Thick vs. Thin response to threats
People react differently to threats, and perceive different things as threatening. What's the difference between "touchy" and "brittle?" Here's my theory:
Some people are more "thick skinned," and others are more "thin skinned." Thick skinned people tend to have larger personal space (even to prefer houses with thick walls), to think in words, and to be comfortable with structure. Thin skinned people tend to think in images (pictures), to need less personal space, and to be more comfortable "merging" with others. (This is from a talk by Dr. Ernest Hartman. The rest is my ideas.)
You can use this analogy: Washington, DC is thick skinned; Berkeley, CA is thin skinned.
Anyone will feel threatened when something that they care about, something that is "part of them", is threatened. But thick and thin-skinned people tend to feel that different things are "part of them." They also tend to react differently.
What threatens a thick-skinned person?
Someone with large personal space may include things that aren't part of their body. Someone who owns a fancy car may react as though they'd been maimed when the car is scratched. Sometimes, people at the head of a hierarchy act (and think) as though they owned the individuals under them. If those individuals start to act on their own, this is threatening.
Such a person is used to defending against physical threats or intrusions. They will tend to solve threatening problems with physical force or control.
If someone goes too far in this direction, they may try to control other people near or under them; the autonomy of "their" people is threatening to them. I call these people "control freaks."
Unfortunately, it's easy to turn thick-skinned people into control freaks, because it's easy to feed in verbal ideas that sound logical. Give them a reason why they *should* defend their newly acquired beliefs, and they will treat any challenge to those beliefs as a personal threat. Now suppose those beliefs increase their fear level. A clever person, playing on those fears, can mobilize a militant force who will believe that almost anything is justified to fight off the threat.
Thick-skinned people will tend to be attracted to fundamentalist religions, because of the structure (hierarchy) and the verbal thinking. Power-hungry people have made the most of the opportunity, and convinced many Christians that their (way of) life is threatened unless they take action to control the forces that threaten to dismantle the moral fiber, blah blah blah. In short, the Religious Right turns people into control freaks.
The same thing happens in government. Not only are thick-skinned people attracted to government structure, but some full-blown control freaks feel the need to go where they can have the most influence. Add a few power-hungry people to push the mix in the right direction... and you get the various abuses of power that various parts of our government are famous for.
What threatens a thin-skinned person?
A thin-skinned person doesn't perceive so many physical threats, because of smaller personal space. But because they do let people closer, they are more vulnerable to those who are hostile or who threaten to damage their mental equilibrium. (Thin-skinned people are more sensitive to "bad vibes."
As the threat is on a mental or emotional level, so the response tends to be mental or emotional as well. Negotiation, guilt-tripping, and various other styles of communication are used to try to divert the threat. Breaking off contact (physically leaving) is often not considered as a solution. The alternative is to try to change the threatening situation, or person.
This response can become pathological. If a thin-skinned person is too sensitive to discomfort or fear, they will perceive many reasonable situations as threatening, and try to manipulate the situation without considering where the discomfort is coming from.
Unfortunately, this is easy to manipulate. Just plant an uncomfortable image in the brain of a thin-skinned person, and create an association from any trigger to that image. That trigger (which may be a single word, or shade of emotion) will then cause the person to feel uncomfortable. Because visual thinking is often subliminal, it may never be questioned once the trigger is installed.
After enough triggers and discomfort, the thin-skinned person will be jumping at shadows, feeling that the world is a fearful place and they must defend themselves by forcing every source of every trigger to change. This is thought control--political correctness in the worst sense of the term.
Power-hungry people have learned to manipulate this as well. Want to get rid of a certain idea or behavior? Just link it to something truly unpleasant. Abuse, racism, and sexism are truly unpleasant and worth getting rid of. But the *mental image* of these evils is also used to energize "triggers" against things that are essentially harmless. This causes unnecessary oppression and stifling of reasonable discussion.
Where is this leading?
More and more people are getting caught in one or the other of these mechanisms. It seems to me that increasingly, the opposite types (Control Freak vs. Thought Control) are facing each other directly, across what can only be a battle line. It raises the stakes a lot when you know that the person you're facing is dedicated to threatening what you are dedicated to defend. Real fear develops in addition to the "artificial fear". Militance increases, driving fear, which drives militance.
Above, I stated that "power-hungry people" drive the mechanism of turning thick-skinned people into Control Freaks and thin-skinned people into Thought Controllers. We are already at the point on each side where people feel the need to be power-hungry in self-defense. "We will take over the Senate!" "We will march a million people in the streets!" Regardless of how it started, at this point the problem is self-perpetuating.
On an individual level, fear is increasing as more Control people appear. If I kiss someone of my own gender, I risk being beaten. If I tell an off-color joke, I risk a screaming harangue. Smoke a joint, go to jail. Fly a Confederate flag, get expelled from the dorm. Eventually, even the moderates are threatened to the point that they'll take sides. And what's the most visible "side?" Why, one of the Control machines, of course. They make the most noise and take the most action.
Which part do you disagree with?
Chances are you read one of the "What threatens a...?" sections and said, "That's the problem with this country today!" The other section may have gotten a response of, "That's not fair. We're not the problem!" Now you know which side you're on. But keep in mind that the situation is symmetrical: someone else is reading this and thinking that they are completely justified, and you are the problem. If you meet that person on the street, will you be enemies?
Tolerance and politeness are caught in the middle. Notice that extremes on both sides will not accept the possibility of tolerating the other side, and feel that politeness is not even a consideration when dealing with "them." But the fact is, politeness would dissolve most of the conflicts, or at least allow discussion and negotiation about them. Tolerance of differences involves recognizing that there is a difference--the other person is not you and you are free to walk away.
In any society, people have to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Not everyone will be happy with the set of choices and compromises. Fearmongers will try to turn that unhappiness into a Control mentality. Don't let it happen to you.
Ps. Things are worse than I thought
Right after I'd written this, I came across an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (11/5/98, A29) about Safeway's new friendly service policy. It seems that people have been objecting to the policy, on several grounds. A friendly smile? It's interpreted as a sexual come-on. An offer to help with groceries? It's an intrusion on your thoughts. So the Thought Control and Control Freak sides have both found something to dislike in a policy of politeness, of common courtesy. What's worse, these people are getting significant media attention and publicity with their attacks and complaints.