the subject of African slavery, are you agitated in relation to it? With Pharisaical [adjective - excessively or hypocritically pious] pretension it is sometimes said it is a moral obligation to agitate, and I suppose they are going through a sort of vicarious repentance for other men’s sins. [Laughter.] Who gave them a right to decide that it is a sin? By what standard do they measure it? Not the Constitution; the Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition. Not the Bible; that justifies it. Not the good of society; for if they go where it exists, they find that society recognizes it as good. What, then, is their standard? The good of mankind? Is that seen in the diminished resources of the country? Is that seen in the diminished comfort of the world? Or is not the reverse exhibited? Is it in the cause of Christianity? It cannot be, for servitude is the only agency through which Christianity has reached that degraded race, the only means by which they have been civilized and elevated. Or is their charity manifested in denunciation of their brethren who are restrained from answering by the contempt which they feel for a mere brawler, whose weapons are empty words? [Applause.]
Jefferson Davis
Speech Before the Mississippi Legislature.
A speech by Jefferson Davis to the Mississippi senate about the possibility of secession, November 1858.
In one respect at least, this accorded with my own feelings, for physically and mentally depressed, fearful that I should never again be able to perform my part in the trials to which Mississippi might be subjected, I turned away from my fellows with such feelings as the wounded elk leaves his herd, and seeks the covert, to die alone. Misrepresentation and calumny followed me even to the brink of the grave, and with hyena instinct would have pursued me beyond it.
The political positions which I had always occupied, justified the expectation that in New England I should be left in loneliness. In this I was disappointed; courtesy and kindness met me on my first landing, and attended me to the time of my departure. The manifestations of comity and hospitality, given by the generous and the noble, aroused the petty hostility of the more extreme of the Black Republicans, and their newspapers assailed me with the low abuse which for years I had been accustomed to receive at their hands. I had always despised their malice and defied their enmity; their assaults did not surprise me, but when I found them echoed in Southern papers, it did astonish, I will confess, it did pain me, not for any injury apprehended to myself, but for its evil effect upon the cause with which I was identified.
On that, as on other occasions, it was deemed a duty to correct misrepresentation and seek to vindicate our purposes from the prejudice which ignorance and agitation had created against us. If it was in my power in any degree to allay sectional excitement, to cultivate sounder opinions and a more fraternal feeling, it was a task most acceptable to me, and one for the performance of which I could not doubt your approval.
For the wretch who is doomed to go through the world bearing a personal jealousy or a personal malignity, which renders him incapable of doing justice, and studious of misrepresentation, I can only feel pity, and were it possible to feel revengeful, could consign him to no worse punishment than that of his own tormentors, the vipers nursed in his own breast.
I have thus defined who were not meant, and will now tell who were meant. Firsts they were the noisy agitators who were constantly disturbing the public peace and proclaiming that slavery is so great an evil, that the preservation of the Union is subordinate to the purpose of abolishing it. They who object to any protection, on the high seas or elsewhere, being given to slave property by the government of the United States; who would rejoice in any insult offered to the national flag if borne by a vessel sailing from a Southern port; and who have been for some time back circulating petitions for a dissolution of the Union on the ground of the incompatibility of the sections. And to these may be added the few, the very few of Southern men who fancying that they would have advantages out of the Union which they cannot possess within it, however fully the compact should be observed and State Equality maintained, desire its dissolution, and taking counsel of their passions, decry the labors of all who seek to preserve the government as our fathers formed it, and to develop the great purposes for which it was ordained and established.
A generation had been educated in error, and the South had done nothing in defence of the abstract right of slavery. Within a few years essays have been written, books have been published, by northern as well as by southern men, and with the increase of information, there has been a subsidence of prejudice, and a preparation of the mind to receive truth. Our friends are still in a minority. It would be vain to speculate as to the period when their position will be reversed. Whether sooner or later, or never, they are still entitled to our regard and respect. A few years ago those who maintained our constitutional right, and to secure it voted for the Kansas and Nebraska bill, went home to meet reproach and expulsions from public employment.
Even their social position was affected by that political act. The few years, however, which have elapsed, have produced a great change. They have recovered all except their political position. That bill which was considered when it was enacted, a Southern measure, for which Northern men bravely sacrificed their political prospects, has of late been denounced at the South as a cheat and a humbug. A poor return certainly, to those who conscientiously maintaining our rights, surrendered their popularity to secure what the men for whom they made the sacrifice now pronounce to have been a cheat. It is true that bill has recently received in some quarters a construction which its friends did not place upon it when it was enacted. But it should be judged by its terms and by contemporaneous construction.
It seems now to be probable that the Abolitionists and their allies will have control of the next House of Representatives, and it may be well inferred from their past course that they will attempt legislation both injurious and offensive to the South. I have an abiding faith that any law which violates our constitutional rights, will be met with a veto by the present Executive.—But should the next House of Representatives be such as would elect an Abolition President, we may expect that the election will be so conducted as probably to defeat a choice by the people and devolve the election upon the House.
The same dangerously powerful man [Senator Seward] describes the institution of slavery as degrading to labor, as intolerant and inhuman, and says the white laborer among us is not enslaved only because he cannot yet be reduced to bondage. Where he learned his lesson, I am at a loss to imagine; certainly not by observation, for you all know that by interest, if not by higher motive, slave labor bears to capital as kind a relation as can exist between them anywhere; that it removes from us all that controversy between the laborer and the capitalist, which has filled Europe with starving millions and made their poor houses an onerous charge.
Such preparation will not precipitate us upon the trial of secession, for I hold now, as in 1850, that Mississippi’s patriotism will hold her to the Union as long as it is constitutional, but it will give to our conduct the character of earnestness of which mere paper declarations have somewhat deprived us; it will strengthen the hands of our friends at the North, and in the event that separation shall be forced upon us, we shall be prepared to meet the contingency with whatever remote consequences may follow it, and give to manly hearts the happy assurance that manly arms will not fail to protect the gentle beauty which blesses our land and graces the present occasion.
NOTES:
Jefferson F. Davis (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American politician who served as the first and only president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865. He represented Mississippi in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic Party before the American Civil War. He was the United States Secretary of War from 1853 to 1857.
William Henry Seward (May 16, 1801 – October 10, 1872) was an American politician who served as United States Secretary of State from 1861 to 1869, and earlier served as governor of New York and as a United States Senator. A determined opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War, he was a prominent figure in the Republican Party in its formative years, and was praised for his work on behalf of the Union as Secretary of State during the Civil War. He also negotiated the treaty for the United States to purchase the Alaska Territory.Seward did his best to stop the southern states from seceding; once that failed, he devoted himself wholeheartedly to the Union cause. His firm stance against foreign intervention in the Civil War helped deter the United Kingdom and France from recognizing the independence of the Confederate States. He was one of the targets of the 1865 assassination plot that killed Lincoln and was seriously wounded by conspirator Lewis Powell.
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
— William H. Seward
“No man will ever be President of the United States who spells 'negro' with two gs.”
— William H. Seward
I thought I might show what in public Abraham Lincoln said about the southerners and their slavery. Did he exhibit any grievances in the matter? I did not do a thorough study, but the excerpt from a speech below seemed standard Lincoln democratic propensities.
Abraham Lincoln
Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.
Quotes on grievance, Eric Hoffer seems to be right on point for this discussion.
“To have a grievance is to have a purpose in life. It not infrequently happens that those who hunger for hope give their allegiance to him who offers them a grievance.”
— Eric Hoffer
“People haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.”
— Eric Hoffer
Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 – May 21, 1983) was an American moral and social philosopher. He was the author of ten books and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in February 1983. His first book, The True Believer (1951), was widely recognized as a classic, receiving critical acclaim from both scholars and laymen, although Hoffer believed that The Ordeal of Change (1963) was his finest work. The Eric Hoffer Book Award is an international literary prize established in his honor. The University of California, Berkeley awards an annual literary prize named jointly for Hoffer.
I came across some interesting quotes in the 1884 Day’s Collacon that may have a place in the discussion. At least I found a connection without too much effort.
“Never - ceasing complaining has caused hatred to many.”
— Propertius.
Sextus Propertius was a Latin elegiac poet of the Augustan age. He was born around 50–45 BC in Assisium (now Assisi) and died shortly after 15 BC. Propertius' surviving work comprises four books of Elegies (Elegiae). He was a friend of the poets Gallus and Virgil and, with them, had as his patron Maecenas and, through Maecenas, the emperor Augustus. Although Propertius was not as renowned in his own time as other Latin elegists,mhe is today regarded by scholars as a major poet.
“Grumblers are a class of misanthropes who are so sure that the world is going to ruin, that they resent every attempt to comfort them as an insult to their sagacity, and accordingly seek their chief consolation in being inconsolable, their chief pleasure in being displeased.”
— E. P. Whipple.
Edwin Percy Whipple (March 8, 1819 – June 16, 1886) was an American essayist and critic. Whipple was a close friend of Nathaniel Hawthorne. After Hawthorne's death in 1864, Whipple served as a pallbearer for his funeral alongside Amos Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James T. Fields, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Whipple's close relationship with other Boston-area authors occasionally tinted his reviews. Edward Emerson later noted, "No other member of the Saturday Club has ever been more loyally felicitous in characterizing the literary work of his associates."
“Rebellion is justifiable only when pressive and the wicked reign.”
— J. Linen
LINEN, James, poet, born in Scotland in 1808; died in New York city, 20 November, 1873. He emigrated to the United States, and for many years carried on a large book binding establishment in New York city. Later he spent some years in California, where he was an active member of the Scottish benevolent societies. His last years were passed in New York city. He contributed poems, mostly in the Scotch dialect, to the "Knickerbocker Magazine," and the "Scottish American Journal" and other newspapers, and published a collection under the title of "Songs of the Seasons, and other Poems" (New York, 1852). A large collection of his "Poetical and Prose Writings" (San Francisco, 1865) was followed by a smaller one (New York, 1866). He published also "The Golden Gate" (1869).
“Every citizen, as an individual, is bound to surrender the right of redressing his wrongs wholly to society; aggression and injury in no case justify retaliation.”
— F. Wayland.
Francis Wayland (March 11, 1796 – September 30, 1865) was an American Baptist minister, educator and economist. He was president of Brown University and pastor of the First Baptist Church in America in Providence, Rhode Island. In Washington, D.C., Wayland Seminary was established in 1867, primarily to educate former slaves, and was named in his honor. (In 1899, Wayland Seminary merged with another school to become the current Virginia Union University, at Richmond, Virginia). One of the individuals that he supported, trained and encouraged was Leonard Black, author of The Life and Sufferings of Leonard Black, a Fugitive from Slavery who became a Baptist minister. Wayland worked hard to prevent the local Baptist denominations from splitting into pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, but ultimately failed in this attempt.
“Revenge is just the spirit the devil commends.”
— R. Fox.
Richard Foxe (sometimes Richard Fox) (c. 1448 – 5 October 1528) was an English churchman, the founder of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. He was successively Bishop of Exeter, Bath and Wells, Durham, and Winchester, and became also Lord Privy Seal. In 1484, Foxe was in Paris possibly in pursuit of studies or possibly because he had become unpopular with Richard III. There he came into contact with Henry Tudor, who was beginning his quest for the English throne, and took Foxe into his service. In January 1485 Richard intervened to prevent Foxe's appointment to the vicarage of Stepney on the ground that he was keeping company with the "great rebel, Henry ap Tuddor."
Complaint in ‘Shakespeare-land.’ I haven’t written of this man for sometime. I found an essay online directly addressing complaints in Shakespeare’s work. I thought this might be worthwhile in writing an excerpt from. From a doctoral thesis from Columbia University. If nothing else, this is a healthy diversion of something of interest to most people.
Weeping, Wailing, Sighing, Railing: Shakespeare and the Drama of Complaint by Shortslef, Emily
Focusing on familiar Shakespearean tragedies such as Richard III, Richard II, Hamlet, and King Lear, as well as contemporaneous plays by other writers, including Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy, Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, and Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher’s Maid’s Tragedy, I argue that complaint was at the very heart of the way the genre of tragedy was conceptualized in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. As I show, speeches and scenes of complaint were central to the construction of tragic plots and characters, and to the genre’s didactic and affective objectives. But the intersection of tragedy with complaint is more than simply formal and stylistic. I argue that through its engagement with a dazzling array of rhetorical modes and literary forms of complaint, tragedy recuperates “complaining” as a valuable mode of social expression and action.
As a staging ground for complaint, the early modern theater and its tragic shows oriented audiences to respond to and participate in social modes of complaining—and taught them to be more sophisticated spectators and consumers of tragedy.
A recent paper from researchers in New Zealand and/or Australia delves into grievances in how it leads to violent acts in some people. Although as this paper clearly states not all with grievance will act out physically in a violent manner. I’m concerned with the larger number of grievance filled MAGA Republicans, who feel directly threatened by the USA justice systems’ actions against Trump and his past actions which have brought indictments. It is my impression that although many would not resort to violence in their perceived assault on the leader of the Republican Party, violent actions in regards to it would be condoned with little personal resistance, and perhaps with a strong sense of justification. So this paper may be quite applicable to the widespread grievance in the MAGA movement. The paper is worth reading in full, but I’ve included excerpts which seem to aim at the crux of the discussion.
Understanding the role of grievance and fixation in lone actor violence
Nathan Brooks and Justin Barry-Walsh
Frontiers in Psychology - Published online 2022 Dec 22.
My Twitter Search for the authors FYI
@_nathanbrooks_ [I’m uncertain if this is the same Nathan Brooks in Australia as above as co-author]
@billfriedbayley [this is the forensic psychiatrist in New Zealand (I think?)]
Lone Actor Grievance Fueled Violence (LAGFV) is a recently utilized term based on mounting evidence that those who seek to perpetrate acts of lone actor violence, whether this be those where a terrorist motivation can be assigned, a school attacks, workplace attack, or an attack in a public place, are commonly fueled by grievance and fixation. LAGFV at this juncture is a blurry construct without definitive rules and boundaries, and instead provides a guiding conceptualization of a diverse group of offenders who commit targeted violence towards others. The current review contends that LAGFV emerges through the perceived thwarting of psychological needs and the central task for clinicians and other professional services lies in understanding the unique pathways and contributing factors that give rise to violence for each specific individual/case. The review contends that is not fit to determine whether an act is of ideological significance, or constituting terrorism, without understanding the psychosocial and circumstantial factors contributing to the violence.
Although grievances can develop through various threats and challenges to psychological needs, many people can experience grievances without progressing to violence. The experience of a thwarting to a psychological need, may affect individuals differently and result in different responses and outcomes. In one person, a situational circumstance may serve to exacerbate a long-term grievance, while for another, a pre-existing capability for violence may be precipitated by an event or incident that results in the development of a grievance and fosters an intent to act (Corner and Taylor, in press). The differences in individual responses, provides further evidence that viewing lone actor violence through a lens of labels and classifications overlooks the precursors and psychosocial building blocks that lead a person to violence. Moreover, by understanding the broader role of grievance and fixation in contributing to lone actor violence, it is possible to examine the range of factors that contribute to the development of this psychological state.
The role of grievance in fuelling violence presents the classic ‘chicken or egg’ causality dilemma, with grievance at times leading to maladaptive psychosocial functioning, and vice versa. Borum (2015) suggests that grievances ‘push’ people towards violence and incentives, ideologies, and beliefs, ‘pull’ them towards action. Interestingly, in a recent analysis Corner and Taylor (in press) found that grievance-fueled violence was preceded by instability in living conditions. The experience of instability was exacerbated by social rejection, which in turn was followed by the expression of prejudice and anger towards others along with preoccupation and rumination on thoughts and/or beliefs. At this stage, if a desire to take revenge developed then grievance-fueled violence ensued (Corner et al., in press). The research by Corner and Taylor highlights how life circumstances, social experiences, psychological and emotional states, coupled with a desire for revenge or retribution can foster grievance-fueled violence.
The experience of a disruption or threat towards a psychological need can result in shifts and changes to a person’s cognitive state and mindset. This in turn, can cause changes in emotional states and behavior. The harboring of a grievance alters the lens through which a person perceives the world. This subsequently changes the person’s perception and interpretation of situations and events. A bias and distortion in cognitive processes forms and overtime this leads to changes in a person’s beliefs and attitudes. Consequently, information supporting grievance-based beliefs and attitudes is preferenced, whilst contradictory information is minimized and/or ignored. This type of cognitive state is typically characterized by the following beliefs and attitudes (Little et al., 2021; Meloy and Rahman, 2021; Wolfowicz et al., 2021), these include:
> The rights to freedom and independence, or the rights to fairness and equality
> Equality, or inequality, being laws of nature which should be followed
> The perception of an imminent or existential threat
> A “with us or against us” or “good or evil” perception of people and events
> Rigid and fixed views of right and wrong
> That violence or force is necessary to prevail
> The perception of being chosen, or called upon to act
*Maladaptive beliefs and attitudes play an important role in the continuation of a grievance. However, as discussed at the beginning on this section, many people who develop a grievance do not resort to violence as a means of retribution or revenge. Why some people develop grievances and harbor these to the point of enacting violence remains a complex question. In his work on aggression, Megargee (1976, 2011) identified that some people are easily angered, yet, have learnt through social processes and lessons that it is more acceptable to become verbally rather than physically aggressive. Others have been rewarded for aggressive behavior and/or observed peers or family members resolving problems or conflicts through aggression. Everyone experiences anger, yet, most do not resort to acting out in a physically aggressive manner, or more concerningly, using instrumental or calculated aggression. Although it is not as straightforward as comparing the body of research on aggression to the area of grievance-fueled violence, the lessons on the interactive effects of factors in contributing to aggression assist in drawing some parallel conclusions. LAGFV does not occur due to a singular contributing factor such as mental illness, or because of an identification with a particularly extremist ideology. Instead, “key antecedents that, when in combination, interact with each other over time, resulting in the development of a grievance that fuels an act of violence…the interaction between variables may be of more predictive value than the presence or absence of the variable, and that these interactions over time can produce different pathways for people as they develop a grievance and move towards committing an act of violence.” (Corner and Taylor, in press).
Although the combination, or threshold for these contributing factors remains elusive, it is the interactive effect that results in violence. While it remains an ongoing challenge for researchers and clinicians to understand why some people harbor grievances and progress to violence, the present hypotheses suggests the response to a perceived grievance or thwarting of psychological needs is mediated by a person’s affect/emotions, habits/actions, beliefs and attitudes, cognitive mindset, social attributes and functioning, personality, mental illness, identity/self-concept, substance use, experience of adverse events or trauma, life circumstances, and personal capabilities.
I had to find a little more about what would be termed maladaptive behavior. Again the source for this state of mind is in general terms, and searching for solutions through therapy. I found this concise, and indeed I’ve lived a life of maladaptive behavior in my past, so it all makes perfect sense that this behavior is now widespread within the MAGA Republicans, as exhibited by the severe dysfunction which we witness nearly every day. That is my opinion based upon lived experience and close observation.
*What Is Maladaptive Behavior?
Maladaptive behaviors are actions that prevent people from adapting, adjusting, or participating in different aspects of life. Such actions are intended to help relieve or avoid stress, but they are often disruptive and may contribute to increased distress, discomfort, and anxiety over time.
Many of us inadvertently develop dysfunctional strategies to help us cope with feelings of anxiety, stress, or panic. You may use these strategies because they relieve some discomfort in the moment.
Ultimately, however, maladaptive behaviors don't help you deal with the root cause of your stress. The relief that these behaviors provide is only temporary, and often leads to other issues or exacerbates existing ones.
Signs of Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive behavior can manifest in a wide variety of ways. These behavior patterns can often be destructive and can affect physical health, mental health, relationships, and other important areas of functioning.
Common signs of maladaptive behavior include:
> Avoiding things that are stressful or unpleasant
> Engaging in maladaptive daydreaming, which involves elaborate fantasies that replace real-life interactions
> Hiding your true feelings rather than asserting opinions or emotions
> Hurting yourself to cope with feelings of distress
> Outbursts of anger
> Using drugs or alcohol to manage anxiety or other emotions
> Withdrawing from social situations that cause discomfort or anxiety
Causes of Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive behaviors can emerge for a number of different reasons, including the presence of mental health conditions. People use maladaptive behaviors regardless of whether they have a mental health condition. However, those with certain mental health conditions are likely to exhibit maladaptive behaviors.
I wished to connect shared conspiracy theory vulnerability to shared grievances. Below is from a paper in which researchers connected an allegiance between members subscribing to conspiracy theory. The conclusion of this study did not verify their postulations, but I’ll include information on their backup information as I find it to be valuable to read. I will show some excerpts.
Do conspiracy theories efficiently signal coalition membership? An experimental test using the “Who Said What?”
PLoS One. 2022; Published online 2022 Mar 10.
Mathilde Mus, Alexander Bor, and Michael Bang Petersen.
All three on Twitter (or whatever it’s name is now)
@mus_mathilde
@boralexander1
@M_B_Petersen
From an evolutionary perspective, the coalitional function of beliefs arises from the fact that beliefs can serve as a cue to distinguish ingroup members from outgroup members as they, for example, signal familiarity with cultural norms and customs. For most of their evolutionary history, humans lived in small hunter-gatherer groups where both coordination with ingroup members and group-based defense against outgroups acted as strong selection pressures. As a consequence, the human mind has evolved a series of specialized mechanisms for coalitional management to respond to these adaptive challenges. The first crucial step in coalitional management is the detection of alliances, namely being able to detect who is likely to belong to one’s ingroup or to one’s outgroup prior to an interaction. This requires specialized cognitive adaptations capable of making predictive forecasts about coalitional membership on the basis of the available cues. Empirical evidence in favor of such an “alliance detection system” in the human mind, keeping track of relevant coalitional cues, has been established. Such cues could be physical in nature, taking the form of clothing and ornaments for example, but could also be contained in shared attitudes. Indeed, as people who share beliefs, values and opinions tend to cooperate and form alliances, it is likely that the mind evolved to perceive cues of shared attitudes as coalitional markers. In line with this, prior research has shown that political attitudes are encoded as coalitional markers by the alliance detection system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we tested the hypothesis that endorsements of conspiracy theories are processed as coalitional cues, using environmental conspiracy theories as our case. We did not find clear empirical support for this hypothesis, using a series of Who-Said-What experiments. As this study is, to our knowledge, the first to empirically test the coalitional function of conspiracy theories, future research could attempt to replicate the reported experiments while addressing the potential methodological limitations underlined above, in order to further explore the validity of the evolutionary framework under scrutiny.
“Three categories of psychological motives influencing conspiratorial endorsement have been put forward by previous research a) epistemic motives, referring to people’s need to understand their environment, that helps them navigate in it, b) existential motives, relating to people’s need to feel secure and in control of their environment, c) social motives, by which people can manage their reputation and signal their membership to a coalition.
The following paper touches on the behavior of demagogues in getting those who may have aggrieved followers to coordinate ultimately political violence. It mentions the role of propaganda. And it seems that studying grievance is allocated to actual violent acts perpetrated, and I didn’t find any research only involving verbal aggression, or other maladaptive behavior. But perhaps the worst case scenario can give important information, so I’ve included this study.
The Evolutionary Psychology of Mass Mobilization:
How Disinformation and Demagogues Coordinate Rather Than Manipulate
Michael Bang Petersen
1Department of Political Science, Bartholins Allé 7, DK-8000 Aarhus, Aarhus University, Denmark, email: michael@ps.au.dk
5. Mechanisms for Coordination
5.1. Following Authoritarian Leaders
Rather than demagogic manipulation, increasing evidence suggests that the association between preferences for authoritarian leaders and support for aggression reflects a causal effect from aggression to such preferences. Thus, in experiments, primes of intergroup hostility - but not other forms of threat - increase support for such leaders. Individuals who seek aggression thus seem to promote authoritarian leaders (referred to as "dominant" leaders in the literature) to leadership positions.
In general, leadership and followership evolved to solve coordination problems and there are reasons to expect that authoritarian leaders will solve these coordination problems to the benefit of those who seek aggression. Authoritarian leaders often have aggressive personalities themselves and, hence, are more likely to choose this focal point rather than others. Also, authoritarian leaders are more likely to aggressively enforce collection action, thereby also providing a solution to the free-rider problem. Consistent with this coordination-for-aggression perspective on preferences for dominant leaders, such leader preferences are specifically predicted by feelings of anger rather than, for example, fear, suggesting that people decide to follow dominant leaders to commit to an offensive strategy against the target group.
This perspective also explains highly counter-intuitive features of the appeal of demagogues. If followers search for the optimal leader to solve conflict-related problems of coordination, they will seek out candidates who are willing to violate normative expectations by engaging in obvious lying and who displays a personality oriented towards conflict, even if such personalities under other circumstances would be considered unappealing.
5.2. Circulating Propaganda
Propaganda is intimately tied to group-based conflict. In line with the manipulation perspective, this could be because the propaganda changes individuals' perceptions of the other group; hence, instilling the preferences for conflict. Alternatively, it could be because the propaganda facilitates coordination among those who are already disposed for conflict.
In ethnic massacres, the involved propaganda typical emphasize that the enemy is (a) evil, (b) strong and (c) about to attack and does so by emphasizing difficult-to-verify enemy actions involving extreme brutality. Furthermore, as emphasized by Horowitz, the extremity of the preceding rumors indexes the brutality of the following massacre. From a psychological perspective, it is unclear that the content of such propaganda is well-suited for persuasion. If the rumors were taken at face value, the response should be to flee. Instead, the rumors coordinate action by saying: "This is what needs to be done and it needs to be done now!" Consistent with this, recent research shows that motivations to share negative rumors about political groups within current democracies are strongly related to support for political violence. This relationship is stronger than the relationship between support for political violence and motivations to believe such rumors, suggesting that violence-oriented individuals are motivated to share even though they might not believe the rumor.
Another propaganda tactic is moralistic in nature. Thus, in less violent forms of group- based conflict, including in the context of modern social media discussions, an often-used tactic is to direct attention towards a group's or person's violation of moral principles. Moral principles are effective tools for large-scale coordination because they suggest that the target behavior is universally relevant. Consistent with the coordination perspective, however, recent research suggests that the motivation to broadcast such violations can reflect attempts to mobilize others for self-interested causes. Thus, the airing of such moral principles, referred to as moral-grandstanding, is strongly motivated by status-seeking and there is increasing evidence that the acceptance of moral principles shifts flexibly with changes in self-interest.
Conclusions
Successful mass mobilization in the context of social conflict often co-occurs with demagogic leaders, the circulation of unverified rumors and the airing of weird beliefs. Because such mobilization can also involve extreme behavior, including violence and massacres, a traditional view is that mobilization occurs because the masses have been manipulated. In this review, the recent evidence against this view has been discussed and it has been argued that it is helpful to understand some of the seemingly irrational phenomena surrounding mass mobilization as reflections of a psychology designed for solving the coordination problem. Demagogic leaders, false rumors and bizarre beliefs thus help align the attention of individuals already disposed for conflict.
Overall, the effects of the coordination problem on mobilization processes are dual. On the one hand, the existence of the coordination problem means that groups and societies can be stable even if they contain large minority segments of individuals who share disruptive, violent or prejudiced views. On the other hand, the existence of the coordination problem also implies that this stability can be quickly undermined if suddenly coordination is achieved. Not because people are manipulated; but because a sufficient number of them direct attention to a particular set of preferences simultaneously.
The following paper was written based upon real life grievances in several countries, involving instability within the country. I found this useful to include excerpts from, in that the discussion on grievances is specific in regards to outcomes. It seemed worthwhile to compare this discussion to the current MAGA Republican mind of grievances. The paper especially stresses the need for fair, democratically based government institutions in reducing the threat from aggrieved populace.
Journal of Conflict Resolution - March 6, 2020
Explaining Support for Political Violence: Grievance and Perceived Opportunity
Karin Dyrstad and Solveig Hillesund
See - Political Violence At A Glance
@PVGlance
We argue that dissatisfaction (grievances) with the material and political situation and evaluations of the effectiveness of ordinary political channels for peaceful opposition work together to shape individual support for political violence. Individuals who want to influence politics face a choice between conventional and contentious participation, between rejecting and supporting violence. We expect that support for political violence depends on a combination of motivation and perceived efficacy of conventional political participation. Those who believe that they can have a say in politics, or are satisfied with society and their position in it, should be least likely to support violent political action. Vice versa, dissatisfied individuals who find existing channels of political influence flawed or blocked should be particularly prone to thinking that it is legitimate to take up arms against the government—whether they do so themselves or support someone else doing it.
A recent wave of microlevel studies significantly improves our understanding of the nexus between inequality, grievance, and conflict. They remind conflict scholars that the link between inequality and grievance cannot be taken for granted. Conflict behavior is affected by the perceptions of grievance, which do not always mirror objective conditions, due to misperceptions and manipulation.
Conclusions
The starting point for this article was an argument implicit in much of the civil war literature: aggrieved people should be particularly prone to consider political violence legitimate “if they also consider peaceful means of influence ineffective.” While plausible, this interaction has not been examined at the individual level. In a first empirical test of the argument, we provide some evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. According to our findings, grievances and low external political efficacy are both associated with a higher propensity to support violence, and the combination of the two is particularly powerful. In line with previous research, we find that a wide range of grievances matter for support for violence. Different forms of grievance do not matter equally much for support in all contexts, however.
The interaction between grievance and opportunity structure suggests that support for violence is not driven by anger alone. Rather it is conditional on instrumental considerations, like the perceived ability to succeed with nonviolent means. This underlines the importance of institutions in conflict prevention. If people believe they can have their grievances addressed through regular political channels, their anger can be funneled into peaceful opposition, which helps undermine the ability of violent insurgency to take root.
In democracies, dissatisfied individuals tend to refrain from violence because they recognize that regular channels of expression and participation are open and relatively functional. In *anocracies, the combination of relatively low external efficacy and widespread grievance may lead to a greater risk of political violence.
*Anocracy, or semi-democracy, is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances."
Finally, the increase in protest behavior in Latin America during the last decades points to a final avenue for future research. The last wave of democratization probably increased overall external political efficacy but failed to redress a range of grievances. In addition, a series of costly civil wars with limited results may have reduced the overall perception of the effectiveness of political violence, however. If aggrieved people lose faith in political violence, but believe nonviolent protest can generate change, an upsurge in protests is exactly what we should expect.
I have worked on this writing today, with news of the third indictment of Donald Trump. One cannot but imagine what is going through the minds of those firmly in the Trump universe. Certainly the grievance factor is only rising, as they believe this man, and contrive a conspiracy theory that Joe Biden is using the Justice Department in a political hatchet job on their knight in shining armor. So this posting should be rather timely.
Bertrand Russell to end this all.
“I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: ’The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that’s fair.’ In these words he epitomized the history of the human race.”
— Bertrand Russell
(Education and the Social Order [London: Allen & Unwin, 1932])
62nd Posting, August 1, 2023.