Are false accusations lies, errors, or something in between?
(Before you read this article, please note:
1 I am not a psychologist, just someone trying to understand the psychology of this phenomenon, which suddenly has a huge public profile.
2 The views here are not my settled views on the subject. This essay is designed to promote further constructive discussion. I welcome your feedback [see comments box below] and further information that helps better understanding of this topic.
3 I refer to Amber Heard and other female false-accusers. This neither implies I think all accusations are false, nor that this analysis applies only to women. I am making a general case using some specific cases as illustrations).
The Depp/Heard trial showed that many of the claims made by Amber Heard were not true. However, this is not an isolated case. While some accusations of course are true, in many cases it is extremely difficult to know whether an allegation is true or false. Anecdotally, it is not uncommon in family courts for false claims of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or child abuse, to be made.
Few men have the resources to expose the falsehoods in court and in public as Depp has; most either give up, or battle long/expensive litigation. When the allegations are unproven or shown to be false, they remain unreported.
‘Lying’ implies that these women know that what they are saying is false. My suggestion is that, as a general rule, they believe what they are saying and that actions which appear vindictive are, from their perspective, genuine attempts to protect themselves and their children from the ‘monsters’ created by their ownperecptions.
“Pathologising the person (claiming they are narcissist, psychopath etc) may be true of individuals and makes us feel good, but this is not a helpful explanation for the huge number of false accusations made”
General explanation
We need to look for a general explanation for all these cases (and other similar ones), rather than trying to explain an individual case with ‘she was lying’. We should look at a wide variety of cases where, we feel, ‘radical feminists’ are lying, not focus too much on individual cases. That way we can see general trends.
If we focus on individual ‘lies’, we may fail to see deeper, more general causes.
Pathologising the person (claiming they are narcissist, psychopath etc) may be true of individuals and makes us feel good, but this is not a helpful explanation for the huge number of false accusations made, for instance, in the Family Court.
Getting the analysis right
If we get the analysis (causes) wrong, our solutions will not work. For example, if we think each woman is lying, we need to challenge the ’lies’. However, if we think that they are all victims of an ideology, we would focus on that and the places where they were radicalised.
It may also be easier to persuade people that ideological self-deception is widespread and common than trying to persuade them of individual lies.
False memories
Although there is a huge literature on false memories, it is controversial area because it has been often used in court to undermine the credibility of testimonies, supporters of the idea of false memories say they are easy to plant and quite common. Once the individual has rehearsed these memories, they cannot themselves distinguish them from reality. (That’s why the police always look for corroborating evidence).
In one experiment, researchers spoke to the families of children and identified two real events which had happened to them. They then ‘reminded’ the child about four memories – the two real ones, one plausible false one and one implausible false one. When asked to recall these events some time later, over 30% of children vividly recount the plausible false memory as real, often in great detail. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has found that false memories can be easily triggered by small pieces of misinformation. A classic study on this has recently been replicated.
While the idea of false memories has been used in court to undermine the credibility of testimonies, there is a real possibility that the ‘memories’ of abuse which so many separated fathers are accused of, may be classic false memories. One indicator of this is many seem to follow a common pattern, with the accusations being made some time after the separation.
The ideological driver
We can also see that collective false memories are easy to implant using ideology and repetition, both these are available to radical/victim-feminists. Instances are not hard to find, for example, Hutus in Rwanda in the 1990s convinced they should kill their Tutsi neighbours. In each case, whether about race, sex, or religion, the ideologue selects facts to fit the narrative (‘cherry-picks’ evidence) and convinces themselves of the rightness of the cause. The ‘Myths’ section of the Gender Parity UK website contains several examples of widely-held ‘lies’ which are maintained in the general culture to underpin the anti-male narrative.
The moral dimension
Underpinning any ideology is a moral imperative; the story is told so that the teller sees their actions as morally just (sometimes called ‘moral usurpation’.) Communists wanted to liberate the workers from the oppression of capitalism, and radical feminists want to liberate women from oppression by the ‘patriarchy’. In each case, both moral and ideological cases are made which allows the ideologue to take action which, by any ‘normal standard’ would be seen as reprehensible.
“Everyone’s thinking is subject to distortion by the underlying culture they are born into […] the ‘paradigm’. A shift in the dominant paradigm occurred during the Enlightenment in the 18th century: the medieval worldview gave way to the modern”
Identity politics
A common component in these ideologies is collective identity; the individual identifies as being part of a group, not as an individual. This is not something new, it is the origin of tribalism, but also a central feature of Central European 19th century philosophy including Marx, Hegel and Nietzsche.
Traditional British philosophy is individualistic – it sees the individual as free and also as responsible for their actions. ‘Othering’, the demonisation of members of the other group, is only possible with the collectivist/tribal view of society. What is of concern is that this collectivist view is now present in the various manifestations of post-modernism, such as radical feminism
This shift to the in-group, though common for both sexes, is even more natural for women, who tend to form close-knit groups with other women and are more prone to fitting-in and ‘pleasing the group’ than their more competitive brothers.
Underlying assumptions (paradigm)
Everyone’s thinking is subject to distortion by the underlying culture they are born into. Very few escape its clutches. This set of underlying assumptions is sometimes referred to as the ‘paradigm’. A shift in the dominant paradigm occurred during the Enlightenment in the 18th century: the medieval worldview gave way to the modern, more evidence-based (empirical) world-view which created the modern world.
Many people agree that the post-modernist worldview held of identity politics is a further shift in the underlying assumptions of our culture. This acts at a far deeper level in our thinking than we are usually aware of.
The feedback multiplier
The dominant narrative about patriarchy is a huge edifice. It has largely taken over the non-natural-science sections of Western Universities, the mainstream media, and other institutions. Our initial assumption about the creation of something that huge is that it has to be put, and kept, in place by a huge effort. Some are convinced there is a covert conspiracy behind it.
However, there is another, natural, low-energy way in which huge things can appear – and that is by self-organisation. Action in a certain direction (e.g. suggesting that women are oppressed) releases positive-feedback mechanisms which mean that more people are likely to hold that view. Each individual radical feminist not only sees herself as part of the moral movement, but they get praise and status from the group for ‘fighting for freedom’. This creates a ‘vicious circle’ where others look on and join the movement because the psychological pay-off is so great. It does not need some huge organisation to achieve global reach – it does it all by itself. (Other theories about the mechanisms by which these changes occur are variously called the ‘butterfly effect’, complex systems, emergent properties).
“…if that same woman starts to hear all sorts of bad things about men – patriarchy, oppression, sexual assault etc. - these experiences gradually distort the animus until it resembles, not the actual men she has met, but the distorted image of the narrative. Now she projects the distorted animus onto her male partner and ‘falls in hate’ with him; she over-interprets neutral events as negative.”
A Jungian perspective?
Another way to look at this phenomenon of false memories is in terms of Jungian archetypes. Each woman develops an ‘animus’ as she grows up; an image of what a good man is like. This is made up both of some deeply biological needs and the experience she has of the men around her. Later in life she tests the men she meets against this model and, when she finds a good ‘fit’, projects this animus-image onto a man and ‘falls in love’ with him. She over-interprets neutral events as positive etc
We are all aware that in this phase she is projecting; she is not seeing the real man.
We can speculate that, if that same woman starts to hear all sorts of bad things about men – patriarchy, oppression, sexual assault etc. - these experiences gradually distort the animus until it resembles, not the actual men she has met, but the distorted image of the narrative.
Now she projects the distorted animus onto her male partner and ‘falls in hate’ with him; she over-interprets neutral events as negative. Naturally, a parallel process can happen in men too.
A better explanation?
The link between the underlying paradigm, identity group, moral story and false memories is a plausible one. Once the individual has adopted the collectivist/identity paradigm - and they can obviously do this quite easily and voluntarily, as history shows - their mind is now compelled to see the world through this lens. If, as the narrative says, women are oppressed by the patriarchy – then it follows that she is oppressed by the men around her. If they are not actually violent, controlling etc, she either re-interprets neutral events as negative, interpreting experiences in a way which fit the narrative.
As soon as she starts to share her proto-memories with her friends, she carries out the repetitions necessary for memories to form. She now sincerely believes that her male-ex-partner did throw the child across the room, did kick the dog to death in front of the family or is planning to abduct the children and take them abroad (all real examples from men I have met).
If she discusses neutral events with others who share the ‘victim’ paradigm, they may make suggestions which trigger false memory creation. One can imagine the process whereby a glance might be interpreted as a microagression, and through discussion with radical others, the microagression becomes more like aggression.
This then sets the conditions in which false memories which reinforce that narrative are generated automatically in their mind. They are not consciously lying when they make their accusations, they are genuine.
Countering false accusations
Attacking false accusations directly does not work as it simply reinforces the ideology. While a few individuals have moments where reality breaks through, very few do.
While any individual who is a victim of false accusations must do their best to disprove the the specific claim, it is important to try to understand this phenomenon on a societal/cultural level, addressing the underlying assumptions and ideology, methods of contagion etc. that weaponise people’s experiences.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
