PDF Summary:The Madness of Crowds, by Douglas Murray

In The Madness of Crowds, Douglas Murray argues that Western society is consumed by an ideology that’s obsessed with social justice and identity politics. This ideology insists that certain groups (notably women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals) endure widespread prejudice and oppression, and that they should therefore receive sensitivity, accommodations, and apologetic behavior from the social majority. Murray believes this ideology is hard to challenge without suffering public ridicule and shaming.

Ultimately, Murray argues that we need to combat this ideology, restore constructive opportunities for civic disagreement, and depoliticize our personal identities. Otherwise, our society could become even more fragmented and chaotic, and conceivably violent.

In this guide, we’ll examine the development of this harmful ideology, its effects, and its internal contradictions. We’ll also explore ways to detoxify society and reduce the influence of this ideology. In our commentary, we’ll compare Murray’s ideas to those in other books that discuss wokeism, intersectionality, and identity politics, such as The Coddling of the American Mind and American Marxism.

(continued)...

The Impact of the Great Recession

Murray notes that the Great Recession of the late 2000s also contributed to the rise of the New Ideology. This economic crisis ruined the faith many younger adults held in capitalism by dashing hopes that they could ever achieve the financial independence of their parents. Murray believes that this experience prompted many young adults to feel drawn to the New Ideology, which is overwhelmingly concerned with correcting every perceived form of inequity.

(Shortform note: The financial downturn that occurred from late 2007 to 2009 was an economic crisis that impacted nations across the globe. Its specific effects arguably underscore why people may have been driven to more extreme ideologies that promised equality. For example, Americans collectively lost almost $20 trillion in net worth and almost 9 million jobs during the crisis. In the UK, the effects on young people were particularly pronounced, with mass layoffs and struggles finding new work.)

The Impact of Social Media

Murray also contends that social media has made it easier for the New Ideology to flourish. This is because people use online spaces to constantly express feeling offended by perceived slights to their beliefs and identities.

Murray elaborates that social media encourages people to hyper-focus on themselves and their experiences. When they feel aggrieved by an offense, they can instantly vent that frustration on social media, or even call out the person they think is guilty of that offense. Like-minded people can then react immediately and virally, creating a toxic environment. Further, these like-minded users rarely examine the original circumstances of the incident to either prove or disprove the accusation. This can then lead to cancel culture, which we’ll discuss very shortly.

(Shortform note: The social media pile-ons Murray describes may not just be toxic—they may also be inauthentic expressions of “support.” Some commentators argue that many people post online about hot-button issues for purely performative reasons—they want to appear “woke” without having to take any real-life action toward supporting people suffering from oppression. To make a real impact on marginalized communities, consider showing solidarity with a mistreated person in more subtle yet immediate ways. For instance, if you’re a man, you might spotlight the opinion of a female colleague whose voice is constantly overlooked by other male colleagues, without spotlighting yourself.)

Finally, Murray notes that social media has become a means through which politicians, academics, media personalities, and others aligned with the New Ideology can police speech and ideas not aligned with it. They censor and condemn those who express these ideas.

(Shortform note: In many cases, restrictions placed on individuals’ use of social media result from accusations of hate speech. The consequence of these accusations can be either a removal from or a suspended use of that service—this is called “deplatforming.” Opponents of deplatforming claim it’s both an ethical and legal violation of the person’s First Amendment right to free speech. Further, even some proponents of deplatforming aren’t sure of its long-term effectiveness in curbing hate activity among targeted users. Deplatformed users can sometimes adjust their social media tactics to still be heard, sometimes by going to an alternative or decentralized web platform and bringing previous followers with them.)

Impacts of the New Ideology

Now that we’ve explored the key ideas of the New Ideology and how they achieved widespread recognition, let’s examine what Murray believes to be two of its most egregious effects: harming free speech, and creating contradictions that cause societal and psychological harm.

Impact #1: Harming Free Speech Through “Cancel Culture”

Murray argues that the New Ideology is harming free speech by trying to force consensus where it doesn’t exist and punishing those who don’t conform. Its adherents decide certain viewpoints on issues such as trans rights and racism are objectively correct, and they demonize alternative opinions. Anyone who dares to offer a contrary opinion risks being subject to “cancel culture”: public ridicule and the possible collapse of their reputation, career, and livelihood. Cancel culture harms free speech and prevents discussion around significant issues that deserve open debate.

(Shortform note: Other authors believe that our inability to consider opposing viewpoints doesn’t come from either the left's ideology or identity politics but from partisan politics as a whole. In Why We’re Polarized, Ezra Klein argues that the two major US political parties divide American citizens into what he calls two super-identities, whose major concern is simply beating the other side in a winner-takes-all fashion. This division then aggravates sentiments around issues like race, sexuality, and religion because our views on these topics tend to correspond with the positions of the party we feel loyal to. Partisan voters feel increasingly hostile toward one another and reward politicians who deliberately antagonize the other side, driving further rounds of polarization.)

Do Canceled Individuals Feel Canceled?

Not everyone who’s publicly criticized the positions of the New Ideology feels that cancel culture has ruined their careers or reputations.

For example, Harry Potter author J.K Rowling came under intense criticism in 2020 for challenging the idea that transgender women could ever truly share the experiences of cisgender women. Despite the backlash she received—for instance, accusations of transphobia—Rowling asserts that she has never considered herself canceled. Instead, she claims that her book sales actually increased when she publicly referenced the backlash.

Let’s examine two examples of this curbing of free speech.

Example #1: Silencing Conservative Viewpoints

First, Murray argues that the New Ideology’s tendency toward censorship makes it difficult for people with conservative views to voice their opinions on hot-button issues like race, homosexuality, and transgenderism for fear of provoking public outrage. Public attitudes have rapidly become more favorable toward topics like women’s empowerment and LGBTQ+ rights, which has left many social conservatives feeling left behind and like their values are threatened. However, due to cancel culture, conservatives no longer feel able to voice this feeling.

Awareness of Cancel Culture in the US

To what extent does cancel culture leave conservatives fearful of expressing their opinions? The fear may be less prevalent than Murray suggests. Some statistics show that many Americans aren’t fully aware of cancel culture’s existence, let alone its potential impact on their lives.

For example, in 2020, the majority of Americans (56%) reported either not knowing what cancel culture was or hearing about it infrequently, with little statistical difference across party lines. Instead, the largest difference in cancel culture awareness was across generations. Sixty-four % of young adults under 30 reported they’d heard either a reasonable amount or a significant amount about it, compared with only 34% above age 50.

Aside from cancel culture, there may be other reasons why people—conservatives or otherwise—are reluctant to speak on political issues. One is the increase in general stress they experience when discussing politics with people of opposite views. For instance, around 60% of staunch American Democrats and Republicans reported such conversations as either frustrating, stressful, or both. However, moderates on each side frequently reported less agitation.

Example #2: Masking a Lack of Scientific Consensus

Another area in which the New Ideology is harming free speech is in scientific discussions. Murray argues that science hasn’t corroborated many of the core assumptions now associated with Leftist views of certain topics, but the New Ideology presents these assumptions as settled facts. Because of this, debate around these topics is quashed—the threat of cancel culture silences any opinion inconsistent with the New Ideology. However, Murray believes that many of these topics still deserve rigorous public debate due to the true lack of scientific consensus surrounding them.

According to Murray, a topic suffering from this issue is whether or not homosexuality is a fixed state of being. The New Ideology believes that homosexuality is a fully natural, immutable feature of a person’s identity, and it argues that denial of this is an act of discrimination. However, Murray points to recent statements from both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the American Psychological Association that indicate a lack of consensus on this issue. Instead, it seems there’s still debate about whether same-sex orientation is a product of nature or nurture, and whether it’s a permanent fixture of identity or something that can be changed.

Another topic that, in Murray’s view, deserves more scientific discussion is transgenderism. He notes that gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapies may damage individuals’ long-term health—for instance, by causing irreversible sterility. However, parents of transgender children are often discouraged or intimidated from asking questions about these effects for fear of damaging or worsening their children’s mental states.

(Shortform note: Some medical professionals have also reported possible adverse side effects and long-term complications of gender-affirming therapies. For example, patients given feminizing hormones may be at greater risk for breast cancer than cisgender males. Other possible complications include deep vein blood clots, infertility, diabetes, and increased potassium in the blood. Physicians will typically assess a patient’s health before introducing the hormone and try to determine if the patient has a predisposition to any relevant risk factors.)

Finally, Murray also views bias tests, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT), as scientifically problematic. These tests aim to uncover unconscious biases in the subject, such as acceptance of harmful racial stereotypes. Murray notes that there’s a lack of empirical consensus on these methods’ accuracy. However, they’ve still encouraged a neurotic tendency for white people in particular to suspect themselves of prejudices they likely don’t have, as well as triggering guilt over participating in systemic oppression against minorities that doesn't exist.

(Shortform note: Some employers encourage their employees to undergo implicit bias training to combat their unconscious biases and increase their empathy toward people from different backgrounds. This often includes making participants more aware of the negative, unconscious judgments they might reach about minorities and recording the progress they make in adjusting them. However, the results of implicit bias training are inconclusive—there’s little evidence that they significantly change people’s behavior in the long term. Further, when poorly administered, the training can make white participants feel angry and threatened, possibly worsening their implicit bias.)

Can Sexual Orientation Be Changed?: Conversion or Reparative Therapy

The possibility that same-sex orientation can be altered provides the basic grounds for the idea of “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy”: the therapeutic attempt to change someone’s sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual. Most current approaches to conversion therapy have adopted conventional therapeutic tools, including those from cognitive behavioral and talk therapy. Others may use more unconventional methods like hypnosis and prayer.

Some others employ aversion therapy—forcing someone to undergo deliberately unpleasant experiences, like induced vomiting or electroshock, to deter and ultimately eliminate homosexual behavior. This practice is considered controversial due to its potential for physical harm.

As of 2023, conversion therapy is rejected as unethical, ineffective, or both by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association (APA). Many US states and territories have some form of ban on the practice.

Impact #2: Creating Harmful Contradictions

Murray argues that as well as threatening free speech, the New Ideology presents contradictions that can cause psychological or societal harm. Let’s examine a few examples of these contradictions.

Example #1: Intersectionality Doesn’t Equal Solidarity

According to Murray, one contradiction lies in a basic premise of intersectionality: that all oppressed groups share common interests. Instead, these interests conflict far more often than they align, producing greater friction and divisiveness. The idea that society is rife with oppressed groups inevitably leads to certain groups imagining themselves as more oppressed than others. If one group feels more oppressed than another, it considers itself entitled to more concessions and attention, creating conflict with other oppressed groups.

Murray gives the example of a Cornell University activist group named Black Students United. In 2017, the group argued that the university should favor Black students of multi-generational US descent—in other words, the descendants of enslaved people—over Black students whose families had emigrated more recently. In this case, there was divisiveness within a single racial identity.

(Shortform note: Murray’s example highlights only one form of discrimination that leads to divisiveness within Black communities. Another is colorism, or anti-darkness, which refers to discrimination based specifically on skin tone—lighter, more European features are seen as superior to darker, Afrocentric ones. Some commentators argue that although Black individuals experience colorism that non-Black people perpetuate, it’s more demoralizing when Black people perpetuate colorism within the Black community. This form of colorism not only induces feelings of inferiority within one’s own community, but it also divides that community when it should instead be pursuing common economic and educational interests.)

Intersectional Views on the Hierarchy of Oppressed Groups

Some people agree with the basic premise of intersectionality without supporting the creation of a “hierarchy” of oppressed groups—in other words, groups needing to competitively establish themselves as more oppressed than others. They, like Murray, argue that this hierarchy is far more likely to pit marginalized groups against one another than to unite them.

Further, critics of this hierarchy say that in instances where prejudice and discrimination do exist, becoming preoccupied with a possible hierarchy of oppression can empower the discriminator (for instance, a white supremacist). The discriminator is free to continue their oppressive activities while oppressed groups disagree with each other or jockey for position.

Example #2: Undoing the Principles of Civil Rights

Murray also believes that although adherents to the New Ideology think they’re promoting equality, they’re actually undoing important civil rights accomplishments—especially those regarding minorities' right to be judged on merit and achievement rather than their minority identities.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed being judged according to merit was central to truly seeing a person’s talents and potential. However, Murray argues that the New Ideology, through practices like diversity hiring and affirmative action, has reverted to a focus on attributes like race, gender, or sexual identity, which have nothing to do with a person’s intrinsic abilities or experience.

The End of Affirmative Action

A 2023 United States Supreme Court decision ended one form of affirmative action—specifically, race-conscious university admissions. This affirmative action involved considering college applicants’ racial identities during the admissions process, in an effort to promote racial diversity on campuses.

The opinions of the majority justices arguably echo Murray’s argument and his understanding of King. In the decision, the court’s conservative supermajority described affirmative action as violating the constitutional principle of color-blindness, due to the program being race-preferential rather than merit-based.

However, the liberal dissenting opinion argued that the ruling threatened civil rights-era achievements by revoking constitutional promises of equal protection under the law. Affirmative action, liberal justices believed, protected people of color from institutional racism that hurt their chances of entering college.

Example #3: Sexuality Versus Sexualization

A final example applies to contemporary feminism, which Murray contends liberates women to act in increasingly sexualized ways, such as in pop music videos, films, and media appearances. Yet, the New Ideology doesn’t allow men to respond to this erotic material in any way that could be construed as sexually objectifying women. This sends mixed messages to men who are simply trying to determine what healthy heterosexual expression actually is, leaving them feeling discouraged, confused, and frustrated.

The Effects of Sexualization

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Murray’s argument regarding the effects of this dynamic on men, some research links sexualization (the process through which someone comes to believe that their most important, overriding characteristic is their sexuality) to an increased risk of mental health problems in women and girls.

Researchers for the American Psychological Association (APA) consulted numerous studies examining the effect of a wide variety of media sources—including movies, song lyrics, video games, and internet content—on female well-being. The study connected the sexualized portrayal of women and girls in these media to increased risk of low self-esteem, anxiety, eating disorders, cognitive deficits, and stunted sexual development among girls and young women who internalized their content. The study’s researchers consider these media sources to be among the strongest influences on how females gauge their value.

What if We Can’t Fix This?

Murray predicts serious consequences for our civilization if we’re not able to effectively stem the tide of the New Ideology. Let’s explore two of these effects: societal shame and the increased risk of violence.

Consequence #1: Societal Shame

The first result of not stemming the New Ideology will be the continued prevalence of feelings of guilt, sin, and shame in society. Murray argues that the ideology is always concerned with assigning blame and reliving traumas of the past, leading to these negative emotions. He contends that our society is even less capable of handling these collective emotions now that traditional religion is weaker. Traditional religion at least offered us a means of using redemption, forgiveness, and love to overcome negative emotions.

The Psychological Impact of Religion

Even if organized religion were more prominent in modern society, it might not be enough to counteract guilt and shame. Not all agree that religion is an antidote to guilt or shame, even if a given theology involves ideas of redemption and forgiveness.

In fact, some say religion can trigger shame. Religious trauma can arise when a person has intense guilt or shame connected to their faith, often because they feel they’ve failed that faith’s beliefs. Sometimes, toxic feelings stem from a fear of sinning. Other times, they can be tied to prohibitions around sexuality, such as when a belief system condemns homosexuality or premarital relations. With religious trauma, feelings of guilt or shame are often accompanied by a fear of punishment, or the judgment and rejection by the religious community.

However, others agree with Murray that religion positively impacts people and society through its emphasis on peace, gratitude, and forgiveness. Also, religious communities frequently offer a social and spiritual support network. Finally, faith-based rituals can bring meaning to many of the key transitional moments in believers’ lives.

Consequence #2: Widespread Violence

Another of Murray’s concerns is that the New Ideology’s obsession with uprooting privilege will escalate chances for large-scale violence. He specifically cites acts of violence and vandalism that occurred in connection with the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM). Murray also expresses concern that such acts will become increasingly common, masquerading as calls for justice (such as justice for George Floyd) when they’re really calls for vengeance against the perceived white majority, Western culture, and historic discrimination. He explains that the blame-casting call of the New Ideology feeds this vengeance.

(Shortform note: Some experts suspect that one of the reasons why protests—like those associated with BLM—turn violent is because of the way crowds and police interact with each other. They argue that even if only a small portion of the crowd acts confrontationally towards law enforcement, the latter frequently see that violent behavior as representing the attitudes or intentions of the whole crowd. This then increases the likelihood that each side will see the other one as the enemy, and violence may escalate.)

For Murray, violence from believers in the New Ideology may ultimately lead to the majority white population retaliating against the oppressive, totalitarian nature of the New Ideology. He fears that these retaliators will believe minority identity groups are responsible for the New Ideology, and these retaliators will target these groups for reprisals. This could set the clock back on many of the hard-fought rights that minority groups have achieved in recent decades. Murray thinks it's possible that when the majority retaliates, it may use what it sees as similar methods of censorship, humiliation, and villainization.

(Shortform note: Fear of conservatives committing extremist acts of reprisal against wokeness may significantly underestimate their potential to organize resistance through more civil and conventional means. Some political action committees actively seek to work through the legislative process, campaigning for conservative voters to help lawfully promote specific anti-woke policies. Examples of such policies include banning schools from teaching Critical Race Theory or disallowing transgender girls and men from participating in female athletics. These and more policies may be achievable simply through galvanizing support among current and potentially new constituents.)

Condoning Political Violence

Studies conducted in the late 2010s and early 2020s show that Americans from both major political parties supported or at least condoned the use of political violence in roughly equal percentages.

In 2019, for instance, about 16% of Democrats and 15% of Republicans thought political violence was acceptable under aggravated circumstances. Following the results of the 2020 presidential election, Democrats (4%) were a percentage point higher than Republicans (3%) in condoning the possibility of violence if the election was stolen from their candidate. Both parties were also roughly comparable in their tendency to demonize the other side, considering members of the opposition party to be either evil or animals on account of their views. Experts believe these numbers indicate that the toxicity of the social environment and correlating stress levels equally impacted people across the political spectrum.

Remedies for a Healthier Society

Murray offers several strategies for reducing the influence of the New Ideology. Let’s examine two: finding meaning outside politics, and gaining perspective on issues of discrimination.

Strategy #1: Find Meaning Outside of Politics

The most urgent of these strategies is to diminish the role of politics and its ensuing competitiveness in our lives. By this, Murray doesn’t mean that you should stop being interested or active in politics. This is part of who we are as human beings, and democracy is all about individuals participating.

Rather, Murray argues that we need to stop using politics as a way to find meaning in life—in other words, we should stop making every element of life political and fighting so-called oppression and injustice. Specifically, we must eschew politics in its current form—rife with toxic competition and conflict, much of which stems from the influence of the New Ideology. We should seek meaning in healthier areas of life—for instance, in our personal relationships with family, friends, and spouses.

(Shortform note: Some research suggests that in certain countries, relatively few people currently find meaning in their relationships. A 2021 survey asked respondents from 17 countries to state what gave them meaning in life. Roughly 56% of Australians surveyed mentioned family and children as lending especially significant meaning to their lives. This means that nearly half of those surveyed didn’t feel this way. Further, Australian respondents scored the highest in this regard; even fewer respondents from other countries reported finding meaning in their families, dropping to as low as 15% of Taiwanese respondents.)

Is Partisanship Good for Our Health?

Not everyone agrees that political competition is necessarily bad for us. Healthy partisan political competition, for example, has been linked to healthier populations. One study, which examined populations in all 50 US states between 1880 and 2010, showed that people in states where parties regularly alternated election wins exhibited better health, education, and economic norms than those in states where one party tended to enjoy long-term incumbency. One explanation for this may be that states where parties have to vie more vehemently for office spend more on infrastructure and public welfare measures. This is likely because it’s even more urgent for both parties to build appealing records with the public to stay in office.

Strategy #2: Gain Perspective on Issues of Discrimination

Murray also suggests that we should think about occurrences of injustice in our society with a sense of proportion. He argues that, even though discrimination still exists in Western society, it’s far less prevalent or acute than it was in the past. Further, in other regions of the world, minority rights lag dramatically behind where they are in the West. Therefore, while we still have some work to do in fully removing bias and unfairness from our society, we should be grateful for the progress already made.

Global Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Murray’s assertion that tolerance of minorities in the Western world is higher than it is elsewhere is, in some cases, backed by research. For instance, acceptance of homosexual lifestyles is noticeably higher in North America and Western Europe than in Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East.

Multiple variables can affect these differences, such as religion and political leaning. Individuals in regions with religious affiliation tended to be statistically less accepting of homosexuality than those who lack religious affiliation, and liberal people tend to be more tolerant of homosexuality than conservatives.

However, general tolerance towards LGBTQ+ communities appears to be on the rise in several such regions. For example, throughout the first decades of the 2000s in Japan and Mexico, more favorable views of LGBTQ+ people rose from roughly 50% to 70%.