EXTREME THEISM (WITH RELATION TO AUTHORITARIANISM) DESCRIBED IN ASPECT OF ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION
To be a theist is to believe that at least one God exists. The theory are also specifically called monotheism, which means people in these onegod religions recognise only one supreme being, their creator God, and deny the existence of other Gods. God, the only divine being in reality, is who to designate the lives of people under his organisation. To discreetly follow his intention implicates people’s ultimate life purpose. Followers from these religions may not agree on God’s appearance and origin, but they do share this core theory of one God’s protection and people need this male god’s supernatural power to protect them from themselves and external danger. Other religions worship more than one God, and the idea of divine unfathomable figures also applies. Whilst the number of non-religion people or atheists has significantly increased lately for many possible reasons, the mass of the world population remains to be faithful to theistic practices (Johnson and Crossing, 2020).
Religion is one of the most classic and universal choices of tool to keep society cohesive by controlling the consistency of behaviour that rewards in life meaning and purpose (Durkheim, 1915). It has been used as social lubrication. “It makes people agree with someone else with whom they do not agree.”, as Carl Sagan said in the “Lost” Lecture: The Age of Exploration in 1994. For theistic religions, their principles support the validity of only one individual or one small group of individuals who rightfully conquers the most powerful position in a hierarchy. Whether what is the position of one who holds this attitude, it influences to the way of people’s decision making and the dynamic between each person in society as it affects their mindsets in general. It moulds the idea of fearing and loving the supreme being at the same time. When it combines with an unreasonable degree of commitment, so-called extremism, it causes social problems. Faith creates hope, a sense of purpose. Faith is hope but excessive faith is a
delusion. Extremism brings narrowness to people’s minds in any area of opinion. It abolishes rational thinking. The absurdity of extremism will most likely be noticed only from the outsider’s eyes.
Theism and authoritarianism are two subjects to be defined as separated attitudes according to people’s judgment towards their contexts. Theistic attitude is usually perceived as culturally healthy and conventional. On the other hand, the latter attitude is politically perceived as one of the negative characteristics of government, except the oppressor’s view, because it is oppressive and unfair. It is a central-power system when the elite, in most cases, minority exercises their arbitrary power over the powerless majority. These two mentioned attitudes have a similar outline in the way they clearly set the position of the ones who hold the power and the ones who, either voluntarily or involuntarily, give their power away. Evidently, for the main value of these two concepts, there is reportedly obvious correlation especially when theism escalates to an extreme level, which has consistently been found in previous researches. Such as the link between conservative Christian fundamentalists and authoritarian social system (Owen, Wald and Hill, 1991) and traditional church-centred religiousness bias towards authoritarianism (Wink, Dillon and Prettyman, 2007). Extreme theists tend to engage in, mentally and physically, power-oriented activities that lack critical progression and sophistication of thoughts. Right-wing authoritarianism positively correlates with less faith development; low religious maturity (Leak and Randell, 1995).
People who are identified as extreme theists could share the same belief or attribute, as is described by the three attitude components (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). The cognitive component of extreme theism could be thoughts based on many irrational premises. To assume the afterlife that is promised by their
God or other basic moral doctrines alone would not distinguish moderate theists from extreme theists. Extremists must own a radical view. The cognitive component of extreme theism could be formed by mere ignorance like the thinking that every single soul ignoring religion, their religion, is all evil. The affective component is they feel they disgust evils. Evils are their enemy because, self-righteously, they are not evil and settling in a higher position in the hierarchy of enlightenment as opposed to nonreligion people. They only recognise the existence of their religion. Who is not with them could be determined as their threat; intolerance of out-groups. Evils must be demolished by their God’s will and they are here to support their God. Therefore, the behavioural component might involve an action of an attempt to fix other people’s religious beliefs to be aligned with theirs; curing the evils, or being prompt to exhibit their strength and exercise their offensive behaviour to gain respect and attention, from conducting a protest that includes violation and abuse to using a greater terroristic strategy in public, to grow anxiety and fearfulness in others. The mentioned behavioural component is the most crucial component of all three. It causes consequences on a wider social scale across the world, apart from personal or local scale, as is repeatedly seen in the news. It could spread the absence of peace and trust among people both within and without the religious groups. The action of attitude, of course, cannot form without the contribution of the cognitive and affective elements but personal belief and feeling would be less harmful to society when they are kept only to individual space. Although, the origin of personal attitude could be generated from complex personal issues, which will be discussed further in the following paragraphs, yet the action itself surely could be avoided by choice.
The environment could play a significant role to set up the extreme theistic attitude. Firstly, childhood relationship with their family; parents or anyone who is in a position of guardians. Early
life experience fundamentally reflects into core personality and attitude. Children who grow up in a family with extreme views tend to carry extremism with them, at least as long as they are still dependent on their family. Secondly, society in adulthood. People who are never or less likely to expose to diversity in society would not be able to recognise the existence of diversity itself. In radical society, the answer to every question would be a mere yes or no and the correct one could be only either of them. No complexity. No maturity. In case people remain undecided, eventually, the society’s way of life would impact their way of life as well, based on the mere-exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) that creates comfort in a sense of familiarity to the community, as opposed to critical thinking that requires scepticism. Left alone the surrounding religious artefacts or institutions that help shape the atmosphere. Also, the consistent input from the media. Imagine people with average attitude towards theism or religions in general who spend their life in an extreme theistic town in a long term. It could be difficult to avoid consuming media that projects only one side of content. Extremism owns a very clear idea of what is “us” and what is ”them”. This could affect people’s minds subconsciously, like implicit learning.
Unfortunately, extreme theism is not a quality that can be simply observed by just looking at one’s appearance. Broadly remarked, extremists tend to be overly confident when they are among like-minded people and tend to be overly private when they calculate themselves as a minority in a present situation, whether because of moral superiority they think they hold or personal internal insecurity that never is truly cured by practising extremism. Implicit attitudes learned by having a conversation with them could be the best way for initial participation. The information could be collected by paying attention to their choice of words or the narratives they cling to. The topics they are willing to carry on longer. Also, their action
clues such as things that upset them or things that they laugh about. For example, they refuse to acknowledge or imply some slight disgust facial movements (slight because we are new to each other), like nose wrinkled and upper lip pulled up, when a symbol or representation of other religions are emphasised. Even content they are interested in and decide to share on social network platforms because people are more active on the internet when they are alone, therefore, less reserved.
On a surface level, expected extreme theists’ observable behaviours could be to engage with high self-control activities. They give high value to obedience to authority (God). For example, they pray consistently, strictly follow the policy, and be eager to involve in religious rituals. When doing that, they might not only dress in a specific way according to their religion’s norm on purpose to express their belief and belonging but also in a special way according to their extreme group’s norm to prove their superiority. From the two theories about behaviour prediction, the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), the subjective norm they share within their circle could be “(insert their God’s name here)” is the purest salvation of humankind. Attitude towards the behaviour would be we must protect God and guide the lost souls. Yet again, sometimes when extreme theists perceive themselves as a minority or too weak in a situation, they compromise, which means the protecting and guiding mission is still there but can wait. Therefore, the perceived behavioural control, which is in part based on their personal resources and opportunities, varies in their current social status or the position they contribute to society to make a life. For example, if this extreme theistic person’s social status lies on a low position of both economic and power hierarchy, namely a low-rank officer. The perceived behavioural control is police officers must keep society safe. He is expected to carry justice, no discrimination against any specific
group of citizens. He is expected not to express their prejudice or bias at least when he is in a police uniform. Otherwise, he could be reported and lose his job. Except, he is aware that his supervisor or majority of his colleagues are extremists too, if so, he probably gets away with it. In another case, a high-rank officer with authoritarian power. The perceived behavioural control would be less effective in this case. He could possibly express his irrational views more openly at work, such as more favour towards subordinates carrying the same ideology or showing discrimination against a specific group of citizens. He is in a higher position of both economic and power hierarchy; more independent.
Extremism gradually establishes in people’s fabric of thoughts and settles deep. It needs some time to be adjusted or replaced. The process could not begin mainly by an external source of expectation. It requires the people’s strong intention to change, like quitting an addiction. Initially, in this extreme theistic context, my persuasion techniques would be to introduce them to a new environment. It could be a new circle to socialise or a new place to go travel. Different people bring different influences. It sounds fairly indirect and humble but this could be the best way to start. They might sign off right away if they feel like their ideology is being attacked. So, the source should remain a trustful communicator (Hovland, Janis and Kelley, 1953). These opportunities train people to recognise cultural diversity. They can be more tolerant of varied points of view. Also, studying further in broader topics could help. Education adds sophistication and wider perspectives. They will appreciate complex reality and not only seek simplified opinions as found in extremism just because it is easily adapted. The next step of my persuasion would be reminding them that their value should not depend on any institution’s validation. They could feel secure either mentally, intellectually, or physically by
keeping developing their knowledge and judgment and health. Underlined, in terms of persuasion techniques, I would not directly address their problematic religious status because it could be too blunt for such a sensitive topic and will ruin to process. I would basically suggest people to keep their minds open. I do strongly believe that the more people successfully own a sense of fulfilment and growth in themselves, the less they will need outside superstitious strength to comfort.
Extreme theism is not a permanent attitude. There are reasons for someone to become one. It could be by choice (own experience), by being assigned (family), or by being manipulated (media). It causes social problems when combines with the authoritarian mindset and violent behaviour. The issue could be treated as if it is a psychological problem because it requires deep understanding in complexity to break down each individual’s mind and the social dynamic they are in. It surely can be cured, even though it demands so much effort involved. ■
References
Ajzen, Icek. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50. 179211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Durkheim, E. (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. Macmillan.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
Johnson, Todd M. & Crossing, Peter. (2020). The World by Religion. Journal of Religion and Demography. 7.4-91.10.1163/2589742X-12347101.
Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Clarification of the Link between Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Religiousness: The Role of Religious Maturity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(2), 245–252.
Owen, D. E., Wald, K. D., & Hill, S. S. (1991). Authoritarian or Authority-Minded? The Cognitive Commitments of Fundamentalists and the Christian Right. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, 1(1), 73–100.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes. M. J. Rosenberg, & C. I. Hovland (Eds.), Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wink, P., Dillon, M., & Adrienne Prettyman. (2007). Religiousness, Spiritual Seeking, and Authoritarianism: Findings from a Longitudinal Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(3), 321–335.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27.