I just read an article titled “The Psychological Mechanisms behind the Cult of Progressivism: Why Charlie Kirk's murder was the execution of a heretic and why it will happen again” by Dr. Hannah Spier, MD, who self-describes as “The Antifeminist Psychiatrist. Exposing bad therapy and the liberal narratives that contribute to our poor mental health” and who also has some pointed things to say about others involved in the culture wars, such as autistic people. You can find that article from her Psychobabble blog at Substack here.
Iain McGilchrist is the author of the much respected The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, and The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World. He actually includes Hannah Spier's article, as a guest post, on his own blog, The Matter with Things, also on Substack, using the unequivocally supportive headline “Brilliant piece from Hannah Spier, MD”, which you can find here.
As you read Spier's guest post, however, you'll come to appreciate why some of the readers' comments should be supportive – even pointing out that some negative comments prove Spier's point about being members of the progressivist cult – while other followers, well-versed in McGilchrist's mammoth work, are equally justifiably aghast. Clearly there are basic psychological defence mechanisms at play here and in the article, such as splitting and projection.
As the barista Skroce, played by Michael X. Sommers, exclaims in The Matrix Resurrections, bewildered and coming to his senses after Smith abruptly leaves his body, “What [the f**k] just happened?” And as the Analyst suggests earlier, “Maybe it’s not as binary as that. Maybe there are other ways to understand what happened.”
Let Me Explain
To my mind, the article has its merits as a psychological exercise in role reversal, or sensitivity training (though minus sympathy, empathy, fair-mindedness, and nuance), if that is the aim. However, it would not pass peer review, and nor would it have gone unchallenged if presented in the mainstream media in the days before Reagan's time when the Fairness Doctrine was sadly repealed (and yes, that had its faults).
When I read this clearly partisan piece, and also noted her criticism of autistic people, it occurred to me that perhaps she's taken a few leaves out of the "anti-Greta Thunberg", Naomi Seibt's book, and (purely speculating here) whether she has, or is seeking, similar sponsorship from right-wing think tanks and admirers, or at least to make a name for herself as a "thinking person's" right-wing influencer. As yet she has no Wikipedia article (due to a lack of reliable sources to establish notability), and somehow I don't think she'd like it if she did.
While there are undoubtedly cultists on the left – and a very vocal minority of petty tyrants and stark raving lunatics – as there also evidently are in sections of the right – which is welcome, if uncomfortable, knowledge – if we take a step back and look at the meta-narrative here and elsewhere, it is also worth noting that what some call "free-thinking" (originally heresy), in many cases may well be simply "contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism", something that some have turned into a vocation or a profession, and many of these people have bought or been sold the whole package deal: pro-Brexit, anti-EU, anti-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-anthropomorphic climate change, anti-woke; a surprising number on the fringes also buying into flat-earth, fake moon landings, the blood-sucking alien reptilian elite, etc – and I write this knowing that there have been some very real conspiracies, such as MKUltra, and I also appreciate that anything, such as wokeness, can be taken by some to the extreme, to our detriment.
Present company excepted.
McGilchrist probably did not intend to promote a political narrative in sharing this article, but it's pretty clear that Spier does have such an agenda in presenting this partisan caricature of progressives (Vegan, funny hairstyle? I'm opposed to that, so let's lump them all in).
For a self-professed psychiatrist, she doesn't go out of her way to express her understanding of the people she objectifies as cultists, nor show much empathy. She makes no attempt whatsoever to look at things from their perspective, even if it disagrees with her own point of view or flies in the face of evidence. So, in spite of the "Dr." prefix and "MD" suffix, we're not dealing in serious, professional medical opinion or science here.
The first two paragraphs, for instance, contain one link to RealClearPolitics and three to The Daily Wire, which she uses as a sort of informal citation in lieu of something more scientific and rigorous.
From Wikipedia's perennial list of sources' reliability:
RealClearPolitics (amber): "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided."
The Daily Wire (red): "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified."
I know: Insert expletives about Wikipedia here.
It's clearly a very partisan article, dressed up as scientific fact, and it contains inaccuracies, exaggerations, jumping to conclusions, and generally lumping people together as progressivist cultists just because they are (say) part of a minority who have chosen to be vegan "conscientious objectors" and tend to be left of centre. I'm sure that she could write an equally jaw-dropping article about Cult 45/47 if she set ideology aside and put her mind to it. I suspect that if Spier actually did this, she would feel the need to incorporate many redeeming features into the narrative.
Unless Dr. Hannah Spier, MD is capable of setting her own partisan beliefs aside when dealing with clients – speaking purely personally – I would think twice before having her analyse or prescribe for me or my loved ones. And yet she would be one of the first, I believe, to criticise "toxic psychiatry" and, probably, "woke" therapy, which she might see as leftist and left-brain.
I am grateful, nonetheless, for this article and very grateful to Iain McGilchrist for his epic work, and his many welcome guest appearances, and for bringing this particular article to our attention, for our consideration. Wherever we are on the political or religious spectrum, we do need to know about these things, all the more so if truths, or partial truths, challenge us and our narratives, make us feel uncomfortable, or hit home.
See Also
Also well-worth reading is an article by Iain McGilchrist, titled “Laughter in heaven”, on politics or metapolitics. In light of what has been written above, this thoughtful piece is mildly reassuring.
Image
Image: Binary file / English Wikipedia user Paulnasca / Wikimedia Commons / Public domain.