Antisocial Contract: The Argument

TL;DR

People trade independent judgment for belonging. Once that trade is made, the group’s contested beliefs become sacred: questioning them triggers threat responses instead of thinking, and offering reasons or money to soften them makes people angrier, not more flexible. Intelligence doesn’t help — it gets repurposed to defend the sacred belief more cleverly. Leaders get trapped too, because the constituency that internalized the message will replace anyone who tries to walk it back. The groups that play this hardest win local fights against the groups that don’t — and in winning, they tear down the shared institutions that make any of them viable. This is the antisocial contract: an unspoken bargain that buys you a place in a tribe at the price of your ability to reason in exactly the domains where reasoning matters most.

Want the plain-language version? A shorter, less academic overview without the case studies and references lives at The Antisocial Contract: Simple Version.

---

Thesis

People trade independent judgment for belonging. That trade disables rationality in exactly the domains where it matters most: intergroup conflict, resource allocation, and peace negotiation.

The mechanism follows a consistent sequence. Group categorization creates us/them boundaries. Identity fusion merges personal and group self. Group-associated values become sacred. Challenges trigger threat responses rather than deliberation. Analytical capacity gets redirected toward defending commitments rather than evaluating them.

Rousseau’s social contract describes the bargain by which individuals surrender certain freedoms to the collective in exchange for social order. This document describes its shadow: an implicit bargain in which individuals surrender independent judgment to the group in exchange for belonging, cognitive relief, and protection from exclusion. The result is not cooperation but sacralization, not order but intractable conflict. This is the antisocial contract.

The argument is not about any particular belief system. It is about a cognitive architecture that predates civilization, one that served small-group survival but produces catastrophic outcomes when scaled to nations, ideologies, and global conflicts. The same mechanism appears across religious, secular, and hybrid identity systems. The case studies that follow (the Cold War, modern populism, personality cults, and failed states) demonstrate that the mechanism operates identically regardless of whether the sacred content is theological, ideological, or tribal.

---

The Causal Chain

1. Us-vs-them bias is the cognitive default, not a learned behavior

The minimal group paradigm demonstrated that humans form self-preferencing in-groups within minutes, even on completely arbitrary bases such as coin tosses or preference for one painter over another (Tajfel et al., 1971). This is not learned. It is a default cognitive process. The mere act of categorization, with no history of conflict, no resource competition, no prior attitudes, is sufficient to produce preferential treatment of in-group members.

Exclusionary identity is therefore the cognitive default. Inclusivity requires active intervention against this default, and even successful interventions merely rescale the boundary outward rather than eliminating it (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

2. Religious, ideological, and ethnic identities resist questioning in ways that other identities do not

Certain identity categories (religious, ideological, ethnic, tribal) tend to be perceived as immutable, cosmically or historically sanctioned, and connected to existential meaning. This makes them empirically harder to exit, harder to question, and more resistant to external challenge than identities based on preference or affiliation (Ysseldyk et al., 2010).

This is a difference in degree, not kind. National identity can acquire these features (as in wartime patriotism). Political identity can acquire them (as in modern partisan polarization). Ideological identity can acquire them (as in Cold War communism and anti-communism). The common thread is that the identity becomes central to self-concept, making challenges feel like existential threats rather than disagreements.

3. Strong group identity produces active hostility toward outsiders, not just preference for insiders

This goes beyond preference. It is simultaneous favoritism and derogation, experimentally demonstrated across identity types.

Using behavioral games, morality-based groups were more likely to actively harm the outgroup than groups with established enmity (Grigoryan et al., 2022). Self-reported religiosity correlates with more negative attitudes toward out-groups relative to in-groups, and individuals primed with religious words show significantly larger increases in negative attitudes toward value-violating out-groups (Johnson et al., 2012). Exclusion by outgroup members leads to more hostility toward the outgroup than exclusion by ingroup members. Among religious believers, exclusion by ingroup members increases support for fundamentalist beliefs (Schaafsma & Williams, 2012).

The pattern appears across religious, ethnic, national, and political identities. The critical variable is not the content of the identity but its exclusivist structure: the degree to which it defines the in-group by opposition to out-groups.

3a. The antisocial contract: belonging, laziness, fear, and flattery make group beliefs sacred

The preceding steps describe the structural dynamics of exclusionary identity. But the mechanism also depends on individual-level motivations that make people receptive to group belief adoption and, ultimately, to sacralization. Four converging forces drive this receptivity. Together they constitute the terms of a bargain that mirrors and inverts the social contract.

The need to belong. Belongingness is not a preference. It is a fundamental human motivation with the same structural properties as basic drives like hunger: it produces directed behavior, generates emotional responses when satisfied or thwarted, and has measurable cognitive and health consequences when denied (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). People adopt group beliefs not because they have independently evaluated them but because belief adoption is the price of belonging. The drive is strong enough that people will internalize positions they would not have reached through independent reasoning, then defend them as their own.

Conformity as cognitive shortcut. Independent evaluation of contested claims is effortful. Using group consensus as a heuristic is not. People conform partly through an “accuracy” motivation, treating the group’s position as informational evidence about reality. This functions as a low-effort cognitive shortcut that bypasses independent analysis (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). In most domains, deferring to social consensus is a reliable strategy. The problem arises when this heuristic is applied to claims that the group holds for identity reasons rather than epistemic ones. The individual cannot easily distinguish “the group believes X because X is true” from “the group believes X because X is sacred.”

Fear of ostracism. The threat of social exclusion drives conformity even when individuals privately disagree with the group position. Ostracism threatens four fundamental needs simultaneously (belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence), and individuals conform to group norms they privately reject in order to avoid or recover from exclusion (Williams, 2007). The punishment for deviation need not be explicit; the anticipation of exclusion is sufficient to suppress dissent. This creates a conformity ratchet: as more members publicly affirm the group position regardless of private belief, the perceived cost of deviation rises for the remainder.

The narcissistic payoff. The first three forces are sticks or defaults. This one is a carrot. Collective narcissism is an emotionally invested belief that one’s group is exceptional but insufficiently recognized by others. It predicts intergroup hostility over and above ordinary group identification, and it does so through a consistent mechanism: collective narcissists perceive the in-group as constantly threatened and out-groups as hostile (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009). The payoff for joining is that the group tells you that you are special and the world is wrong for not seeing it. This is not incidental. It is the reward that makes the other three terms of the contract feel worthwhile. Belonging satisfies a need; cognitive ease removes a burden; fear of ostracism prevents exit. But collective narcissism adds a positive incentive: the group elevates your self-concept by elevating the group’s status. The pattern appears across group types. National narcissism, religious narcissism, partisan narcissism, and ethnic narcissism all produce the same hypersensitivity to perceived slights and the same retaliatory hostility toward out-groups (Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020). “Make America Great Again,” “chosen people,” “vanguard of history,” “master race”: each is a collective narcissism narrative that rewards members with a sense of unrecognized greatness, binding them more tightly to the group and more aggressively against anyone who challenges the claim.

These four forces converge to produce sacralization, and constitute the antisocial contract. In Rousseau’s social contract, individuals surrender natural freedoms to the collective and receive civil order, mutual protection, and the rule of law. The bargain is explicit in its purpose: cooperation for mutual benefit.

The antisocial contract inverts each term:

	Social contract	Antisocial contract
What you surrender	Natural freedoms	Independent judgment
What you receive	Civil order, mutual protection	Belonging, cognitive relief, protection from exclusion, and a narrative of unrecognized greatness
What enforces it	Law, institutions	Ostracism, shame, heresy punishment
What it produces	Cooperation across group boundaries	Sacralization within group boundaries
What it costs	Some individual autonomy	The capacity to reason about the group’s commitments

The need to belong motivates signing. Cognitive ease makes the terms feel costless. Fear of ostracism makes defection unthinkable. Collective narcissism makes the whole package feel like elevation rather than submission. The result is a population that holds group positions with conviction disproportionate to their independent evaluation, and that will punish members who break the silence. This is the precondition for step 4: once enough members hold a belief with enough apparent conviction, the belief becomes sacred — not because anyone decided it should be, but because the social dynamics made questioning it too costly and defending it too easy.

4. Offering people money to compromise on sacred values makes them angrier, not more flexible

This is the core mechanism. When contested issues become sacred values, people cease reasoning instrumentally about them. Standard cost-benefit analysis not only fails; it backfires.

Experiments with Israeli settlers, Palestinian refugees, and Hamas-aligned students found that material incentives to compromise over sacred values increased moral outrage and support for violence. Devoted actors (those holding sacred values) were less amenable to social influence, perceived conflict-related events as temporally closer, and were blind to individual opportunities to escape the conflict (Ginges et al., 2007). This is not generalized cognitive deficit. It is domain-specific suppression of rational assessment, concentrated in exactly the domains where rational assessment matters most.

In conflict situations, otherwise mundane sociopolitical preferences may become sacred values, acquiring immunity to material incentives (Atran & Ginges, 2012). Violent opposition to compromise over sacred issues increases when material incentives are offered but decreases when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. The only intervention that reduces hostility requires abandoning rational negotiation frameworks entirely (Atran & Axelrod, 2008).

Cross-cultural replication evidence

The sacred-values backfire effect has been replicated across multiple cultural contexts:

• India (Hindu-Muslim): Backfire effect replicated; identity salience found as moderator (Medin & Sachdeva, 2009)
• Indonesia: Within-subjects replication with madrassah students (Ginges & Atran, 2009)
• Iran: N = 1,997 Iranians; backfire effect confirmed for sacralized nuclear program (Dehghani et al., 2010)
• Morocco and Spain: N = 904; replicated effects for sharia and willingness to fight (Sheikh, Gómez & Atran, 2016)
• USA: Three studies with Americans and Palestinians; religious ritual participation increases sacralization (Sheikh, Ginges & Atran, 2013)

Limitation: No experimental replication exists for Buddhist-majority conflicts (Myanmar, Sri Lanka). This remains an empirical gap.

The psychological mechanism: Identity fusion and the devoted actor

The sacred-values literature documents what happens but does not fully explain why. Identity fusion theory provides the psychological mechanism.

Identity fusion is a visceral feeling of oneness with a group in which the boundary between personal and social identity becomes porous. Unlike mere group identification, fused individuals experience the group as part of the self. Attacks on the group feel like attacks on the self. Threats to group values trigger personal threat responses (Swann et al., 2012).

The Devoted Actor framework integrates identity fusion with sacred values: these are independent predictors that interact to produce willingness to make costly sacrifices. Neither alone is sufficient. When both are present, individuals become “devoted actors,” people whose actions are “dissociated from rationally expected risks and rewards” (Atran, 2016).

Why this explains rationality suppression:

1. Fusion makes group values personal: The group’s sacred values become your sacred values at a visceral level
2. Threats trigger threat responses: Challenges to strongly held beliefs activate the amygdala and insula rather than deliberative reasoning regions (Kaplan et al., 2016)
3. Cost-benefit regions shut down: fMRI shows diminished dlPFC, IFG, and parietal activity during sacred-value reasoning (Hamid et al., 2019)
4. Rejection intensifies commitment: Ostracism causes fused individuals to increase endorsement of extreme pro-group actions (Gómez et al., 2011)
5. Misinformation accepted: Fusion facilitates acceptance of identity-consistent information regardless of truth value (Moniz & Swann, 2025)

Step	Process	Evidence
1	Group categorization creates us/them boundary	Tajfel, 1971
2	Identity fusion merges personal and group self	Swann et al., 2012
3	Group-associated values become sacred	Atran & Ginges, 2012
4	Challenges trigger threat response	Kaplan et al., 2016
5	Cost-benefit regions shut down	Hamid et al., 2019
6	Analytical capacity redirected toward defense	Bayrak et al., 2025
7	Rejection intensifies commitment	Gómez et al., 2011
8	Identity-aligned misinformation accepted	Moniz & Swann, 2025

This explains why facts don’t work (they threaten identity), why rejection backfires (it intensifies fusion), and why intelligent people aren’t immune (analytical capacity is deployed for defense, not evaluation).

How common is fusion? Evidence from ordinary populations

Identity fusion is easy to read as a clinical condition that applies to cult members, suicide bombers, and January 6th rioters — and not to ordinary people. The empirical record says otherwise. Fusion measures from the Swann/Whitehouse program have been applied to populational samples across multiple non-pathological domains, and prevalence is not small.

Football fans. A field survey of 465 Brazilian football supporters found that fans fused with their club — especially members of the torcidas organizadas — were the most willing to fight or die for it (Newson et al., 2018). A separate sample of 140 British football fans (mean age 37) showed that feeling self-shaped by shared club events, not raw time invested, produced fusion, with both euphoric and dysphoric events contributing (Newson, Buhrmester & Whitehouse, 2016). A field study at the 2014 World Cup measured cortisol release in ordinary Brazilian fans and found that fusion, not mere identification, predicted the physiological response (Newson et al., 2020). These are weekend supporters, not extremists.

Military units. Among 179 male Libyan revolutionaries, 97% reported fusion with their battalion, and 45% of frontline combatants felt more fused with their battalion than with their own family (Whitehouse et al., 2014). The mechanism is not unique to combat: shared dysphoric experience (boot camp, hazing, painful initiation, sustained collective hardship) is the general route by which institutions manufacture fusion in ordinary recruits (Whitehouse & Lanman, 2014). Military cohesion is engineered fusion, applied at population scale.

Cult and new-religious-movement converts. Going back to the foundational Lofland-Stark “World-Saver” model, the sociology-of-conversion literature has repeatedly found that conversion to high-commitment groups is not explained by pre-existing pathology but by ordinary network ties intersecting with life-transition timing (Lofland & Stark, 1965; Snow, Zurcher & Ekland-Olson, 1980). Eileen Barker’s seven-year study of Unification Church recruits found them to be young, well-educated, middle-class people in transitions; the “brainwashing” model could not explain the data, since most attendees did not join and many who joined later left (Barker, 1984). Janja Lalich’s comparative case studies of Heaven’s Gate and the Democratic Workers Party reach the same finding: cult members are “normal, intelligent, educated people” whose commitments emerge from a structural condition, not personal pathology (Lalich, 2004). The “they must be a particular kind of person” intuition is empirically wrong.

Mass religious revival. Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity has grown from a fringe movement at the turn of the 20th century to an estimated 500–600 million adherents today, concentrated in urban mainstream populations across Africa, Latin America, and Asia (Anderson, 2014; Cox, 1995). Pew’s ten-country survey of Pentecostal populations found that between 56% and 87% of adherents in every country reported personally experiencing or witnessing divine healing — a populational-scale, fusion-like experiential commitment (Pew, 2006). High-fusion religious identity scales to roughly half a billion ordinary people.

Brand communities. Consumer-research ethnographies of the Harley-Davidson Owners Group, Apple Mac users, and Saab and Ford Bronco owners established two decades ago that ordinary consumers form non-geographic communities around brands, with shared rituals, moral obligations to fellow members, and consciousness of kind (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; McAlexander, Schouten & Koenig, 2002). A cross-community study across nine brand communities identified twelve recurring value-creating practices through which ordinary consumers transform brand affiliation into collective identity (Schau, Muñiz & Arnould, 2009). The “tribal marketing” literature treats this as a mass-population phenomenon of late modernity, not a marginal one (Cova & Cova, 2002).

Ordinary partisans. The affective polarization literature has documented at survey-population scale that American partisans experience the out-party with visceral hostility, with that hostility growing largely independent of issue-position movement (Iyengar, Sood & Lelkes, 2012). Implicit-association and behavioral-economic experiments show that partisan in/out-group bias in ordinary voters now exceeds racial bias on several measures (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015), and a comprehensive review establishes affective polarization as a mass-public phenomenon, not an elite-or-activist one (Iyengar et al., 2019). Mason synthesizes decades of ANES survey data to show that for ordinary American voters, partisanship has fused with race, religion, and culture into a single mega-identity (Mason, 2018).

Network marketing. Pratt’s multi-year ethnography of Amway documented the organization deliberately producing “sensebreaking” and “sensegiving” practices to engineer organizational identification in ordinary middle-class distributors — a documented mechanism by which a mundane company transforms mundane people into fused believers (Pratt, 2000).

The contexts vary widely — military and sacred-value conflict at one end, partisan and religious identity in the middle, consumer brand and weekend fandom at the other — but the construct measured is the same, and the instrument detects it across all of them. The cognitive vulnerability the rest of this argument trades on is not a marker of extremism. It is a property of normal human group cognition, operating at different intensities depending on what the institutional and historical context does with it. The political case studies that follow are not exceptions to ordinary cognition; they are ordinary cognition under specific conditions.

5. Smarter people defend sacred beliefs more effectively, not more accurately

The mechanism does not impair cognition. It redirects it. The Expressive Rationality Model demonstrates that among individuals with strong identity commitments, higher cognitive ability produces more identity-consistent reasoning. Analytical capacity gets deployed to defend sacred commitments rather than evaluate them. Greater cognitive ability does not overcome the sacred-value block; it fortifies it (Bayrak et al., 2025).

This explains why intelligent, educated populations are not immune. Soviet physicists defended Lysenkoism. American intelligence analysts produced the “missile gap.” MAGA supporters with college degrees believe election fraud claims at similar rates to those without. The analytical machinery is functional; it is simply aimed at defense rather than evaluation.

6. Sacred-value conflicts last longer, kill more people, and resist resolution

Conflicts framed around sacred values (whether religious, ideological, or ethnic) follow empirically different trajectories. They are harder to negotiate, longer-lasting, and more resistant to resolution than conflicts over material interests (Svensson & Nilsson, 2018).

This is not because the people involved are less intelligent or the issues inherently irresolvable. It is because the sacralization mechanism has disabled the cognitive machinery that would otherwise find compromise. The same populations, facing the same material constraints, reach different outcomes depending on whether the framing activates sacred values or instrumental calculation.

---

The Feedback Loop

The causal chain is not unidirectional. Crisis drives people toward identity-providing institutions, which deepens sacralization, which makes conflict more intractable, which produces more crisis.

Following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, individuals in conflict-affected regions increased religious participation by 7 percentage points. These effects were more pronounced among lower-educated individuals and among those who were not religiously engaged prior to the violence (Shayo & Zussman, 2022). Cross-sectional data from Uganda, Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan confirms greater war exposure leads to increased institutional participation years after conflict (Henrich et al., 2019).

The same pattern appears with secular identity systems. Economic crisis in Weimar Germany drove populations toward Nazi identity. Austerity policies during the Depression increased Nazi vote share, with effects concentrated among those just above the lowest economic strata who had more to lose (Galofré-Vilà et al., 2021). Post-Soviet collapse drove populations toward ethnic nationalism, as the sudden removal of Soviet identity structures triggered nationalist mobilization across nearly all ethnic regions (Beissinger, 2002). The 2008 financial crisis drove populations toward populist movements. Far-right party vote share increases by over 30% after financial crises, with effects strongest among middle classes facing sudden economic insecurity (Funke et al., 2016; Guiso et al., 2022). In each case, identity-providing institutions (religious, ideological, or political) offer genuine material and social support to people in crisis. This creates identity attachment in populations with few alternatives.

---

The Democratic Trap

Leaders are often more rational than their voters. That doesn’t help when voters can replace them.

Interviews with Israeli and Palestinian leaders demonstrated that leaders were more instrumentally rational than their publics. They understood symbolic concessions as door-openers to material negotiation. But they are constrained by constituencies whose sacred values suppress rational assessment in the relevant domain (Atran et al., 2007).

Democratic accountability, normally a feature, becomes a bug when the electorate’s reasoning is domain-suppressed by sacred values. The leader who makes a rational concession gets replaced by one who won’t. The selection pressure runs in the wrong direction, faithfully transmitting sacralized irrationality upward through representative institutions.

The trap operates across the political spectrum. “Defund the police” became a case study in progressive sacralization. The policies polled well: 76% of Americans supported “moving money to better training, homelessness programs, and mental health assistance.” But only 21% supported “defund the police.” The slogan polled 17 points worse than the identical policy described differently (Saletan, 2020). Yet the slogan could not be abandoned. It had sacralized among activist constituencies, and Democratic politicians who distanced themselves faced primary challenges and accusations of betrayal. A policy agenda with majority support was poisoned by a three-word phrase that its proponents could not walk back. The movement harmed itself because the framing had become sacred: the backfire effect operating in reverse, where advocates rather than opponents were trapped by sacralization.

The sacralization of group-based remedy

A more structural example of progressive sacralization concerns the treatment of historically disadvantaged minority groups. The historical injustices are real and extensively documented: slavery, legal segregation, exclusion from institutions, and systematic discrimination produced measurable, persistent disparities. The question is not whether remedy is warranted. The question is whether the form of remedy has been sacralized, placing it beyond the empirical evaluation that would determine whether it is actually working.

The test for sacralization, as established throughout this document, is straightforward: does questioning the approach produce policy evaluation, or does it produce moral outrage? Tetlock’s own research provides the answer. Racial egalitarians were the least likely to use, and the angriest at those who did use, statistically valid race-related base rates. Egalitarians who inadvertently used such base rates subsequently attempted to reaffirm their moral identity through cleansing behaviors (Tetlock et al., 2000). This is the sacred-value protection model operating on the left: empirical data about group differences is treated not as information to be evaluated but as contamination to be purged.

The practical consequence is that group-based remedies acquire immunity from empirical scrutiny. Consider a policy that provides opportunities based on group membership rather than individual circumstance. Two children in identical material conditions, one a member of a designated minority group and one not, receive different treatment. Whether this produces better outcomes is an empirical question. But the sacralization mechanism converts it into a moral one: asking the question is itself treated as evidence of racism, triggering the backfire effect. The person who asks is not engaged as a policy interlocutor but recategorized as out-group.

Campbell and Manning documented the broader cultural shift in which this operates. In what they term “victimhood culture,” moral status is conferred by membership in groups defined by historical suffering. Victimhood becomes a social resource that can be mobilized to make demands, win arguments, and foreclose criticism. Critically, this creates competitive dynamics in which even privileged individuals seek to claim victim status (Campbell & Manning, 2014). The moral framework structurally prevents the question “is this remedy achieving equal outcomes?” from being asked, because asking it challenges the sacred status of the victim group.

This is, in the framework’s terms, religious thinking applied to secular policy — not in content but in structure: a moral hierarchy of sacred and profane groups, a set of unchallengeable commitments, and a punishment mechanism (social ostracism, professional consequences) for heresy. The cognitive architecture is the same as in every other case in this document; only the content has been swapped from conservative to progressive.

None of this implies that historical injustice is fabricated or that remedy is unnecessary. The claim is narrower: the sacralization mechanism has captured the form of the remedy and made it immune to the empirical evaluation that would tell us whether it is actually producing the equality it claims to pursue. When smart people cannot ask whether a policy is working without being accused of bigotry, analytical capacity has been redirected from evaluation to defense. That is step 5 of the causal chain, operating on the left.

---

Why Some Identity Systems Are More Durable

Five structural features predict which identity systems will prove hardest to escape and most effective at producing sacred values.

Features that increase identity durability:

1. Non-falsifiable justification. Sacred values insulated from empirical disconfirmation persist longer. Religious claims about the afterlife, ideological claims about historical destiny, and tribal claims about blood inheritance all resist the kind of evidence that could falsify them.

2. High exit costs. Identity systems that impose social, psychological, or material costs on defection retain members more effectively. Disaffiliates from high-commitment groups experience poorer health, social isolation, and existential crisis (Fenelon & Danielsen, 2016; Björkmark et al., 2021).

3. Built-in sacralization. Systems already organized around sacred/profane distinctions can more easily sacralize new contested issues. Religious frameworks have this built in; ideological movements often construct it deliberately.

4. Crisis exploitation. Identity systems that provide genuine aid during crisis create attachment in vulnerable populations. This is not malicious; it is a structural feature. Lower-income Americans have higher levels of institutional religious participation; conflict-affected populations increase participation in identity-providing institutions (ASPE; Shayo & Zussman, 2022).

5. Intergenerational transmission. The most durable identity systems transmit across generations. How someone is raised is the single best predictor of adult identity commitment (Voas & Crockett, 2005; Voas & Storm, 2012).

The neural evidence confirms the mechanism is content-independent:

Secular values (human life, health, nature, human rights) produce the same moral outrage and backfire effects as religious values when monetized (Tetlock et al., 2000; Baron & Spranca, 1997). fMRI studies testing values ranging from mundane to religious to secular moral found that ALL sacred values activated the same neural regions. “The realm of the sacred, whether it’s a strong religious belief, a national identity or a code of ethics, is a distinct cognitive process” (Berns et al., 2012).

---

Case Study 1: The Cold War (1947–1991)

The Cold War is the cleanest test of the framework because it involves two explicitly secular ideologies (Marxism-Leninism and liberal democratic capitalism) producing the same domain-specific rationality suppression documented in the religious sacred-values literature. If the mechanism were religion-specific, it should not appear here. It does.

Two superpowers, each convinced the other was a civilizational threat, spent forty-five years escalating weapons capable of ending civilization while their best analysts produced confident, technical descriptions of an enemy that did not exist in the shape they were drawing — bomber gaps, missile gaps, domino theory. None of it survived contact with declassified evidence. All of it was treated as obvious at the time, by intelligent people working in good faith.

Sacralization of secular ideology

Both blocs transformed economic and governance preferences into sacred values, transcendent moral commitments perceived as non-negotiable. The American side fused “freedom,” “democracy,” and “free enterprise” into a single identity commitment, made explicit through institutional action: “In God We Trust” added to currency (1956); “Under God” inserted into the Pledge (1954). Anti-communist ideology valorized overt patriotism, religious conviction, and faith in capitalism as a unified identity package (Schrecker, 1998; Whitfield, 1991).

The officially atheist Soviet state sacralized Marxism-Leninism with explicitly religious language. Soviet leaders proclaimed a “sacred duty” to protect socialist gains (Kramer, 1999). Historical materialism was transformed into a transcendent historical narrative with its own eschatology, saints, heresies, and inquisition. The use of religious language by an atheist state is direct evidence that the sacralization mechanism operates independently of religious content.

Domain-specific rationality suppression

Each side assumed the other’s sacred values mirrored their own, producing mirror-imaging. American analysts predicted Soviet missile production by extrapolating from U.S. industrial capacity, producing the fictional “bomber gap” and “missile gap,” because their identity-bound assumptions prevented them from modeling how a differently-sacralized state would behave (Freedman, 1986).

The Marshall Plan offered massive economic aid to all of Europe, including the Soviet bloc. Moscow rejected it not because it was materially disadvantageous but because accepting it would have been perceived as a concession to the capitalist sacred framework. This is the backfire effect in action: material incentives offered over sacred values increase hostility rather than reducing it.

McCarthyism: The internal purge

Once “anti-communism” became a sacred identity rather than a policy position, anyone who questioned any aspect of the framework was recategorized as out-group. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who built the atomic bomb, was stripped of his security clearance in 1954 for expressing reservations about the hydrogen bomb program. The man most qualified to evaluate the technology was silenced because his instrumental assessment conflicted with the sacred-value commitment (Bird & Sherwin, 2005).

The democratic trap in action

Vietnam demonstrated the terminal case. By 1967, internal Pentagon analysis showed the war was unwinnable and the domino theory was empirically unsupported. But the sacralized anti-communist identity made withdrawal politically impossible. The sacred value (“we cannot let communism advance”) overrode the instrumental assessment (“this war is not achieving its objectives”). Three more years and tens of thousands of additional deaths followed before the sacred-value lock could be broken. Even then, it required a leader (Nixon) whose anti-communist credentials were too strong to challenge. Only Nixon could go to China because only Nixon’s sacred-value identity was unassailable enough to survive a heterodox act (Ellsberg, 2002).

Non-democratic systems show the same pattern. Soviet leadership sustained a command economy long past evident failure because abandoning it meant abandoning the sacred narrative. Gorbachev’s reforms prompted a coup attempt by hardliners in August 1991, demonstrating that sacred-value constituencies attempt to remove leaders who make rational concessions regardless of formal political structure (Kornai, 1992; Brown, 1996).

---

Case Study 2: Obama as Sacred Villain (2008–2016)

The eight years of the Obama presidency (2009–2017) constitute the cleanest documented case of constructing a sacred villain in modern American politics. Identity-protective cognition, the backfire effect, sacralized boundary-drawing, and the democratic trap are all visible in this case because they ran on television, in real time, with polling data on every step. The MAGA movement documented in the next case study did not invent this architecture; it inherited and occupied it.

The Affordable Care Act provides the clearest single data point. A policy invented by Republicans, co-sponsored by 19 Republican senators, and implemented by a Republican governor swung 20–31 points in Republican approval based solely on whether it carried a Democratic president’s name. Republican voters supported the same policy in greater numbers when they were told fellow Republicans endorsed it. The content didn’t change; the team marker did.

Birtherism: sacred belief untouched by evidence

In April 2011, Donald Trump — then a reality television host who had donated to Hillary Clinton’s previous campaigns and registered as a Democrat as recently as 2001 — went on the morning shows and demanded that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate. When Obama did so on April 27, 2011, Trump took credit and did not stop. He was rewarded, five years later, with the Republican presidential nomination.

The factual claim was empirically dead the moment the long-form certificate appeared. Republican belief that Obama was foreign-born did not fall to zero; it remained elevated through his presidency, and elements of the broader “Obama is not what he says he is” framework (secret Muslim, secret socialist, secret Kenyan) persisted in Republican polling well into 2016. The factual claim was over. The identity marker was just starting.

The mechanism: continuing to hold the belief after the certificate was released marked the holder as more committed than the casual partisan. The cost of holding a refuted belief became the proof of loyalty. This is the sacred-values backfire in its most documented form — material evidence does not weaken sacred belief; it converts the belief from a factual claim into a loyalty test.

Obamacare: identical policy, opposite reactions

The Affordable Care Act demonstrates the sacred-values mechanism in particularly stark form because the same policy produces dramatically different reactions based solely on partisan labeling. The policy itself originated in Republican think tanks.

The individual mandate was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation (Butler, 1989) and co-sponsored by 19 Republican senators including Dole, Grassley, and Hatch in the HEART Act (1993). Romney implemented the Heritage-derived model in Massachusetts (2006). Romney himself acknowledged: “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare.”

Yet framing experiments show:

• 80% of Republicans strongly disapprove of “Obamacare” vs. 60% for “Affordable Care Act,” a 20-point swing for identical policy (Morning Consult, 2017)
• Republicans view “Obamacare” at net -43 vs. “ACA” at net -12, a 31-point swing from label alone (Navigator Research)
• Massachusetts “Romneycare” (2012): 62% support; National “Obamacare” (2012): 44% support
• The 2010 ACA passed with zero Republican votes despite containing the same core mechanism Republicans had proposed in 1993

Cognitive dissonance experiments confirm that attitudes are identity-based, not policy-based: Republican support for ACA increased when participants imagined fellow Republicans endorsing it (Cooper et al., 2019).

A policy invented by the Heritage Foundation, co-sponsored by 19 Republican senators, and implemented by a Republican governor produces 20–31 point swings in Republican approval based solely on whether it carries a Democratic president’s name. The variable is not the policy. It is the name.

The Garland blockade: procedural sacralization

On February 13, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died. Within hours, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not consider any nominee Obama put forward, regardless of identity or qualifications. On March 16, 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland — a moderate jurist whom Republican senators, including Hatch, had previously praised as a consensus figure. The Senate held no hearings, no committee votes, no floor consideration for 293 days. The nomination expired when the new Congress convened on January 3, 2017. There was no clear precedent in modern Supreme Court history for a Senate refusing even to hold hearings on a nominee.

The procedural innovation required the constituency to treat it as legitimate, and they did. The same constituency now treats the reverse procedure (confirming nominees in an election year when the controlling party holds the Senate) as also legitimate, as demonstrated by the Barrett confirmation in October 2020 — 30 days before the election, with early voting already underway. The stated principle (“the people deserve a voice in an election year”) was never the operative principle; the operative principle was whatever blocks the out-group. Procedural neutrality was sacralized in one direction and desacralized in the other, on the same population, within four years.

Blame-for-everything: attribution as identity-routing

A diagnostic feature of sacralized in-group/out-group thinking is the routing of bad outcomes through a single out-group leader, regardless of plausible causal connection. Obama was held responsible by majorities of Republican voters for:

• Gas price increases (governed by global oil markets, OPEC supply decisions, and Federal Reserve policy)
• ISIS territorial expansion (which followed from Iraqi state failures discussed in the failed-states case study)
• NFL players’ kneeling protests (which began in August 2016, with no Obama-era policy lever)
• The 2008 financial crisis (which originated before he took office)
• Hurricane response failures (a pattern replayed identically against the next administration under Hurricane Maria)

The list is illustrative, not exhaustive. The diagnostic is not that any one attribution is unique — every administration is blamed for things outside its control. It is that the full set of complaints converged on a single villain whose existence was the organizing principle of the identity, rather than on a policy actor whose decisions were the variable. The attribution pattern was identity-routing, not causal reasoning.

McConnell’s trap: instrumental deployment becomes institutional capture

In October 2010 Mitch McConnell told National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” The candor was unusual; the strategy was textbook three-phase exclusionary mobilization. McConnell calculated that organizing the Republican Senate caucus around sacralized opposition to a single villain would deliver electoral results. It did, in 2010 and 2014.

But once the constituency adopted the sacralization, the leadership lost the ability to walk it back. By 2013 the constituency was enforcing unanimity on leadership, not the other way around. The October 2013 government shutdown over ACA defunding was driven by House Republicans whose primary electorates would punish anything else, including Speaker Boehner, who lost his speakership in 2015 partly over insufficient combativeness. McConnell himself by 2015–16 was triangulating not against Democrats but against members of his own caucus who considered him insufficiently committed.

This is Phase 2 of the three-phase pattern documented later in this argument: instrumental deployment exceeded by constituency sacralization, with the leader trapped by the success of his own framing. The mechanism McConnell deployed in 2010 was operating on him by 2015.

Why this matters for the framework

The Obama-hate period is the precondition for MAGA. The sacred-villain identity, the willingness to hold empirically refuted beliefs as loyalty markers, the procedural sacralization, the all-bad-things-route-through-one-person attribution pattern — these were the architecture into which Donald Trump stepped in 2015. He did not build them. He identified the constituency that wanted an explicit champion and named himself that champion. Once exclusionary identity architecture is in place, a charismatic actor will discover and occupy it; the next case study documents the occupation.

---

Case Study 3: MAGA and Western Right-Wing Populism (2015–Present)

Modern Western right-wing populism provides a real-time case of the exclusionary identity mechanism operating through a hybrid of religious identity markers and secular grievance. It demonstrates that religion’s identity architecture can persist and function after the religious belief itself has receded.

Two diagnostic events. When the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, Trump’s primary polling lead expanded within days, Republican fundraising surged, and senators who had been quietly distancing themselves rushed to publicly reaffirm loyalty. In almost any other partisan context, a federal law-enforcement action would register as evidence of guilt; here it was assimilated to the sacred identity as proof of persecution. Meanwhile, of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for the January 6th Capitol attack, eight were out of Congress within two years — four defeated in primaries by Trump-endorsed challengers, four retired under credible threat of one. Liz Cheney, daughter of a Republican Vice President and the third-ranking House Republican, lost her Wyoming primary 28.9% to 66.3% to a challenger whose central qualification was that she had not cast the impeachment vote. Between 2020 and 2024 the Republican policy platform did not move materially. What moved was the in-group boundary: personal loyalty to one man became the sacred marker of belonging, and impeachment was the heresy. External challenges to a sacred identity strengthen it, and internal defectors are purged — exactly what the model predicts and exactly what ordinary partisan-coalition models do not.

Religion as identity without belief

Based on 116 interviews with populist leaders, mainstream politicians, and faith leaders in the U.S., Germany, and France, Cremer established the central finding: right-wing populists use Christianity as a cultural identity marker of the “pure people” against external “others” while often remaining disconnected from Christian values, beliefs, and institutions (Cremer, 2023).

The delivery mechanism (Christianity) is being used without the payload (Christian theology). The exclusionary identity structure persists after secularization has emptied the religious content. Secularization has removed traditional sources of collective identity, and right-wing populism fills the vacancy with a religiously-coded but theologically empty identity structure.

Status, not material interest

Ethnographic research found that MAGA participation cannot be reduced to economic self-interest. Participants expressed their need for status and suspicion of those they believed held power and used it to denigrate them (Koenig et al., 2025). The constituency Trump activated in 2015 was not new. It was the constituency Case Study 2 documented coalescing around Obama-hate. By 2015 it was looking for an explicit champion, and the Trump primary candidacy provided one.

Identity fusion with political leaders

Identity fusion has been directly measured in MAGA supporters using validated instruments:

• Fusion with Trump before 2020 predicted stronger belief in election fraud claims through 2024, creating a feedback loop reinforcing loyalty (Moniz & Swann, 2025)
• Three-wave panel around January 6th showed fusion predicts support for authoritarianism (Martel et al., 2024)
• Seven studies showed Americans fused with Trump more willing to commit political violence and persecute immigrants and Muslims (Kunst et al., 2019)

Collective narcissism (an emotionally invested belief that one’s group is exceptional but insufficiently recognized) is the strongest predictor of support for Trump using undemocratic means, outperforming right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, conservatism, and partisanship (Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2021).

The European pattern

The same mechanism appears across Western populism regardless of national context. In France, the RN employs Catholicism and laïcité as cultural identity markers against Islam while becoming increasingly secularist in policies, personnel, and electorate (Cremer, 2023b). Across European right-wing populism, religion functions primarily as an identity marker in the dimension of belonging rather than believing or behaving (Ozzano, 2025; Haynes, 2020).

The democratic trap in real-time

Republican politicians who privately recognize the irrationality of election denial cannot publicly concede without losing primary elections. Multiple Republican leaders privately condemned the January 6th attack while publicly defending or minimizing it.

The fate of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump on January 13, 2021 documents the mechanism in operation:

Member	District	Outcome	Date
Tom Rice	SC-7	Lost primary to Trump-endorsed challenger	June 14, 2022
Peter Meijer	MI-3	Lost primary to Trump-endorsed challenger	August 2, 2022
Jaime Herrera Beutler	WA-3	Lost top-two primary	August 2, 2022
Liz Cheney	WY-AL	Lost primary 28.9% – 66.3% to Hageman	August 16, 2022
Anthony Gonzalez	OH-16	Retired; cited Trump pressure	Announced Sept 2021
John Katko	NY-24	Retired	Announced Jan 2022
Adam Kinzinger	IL-16	Retired	Announced Oct 2021
Fred Upton	MI-6	Retired	Announced April 2022
Dan Newhouse	WA-4	Survived via top-two primary	Re-elected 2022
David Valadao	CA-22	Survived via top-two primary	Re-elected 2022

Eight of ten exited Congress within two years. The two survivors were both in jungle-primary states, where general-election crossover voters can outweigh primary-electorate penalties. In conventional closed-primary Republican districts, the penalty was 100%.

Selection pressure runs in the wrong direction: the constituency punishes leaders who break with the sacred commitment, and the resulting cohort is more committed than the population that elected them. The same effect was documented in Atran’s interviews with Israeli and Palestinian leaders (Atran et al., 2007) — here operating through American primary elections rather than constituency demonstrations.

---

Case Study 4: Cult of Personality Dictatorships

Cult-of-personality dictatorships represent the most extreme test of the exclusionary identity framework because they construct sacralized identity systems de novo, without inheriting religious infrastructure. Where religion takes centuries to build its exclusionary identity architecture, personality cults compress the same process into years or decades, making the mechanism’s components visible in a way that gradual religious evolution obscures.

Identity vacuum creates sacralization opportunity

Personality cults arise in societies where traditional identity structures have been destroyed. This directly parallels the vulnerability-targeting dynamic: conflict drives religiosity increase among those with fewest alternatives (Shayo & Zussman, 2022).

Charismatic leadership plays a particularly crucial role in societies that are either poorly integrated or lack regularized administrative institutions (Plamper, 2012). The pattern across cases:

• Soviet Union (1920s–30s): Monarchy, Orthodox Church, aristocracy, and traditional village structures destroyed by revolution. Stalin’s cult filled the identity vacuum.
• China (1940s–50s): Dynastic system and Confucian social order devastated by civil war, Japanese occupation, and revolution. Mao’s cult filled the vacuum.
• North Korea (1940s–50s): Japanese colonial rule suppressed Korean national identity; Buddhist and Christian institutions subsequently destroyed. Kim Il Sung’s cult filled the vacuum, absorbing elements of Confucianism, shamanism, and Christianity.
• Germany (1930s): Weimar Republic perceived as humiliating; traditional Prussian identity destroyed by WWI defeat. Hitler’s cult offered replacement identity rooted in racial mythology.

In each case: destroyed identity infrastructure → population-level identity vacuum → sacralized replacement identity centered on a leader.

Replication of religious architecture with secular content

The personality cult does not invent new cognitive architecture. It appropriates existing religious architecture and fills it with secular content. This is direct evidence that the delivery mechanism (religious forms) is separable from the payload (theological content).

The Soviet cult system replicated Orthodox Christian structures point-for-point (Plamper, 2012):

Orthodox element	Soviet replacement
Icons of saints in the “Red Corner”	Portraits of Lenin/Stalin in the “Red Corner”
Relics of saints	Lenin’s embalmed body in the Mausoleum
Scripture (Bible)	Marx’s Capital, Lenin’s Collected Works
Liturgical calendar (saints’ days)	Revolutionary calendar (October Revolution, Lenin’s birthday)
Heresy trials and excommunication	Show trials and purges
Confession and penance	Self-criticism sessions (samokritika)
Papal infallibility	Leader infallibility

North Korea’s Juche ideology appropriated elements from multiple religious traditions: from Christianity, the divine birth narrative (Kim Jong Il reportedly born on sacred Mt. Paektu under a double rainbow) and trinitarian structure (grandfather-father-son as sacred lineage); from Confucianism, filial piety transferred to the Leader as national patriarch; from shamanism, the ecstatic state of devotion. Juche has “evolved into a tri-polytheistic framework that venerates all three generations of the Kim dynasty” through “materialistic sanctification, combined with traditional symbols and rituals” (Kivrak, 2025).

Domain-specific rationality suppression

Each personality cult produced catastrophic policy failures maintained or intensified because the sacred-value commitment to the leader overrode instrumental assessment.

Stalin, Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko’s rejection of Mendelian genetics was scientifically baseless. Geneticists who objected were purged. Nikolai Vavilov, one of the world’s leading botanists, died in prison. Lysenko’s pseudoscience was maintained because it aligned with the sacred narrative (Marxist-Leninist environmental determinism), and challenging it meant challenging the Leader’s judgment (Soyfer, 1994).

Mao, Great Leap Forward. Local officials reported grossly inflated grain yields to avoid contradicting Mao’s sacred vision. The fabricated data justified grain exports while the population starved. Estimates range from 15 to 55 million deaths (Dikötter, 2010). Officials who reported accurate yields were punished as “rightists.” The entire administrative apparatus’s analytical capacity was redirected from accurate reporting toward outputs consistent with the sacralized narrative.

North Korea, perpetual economic failure. Juche self-reliance has been maintained despite profound dependence on foreign aid, including through a famine that killed an estimated 600,000 to 3 million. The sacred commitment overrides the instrumental assessment that the policy has failed.

Hitler, continuation past rational surrender. By late 1944, German military leadership recognized the war was lost. Hitler’s refusal to negotiate, combined with his Nero Decree ordering destruction of German infrastructure, represents sacred-value reasoning overriding instrumental assessment. Generals who counseled retreat were dismissed, arrested, or executed (Kershaw, 2011).

Internal purges as heresy enforcement

Every personality cult produces internal purges that function identically to religious heresy trials: the boundary of acceptable thought is defined by the sacred commitment, and anyone who crosses it, especially from within the in-group, is expelled or killed.

• Stalin’s Great Terror (1936–38): Old Bolsheviks, the original in-group, were primary targets. Show trials required public confession to impossible crimes. Estimated 750,000 executed; millions imprisoned.
• Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966–76): “Struggle sessions” forced individuals to publicly denounce their own reasoning and submit to the sacred narrative. Structurally identical to religious confession under duress.
• Kim dynasty purges: Continuous purges including Kim Jong Un’s execution of his own uncle (2013). No relationship or rank protects against deviation.
• Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives (1934): SA leadership, instrumental in the Nazis’ rise, was purged to consolidate Hitler’s sacred authority.

The pattern: the heretic is always internal. The external enemy justifies the sacred commitment, but the insider who questions is the existential threat. This matches the religious pattern: heresy (internal dissent) is punished more severely than infidelity (external non-belief).

The authoritarian variant of the democratic trap

In personality cult systems, subordinates who privately recognize the leader’s errors cannot say so without punishment. Officials competed to demonstrate loyalty by amplifying the cult, not because they believed but because insufficient loyalty was interpreted as dissent. The system selected for sycophancy (Plamper, 2012).

The Khrushchev “Secret Speech” (1956) denouncing Stalin produced physical reactions in the audience (heart attacks and suicides) because desacralization of a figure around whom identity had been fused was experienced as psychologically devastating. This is identity fusion producing the predicted response: criticism of the sacred figure triggers the same defensive response as personal attack (Swann et al., 2012).

The Georgian demonstrations of March 1956 (pro-Stalin protests after his crimes were revealed) demonstrate that sacred-value holders will defend the sacred commitment even when presented with evidence of its catastrophic consequences. This is the backfire effect: information that should rationally undermine support instead intensifies it (Ginges et al., 2007).

The feedback loop

1. Crisis (revolution, war, economic collapse) →
2. Identity vacuum (traditional structures destroyed) →
3. Sacred leader fills vacuum (personality cult established) →
4. Exclusionary identity hardening (purges, propaganda, isolation) →
5. Domain-specific rationality suppression (catastrophic policy maintained) →
6. Further crisis (famine, military defeat) →
7. Return to step 4. The crisis is attributed to insufficient devotion, intensifying the cult.

North Korea demonstrates this most clearly: the 1990s famine was reframed as the “Arduous March,” a sacred test of devotion. The policy failure became evidence for greater faith, not evidence of failure. The loop has sustained itself across three generations and seven decades.

---

Case Study 5: Failed States

Failed states test a critical prediction: if exclusionary identity is the cognitive default and cooperative structures are overlays that suppress but do not eliminate it, then removing the overlay should produce rapid reversion to exclusionary identity, and the speed of reversion should be proportional to the absence of alternative binding structures.

Yugoslavia: The paradigmatic case

Yugoslavia demonstrates the mechanism most clearly because the binding identity (Tito’s socialist federation) was explicitly designed to suppress ethnic and religious exclusionary identities. Its removal produced genocide between neighbors who had intermarried for decades.

Tito’s Yugoslavia suppressed ethnic mobilization through institutional design. Public debate on ethnic issues was forbidden; grievances had to be articulated in economic and social terms. A supranational “Yugoslav” identity was promoted. The system functioned for 35 years (1945–1980).

Tito died in 1980. Economic crisis eroded the material basis for the binding identity. The collapse of communism in 1989 removed the external threat. Into this identity vacuum stepped political entrepreneurs (primarily Milošević, Tuđman, and Karadžić) who manufactured exclusionary ethnic-religious identities through demonization.

The scholarly consensus rejects “ancient hatreds” as explanation. Leaders provoked ethnic wars specifically to gain and keep power, not because populations were demanding ethnic conflict but because elites needed exclusionary identity to maintain political relevance after socialism’s collapse (Gagnon, 2004; Woodward, 1995).

Religious institutions amplified the mechanism by providing sacralization infrastructure. The Serbian Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia, and Islamic organizations in Bosnia each “fostered the rise of ethno-nationalist ideologies” (Malešević, 2024).

Iraq: Personality cult removal as identity detonator

Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime suppressed sectarian (Sunni/Shia) and ethnic (Arab/Kurdish) identities through coercion. Intermarriage between Sunni and Shia was common in Baghdad.

The U.S. invasion of 2003 removed the personality cult and dismantled institutional infrastructure (de-Ba’athification, dissolution of the Iraqi army). The identity vacuum was immediate. Within months, sectarian militias filled the vacuum with exclusionary identities defined entirely by opposition to the sectarian other. Mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad that had coexisted for generations were ethnically cleansed within 2006–2007 (Dodge, 2013).

Somalia: Clan identity after personality cult collapse

Siad Barre’s regime (1969–1991) imposed a secular socialist identity that officially suppressed clan affiliations. Barre was overthrown in 1991. The state collapsed completely: no government, no institutions, no binding structure. The population reverted instantly to clan-based exclusionary identities. Somalia had no functioning central government for over two decades (Menkhaus, 2007).

India/Pakistan Partition: Religious identity as state-formation principle

The British Raj imposed a common administrative structure across a religiously diverse subcontinent. Independence in 1947 removed the binding structure and replaced it with a state-formation principle based explicitly on religious exclusionary identity. The result: 10–12 million displaced, 1–2 million killed in communal violence, within weeks of the boundary being announced (Khan, 2007).

The violence was not ordered from above; it emerged spontaneously as the identity boundary was formalized. This is the exclusionary identity default operating without institutional direction.

South Sudan: The demon removed by success

South Sudan’s independence movement was unified by opposition to Khartoum (Arab, Muslim, northern). Decades of civil war forged a binding identity defined entirely by the shared demon.

South Sudan achieved independence on July 9, 2011 and collapsed into civil war by December 2013, barely two years later. The binding demon had been removed by the success of the independence project. Without the shared enemy, the constituent ethnic groups (Dinka and Nuer) reverted to exclusionary sub-identities. An estimated 400,000 died (de Waal, 2014).

This confirms a critical corollary: if sacred ingroup identity is constituted by opposition to the demon, then removing the demon collapses the identity.

Lebanon: Institutionalized exclusionary identity

Lebanon’s 1943 National Pact institutionalized sectarian identity by allocating political positions by religious community. This system made sectarian identity the gateway to political power, guaranteeing that every political contest would activate exclusionary identity.

Lebanon demonstrates that institutionalizing exclusionary identity produces chronic state fragility rather than acute collapse. The confessional system is the democratic trap made permanent: representatives are selected by sectarian constituencies whose sacred commitments constrain instrumental flexibility (Salloukh et al., 2015).

The pattern

State	Binding structure	What removed it	Time to reversion	Outcome
Yugoslavia	Tito’s federation	Death + economic crisis	~5 years	Genocide, 100K+ dead
Iraq	Ba’athist cult	U.S. invasion	Months	Civil war, 200K+ dead
Somalia	Siad Barre cult	Overthrown 1991	Immediate	20+ years statelessness
India/Pakistan	British Raj	Independence 1947	Weeks	1–2M dead, nuclear standoff
South Sudan	Anti-Khartoum identity	Independence achieved	2 years	Civil war, 400K dead
Lebanon	Confessional system	Never collapsed	N/A	Chronic state weakness

Speed correlates inversely with alternative binding structures. India/Pakistan and Somalia reverted immediately; Yugoslavia took years because some institutional binding structures persisted.

The binding structure’s nature doesn’t appear to matter — only its removal does. Empires, personality cults, socialist federations, and shared enemies all function as binding identities, and when removed without replacement, reversion occurs.

Success can be as destructive as failure: South Sudan collapsed because the binding project succeeded.

---

Cross-Case Comparison

Feature	Cold War	MAGA	Personality Cults	Failed States	Israel-Palestine
Identity content	Secular ideology	Hybrid (religious + secular)	Secular + religious forms	Ethnic/religious	Religious
Sacralization	”Sacred duty”	Election integrity	Leader infallibility	Territory, blood	Land, sovereignty
Material backfire	Marshall Plan rejected	Economic populism fails	Aid = corruption	Peace deals fail	Money increases hostility
Analytical redirection	Deterrence theory	Motivated reasoning	Lysenkoism	Ethnic historiography	Expressive Rationality
Internal purges	McCarthyism	Primary challenges	Show trials	Ethnic cleansing	Marginalization
Democratic trap	Truman constrained	GOP constrained	Cannot report failures	Elites constrained	Leaders constrained
Religion required?	No	No	No	Sometimes	Yes (mechanism is identity)

The same mechanism appears in all five categories regardless of whether the content is religious, secular, or hybrid.

---

Why Exclusivist Systems Outcompete Pluralist Ones, and Why This Destroys Societies

A critical question: if exclusionary identity is so destructive, why hasn’t cultural evolution selected against it?

The answer reveals a tragic paradox: exclusivism is selected for at the group level while being selected against at the societal level. What benefits individual groups destroys the systems that contain them.

The micro-level advantage

At the group level, exclusivism wins. Exclusivist identity systems, those that define the in-group sharply against out-groups, consistently outcompete pluralist alternatives in the competition for adherents, resources, and territory.

Exclusivism generates higher in-group cohesion, higher fertility, and more aggressive expansion. Pluralistic variants exist but are perpetually outcompeted by exclusivist variants (Norenzayan, 2013; Gu et al., 2022).

The evidence across identity types:

• Religious: Strict denominations outcompete inclusive ones. Southern Baptists grew 59% while Episcopalians declined 28% (1961–1998). Orthodox Jewish fertility (3.3) vs non-Orthodox (1.4) projects Orthodox share rising from 12% to 29% in 50 years (Pew, 2015; Pew, 2021).
• Ideological: Hardline communist parties outlasted reformist ones. The Soviet Union collapsed when it liberalized; North Korea persists through maximum exclusivism.
• Political: MAGA’s exclusivist framing has captured the Republican Party while “big tent” Republicans have been marginalized.

Exclusivism is contagious

Pluralist systems facing exclusivist competitors often become exclusivist in response. “Hindu, Buddhist, and indigenous communities in India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, and elsewhere were historically open to religious diversity. However, threatened by the advance of Christian proselytism, they are now becoming intolerant of other religions” (Religious Freedom Institute).

The same dynamic appears in politics: moderate parties facing populist competitors often adopt exclusivist rhetoric to compete. Exclusivism exports itself.

The macro-level catastrophe

But what wins at the group level loses at the societal level. The same cohesion that helps groups outcompete each other harms the societies that contain them.

Exclusivism suppresses innovation. Across countries and U.S. states, religiosity is significantly negatively associated with patents per capita and favorable attitudes toward innovation, an effect that persists after controlling for GDP, education, and other variables (Bénabou et al., 2015). The cohesion that mobilizes groups for competition suppresses the cognitive diversity that produces new ideas.

Cohesion produces groupthink. High group cohesion is “the most important antecedent” to groupthink, a decision-making failure mode where desire for unanimity overrides realistic assessment (Janis, 1972). The Bay of Pigs, the Challenger disaster, and the Iraq War all demonstrate how cohesive groups produce catastrophic decisions. At the group level, cohesion is strength; at the societal level, it is blindness.

Belief helps; institutional cohesion hurts. Religious beliefs are positively associated with economic growth, but religious attendance (the cohesion component) is negatively associated. The distinguishing variable is whether identity creates internal coordination or external closure (Barro & McCleary, 2003).

Extractive institutions cannot sustain growth. When exclusivist groups capture societal institutions, those institutions become “extractive,” concentrating power and resources while suppressing competition and innovation. Extractive institutions can produce short-term growth but cannot sustain it because they block the “creative destruction” that drives long-term development (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

The multilevel selection trap

E.O. Wilson formulated the fundamental tension in evolutionary biology: “Selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals.”

This describes a levels-of-selection problem. Natural selection operates at multiple levels simultaneously (genes, individuals, groups, populations), and what is adaptive at one level can be maladaptive at another.

The tragedy of the commons as canonical example

Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons illustrates the structure:

• Individual level: Each herder benefits by adding one more cow to the common pasture.
• Group level: If everyone does this, the pasture is destroyed and everyone loses.

The individually rational strategy (add cows) produces the collectively catastrophic outcome (dead pasture). The mechanism that wins within the system destroys the system itself.

Applied to exclusionary identity

The analogous formulation: Pluralist groups lose to exclusivist groups. But societies of pluralist groups outperform societies of exclusivist groups.

Level	Competition	Winner	Evidence
Group vs. group	Strict vs. inclusive churches	Strict churches	Iannaccone, 1994
Society vs. society	Extractive vs. inclusive institutions	Inclusive institutions	Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012

The same trait (exclusivism/cohesion) is adaptive at one level and maladaptive at another. This is the trap.

Why the trap is inescapable

1. Local selection is faster and more visible. Southern Baptists outgrowing Episcopalians happens over decades and is obvious. The suppression of innovation happens over centuries and is invisible.

2. Losers at the micro level don’t survive to compete at the macro level. Pluralist groups that get outcompeted by exclusivist neighbors don’t participate in the society-level competition. Selection at the lower level eliminates contestants before the higher-level game is played.

3. Success at the micro level changes the macro environment. When exclusivist groups win locally, they capture institutions. Captured institutions become extractive. Extractive institutions suppress the innovation and cooperation that would have made the society competitive.

4. No actor has incentives to solve the problem. Each group rationally maximizes its own survival. No individual group benefits from unilateral pluralism; they would simply lose to exclusivist competitors. This is a coordination problem with no natural solution.

The institutional solution, and why exclusivists destroy it

David Sloan Wilson formalized multilevel selection for human societies. His key insight: groups can solve tragedies of the commons by developing institutions (norms, rules, enforcement mechanisms) that suppress within-group competition and allow group-level selection to dominate.

Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize documenting exactly this: communities that successfully manage common-pool resources do so through institutional design that aligns individual and collective incentives (Ostrom, 1990).

The implication: binding structures that prevent exclusivist groups from destroying each other are themselves institutions. Empires, federations, supranational identities, international law: these constrain micro-level competition so that macro-level cooperation can occur. When these institutions collapse (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia), micro-level competition is unleashed and destroys the society.

But this reveals the deepest version of the trap: exclusivist groups are selected to destroy the very institutions that constrain them.

If binding institutions prevent exclusivist groups from winning, then exclusivist groups have selective pressure to undermine those institutions. Brexit, nationalist attacks on the EU, populist attacks on international organizations, MAGA hostility to “globalism”: these are micro-level actors correctly perceiving that macro-level institutions constrain their competitive advantage.

Groups that would win without the referee have every incentive to eliminate the referee.

The tipping point

The failed states evidence (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan) demonstrates where the tipping point lies. Exclusivism becomes catastrophic when:

1. Exclusivist groups capture societal institutions, transforming them from inclusive to extractive, from coordinating to coercive.
2. Binding structures that contain inter-group competition collapse, removing the constraints that prevent micro-level competition from producing macro-level destruction.
3. The scale of required cooperation exceeds group boundaries. Modern economies require cooperation networks larger than any exclusivist group can encompass.
4. Innovation becomes more important than mobilization. In environments where adaptation matters more than cohesion, exclusivist groups lose.

The mechanism is optimized for inter-group competition in small-scale societies with stable environments. It is catastrophically mismatched to modern conditions, which require large-scale cooperation, rapid adaptation, and institutional constraint on group competition. The groups that win the local competition destroy the arena that lets the competition happen at all.

---

Intentional Deployment and the Sacralization Escape

Is the exclusionary identity mechanism exploited deliberately by political entrepreneurs, or does it emerge accidentally from structural conditions? Both, and how the two interact is what makes the dynamic so hard to contain. The cognitive substrate is evolved and permanent; its exploitation by political entrepreneurs is calculated and strategic; and once activated beyond a threshold, the mechanism sacralizes and escapes the control of whoever initiated it.

Evidence of intentional deployment

Ethnic riots as electoral technology: Hindu-Muslim riots in India are strategically deployed political instruments. Politicians incite riots when they need to consolidate ethnic voting blocs; they prevent riots when they need minority support (Wilkinson, 2004).

Elite symbol manipulation: Ethnic identity is not a fixed characteristic but a resource that elites mobilize for political purposes. Ethnic myths and symbols are deliberately manipulated to create politically useful identity categories (Brass, 1991).

Identity categories as strategic choices: In Zambia and Kenya, the shift from one-party to multiparty rule changed which ethnic identities were politically relevant, demonstrating that the identities themselves are interchangeable (Posner, 2007).

Manufactured ethnic war: Yugoslav leaders provoked ethnic conflict not because populations demanded it, but because elites needed exclusionary identity mobilization to maintain political relevance after socialism’s collapse (Gagnon, 2004).

The three-phase pattern

Phase 1: Instrumental deployment. The entrepreneur identifies a latent exclusionary identity and activates it through demonization. The deployment is calculated. Examples: Milošević activating Serbian nationalism (1987–89); Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric (2015); BJP scheduling religious processions before elections.

Phase 2: Sacralization exceeds instrumental purpose. The identity activated instrumentally becomes sacralized by the constituency. The followers’ commitment now exceeds the entrepreneur’s intention. The entrepreneur discovers they cannot de-escalate without being replaced by someone more extreme.

The neural mechanism explains why: fMRI studies show that once values become sacred, cost-benefit regions (dlPFC, IFG, parietal cortex) show diminished activity while threat-response regions activate (Hamid et al., 2019). The constituency is no longer calculating; they are defending identity. The entrepreneur’s rational de-escalation triggers the same neural response as external attack.

This is the democratic trap closing on the manipulator: Milošević could not accept peace in 1992–93 even when it would have served his interests, Trump could not concede 2020 because the constituency’s commitment had sacralized, and Hutu Power escalated to genocide despite the outcome serving no instrumental purpose.

Phase 3: Autonomous self-reinforcement. The sacralized identity self-reinforces through the feedback loop. The original instrumental purpose is forgotten. The entrepreneur is either consumed by the fire they started or becomes a figurehead for a movement that has outgrown them. Examples: Milošević at The Hague; Hitler in the bunker; the Kim dynasty maintaining Juche across three generations.

The two-party system as structural vulnerability

The American two-party system is a minimal group paradigm at national scale. It creates exactly the binary categorization that produces bias from nothing (Tajfel et al., 1971). Cross-cutting cleavages that prevent identity consolidation cannot survive when everything sorts into two bins.

The “Big Sort” documents the result: Americans have self-segregated along partisan lines so that party identity now correlates with religion, race, geography, education, media consumption, and cultural values simultaneously (Bishop, 2008). Partisan identity has achieved the structural features of religious identity: comprehensive, hard to exit, and self-reinforcing.

In a two-party system, political entrepreneurs are structurally incentivized to deploy demonization, because the binary structure guarantees a ready-made outgroup. The only durable intervention is structural reform (ranked-choice voting, multi-member districts, proportional representation) that creates institutional space for cross-cutting identities.

Who controls the mechanism?

Once exclusionary identity sacralizes, it stops serving any actor’s instrumental purposes and starts serving its own reproductive logic: demonization, then sacralization, then identity hardening, then further demonization. Both the deployer and the deployed end up subordinate to the dynamic they entered.

The donor class thought they were using populism. Trump thought he was using the Republican Party. The MAGA base thinks it is defending its way of life. All three are correct about their instrumental purposes, and all three are being carried by a mechanism operating independently of their intentions.

---

Remaining Open Research Questions

1. Can fundamentally inclusive groups sustain cohesion without generating out-group bias?
2. What is the minimum viable intervention at the sacralization step?
3. Does the democratic trap have structural solutions?
4. Is there a threshold of exclusivist content in founding texts that predicts intergroup violence?

---

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business. [2024 Nobel Prize in Economics for related work on institutions.]

ASPE. Role of religiosity in the lives of the low-income population: A comprehensive review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/role-religiosity-lives-low-income-population-comprehensive-review-evidence-0

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Anderson, A. H. (2014). An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583450

Atran, S. (2016). The devoted actor: Unconditional commitment and intractable conflict across cultures. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), S192–S203. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/685495

Atran, S., Axelrod, R., & Davis, R. (2007). Sacred barriers to conflict resolution. Science, 317(5841), 1039–1040. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1144241

Atran, S., & Axelrod, R. (2008). Reframing sacred values. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 221–246. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/24/3/221/122004/Reframing-Sacred-Values

Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2012). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336(6083), 855–857. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1216902

Barker, E. (1984). The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-13246-5.

Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1–16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S074959789792690X

Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003). Religion and economic growth across countries. American Sociological Review, 68(5), 760–781. https://www.nber.org/papers/w9682

Bayrak, R., Dogruyol, B., Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2025). Cognitive reflection and religious belief: A test of two models. Judgment and Decision Making, 20, e4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/cognitive-reflection-and-religious-belief-a-test-of-two-models/5EFE1B122D8D4DC44CF2F0F330D50C0B

Beissinger, M. R. (2002). Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge University Press.

Bénabou, R., Ticchi, D., & Vindigni, A. (2015). Religion and innovation. American Economic Review, 105(5), 346–351. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21052

Berns, G. S., et al. (2012). The price of your soul: Neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367(1589), 754–762. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3260841/

Bird, K., & Sherwin, M. J. (2005). American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Knopf.

Bishop, B. (2008). The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. Houghton Mifflin.

Björkmark, M., Nynäs, P., & Koskinen, C. (2021). “Living between two different worlds”: Experiences of leaving a high-cost religious group. Journal of Religion and Health, 62, 1063–1082. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-021-01397-1

Brass, P. R. (1991). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. Sage Publications.

Brown, A. (1996). The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford University Press.

Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2014). Microaggression and moral cultures. Comparative Sociology, 13(6), 692–726. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341332

Butler, S. M. (1989). Assuring affordable health care for all Americans. The Heritage Lectures, 218. Heritage Foundation.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cooper, J., Feldman, L. A., & Blackman, S. F. (2019). Influencing Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes toward Obamacare. Journal of Social Psychology, 159(1), 112–117. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29659334/

Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: The tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560210423023

Cox, H. (1995). Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-62656-8.

Cremer, T. (2023). The Godless Crusade: Religion, Populism and Right-Wing Identity Politics in the West. Cambridge University Press.

Cremer, T. (2023b). The rise of the post-religious right: Christianism and secularism in the French Rassemblement National. Party Politics, 29(4), 613–624. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13540688211046859

de Waal, A. (2014). When kleptocracy becomes insolvent: Brute causes of the civil war in South Sudan. African Affairs, 113(452), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adu028

Dehghani, M., et al. (2010). Sacred values and conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(7), 540–546. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/sacred-values-and-conflict-over-irans-nuclear-program/46BB4FEA5A1B525413D6EC7F0F9384EC

Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962. Bloomsbury. [Samuel Johnson Prize winner.]

Dodge, T. (2013). Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism. Routledge.

Ellsberg, D. (2002). Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. Viking.

Fenelon, A., & Danielsen, S. (2016). Leaving my religion: Understanding the relationship between religious disaffiliation, health, and well-being. Social Science Research, 57, 49–62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X16000284

Freedman, L. (1986). U.S. Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Funke, M., Schularick, M., & Trebesch, C. (2016). Going to extremes: Politics after financial crises, 1870–2014. European Economic Review, 88, 227–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.03.006

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.

Gagnon, V. P. (2004). The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s. Cornell University Press.

Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904

Golec de Zavala, A., & Lantos, D. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The bad and the ugly. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420917703

Galofré-Vilà, G., Meissner, C. M., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2021). Austerity and the rise of the Nazi party. Journal of Economic History, 81(1), 81–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050720000601

Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. PNAS, 104(18), 7357–7360. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701768104

Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2009). Noninstrumental reasoning over sacred values: An Indonesian case study. In D. Bartels et al. (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 50 (pp. 193–206). Academic Press. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079742108004064

Gómez, Á., et al. (2011). Rejected and excluded forevermore, but even more devoted. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1574–1586. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22045779/

Grigoryan, L., et al. (2022). Helping the ingroup versus harming the outgroup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 105, 104436. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210312200155X

Gu, Y., Mao, C. X., & Johnson, T. (2022). Evidence supporting a cultural evolutionary theory of prosocial religions. Scientific Reports, 12, 5239. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09322-6

Guiso, L., Herrera, H., Morelli, M., & Sonno, T. (2022). Economic insecurity and the demand for populism in Europe. Working paper, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/financial-crises-drivers-populism-new-channel

Hamid, N., et al. (2019). Neuroimaging ‘will to fight’ for sacred values. Royal Society Open Science, 6(6), 181585. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6599782/

Haynes, J. (2020). Right-wing populism and religion in Europe and the USA. Religions, 11(10), 490. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/11/10/490

Henrich, J., et al. (2019). War increases religiosity. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 129–135. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0512-3

Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1180–1211. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/230409

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038

Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. P. (2012). Religiosity and prejudice revisited. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(2), 154–168. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0025107

Kaplan, J. T., Gimbel, S. I., & Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports, 6, 39589. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39589

Keenan, O., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2021). Collective narcissism and weakening of American democracy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12274

Kershaw, I. (2011). The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1944–1945. Penguin.

Khan, Y. (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. Yale University Press.

Kivrak, E. (2025). The transformation of Juche ideology into a polytheistic political religion. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 26(3). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21567689.2025.2584222

Koenig, B., & Mendelberg, T. (2025). The symbolic politics of status in the MAGA movement. Perspectives on Politics. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/symbolic-politics-of-status-in-the-maga-movement/A22AC624B4D1FF7367D9912F23875F4B

Kornai, J. (1992). The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism. Princeton University Press.

Kramer, M. (1999). Ideology and the Cold War. Review of International Studies, 25(4), 539–576. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/abs/ideology-and-the-cold-war/272D085482D22A30F32BF672A7FD439E

Kunst, J. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Thomsen, L. (2019). Fusion with political leaders predicts willingness to persecute immigrants and political opponents. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(11), 1180–1189. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0708-1

Lalich, J. (2004). Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24018-6.

Lofland, J., & Stark, R. (1965). Becoming a world-saver: A theory of conversion to a deviant perspective. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 862–875. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090965

Malešević, S. (2024). Grounding civic nationhood: The rise and fall of Yugoslav nationalism, 1918–91. Canadian Slavonic Papers. https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2024.2357057

Martel, F. A., Moniz, P., Ashokkumar, A., & Swann, W. B. (2024). Identity fusion and support for political authoritarianism: Lessons from the U.S. insurrection of 2021. Political Psychology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12979

Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-52454-2.

McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.38.18451

Medin, D. L., & Sachdeva, S. (2009). Group Identity Salience in Sacred Value Based Cultural Conflict. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/87h4g4q5

Menkhaus, K. (2007). Governance without government in Somalia: Spoilers, state building, and the politics of coping. International Security, 31(3), 74–106. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/31/3/74/11882/Governance-without-Government-in-Somalia-Spoilers

Moniz, P., & Swann, W. B. (2025). The power of Trump’s big lie: Identity fusion, internalizing misinformation, and support for Trump. PS: Political Science & Politics. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/power-of-trumps-big-lie-identity-fusion-internalizing-misinformation-and-support-for-trump/AF2A0DBE08319E0E3944825E187EDBCC

Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618

Newson, M., Buhrmester, M., & Whitehouse, H. (2016). Explaining lifelong loyalty: The role of identity fusion and self-shaping group events. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0160427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160427

Newson, M., Bortolini, T., Buhrmester, M., da Silva, S. R., da Aquino, J. N. Q., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Brazil’s football warriors: Social bonding and intergroup violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(6), 675–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.06.010

Newson, M., Shiramizu, V., Buhrmester, M., Hattori, W., Jong, J., Yamamoto, M. E., & Whitehouse, H. (2020). Devoted fans release more cortisol when watching live soccer matches. Stress and Health, 36(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2924

Norenzayan, A. (2013). Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. [2009 Nobel Prize in Economics.]

Ozzano, L. (2025). Right-wing populist parties as agents of religionization or secularization? Religions, 16(12), 1521. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/12/1521

Pew Research Center. (2006). Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/

Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s Changing Religious Landscape. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Pew Research Center. (2021). Jewish Americans in 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/

Plamper, J. (2012). The Stalin Cult: A Study in the Alchemy of Power. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169522/the-stalin-cult/

Posner, D. N. (2007). Regime change and ethnic cleavages in Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 40(11), 1302–1327. http://danielnposner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Posner-2007.pdf

Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667106

Religious Freedom Institute. Proselytism or a global ethic? https://religiousfreedominstitute.org/2016-7-12-proselytism-or-a-global-ethic/

Saletan, W. (2020). “Defund the police” is a self-destructive slogan. Slate. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/defund-police-slogan-election-polls-democrats.html

Salloukh, B. F., et al. (2015). The Politics of Sectarianism in Postwar Lebanon. Pluto Press.

Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30

Schaafsma, J., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Exclusion, intergroup hostility, and religious fundamentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 829–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.015

Schrecker, E. (1998). Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Little, Brown.

Shayo, M., & Zussman, A. (2022). Does armed conflict increase individuals’ religiosity? Social Science & Medicine, 294, 114710. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953622000727

Sheikh, H., Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2013). Religion, group threat and sacred values. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2), 110–118. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/religion-group-threat-and-sacred-values/03A14F993FE473F87D89C5772B668D83

Sheikh, H., Gómez, Á., & Atran, S. (2016). Empirical evidence for the devoted actor model. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), S204–S209. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/686221

Snow, D. A., Zurcher, L. A., Jr., & Ekland-Olson, S. (1980). Social networks and social movements: A microstructural approach to differential recruitment. American Sociological Review, 45(5), 787–801. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094895

Soyfer, V. N. (1994). Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science. Rutgers University Press.

Svensson, I., & Nilsson, D. (2018). Disputes over the divine: Introducing the RELAC data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(5), 1127–1148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6249647/

Swann, W. B., et al. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441–456. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028589

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Tetlock, P. E., et al. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10821194/

Voas, D., & Crockett, A. (2005). Religion in Britain: Neither believing nor belonging. Sociology, 39(1), 11–28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038505048998

Voas, D., & Storm, I. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of religious service attendance. Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 25(2), 131–150. https://www.scup.com/doi/10.18261/ISSN1890-7008-2012-02-02

Whitehouse, H., McQuinn, B., Buhrmester, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2014). Brothers in arms: Libyan revolutionaries bond like family. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(50), 17783–17785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416284111

Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. (2014). The ties that bind us: Ritual, fusion, and identification. Current Anthropology, 55(6), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1086/678698

Whitfield, S. J. (1991). The Culture of the Cold War. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India. Cambridge University Press.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

Woodward, S. (1995). Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War. Brookings Institution Press.

Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868309349693

---

Related Documents

• The Antisocial Contract (Simple Version): A simplified overview of the argument
• The Democratic Trap: Structural solutions to sacred-value distortion in democracies
• Scriptural Exclusivism: Testing whether scriptural exclusivist content predicts intergroup violence
• Citation Meta-Analysis: Verification status and links for all citations
• Logical Leaps Audit: Audit of every inferential step in the argument chain