Societies are shaped not just by the actions of their people but by the invisible frameworks that dictate what can be thought, remembered, and discussed. These paradigms—unwritten rules about what belongs in the social psyche—are influenced by collective anxieties, historical shifts, and the impulses that drive political movements. Examining the works of George Marshall, Heather Cox Richardson, and Robert Paxton reveals how these forces operate and evolve over time.
Denial and Anxiety: The Silent Architects of Paradigms
George Marshall, in Don't Even Think About It, explores how denial and anxiety are deeply interlinked. Societies, much like individuals, repress ideas that they cannot reconcile with their existing worldview. This repression stems from a collective need to avoid anxiety, leading to what could be described as societal cognitive dissonance.
As Marshall writes:
“They have a common basis in the need to avoid anxiety and defend ourselves. From a psychoanalytic perspective, denial and anxiety are closely linked. Things that cannot be assimilated are repressed.”
He builds on Stanley Cohen’s insights about societal agreements:
“Without being told what to think about (or what not to think about), and without being punished for ‘knowing’ the wrong things, societies arrive at unwritten agreements about what can be publicly remembered and acknowledged.”
In this way, controversial or uncomfortable subjects—such as climate change or systemic injustice—become marginalized not through censorship but through collective avoidance, creating a societal paradigm that prioritizes comfort over confrontation and stability over truth, while simultaneously entrenching blind spots that make transformative change more difficult.
Paradigm Shifts: Lessons from the Civil War Era
Heather Cox Richardson provides a contrasting perspective by examining moments when societal paradigms are deliberately reshaped. Writing about the Civil War era, Richardson highlights the transformation driven by the Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln. While the Confederacy sought to entrench hierarchical systems, the Republicans pursued a vision that prioritized the "common man" over established elites.
She explains:
“When the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to start their own nation based in their own hierarchical society, the Republicans in charge of the United States government were free to put their theory into practice. For a nominal fee, they sold farmers land that the government in the past would have sold to speculators; created state colleges, railroads, national money, and income taxes; and promoted immigration.”
These policies, which today might be categorized as social reforms, marked a profound shift in how the United States government engaged with its citizens. Richardson’s account reminds us that societal paradigms are not immutable. With vision and determination, they can be reconstructed to reflect new priorities—even amid deep political division. The Civil War era demonstrates how crises can catalyze the emergence of new frameworks that challenge entrenched hierarchies and expand opportunities.
The Fascist Impulse: Paradigms Rooted in Action
Robert Paxton, in The Anatomy of Fascism, explores another dynamic: the visceral urge that underpins fascist movements. Unlike paradigms that evolve slowly or are reshaped through deliberate action, fascism thrives on immediacy—an impulsive drive to protect and regenerate the nation against perceived threats.
As Paxton explains:
“Fascisms seek out in each national culture those themes that are best capable of mobilizing a mass movement of regeneration, unification, and purity, directed against liberal individualism and constitutionalism and against Leftist class struggle.”
This suggests that fascist paradigms are less about ideology and more about harnessing collective anxieties to spur action. They channel fear and uncertainty into a unifying narrative, often at the expense of individual freedoms and democratic norms.
Tying It Together: The Power and Fragility of Paradigms
Marshall, Richardson, and Paxton each highlight different aspects of how societal paradigms form, endure, or collapse. Marshall shows how denial and repression maintain stability at the cost of progress. Richardson demonstrates how visionary leadership can reshape paradigms to promote equity and opportunity. Paxton warns of the dangers when paradigms become dominated by reactionary impulses rather than thoughtful reform.
These perspectives challenge us to reflect on our own societal frameworks. What ideas are we repressing out of collective anxiety? What opportunities for transformation are we overlooking? And how can we guard against the rise of destructive impulses that exploit our fears?
Understanding how paradigms function is not just an academic exercise—it’s a call to action. By recognizing the invisible rules that shape our collective psyche, we gain the power to question them, reshape them, and, when necessary, break free from them.
Quotes
"they have a common basis in the need to avoid anxiety and defend ourselves. From a psychoanalytic perspective, denial and anxiety are closely linked. Things that cannot be assimilated are repressed. As Stanley Cohen wrote about human rights abuses, “Without being told what to think about (or what not to think about), and without being punished for ‘knowing’ the wrong things, societies arrive at unwritten agreements about what can be publically remembered and acknowledged.”
"When the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to start their own nation based in their own hierarchical society, the Republicans in charge of the United States government were free to put their theory into practice. For a nominal fee, they sold farmers land that the government in the past would have sold to speculators; created state colleges, railroads, national money, and income taxes; and promoted immigration."
–heathercoxrichardson.substack.com,
December 29, 2023
"Fascisms seek out in each national culture those themes that are best capable of mobilizing a mass movement of regeneration, unification, and purity, directed against liberal individualism and constitutionalism and against Leftist class struggle."
–Robert O. Paxton,
The Anatomy of Fascism
