Collective Trauma and the Construction of a Political Myth: A Psychological Interpretation of the Obama Phenomenon

Summary

This article explores how collective trauma, emotional fields, and archetypal projections shaped public perceptions of Barack Obama during his rise to the American presidency. Drawing on political psychology, trauma research, and sociological models of elite power, the article argues that Obama became less a political figure and more a symbolic container for a traumatized society’s unresolved emotional needs. The result was a population responding through low-frequency psychology: dependency, projection, idealized hope, and symbolic identification.

1. Introduction

Political leaders are not chosen solely on the basis of policy programs or rational debate; they are also shaped through collective emotions, historical wounds, and archetypal narratives. After 9/11 and the subsequent political and social destabilization, the American population entered what researchers describe as a collective threat environment (Huddy et al., 2005), marked by fear, meaninglessness, and fragmented identity.

Within this psychological ecosystem, Barack Obama emerged as a charismatic figure whose personality traits (psychological and sociological) positioned him perfectly as a symbolic balm for collective anxiety.

2. Collective Trauma and the Emotional Landscape After 9/11

2.1 Mass trauma as a driver of behavior

Large-scale traumatic events generate:

• A search for authority
• Increased obedience
• Dependency on protector figures
• Reduced critical thinking

(Based on Terror Management Theory; Greenberg & Solomon, 2008)

After 9/11, the public became emotionally reactive, with chronic stress priming people for emotion-based politics (Pyszczynski et al., 2015).

2.2 Trauma-induced idealization

Research on traumatized societies (Alexander, 2004) shows that people:

• Seek explanatory narratives
• Look for redeemer figures
• Project unmet needs onto leaders
• Think in moral absolutes

This creates the foundation for mythic projection.

3. Stockholm-syndrome-like dynamics at the societal level

Stockholm syndrome cannot be applied literally to society, but its patterns appear:

• Dependency on symbolic protection
• Emotional bonding with authority
• Gratitude toward figures who offer stability
• Weakened critical thinking in order to maintain internal safety

This corresponds to what one can call low-frequency psychology: reactions rooted in fear and survival.

4. Emotional Fields, Elite Influence, and Networked Power

4.1 Emotional fields as social forces

“Emotional fields” can be understood as:

• Collective mood waves
• Memetic spread
• Narrative contagion
• Group-driven identity reinforcement

(LeBon, 1895; Bar-Tal, 2001)

Trauma amplifies these fields and makes societies more receptive to symbolic leadership.

4.2 The role of the elites

There is no single unified secret elite, but there are:

• Informal power networks
• Institutional incentives
• Elite consensus spaces
• Media structures
• Interest coalitions

(C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, 1956)

These structures reinforce certain narratives and elevate certain personality types, particularly leaders who stabilize the emotional field. Obama fit this role unusually well.

5. Why so many followed him irrationally

When you combine:

• Post-9/11 trauma
• Stockholm-like dependency mechanisms
• Archetypal projection
• The racial redemption narrative
• Obama’s psychological profile
• Media amplification

You get a period of intense emotional idealization. People did not primarily respond to policy, but to:

• Fear
• Hope
• The need for redemption
• Identity projection
• Symbolic meaning

This is what can be described as low-frequency psychology: thinking guided by emotional survival mechanisms rather than clear awareness.

6. Conclusion

The idealization of Obama cannot be explained by conspiracy theories, but neither can it be reduced to pure political rationality. His position in American history arose at the intersection of:

• Collective trauma
• Archetypal patterns
• Emotional fields
• Elite-reinforced narratives
• Personality traits

Obama became a container for society’s emotional needs, a projection surface for the longing for healing, stability, and meaning. He resonated perfectly with the public’s sense of “need,” and importantly, with the interests of power and capital. This is precisely what makes the phenomenon so striking.

References

Alexander, J. C. (2004). Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Weber, C. (2007). “The Political Consequences of Terrorism.” Political Psychology.

Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2015). The Worm at the Core.

Bar-Tal, D. (2001). “Collective Emotional Orientations.” PSPR.

LeBon, G. (1895). The Crowd: A Study in the Popular Mind.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite.

Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Who Rules America?

Jung, C. G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.

Burlan, Yuri. System-Vector Psychology. (lectures and published materials)