From Moral Inclusion to Moral Exclusion: Psychological Pathways between Democracy and Totalitarianism
This article proposes a conceptual framework analyzing democracy and totalitarianism as competing moral-psychological ecologies, arguing that the transition from moral inclusion to exclusion is driven by ordinary cognitive and emotional processes like dehumanization and authoritarianism, thereby framing democratic resilience as a fragile achievement requiring the continuous cultivation of empathy, critical agency, and shared humanity.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the study of how people live together, psychologists have long looked at the invisible lines we draw between "us" and "them." These lines are not physical fences but mental boundaries that decide who deserves our kindness, our protection, and our respect, and who does not. When these boundaries are wide and flexible, people can coexist with those who think differently. When they become narrow and rigid, a society can slide from peaceful disagreement into hatred and violence. For decades, historians and political scientists have explained the rise of dictatorships and the fall of democracies by pointing to bad leaders, broken laws, or economic crises. However, a new perspective suggests that the real story lies in the ordinary workings of the human mind. It asks how normal people, without any special hatred or madness, can gradually stop seeing their neighbors as human beings and start seeing them as enemies that must be removed.
Two researchers from the University of Verona, Riccardo and Federica Sartori, have woven together decades of psychological research to map this dangerous journey. They argue that democracy and totalitarianism are not just different political systems; they are two different ways of organizing the human mind. In a healthy democracy, the mind is trained to include others, to tolerate uncertainty, and to think for oneself. In a totalitarian system, the mind is trained to exclude, to seek absolute certainty, and to obey without question. The researchers do not claim that these systems are made of different kinds of people. Instead, they show that the same psychological tools we use to build communities can be twisted to destroy them.
The story begins with a simple fact: human beings naturally sort the world into groups. We have a deep need to belong, and we feel good when we identify with a team, a nation, or a family. This is normal. But problems start when this sense of belonging becomes exclusive. When a group begins to feel threatened—by economic trouble, by rapid social change, or by fear of the unknown—they often look for someone to blame. In this state of anxiety, the mind seeks simple answers. Complex problems are reduced to a single story: "We are good, and they are bad." This is the first step toward moral exclusion, a process where a group of people is pushed outside the circle of those who deserve fair treatment.
Once a group is labeled as a threat, the mind begins to change how it sees them. This is where dehumanization takes hold. It is not always a loud, angry hatred. Often, it is a quiet shift in perception. The targeted group is no longer seen as full human beings with feelings, families, and dreams. They are seen as objects, as pests, or as a disease that needs to be cured. The researchers point out that this shift is crucial because it removes the natural brake that stops us from hurting others. If you believe someone is less than human, it becomes much easier to justify taking away their rights or even harming them. This process happens slowly. It starts with stereotypes, moves to discrimination, and eventually becomes a routine part of daily life, where cruelty feels like a necessary duty.
The paper also explores how ordinary people become part of these systems of control. It challenges the old idea that only monsters commit great evils. Instead, it shows that regular people can do terrible things when they stop thinking for themselves and start following orders. This is not just about blind obedience to a boss. It is about a deeper psychological shift where a person gives up their own judgment to become part of a larger machine. In this state, a person feels less responsible for their actions because they believe they are just doing what they are told. They might tell themselves that they are protecting their country or saving their community, even while they are hurting others. This is called moral disengagement. It is a way for the mind to keep a clean conscience while doing dirty work. By using vague language, shifting blame to leaders, or pretending the victims do not matter, people can convince themselves that they are still good people.
The researchers argue that this is not a story about a few bad apples or a specific type of personality. It is a story about how human needs for security, belonging, and meaning can be hijacked. When people feel scared and uncertain, they crave order. They want someone to tell them what to do and who to trust. Authoritarian leaders offer this comfort. They promise to clear away the confusion and make the world simple again. But the price of this simplicity is the loss of freedom and the exclusion of anyone who does not fit the narrow definition of "us." The paper suggests that this dynamic is not just a thing of the past. It is a constant vulnerability in any society. Even in modern democracies, when people feel threatened, they can start to lose the ability to see the humanity in those they disagree with.
So, what keeps a democracy alive? The authors suggest that it is not just laws or elections. It is a set of mental habits that must be practiced every day. It requires the ability to include people who are different, to admit that we do not have all the answers, and to keep thinking critically even when it is uncomfortable. It means refusing to give up our own judgment to a leader or a crowd. It means recognizing that our neighbors, even those we dislike, are still human beings who deserve respect. The researchers conclude that democracy is not a finished product that we can build once and forget. It is a fragile achievement that must be constantly tended to. It depends on our willingness to keep the circle of moral concern wide, to resist the urge to simplify the world into friends and enemies, and to take responsibility for our own actions.
The path from a free society to a tyrannical one is not a sudden jump. It is a gradual slide, step by step, where small changes in how we think and feel add up to a massive change in how we live. By understanding these psychological steps, we can see the warning signs earlier. We can learn to recognize when we are starting to draw lines that are too tight, or when we are starting to stop listening to our own conscience. The ultimate finding of this work is that the difference between a free society and a prison is not just in the walls or the laws. It is in the minds of the people who live there. Democracy survives only as long as we choose to see each other as human.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.