A cult of personality, or a cult of the leader, is the result of an effort which is made to create an idealized and heroic image of a leader by a government, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Historically, it has developed through techniques of mass media, propaganda, the big lie, fake news, spectacle, the arts, patriotism, and government-organized demonstrations and rallies. A cult of personality is similar to apotheosis - the glorification of a subject to divine levels and, commonly, the treatment of a human being, any other living thing, or an abstract idea in the likeness of a deity - except that it is established by modern social engineering techniques, usually by the state or the party in one-party states and dominant-party states. A cult of personality often accompanies the leader of a totalitarian or authoritarian countries. It can also be seen in some monarchies, theocracies, and failed democracies.
Background
Throughout history, monarchs and other heads of state were often held in enormous reverence and imputed super-human qualities. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, notably in medieval Europe, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Ancient Egypt, Imperial Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, Tibet, Siam (now Thailand), and the Roman Empire are especially noted for redefining monarchs as "god-kings". Furthermore, the Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified emperors and some members of their families with the divinely sanctioned authority (auctoritas) of the Roman State.
The spread of democratic and secular ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of mass media, such as radio, enabled political leaders to project a positive image of themselves onto the masses as never before. It was from these circumstances in the 20th century that the most notorious personality cults arose. Often these cults are a form of political religion;
Political religious organizations, such as the Nazi Party, adhered to the idealization of cultural and political power over the country at large. The church body of the state no longer held control over the practices of religious identity. Because of this, Nazism was countered by many political and religious organizations as being a political religion, based on the dominance which the Nazi regime had (Gates and Steane). Political religions generally vie with existing traditional religions, and may try to replace or eradicate them. The term was given new attention by the political scientist Hans Maier.
Overview
The term political religion is based on the observation that sometimes political ideologies or political systems display features more commonly associated with religion. Scholars who have studied these phenomena include William Connolly in political science, Christoph Deutschmann in sociology, Emilio Gentile in history, Oliver O'Donovan in theology and others in psychology. A political religion often occupies the same ethical, psychological and sociological space as a traditional religion, and as a result it often displaces or co-opts existing religious organizations and beliefs. The most central marker of a political religion involves the sacralization of politics, for example an overwhelming religious feeling when serving one's country, or the devotion towards the Founding Fathers of the United States. Although a political religion may co-opt existing religious structures or symbolism, it does not itself have any independent spiritual or theocratic elements—it is essentially secular, using religious motifs and methods for political purposes, if it does not reject religious faith outright. Typically, a political religion is considered to be secular, but more radical forms of it are also transcendental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion#Political_religion
The advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web in the 21st century has renewed the personality cult phenomenon. Disinformation via social media platforms and the twenty-four hour news cycle has enabled the widespread dissemination and acceptance of deceptive information and propaganda. As a result, personality cults have grown and remained popular in many places, corresponding with a marked rise in authoritarian government across the world.
Characteristics
There are various views about what constitutes a cult of personality in a leader. Historian Jan Plamper wrote that modern-day personality cults display five characteristics that set them apart from "their predecessors":
-
The cults are secular and "anchored in
popular sovereignty"; - their objects are all males;
-
they target the entire population, not
only the well-to-do or just the ruling class; - they use mass media;
-
they exist where the mass media can be controlled
enough to inhibit the introduction of "rival cults".
In his 2013 paper, "What is character and why it really does matter", Thomas A. Wright stated, "The cult of personality phenomenon refers to the idealized, even god-like, public image of an individual consciously shaped and molded through constant propaganda and media exposure. As a result, one is able to manipulate others based entirely on the influence of public personality ... the cult of personality perspective focuses on the often shallow, external images that many public figures cultivate to create an idealized and heroic image."
Adrian Teodor Popan defined a cult of personality as a "quantitatively exaggerated and qualitatively extravagant public demonstration of praise of the leader." He also identified three causal "necessary, but not sufficient, structural conditions, and a path-dependent chain of events which, together, lead to the cult formation:
- a particular combination of patrimonialism and clientelism,
- lack of dissidence, and
- systematic falsification pervading the society's culture."
One underlying characteristic, as explained by John Pittman, is the nature of the cult of personalities to be a patriarch. The idea of the cult of personalities that coincides with the Marxist movements gains popular footing among the men in power with the idea that they would be the "fathers of the people". By the end of the 1920s, the male features of the cults became more extreme. Pittman identifies that these features became roles including the "formal role for a [male] 'great leader' as a cultural focus of the apparatus of the regime: reliance on top-down 'administrative measures': and a pyramidal structure of authority" which was created by a single ideal.
The Role of Mass Media
The mass media have played an instrumental role in forging national leaders' cults of personality. The modern cult of personality has arisen in large part due to how the leader is presented through the media. The modern cult of personality developed alongside the media. The twentieth century brought technological advancements that made it possible for regimes to package propaganda in the form of radio broadcasts, films, and later content on the internet. Today, governments are capable of isolating citizens from the outside world and creating a monopoly of what citizens have access to, making it much easier to foster a cult of personality.
In 2013, Thomas A. Wright in 2013 wrote, "It is becoming evident that the charismatic leader, especially in politics, has increasingly become the product of media and self-exposure." Focusing on the media in the United States, Robert N. Bellah added, "It is hard to determine the extent to which the media reflect the cult of personality in American politics and to what extent they have created it. Surely they did not create it all alone, but just as surely they have contributed to it. In any case, American politics is dominated by the personalities of political leaders to an extent rare in the modern world ... in the personalized politics of recent years the 'charisma' of the leader may be almost entirely a product of media exposure."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
The Charismatic Leader
Sociologist Max Weber introduced the concept of charismatic authority, which most personality cult researchers agree is essential to understanding this kind of leadership. According to Weber, charisma is a “certain quality of an individual personality [under] which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least especially exceptional powers or qualities.”
Meanwhile, charismatic authority depends on individual followers’ devotion to and trust in an individual leader. In this context, followers’ perception of the leader is crucial to maintaining their legitimacy, so the media is used to create and promote a larger-than-life image of the leader.
Another feature of charismatic authority is that it’s frequently critical of existing institutions and seeks to bring about some form of change, which could constitute anything from a previous idealized time to revolutionary reform.
This mission to disrupt the established order is key to the success of a charismatic leader as the more followers buy into the belief that there’s a crisis in society that current institutions can’t fix, the more likely they are to place their hopes in a charismatic leader. The same basic principles apply to the figure around which a cult of personality forms.
In-Groups and the Need to Belong
To resonate, a charismatic leader must speak in the language of their followers to ensure the followers understand and accept the leader's mission. If the leader is successful in this endeavor, it can strengthen their followers' devotion and belief in them, but it will also enhance the feeling that the personality cult members are part of an in-group.
This in-group then develops its own visual references, beliefs, and rituals that strengthen devotion to the leader and the personality cult as a whole. Performing such rituals or state beliefs aligned with the personality cult can become a litmus test for belonging.
Members of a cult of personality satisfy their need to belong, although this also increases the need to maintain their status within the group by conforming to its norms. This can drive members to increasingly radical behaviors and beliefs, especially when the leader stirs prejudice against out-groups (particularly out-groups that followers have little or no possibility of ever belonging to, such as groups based on national origin, race, gender, or class).
Identity Fusion and the Devoted Actor
Ultimately, when devotion to the leader and their mission evolves into devotion to the personality cult as a whole, followers may experience identity fusion, in which one’s social identity and individual self-concept are fused. This can lead followers to feel a family-like bond with other group members, encouraging them to engage in extreme behavior, even fighting and dying, on behalf of the group.
According to the theoretical framework of the “devoted actor,” these actions have nothing to do with anticipated risks or rewards but are the result of followers’ unconditional commitment to the group’s morals, values, and ideology.
In cults of personality, this can mean loyalty to the group, and obedience to the leader becomes more important than more established values. As a result, identity fusion with a personality cult can result in ties to the group that are even stronger than those to their own family.
So while those on the outside may see how the leader is manipulating and exploiting their followers and question why group members continue to fall prey to this, their followers will become increasingly dedicated to the cult of personality.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cult-of-personality-5191337
Forget Fascism: In the U.S. and Israel, Caesarism is on the Rise
“Caesarism” is an accepted term for a form of regime in which the state is ruled by a strong, charismatic ruler. It’s modeled on the regime of Julius Caesar, the sole ruler of the Roman republic, and the man who brought about its destruction. What is required for Caesarism to emerge is for all groups with political power in the state to be engaged in mutual struggles, so that only the leader can satisfy the desire of all of them. All other institutions and public offices are voided of content; the leader concentrates all the real power in his hands, relying on the army. As the Israeli historian Zvi Yavetz described it, everyone receives conflicting promises, and then only the genius of the leader can preserve unity.
In contrast to a monarchy, however, in a Caesarist regime the institutions of the republic remain intact and all the magistrates retain their old titles. Julius Caesar rejected the trappings of monarchy that his followers wished to heap on him. Nor was “Caesar” his title; that was simply his family name. It’s his adopted son, Augustus, who is considered the first caesar of the Roman Empire.
The regime of the Roman Republic was completely different from a modern democracy. Nevertheless, comparisons between such governments and Rome have been put forward persistently over the years. The sociologist Max Weber argued that mass democracy necessarily leans toward Caesarism, in terms of the existence of a direct connection between a charismatic leader and the people, which undermines the power of parliament.
Modern Caesarism is not entirely distinct from democracy, but springs up within it. A moderate form of Caesarism is discernible in some of the outstanding leaders of modern democracy, such as Abraham Lincoln and Charles de Gaulle. But in its extreme form, Caesarism deteriorates into sheer autocracy, as with Napoleon Bonaparte or his nephew, Napoleon III. The Caesarist ruler becomes an emperor, and the republic an empire. And if all goes well, a new, quasi-royal dynasty is engendered. A “dictator anointed with oil of democracy,” as the historian Theodor Mommsen put it...
...The stage after Caesarism is dynasticism. Whereas Julius Caesar’s power was based on his charisma and political skill, the Julio-Claudian Caesars who followed him ruled, simply, by dint of lineage. The senators who assassinated Julius Caesar thought they had put an end to the danger of tyranny and had restored the republic. But from the people’s point of view, Caesar represented liberation from the despised elite. The only question that remained after his death was who would fulfill the role of sole ruler. After Augustus’ death, rule passed naturally to Tiberius, his son by his wife Livia. But even before that, Augustus had made Tiberius his right-hand man.
At a certain stage, the dynasty demonstrates its strength through rulers who are actually idiots, sadists or suffering from insanity. They manifest their power through grotesque behavior and brutal actions. The fact that they continue to rule despite their unfitness proves that the decisive factor is not ability but blood. Thus, two generations after Julius Caesar, the Roman Empire was led by the depressive Tiberius, who closeted himself on the island of Capri, where he pursued his addiction to sexual depravity. He was followed by his insane brother, Caligula, who established a brothel in the palace and dressed and actually fought as a gladiator. Yet, throughout a large part of his reign, Caligula enjoyed great popularity among the Roman masses. They loved dancers, and Caligula knew how to dance – and also how to humiliate the upper classes...
This Is Your Brain On Fake News: How Biology Determines Belief
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/media/this-is-your-brain-on-fake-news-how-biology-determ/
