How we twist political violence to self-defence

Political violence, defined as acts of aggression aimed at challenging, achieving, or maintaining political power, is increasingly prevalent in democratic societies. Recent reports indicate that individuals in positions of influence, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, are facing heightened risks of harassment and threats. This trend is evident in the United Kingdom, where members of Parliament have reported feeling unsafe at public events, prompting increased security measures and expenditures to ensure their protection. Former Conservative cabinet minister Penny Moudant highlighted the persistent nature of these threats, stating that within two years of losing her parliamentary seat, she has faced continuous police investigations and legal proceedings related to her personal safety. The motivations behind the surge in political violence are multifaceted, influenced significantly by individual identities and societal contexts. Research conducted by political neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod suggests that when people transition from holding beliefs to identifying strongly with certain ideologies, their cognitive responses shift. This transformation leads to favoring those who share their views while disfavoring dissenters, even in unrelated domains. Zmigrod's findings reveal that both extreme leftists and extreme rightists exhibit similar psychological profiles when their identities are deeply cherished and held dogmatically. In situations marked by stress or uncertainty, individuals exhibiting rigid thinking patterns are more inclined to endorse harmful actions toward those perceived as threats to their groups, leaders, or ideologies. These individuals often frame such endorsements through the lens of self-defense rather than acknowledging the potential for violence. Furthermore, studies suggest that those with rigid personalities might also resort to self-harm as a means to safeguard their affiliations or principles. While historical perspectives often linked political violence primarily to authoritarians, modern analyses reveal broader implications. Researchers like Else Frenkel-Brunswik initially posited that authoritarian tendencies predisposed individuals to support political violence, a notion rooted in post-Holocaust inquiries into how populations could condone atrocities. However, subsequent research has nuanced this understanding, emphasizing the role of cognitive rigidity and dogmatism across all political spectrums. Contemporary political science and psychology highlight that while there are distinctions among conservatives, liberals, and other ideological groups, the propensity for supporting political violence extends beyond mere authoritarian inclinations. The evolution of identities plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward political violence. Certain identities may intensify during specific events, such as international competitions or moments of national triumph, whereas others remain steadfast due to profound personal convictions or experiences of systemic injustices like racism or sexism. These enduring identities can significantly influence an individual's stance on issues involving political conflict and violence. Understanding the dynamics of political violence requires examining not only the characteristics of individuals but also the broader socio-political environment. As societies grapple with increasing polarization and ideological divides, the interplay between personal identity and collective behavior becomes critical. The discourse surrounding political violence must consider the complex interplay of factors that contribute to its emergence and persistence in contemporary democratic settings.