1. Why is contempt such a serious problem for contemporary society?
Although the article briefly discusses hate, it does not squarely deal with how, when leaders express contempt, they generate hatred in their followers toward those to whom they show contempt. Contempt is not merely incidental to hatred, but rather, an integral part of it
Contempt generates and then continues to feed off two components of hate, negation of intimacy and “decision/commitment” (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2003a). Negation of intimacy is the feeling that one could never have any degree of intimacy with a person or group because they are beneath one's station, perhaps barely human. Commitment is a cognitive rationale for the negation of intimacy. The commitment component is characterized by cognitions of devaluation and diminution through contempt for a targeted group. Those who foment hate seek to change the feelings and thought processes of the preferred population so that its members will conceive of the targeted group(s) in a devalued way (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2003a).
In generating components of hatred, the consequences may be literally deadly, as they have been in so many wars. Generating contempt may thus lead followers to hatred that even leaders cannot control. Aspiring leaders should be aware that they may lose control of the hatred toward targets that they generate. The authors need more to deal with the very serious worldwide consequences of contempt, especially as practiced by leaders.
2. Do leaders and aspiring leaders sometimes strategically display false contempt that is confused by followers as genuine contempt?
There is contempt and there is feigned contempt. If we look at contemporary leaders and would-be leaders and their styles of leadership (Antonakis et al. Reference Antonakis, Cianciolo, Sternberg, Antonakis, Cianciolo and Sternberg2004a; Reference Antonakis, Cianciolo and Sternberg2004b), outward displays of contempt seem to be on the rise (which became apparent in the U.S. presidential elections of 2016). But is the contempt real? The target article does not adequately address the very real problem of feigned contempt, especially as shown by candidates for political or other leadership positions. Why are so many leaders today, as in times past, contemptuous of not only their opponents, but also even would-be allies? The answer is that they may not be. Rather, they may be strategically feigning contempt
As a strategy for an aspiring leader, displays of contempt may be “practically intelligent” (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1984) in the sense that they produce votes. The strategy worked for Hitler and Mussolini. The strategy may even be creative (Lubart & Sternberg Reference Lubart and Sternberg1988), in that it is both novel, in the context of what have been more sedate campaigns, and effective, in that it acquires votes of people who want nothing more than to legitimize their feelings of components of hatred that in the past they have kept latent.
3. What is the cure for contempt?
The target article deals inadequately with cure. The cure is wisdom, seeking a common good for all, not just oneself or one's group. Ultimately contempt is not wise but rather foolish (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2002; Reference Sternberg, Aspinwall and Staudinger2003b), because it degrades the dignity of the person and certainly of any potential leader. Mere intelligence is not a cure, because it deals with how intellectually able people are (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1985; Reference Sternberg1988), and intelligent people may use their smarts to manipulate others through expressions of contempt. Contemptuous leaders generate ethical drift (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2012), a downward spiral in the ethical reasoning and behavior of the citizenry
People probably always will show less liking for those who are unlike them (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1987; Reference Sternberg1998), whether for reasons of race, or ideology, or whatever (Sternberg et al. Reference Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd2005). It is as though people's metaphors of mind (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1990) become ones in which their own minds are “sound” (regardless of what they believe), whereas people who disagree with them are unsound of mind and worthy of contempt.
Unfortunately, people always have been suspicious of those who are wise and above contempt. We may be reminded of Socrates, who was rewarded for being wise by being forced to drink hemlock. We can and must do better.
You have
Access
Many articles become quickly out of date, even before being published. This excellent target article by Gervais & Fessler (G&F) is an exception. Indeed, the study of contempt has become more relevant in 2016 perhaps than it was at any time in the past in U.S. society.
Although this is an excellent article, there are three important questions about contempt that are left either unaddressed or insufficiently addressed.
1. Why is contempt such a serious problem for contemporary society?
Although the article briefly discusses hate, it does not squarely deal with how, when leaders express contempt, they generate hatred in their followers toward those to whom they show contempt. Contempt is not merely incidental to hatred, but rather, an integral part of it
Contempt generates and then continues to feed off two components of hate, negation of intimacy and “decision/commitment” (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2003a). Negation of intimacy is the feeling that one could never have any degree of intimacy with a person or group because they are beneath one's station, perhaps barely human. Commitment is a cognitive rationale for the negation of intimacy. The commitment component is characterized by cognitions of devaluation and diminution through contempt for a targeted group. Those who foment hate seek to change the feelings and thought processes of the preferred population so that its members will conceive of the targeted group(s) in a devalued way (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2003a).
In generating components of hatred, the consequences may be literally deadly, as they have been in so many wars. Generating contempt may thus lead followers to hatred that even leaders cannot control. Aspiring leaders should be aware that they may lose control of the hatred toward targets that they generate. The authors need more to deal with the very serious worldwide consequences of contempt, especially as practiced by leaders.
2. Do leaders and aspiring leaders sometimes strategically display false contempt that is confused by followers as genuine contempt?
There is contempt and there is feigned contempt. If we look at contemporary leaders and would-be leaders and their styles of leadership (Antonakis et al. Reference Antonakis, Cianciolo, Sternberg, Antonakis, Cianciolo and Sternberg2004a; Reference Antonakis, Cianciolo and Sternberg2004b), outward displays of contempt seem to be on the rise (which became apparent in the U.S. presidential elections of 2016). But is the contempt real? The target article does not adequately address the very real problem of feigned contempt, especially as shown by candidates for political or other leadership positions. Why are so many leaders today, as in times past, contemptuous of not only their opponents, but also even would-be allies? The answer is that they may not be. Rather, they may be strategically feigning contempt
As a strategy for an aspiring leader, displays of contempt may be “practically intelligent” (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1984) in the sense that they produce votes. The strategy worked for Hitler and Mussolini. The strategy may even be creative (Lubart & Sternberg Reference Lubart and Sternberg1988), in that it is both novel, in the context of what have been more sedate campaigns, and effective, in that it acquires votes of people who want nothing more than to legitimize their feelings of components of hatred that in the past they have kept latent.
3. What is the cure for contempt?
The target article deals inadequately with cure. The cure is wisdom, seeking a common good for all, not just oneself or one's group. Ultimately contempt is not wise but rather foolish (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2002; Reference Sternberg, Aspinwall and Staudinger2003b), because it degrades the dignity of the person and certainly of any potential leader. Mere intelligence is not a cure, because it deals with how intellectually able people are (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1985; Reference Sternberg1988), and intelligent people may use their smarts to manipulate others through expressions of contempt. Contemptuous leaders generate ethical drift (Sternberg Reference Sternberg2012), a downward spiral in the ethical reasoning and behavior of the citizenry
People probably always will show less liking for those who are unlike them (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1987; Reference Sternberg1998), whether for reasons of race, or ideology, or whatever (Sternberg et al. Reference Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd2005). It is as though people's metaphors of mind (Sternberg Reference Sternberg1990) become ones in which their own minds are “sound” (regardless of what they believe), whereas people who disagree with them are unsound of mind and worthy of contempt.
Unfortunately, people always have been suspicious of those who are wise and above contempt. We may be reminded of Socrates, who was rewarded for being wise by being forced to drink hemlock. We can and must do better.