Authoritarianism and the Amygdala
A quick response to Gabor Maté's latest article in The Guardian
Earlier today, Dr. Gabor Maté—a physician and trauma activist whose work I generally admire (and have cited and defended on this Substack)—shared a short article he wrote for The Guardian on his Instagram page.
He writes:
“The American psychologist, Michael Milburn, has studied the childhood antecedents of rightwing ideological rigidity. His research confirms that the harsher the parenting atmosphere people were exposed to as young children, the more prone they are to support authoritarian or aggressive policies, such as foreign wars, punitive laws and the death penalty.
“We used physical punishment in childhood as a marker of dysfunctional family environment,” Milburn said. “There was significantly more support for the capital punishment, opposition to abortion and the use of military force, particularly among males who had experienced high levels of physical punishment, especially if they had never had psychotherapy.” I was intrigued by that last finding.
“Psychotherapy,” Milburn said, “speaks to a potential for self-examination, for self-reflection.” Self-reflection, something the fascist mentality cannot abide, can soften the heart.
Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in people with more rightwing views. It is more active in those favoring strong protective authority and harboring a suspicion of outsiders and of people who are different. This is a telling finding, because we know that the development of the circuitry of the brain is decisively influenced by the child’s emotional environment in the early years.”
Earlier in the essay, Maté compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. I really don’t think you have to be a fan of Trump (I’m not) to recognize that this is an incredibly offensive and inaccurate comparison (notably, Trump does not appear to be antisemitic, sent exactly zero people to be murdered in gas chambers during his first presidential term, and even his harshest critics admit he did not launch any invasions into other countries).
Maté’s argument seems to rest on the assumption that right-wing people are inherently authoritarian, whereas left-wing people are not (i.e. it seems to deny the existence of left-wing authoritarianism).
I honestly don’t even know where to begin. What about the Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates? What about progressive “woke” cancel culture? I’ve thrown some extremely left-wing arguments out on the Internet before, and, frankly, I’ve never experienced anything from “right-wingers” like the (attempted) silencing, shaming, and bullying I’ve been on the receiving end of from self-identified “left-wingers” when I’ve shared relatively mild opinions that are outside the increasingly rigid confines of what “woke” activists seem to find ideologically acceptable. This is, to put it mildly, not an unusual experience.
What about literally any of the authoritarian communist and Marxist revolutions and regimes that have occurred worldwide? The Soviet Union started off as a left-wing revolution. China’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were also “left-wing” (for more on this, I highly recommend this podcast interview with Xi Van Fleet and
). The freaking Iranian Revolution was supported by Marxists and leftists!
Obviously, I’m not denying the existence of right-wing authoritarianism. I’m stating the incredibly obvious fact that extremism and authoritarianism1 can pop up on both the “left” and the “right” and equating holding “right-wing” views to being an authoritarian is just incorrect.
“Extremism of any flavor can do harm. But the truth is the science on this question is fairly limited. One recent study reviewed current LWA [left-wing authoritarianism] literature. Rather than overt interpersonal violence, this review highlights more subtle forms of harm and social control among LWA movements. For example, studies highlight strategies such as bullying or shunning those of differing viewpoints, as well as pushing LWA attitudes through censorship of others. These interpersonal rebuffs may be rooted in seeing threats everywhere and dogmatic adherence to one's ideology.
Interestingly, the same study showed that LWA may be driven by being emotionally reactive and holding grievances against others. LWA is also linked with signs of mental distress, such as symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Another European study of social media users addressed how LWA may be specifically linked with perceived grievance and prejudice. LWA relates to the tendency to see sexism and White privilege in everyday life, as well as holding negative views of men. These patterns are nearly the exact opposite of existing evidence on RWA.”
— Robert J. Cramer, “The Psychology of Left-Wing Authoritarianism”, Psychology Today, June 12, 2024
However, setting politics aside, my bigger issue with Maté’s essay is that his science is bad. As his subtitle suggests, he seems to be arguing that a larger amygdala—which he correctly claims is correlated with more “right-wing” views—is also associated with greater mental illness, authoritarian tendencies, and childhood trauma (i.e. complex PTSD). But there’s a lot of evidence that contradicts this claim.
For example:
Research has found that being high in psychopathy is associated with a smaller than average amygdala size.
Research has also found that a lower amygdala volume is associated with childhood aggression, early psychopathic traits, and “severe and persistent aggression” and violence.
There is also some research showing a smaller than average amygdala size in people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (the evidence for this is more mixed than the above finding, however).
A smaller amygdala has also been found to be associated with a higher risk of developing PTSD, regardless of the severity of trauma.
Research on amygdala size and trauma is more complicated than Maté acknowledges; for example, “[c]hildhood trauma is associated with increases in amygdala volume, whereas traumatic stress in adulthood is associated with reductions in amygdala volume.” At least some evidence seems to suggest that children experiencing abuse and neglect will have overactive and enlarged amygdalae, which subsequently shrink in adulthood.
“Enlarged amygdala findings were typically encountered in children or young adults exposed to early neglect, whereas reduced amygdala volume findings were most frequently observed in adults with serious psychiatric disorders who were probably exposed to abuse throughout childhood. Some of us have hypothesized that early maltreatment is associated with an increase in amygdala volume, but only in individuals with minimal exposure to subsequent stressors, and that early exposure sensitizes the amygdala so that subsequent stressors are associated with a graded decrease in volume.”
Abnormal amygdala growth is also associated with diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder: “In typical people, the amygdala continues to grow for longer into adulthood than other brain regions do. In people with autism, by contrast, it grows faster than normal in early childhood, up until around age 12, and then tapers off, and it may even shrink.” In other words, a smaller than average amygdala in adulthood would theoretically correlate with higher autistic traits.
Autistic traits appear to be positively correlated with transgender identification and belief in queer and/or progressive woke ideology—i.e. with radical leftism.
Autistic traits may also increase the risk of extremist radicalization and terrorism-related activities.
The amygdala is not just responsible for mediating fear. It also plays a role in aggression, learning through rewards and punishment, implicit memory, social communication and understanding, emotions that relate to parenting and caregiving, emotions connected to memory, learned behaviours related to addiction, and risk and effort-based decision-making. As well, “[a] bigger, better developed amygdala means a more developed sense of empathy … which, in turn, means a greater disposition to acts of generosity and selflessness.”
Research has also found that liberals—and in particular those with extreme left-wing views—have higher rates of diagnosed mental illness than conservatives. This is particularly true of young, white liberal women.
Unfortunately for Maté, this suggests that the finding that right-wingers2 have larger amygdalae than left-wingers may actually indicate that right-wingers are LESS likely to have experienced childhood trauma, LESS likely to have a mental illness, LESS likely to develop PTSD, and LESS likely to be psychopathic or have borderline personality disorder. This also suggests that, on average, people who lean more “right wing” have higher levels of empathy than left-wingers.
This interpretation would align more with the finding that leftists are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness than right-wingers.
It also seems to confirm
’s hypothesis that left-wing “Woke” ideology is associated with higher rates of Cluster B personality disorders and mental illness.At the very least, the clinical literature does not seem to support Dr. Maté’s suggestion that a larger amygdala and right-wing views are “the psychological roots of authoritarianism.”
I do, however, agree with Maté that childhood trauma and neglect is a risk factor for the development of fascist and totalitarian tendencies, and that “[s]elf-reflection, something the fascist mentality cannot abide, can soften the heart.” I will, however, contest the implication that it is only people on the political right who struggle with self-reflection—and with fascism.
Again, I am not denying the existence of right-wing authoritarianism or extremism! BOTH left and right-wing extremism exist! (See the second footnote). I’m also not denying a connection between psychopathy, low empathy, and Cluster B disorders and right-wing authoritarianism, merely pointing out that there is also a relationship between psychopathy and narcissism and left-wing authoritarianism.
Anyway, keeping this one brief, so I’d love to hear people’s thoughts in the comments below.
Thank you for reading! It’s been a while since I posted an article, as summer is a busy time and I’m about eight months pregnant and considerably less productive because of it. I have a couple more posts brewing which I’ll hopefully get out soon, but posts will likely be less frequent this fall because of the baby. Thank you for your patience and I hope to resume posting at least once per month in the new year :-)
It’s possible some of the examples I’ve given are better characterized as totalitarian not authoritarian, but give me a break, I am a science nerd not a political one.
Important to emphasize that this research finds a relationship between right-wing views and a larger amygdala not between “right-wing authoritarianism” or extremism and a larger amygdala. My best guess is that a smaller amygdala would be associated with both left-wing and right-wing extremism, whereas a larger amygdala would be associated with more moderate political views.
I believe childhood trauma can also lead to pathologically naive people who just want to help the "poor victims" without noticing whether those "poor victims" are actually abusive. Speaking from personal experience.
Sounds to me like Mate is currying favor with the left authoritarians. Funny how that works! :-D
And I'll add: "We each have a Nazi within" is utter bull. That sort of conviction goes right along with "everybody is good deep down." These sweeping nonsensical statements seem to be linked to the profound cultural dysfunction we are witnessing these days.