Introducing the Cathartic Imperative--a New Way of Understanding Human and Political Behavior

This is the first of a number of posts introducing the concept of the cathartic imperative--a concept I first developed nearly ten years ago.

Most critiques of society view the individual primarily as a consumer, be it of food, products, fuel, or culture. We take much of our identity from what we consume—the books we read, the kind of food we prefer, the house we choose to live in, the car we drive, the clothes we wear, the places we travel to. Marketers constantly attempt to bond us emotionally to this or that product, selling not only what it does for us, but what it says about who we are and what we value. 

But consumption accounts for only one side of our behavior and impact on the world. The other side, broadly defined here as catharsis, is in some ways more profound and urgent than consumption and more likely to determine our fate. If consumption involves a taking in, then catharsis at its most basic refers to getting what is inside out. 

 

That something needing to get out could be physical--that which we purge from our bodies and our homes--but it could also be emotional or intellectual--a love song or a rant. It could be as simple as an exhale, or as elaborate as a symphony. It could be something beautiful a friend shares with you, or the blame someone tries to dump on you. It can be experienced in a car, theater, concert hall or stadium, in the bedroom or bathroom, at a political demonstration, or most tellingly for democracy, in the voting booth.

The duality of our being, as consumers and catharsers (or catharsians, if you wish), is most immediately apparent in our breathing. Each inhale (consumption) is necessarily followed by catharsis (exhale). Both are critical to our survival. Most people think the main purpose of breathing is to supply our bodies with oxygen, but equally important is the export of carbon dioxide with every exhale. Our bodies are constantly producing carbon dioxide as we metabolize our food. Being a powerful molecule within us--beneficial or lethal depending on its concentration--carbon dioxide's constant buildup poses an existential threat. Only through exhale can we rid our bodies of excess and maintain safe levels of carbon dioxide in our bloodstream. 

Catharsis originally meant to cleanse oneself of unwanted emotions through theater, but medicine adopted the term, first to refer to a physical clearing of the bowels, then later to describe a therapeutic breakthrough in which long repressed emotions or memories are released. 

 

These specialized uses of the term are insufficient for our times. Breathing shows how consumption and catharsis are equally important to our survival, and yet cultural bias has long kept awareness and discussion of our cathartic nature suppressed. Our gross national product is not as yet paired with our gross national biproduct. 

That bias is built into our language. Though we have the word "catharsis" to pair with "consumption," we have no similar match for the word "consumer." I have had to invent the words "catharser" and "catharsian" to fill a void in our language. That void has long skewed how we view ourselves, and left us unaware of the powerful way in which the cathartic imperative can affect our behavior, and influence the trajectory of our relationships and our politics. 

Catharsis is most satisfying if it is complete. Take a series of shallow breaths, and then take a deep breath, filling yourself with air and slowly letting it all out. That long, deep exhale can be profoundly satisfying. It's also more satisfying to be completely dismissive, to fully vent one's anger, to find nothing redeeming in a person one dislikes. The more odious the bowel movement, the more satisfying to get it out of one's body and flush it down and away. Action movies nurture hatred for the bad guy, then send him packing. Political campaigns seek to do the same. 

One thing I do in life is teach people about plants. Oftentimes, someone who has just learned to recognize a new plant will be astonished to discover that it's growing all around them. It was there all along, in full view yet unnoticed. Once you understand the cathartic imperative in its many physical, emotional, linguistic, and political forms, you will begin to see it everywhere. It's in words like "all", "totally!", "completely", "nowhere" and "everywhere"--all those words that leave no room for exception. It's in our tendency to generalize, to stereotype, and to summarily reject. It's in projection, and the reflex to blame others. It's in the electorate's tendency to "throw the bums out" in mid-term elections. It's in the human need for enemies. 

Better awareness of the cathartic side of our natures can lead to better understanding of the need to demonize others, the need for enemies, and why people can be so susceptible to lies that deepen their dislike of the "Other." 

Artificial Polarization in American Politics

Sometimes, large parts of reality get missed for lack of a word to describe them. As a naturalist, I watch this happen over and over when I teach people to identify a new plant. If it is a common weed, once they learn to recognize it, they will suddenly start seeing it everywhere. Before they learned the plant's leaf shape and appearance, it had simply blended into the sea of green, seen yet unseen. People feel empowered when they can identify a plant and give it a name. The same can happen in politics, where people can feel demoralized, awash in a sea of polarization. But not all polarization is the same.

One of the most useful terms for understanding politics in the U.S. and elsewhere is one you've probably never heard before. Do an internet search for "artificial polarization", and you'll be presented with esoteric articles about the artificial polarization of light in photography and lasers. My father, an astronomer, discovered the polarization of light in space. But most of us are more earthbound, and associate polarization with politics. We live in a highly polarized time, people say, and shake their heads.

The question needs to be asked, however: How much of that polarization is real--that is, growing out of genuine disagreement about policy--and how much of it is artificially produced? If someone lies, an artificial polarization between truth and assertion is immediately created. If someone doubles down on a lie, artificial polarization is sustained. Denial of human-caused climate change is an example of sustained artificial polarization, as is the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. False claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen are another example of creating polarization where there need be none.

What purpose does artificial polarization play in political life? It is politically expedient, of course, to ignore the overwhelming evidence and pretend that burning fossil fuels and cutting taxes have no downside. Weaning ourselves of fossil fuels, and paying the full cost of government services, would require sacrifice. Denying these problems lets voters off the hook. But that doesn't explain the demonization of vaccines that could save the lives of your supporters. 

Beyond the opportunism of willful wishful thinking, the creation of artificial polarization achieves two goals. The first goal achieved through artificial polarization is a sense of identity. Consensus is dangerous for politicians. The road to anonymity is paved with agreement. Identity is built on difference. From this perspective, unifying forces like truth become a threat to political identity. Climate change is perhaps the most potentially unifying threat we face. Each one of us, regardless of political or national affiliation, is part of the problem and part of the solution. Rallying to save ourselves and nature would require acknowledging common interest and working together towards a common goal. 

The second goal of artificial polariation is the maintenance of a despised Other, that is, an enemy that can be used to rally and sustain a loyal following. People feel lifted up if they can look down on something or somebody. An outside threat, real or imaginary, can give people a sense of purpose, and help them forget their own problems and inadequacies. Make people feel victimized by some outside entity and you can fuel a movement. Often, the despised Other is of another race or religion. The federal government, too, became a despised Other in the 1960s and 70s when it was forcibly drafting young men to risk their lives in Vietnam. In contrast, today's anti-government protest, evolving from the Reagan and Gingrich eras in the 1980s and '90s, is fueled by such things as stoked resentment of vaccines that can save lives.

An Other cannot be fully and satisfyingly despised if the Other is sometimes right. It must, therefore, be always wrong, and sometimes this means creating lies that suggest the Other is wrong even when they are right.

The aim here is to encourage journalists and others to avoid generalized, generic laments about political polarization, and rather make clear distinctions between politicians who are generating polarization artificially through lies and denial, and those who are sticking closer to truth. 

Afterword:

Just to show how rarely this highly useful term is used in political discourse, below are the results of googling "artificial polarization" (with the quotes) in Sept 2025. A related post of mine from five years ago is the only politically oriented webpage that shows up.

To get results related to politics, try googling "artificial polarization" politics. 

Can Trump Be Effectively Portrayed as Weak?

Perceptions of strength are critical in elections, so it's surprising that strength and weakness in politicians is written around more than about. At this moment in history, Trump is newly elected to a second term, ascendant, wielding powers no previous president dared claim. His opponents are in disarray, largely helpless to stop him. To suggest that he is weak in any way must deal with the reality that the entire Republican Party now cowers in fear before him. and as he dismantles government agencies and slashes funding for scientific research, that fear of his wrath is quickly spreading beyond Party, beyond government, penetrating deep into the fabric of the nation. He wields his disruptive powers on the world stage as well, using tariffs and whatever threats he has at his disposal to bend other nations to his will. 

Amidst this aggressive wielding of power, how can Trump be portrayed as weak? While he forcefully imposes his will on his Party, the government, and even the arts, seeking revenge upon his enemies wherever they may be, this wielding of power hides a man who is on the run, from truth, from tough issues like climate change and fiscal responsibility, from consequence for his criminal actions. Merciless towards others, he claims himself exempt from basic standards of conduct and comity. Though seemingly thick-skinned, unfazed by fierce criticism and public mockery few of us could bear or survive, he has no tolerance for contrary opinion that might test his intellect, firing anyone who dares question his actions. His strength depends on making others weaker. As with other members of his Party, he stands only because he is coddled and propped up by a rightwing propaganda machine that is hard on others, soft on self. In these ways, he and his Party are decidedly weak and insecure.

Strength, then, is a matter of perception. A Democratic Party seeking to shift the public's perception of strength would repeatedly cast Trump's actions as those of a weak man. Otherwise, come the next election, people who run from tough issues and are propped up by propaganda, who stridently demand accountability in others but not themselves, will again be falsely viewed by the electorate as strong.

In researching this topic, I encountered a few other takes on strength and weakness.

Various angles have been used in the past to portray Trump as weak. Back in 2020, one commentator at Politico declared Trump an "authoritarian weakman" because he didn't exploit the pandemic to consolidate his power. Four years plotting his comback while gaining more experience with stymying the judicial system, certainly renders that critique obsolete.

The 2024 Democratic National Convention touched on perceptions of strength. Republican former Rep. Adma Kinzinger characterized Trump as a "weak man pretending to be strong." Another speaker described Kamala Harris's empathy as her strength. 

Another commentator, Ezra Klein, said in February that "Trump is acting like a king because he is too weak to govern like a president," meaning that a stronger leader would achieve his ends through legislation rather than executive orders. Time has shown that he can get the legislation he wants, to back up his executive orders.

Kamala Harris offered this attempt to make the word stick, in a facebook post:

Donald Trump is weak.
He seeks flattery from dictators: Weak.
He has demeaned America's military: Weak.
He has called for terminating the Constitution: Weak.

In each election, Democrats have seemed to me to be swimming upstream. The political current flowing against them has long taken the form of misperceptions of foundational values like strength, economic vitality, freedom, and opportunity. Values typically associated with Democrats, like justice, fairness, and compassion are important, but the Democratic Party also needs to take ownership of values falsely claimed by Republicans.

How to change the current? From what I remember of Obama's presidency, he periodically delivered long, thoughtful speeches on this or that pressing topic, and then seemed to think his job was done. A political tide is not shifted by saying something only once, no matter how well. Weakening the Republican false claim to foundational values requires repetitive messaging, taking each Republican action or inaction as additional proof of unworthiness--as an opportunity to say "There they go again." Only then does the drum beat begin to be heard and perceptions begin to shift.

So much is changing in the political landscape, as a democracy's battle of ideas becomes eclipsed by a battle for raw power. The expanding bubble of misinformation into which many voters are being drawn brings into question the extent to which good messaging can reach those it seeks to sway. But as increasingly aggressive gerrymandering threatens to further tip the scales against Democrats, the importance of reclaiming foundational values like strength become all the more important.

Related Posts:

When Political Cowardice Poses as Strength

False Representations of Conservatives as Tough