Is regality a special case of a more general phenomenon?

[wagersmith]

I'm blown away by the explanatory power of this theory. I haven't finished the book yet, but I'm already thinking that the book describes a special case of an even more general phenomenon. In order for this theory to apply to these broader phenomena, four regal traits would have to be broadened:

'Perception of threat to your nation or tribe' would be broadened to 'perception of threat to your group', even if your group is against nationalism and tribalism.

'Xenophobia' would be broadened to 'intolerance of out-group', even if the out-group is xenophobic people.

'Strict religion' would be broadened to 'strict adherence to the tenets of the in-group', even if the tenet is atheism.

'Strict sexual morals' would be broadened to 'exaggeration of the in-group's morality', even when the in-group's morality is tolerance for sexual liberty.

The reason I'm thinking this way is that I'm starting to see this broader form of regalization among liberals and atheists in the United States. What are your thoughts on that?

[agner]

Some social psychologists talk about 'right-wing authoritarianism'. I think this term is misleading, as I have written in the book, because there are authoritarian left-wing groups as well. Regality is more common among the conservative right, but there are also certain left-wing groups who do not tolerate any criticism of their ideology. They tend to see any ideas that deviate from their own as dangerous. Such groups do not always fit very well into the typology of a regal group because they may be kungic in certain other respects. They may see their group as threatened, but other psychological motives may be more important, such as power contests vis-a-vis their opponents. I have not done research on this, but I think that perhaps realistic group conflict theory could be useful in some cases of ideological totalitarianism.

[wagersmith]

So you don't like the idea of broadening the definition of regality to incorporate extremism on the left?

[agner]

There is regality in certain communist countries. It's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of how well it fits into the pattern.

It's important to keep science independent of politics. You can't change the definition just to make it fit whatever you don't like.

[wagersmith]

I don't think I'm changing the definition to fit what I don't like. What it feels like I'm doing is noticing the regality phenomena in numerous different guises. I'm liberal, by the way.

Let me pose the question a different way. If this regality syndrome evolved to promote collective action in response to collective threat, do you think it can be induced for other groups besides nations and tribes. For example, professions. Lets say some policy change threatened widget manufacturing. Do you think widget manufacturers would regalify to combat this collective threat?

[agner]

Any groups with conflicting goals will be hostile to each other and will strengthen the solidarity within their own group. This is a well known phenomenon as demonstrated by the famous 'Robbers Cave experiment'. But workers in a widget factory seeing their business threatened would not necessarily become hostile to strangers and deviants in general, only to those that threaten their business. But if the citizens of a country fear that a neighbor country would wage war against them, they may become hostile to internal deviants, for example to homosexuals, and give their children a more strict upbringing. The latter example is something that regality theory explains better than other theories does. We don't need regality theory to explain the widget factory example, because other theories - such as realistic group theory - can explain this.

[Pramodmanohar]

I would have thought regality is the only natural order.
In an oooold indian epic "mahabharat" a dying wise old warrior called bhishma explains to the would-be-king yudhishthir, how in olden days there was no king and state. There was no punisher and no one deserving punishment. All people, doing their duties, protected each other. But then greed crept in and such a happy state of affairs could not be maintained. So finally people begged God to send them a ruler. The prayer was accepted.

In this tale there is support of regality, not against external threat, but against internal disorder.

Anyway.
Let me confess my reason for joining here.
I am a practicing preventive cardiologist in india and I am doing research on psychological aspects leading to metabolic syndrome ( diabetes, obesity, heart disease, hypertension. ..)
A book I read recently (doves, diplomates, and diabetes by Dr Milind Watve) suggests that warriors , comparable to hawks in game theory, are less likely
to be diabetic , and diplomates or manipulative people are more likely to be diabetic.

He claims that during warlike situation, entire nations become less diabetic. And even though it has been attributed to food shortage, the warlike mentality can be a cause.
His description has some parallels to what you call a regal society.
I wonder if a regal society, loyal to a king like leader,and ready to fight , either for survival or for expansion, can have a significant effect (reduction) on metabolic syndrome.