Mass Formation Psychosis and the Importance of the Counter Narrative
Maybe it's not other people who are brainwashed - maybe it's us
The term mass formation psychosis is used to describe a kind of collective hysteria, or group think. The idea of mass hysteria or insanity was put forward in 1895 by Gustave le Bon1, discussed by Carl Jung in 19512 and most recently, a new permutation of their ideas by clinical psychologist Matthias Desmet3 has been popularized. Desmet suggests that a population of people suffering from loneliness, anxiety, purposelessness, and frustration can be manipulated, positing that the public’s fear of COVID, embrace of mandates and lockdowns, and anti-unvaccinated people sentiment, is a recent example of the phenomenon. On a recent podcast he suggested the need for a “Counter Narrative”, to weaken the hold when damaging beliefs grip the masses, and proposed that we use counter narratives to disrupt dominant ones before they lead to violence as they have in the past.
Mass formation is by no means a universally agreed upon theory, and is strongly disputed by fact checkers like Reuters. That mainstream news organizations like Reuters dispute the existence is unsurprising because it is also Reuters’ job to spread news stories that captivate. In other words, they spread narratives that have the power to dominate and sway public opinion. But my essay is not to promote mass formation theories to explain societal responses of the past few years. It’s to explain how I understand the theory as it relates to all of us, no matter what our views and beliefs are.
When we strongly disagree with others on their views, we may accuse them of being brainwashed, or sheep. Who we think are the sheep varies on your opinion. If you are opposed to organized religion you may see religious devotees as sheep being taken advantage of by evangelical leaders. If you are opposed to digital ID you might see those who accept it as sheep manipulated by the rich and powerful in media and government. If you think all vaccines are life saving interventions we must mandate, you might see those who protest against vaccines as sheep manipulated by antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists (both polarizing terms I disagree with btw). But viewing those who disagree with you as sheep - and I will admit to having done this myself - is unfair, myopic, and can lead to more division rather than solutions.
First though, I want to give a shout out to sheep.
Look at them! They are so cute! They are beautiful creatures, part of the fabric of our miraculous planet and divine universe. Yes they sometimes move as a group, but they are also individuals with personalities and minds of their own. Sheep are loveable when the word isn’t attached to a derogatory narrative.
Back to the theory - we people also sometimes move as a group, yet have personalities and minds of our own. We are drawn to narratives shared by others, where we may talk and act like the group, but there is so much more to us than that. And our interest in any particular narrative, or our decision to belong to a group, comes from our individual conditioning and predilections, not because we are unthinking or stupid. It seems overly simplistic to chalk up sincere disagreement on political narratives - like COVID - to brainwashing on one side or the other.
Whether or not mass formation theories explain the behaviour of others is not up to me to decide. But when I ask myself whether they apply to me, I can see the theory holds genuine insight. When I am lonely, when I am anxious, when I feel purposeless and frustrated, I am easily swayed. By external influencers, but even more powerfully, by my own internal narratives. My own internal narrator is the biggest brainwasher of all. When I’m not feeling well, I believe the inner voice that tells me that other people are to blame for my unhappiness. My internal narrator blames the driver who cut me off for my feelings of rage. She blames the child who won’t obey my bedtime instructions for my feelings of powerlessness. She blames the cashier at the grocery store for my frustration. And she blames the people on Twitter for my aggression.
When I am brainwashed by my internal narrator I am more likely to end up acting violently. I deliberately act in ways that could hurt others with my words, my glances, my actions. I have chased after a driver on my bike and yelled at them. I’ve exploded in anger at my kids. I’ve been rude to service personnel. And I’ve believed the worst about friends, family, and total strangers.
That’s where the importance of the Counter Narrative comes in. If I can notice that I’m in a state of unease, susceptible to being swayed by negative messaging, then I can come to my senses. I can take a breath, I can step back from the conflict, I can realize I was wrong, I can understand that others are doing their best. The counter narrative is the voice of sanity, of reason, that reminds me that I don’t really know what’s going on.
The Counter Narrative can also remind me to take care of myself. If I’m anxious, I need to calm myself rather than looking outwards. If I’m lonely I can reach out for support rather than accusing others. If I’m feeling purposeless I can examine what’s important to me. And if I’m frustrated I can practice acceptance.
Ultimately, it is our internal narrator that creates the dominant story - the same internal narrator that is unaware of the self brainwashing it does. But once when we become aware of our susceptibility to the harmful stories, and lovingly tend to that which makes us so (our loneliness, anxiety, purposelessness and frustration to name a few), we can be truly free from everything, both external and internal, that blinds us to the truth.
Thought-provoking stuff. I always enjoy reading what you have to say.
It's occurred to me that phrases like "mass formation psychosis" often become a faddish shorthand for people who want to dismiss someone else out of hand while sounding better-informed than they in reality are. There's much more of an intellectual veneer to saying "mass formation psychosis" than it does to say "turn off CNN," even if the latter is what you really mean. Another example is accusing someone of "Dunning-Kruger," which in a stroke of great irony is almost always done by a person who has never actually read anything by Dunning or Kruger.
All of the above said, we really do all know people who will simply parrot whatever their preferred news network or talk show host or pundit says, and will not think for themselves, and it's a huge problem in a 21st century where every person can curate their own little echo chamber of comfort. I think a key is to recognize the tendency in ourselves, too, because we all have it. Being aware will tend to make you less susceptible.... I hope.
Very well done. (I do find that people use the phrase "mass formation psychosis," which is not the term Mattias Desmet uses. He writes about mass formation - others have added the word "psychosis," which muddies the waters a bit. But your discussion is spot on & very even-handed. I love how you point us to ourselves, to realize our own mistaken attributions of confused thinking. Thank you for this!