Hyper-Conformity, Moral Courage, and the West's Drift to Tyranny

The American psychologist Rollo May observed in 1953 that authoritarianism in religion, science, and politics was gaining acceptance not due to explicit belief, but because individuals felt powerless and anxious, leading them to follow mass political leaders or societal customs. In the decades that followed, the West gradually moved towards tyranny, characterized by mass surveillance, increased censorship, pervasive bureaucracy, stifling regulations, and high tax rates. More recently, this gradual shift has accelerated, with some Western countries seemingly moving towards full totalitarian rule.

The current precarious situation is not primarily due to the existence of power-hungry politicians, who have always existed. Instead, the core problem lies in the widespread lack of courage, a virtue essential for preserving freedom. As A.S. warned in 1978, a decline in courage might be the most striking feature in the West, historically signaling "the beginning of the end."

The Rise of Hyper-Conformity and Blind Obedience

The West is currently experiencing a pathological conformity and blind obedience that has been generations in the making, stemming from several interconnected factors:

• Value System: A societal value system that prioritizes social validation above all else.
• Social Media: The pervasive use of social media, where success is often achieved through virtue signaling and adherence to prevailing moral trends.
• Education System: An education system that deifies the democratic ideal and promotes the rights of the majority over individual rights.

These factors have cultivated a society of "hyper-conformists," leading to what Rollo May described as "automaton conformity" being the opposite of courage in our era.

This conformity manifests as a blind obedience and an excessive need to follow rules. Many people equate being a "good person" with being compliant and obeying those in power, including politicians, media figures, and celebrities. This blind obedience often blurs the line between morality and legality, leading individuals to ignore that government rules can be immoral, corrupt, and potentially lead to individual and societal ruin. May noted that in such times, ethics become increasingly identified with obedience, where unquestioning adherence is seen as the highest good, even though true ethics require more than mere compliance.

The Dangers of Enforced Conformity

Conformists are often disturbed by others exercising independent judgment, self-responsibility, and self-reliance, as it challenges their belief in the value of obedience and their sense of self. As Stanley Feldman explained in "Enforcing Conformity," individuals who value social conformity tend to support government control over social behavior and the punishment of nonconformity. This desire for social freedom becomes subservient to the enforcement of social norms and rules, leading to the repression of groups that challenge conformity.

When a majority advocates for government-enforced conformity, society enters what psychologist Ervin Staub called a "continuum of destruction." As the government uses coercion against noncompliant minorities, the majority rationalizes its support by further demonizing these groups, leading to increasingly severe measures. Staub noted that "one psychological consequence of harm-doing is further devaluation of victims," where people assume victims have earned their suffering.

Historical examples from the 20th century in countries like the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, Cambodia, and China illustrate this continuum. Initial government measures—such as banning minority groups from public spaces, imposing curfews, job expulsion, fines, and restrictions on movement and assembly—escalated into mass scapegoating, imprisonment, and murder.

In "The Psychology of Good and Evil," Ervin Staub elaborated on the psychological mechanism behind this: doing harm or passively witnessing it creates an inconsistency with one's sense of responsibility and belief in a just world. To resolve this discomfort, individuals minimize their concern for the victims, devalue them, and justify their suffering through their perceived evil nature or "higher ideals," leading to a changed view of the victims, their suffering, and one's self-concept.

The Antidote: Moral Courage

To counteract this continuum of destruction, which is a product of excessive conformity and government force, more people need to act with moral courage. Moral courage involves a willingness to face risks to defy immoral orders, reject authoritarian control, and uphold the values of truth, freedom, and justice.

Rushworth Kidder, in "Moral Courage," emphasized that "where there’s no danger, there’s no courage." True challenges arise in the face of hazard, and moral courage involves enduring danger for the sake of conscience, principles, or core values.

Acts of moral courage can carry varying degrees of risk:

• Mild Risks: These include ridicule, insults, or ostracization, such as speaking out against a prevailing belief among conformists or refusing to adhere to immoral or irrational social mandates. While these may lead to losing friends or facing criticism, Rollo May noted that "the hallmark of courage in our age of conformity is the capacity to stand on one’s own convictions."
• Grave Risks: These can include loss of employment, physical or financial penalties, imprisonment, or even death. Kidder highlighted the agonizing dilemma of choosing between what is right for the world and what is right for one's family.

Carl Jung referred to those willing to confront great dangers in defiance of tyranny as "the true leaders of mankind."

The Example of Viktor Pestov

The story of Viktor Pestov exemplifies moral courage. In 1967, at age 20, Pestov lived in the Soviet Union. Despite his family's comfortable status and his mother's high-ranking position in the KGB, he was deeply troubled by the tyranny crushing society. When Soviet tanks violently suppressed the Prague Spring human rights protests in Czechoslovakia, Pestov felt compelled to act.

He and his brother formed a clandestine group called "Free Russia," warning members that arrest was likely within a year. Believing the fight for freedom justified the risk, they began publishing and distributing pamphlets exposing the Soviet regime's lies. In 1970, Pestov was arrested, his mother was fired from the KGB, and he was sentenced to five years in a Soviet prison camp.

Pestov chose to defy the regime, knowingly endangering himself and inadvertently his mother, because he could not in good conscience remain passive while a corrupt regime destroyed millions of lives. He understood that if he did not stand up for the freedom of others, he could not expect others to stand up for his, and that inaction would doom everyone. He embraced danger, fought for freedom, and bore a portion of society's fate. He believed in individual mastery over one's own destiny, opposing the idea that "someone will think for you, someone will make decisions for you."

Reflecting on his five years in prison, Pestov told Rushworth Kidder, "I believe I did the right thing...I wasn’t silent. I was saying and doing what I had to do. There was a very small contribution of mine to the fact that the Communists were pushed out of power."

Unless more people cultivate the moral courage to reject conformity and stand up for freedom and what is right, making even a small contribution against tyranny, Western societies risk moving towards what Ayn Rand called "the stage of the ultimate inversion." This is "the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."