I previously discussed Friedrich Hayek and his work ‘The Road to Serfdom’.
‘The True Believer’ by Eric Hoffer joins Hayek, as well as Orwell and others as a mid-20th century look at totalitarianism in its different forms. It is often said that there is nothing new under the sun, but it is remarkable how many ideas and debates from the contemporary era are predicted and understood by earlier authors such as Hoffer. So much of current debate has been done (and done better) by great writers who have much to teach us. It is this relationship to the modern era that I will focus on in this review.
Hoffer’s book is a mixture of philosophy, politics, but principally psychology. He aims to analyse the mind of those who are drawn to mass movements, with the fascism and communism of the earlier 20th century as the central examples.
This psychological analysis looks nothing like modern psychology with it’s emphasis on experiments and data. There is no formal proof or evidence here (and Hoffer is open about this), but most of the arguments are so persuasive on their own merits that they demand to be taken seriously.
Before discussing substantive points I want to comment on Hoffer’s writing style, which is incredibly direct, straight to the point, with no throat clearing or ‘fluff’. Each chapter is organised into numbered subsections so that the pace of ideas feel rapid. Many of these subsections often of just one or two paragraphs contain great wisdom on their own.
The True Believer was published in 1951, but shows its relevance to the modern world in the first few pages. In explaining why it is necessary to understand the mind of the true believer, Hoffer explains:
“For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and by both converting and antagonising he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.”
What could be more apt for our current discussions of woke leftism, environmental fanaticism and virus obsession, all of whom have their true believers and all of whom have been ‘on the march’ these last few years?
Hoffer’s first substantive argument is that those attracted to mass movement are inspired by the desire for change. Hoffer acknowledges that this is not a new observation, but adds detail on the complementary forces needed to inspire the movement. One of these is a belief in the possession of power:
“The men who rush into undertakings of vast change usually feel they are in the possession of some irresistible power”
He cites French revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks as having unbounded belief in the power of human rationality and of Marxist thought respectively, to transform their societies. When allied with a hope for a transformed future, creates the initial ingredients for the mass movement. This seems an apt description of modern mass movements. Take the environmentalist who advocates for net-zero and an ‘energy transition’. They believe fervently in the power of human technology and organisation to transform society and have great hope for a future transformed into the green paradise of their dreams. With this vision in mind, any obstacles or arguments against their dogma look petty and mean, to be brushed away as we rush towards the promised land.
“For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change....., they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking”
I could think of no more accurate way to describe the environmental plans in the UK and elsewhere, and the lockdown and mass vaccination policies of the last few years.
Hoffer’s analysis turns to the deeper psychology of individuals drawn to such movements. A first diagnosis is the desire to be “rid of unwanted self”.
“Their innermost craving is for a new life – a rebirth – or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by identification with a holy cause.”
There has been much modern commentary on the psychological differences between those on the left and those on the right (to the degree these terms have any modern meaning). One theme often identified is the seeming unhappiness of many on the left, that by Hoffer’s argument, could draw them to these modern movements. The ultimate expression of this is the gender movement, where members simply have to believe they are now a new gender in order to leave their old self behind and become one with the movement that can give them meaning and purpose.
Hoffer identifies several categories of people from which true believers are most likely to come. One of these categories is the poor and it is here that the modern day is perhaps different. The poor do not seem particularly prominent in the mass movements of today, and it is rather a common complaint that left-wing movements do not represent their working-class roots any longer.
A category that seems more apt to the virus-hysterics, and to the environmental movement is that of ‘the inordinately selfish’. In Hoffer’s words:
“The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings, or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy cause. And though it be a faith of love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving nor humble.”
Picture the endless stories of hypocrisy from politicians who instigated lockdowns but didn’t abide by the rules, to ‘environmentalists’ getting private jets to the latest conference, ‘inordinately selfish’ seems a good fit.
Hoffer also identifies minorities as potential recruits to a mass movement, but adds some subtlety. Members of minority groups that preserve their identity and kinship in the host society will generally be more satisfied (think of Orthodox Jews). But groups that assimilate to a large degree will be unmoored from their group identity that lends itself to frustration. Furthermore it is the most and least successful within that group that will be most frustrated. Those with the least for obvious reasons, those with the most because they will be more aware of their difference in the elite circles they inhabit and because they will be more resentful of the need to assimilate.
Of the mass movements of recent times this seems best as theory behind BLM and the race-based movements of the USA, where the driving caste of HR professionals and academics are rather successful economically, whereas the riots themselves are carried out by the least successful.
The final category I will discuss here is the ‘the bored’. As with ‘inordinately selfish’ this seems a category very befitting of the environmental and lockdown-fanatic movement.
“When people are bored, it is primarily with their own selves that they are bored. The consciousness of a barren, meaningless existence is the main fountainhead of boredom”
And something which is particularly noticeable in images of environmental protests by extinction rebellion and just stop oil:
“Boredom accounts for the almost invariable presence of spinsters and middle-aged women at the birth of mass movements.”
This is a but a taste of Hoffer’s wisdom and how it can apply to understanding our times. In the next part I will continue my review with a discussion of Hoffer’s analysis on how mass movements work and what defines those that are successful.
Excellent write up! The connection between the abnegation of self in mass movements and the current trans movement is spot on. Great example.