Verified by 
In the days of the old west, when law enforcement was often weak or nonexistent, people sometimes felt compelled to take the law into their own hands. These self-appointed vigilantes were often supported by the local community, but vigilantes frequently offered their own brand of justice based on their personal views of good and bad behavior. Instead of enforcing the law, vigilantes sometimes saw themselves as the law.
Today, we rely on the police and the courts to maintain order, but a new variety of vigilante has appeared to help keep people in line. Like the vigilantes of the old west, these “social vigilantes” take it upon themselves to enforce their views of appropriate beliefs and behavior. Social vigilantes try to impose their views on the rest of us, pressuring and even intimidating everyone to adopt their beliefs about what people should think and how people should behave. Social vigilantes believe that they are obligated to enforce certain beliefs and standards even when they target thoughts and behaviors that are not in any way illegal and that do not directly hurt anybody.
Social vigilantism is nonpartisan. Recent incidents in which people tried to impose their personal views on others have been perpetrated on both sides of the political spectrum. In the recent controversy surrounding the NFL, some insisted that everyone must stand during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner. Even though, to my knowledge, no one has ever been harmed because someone sat or kneeled during the song, some people have condemned – and even sought retribution against – those who don’t stand. In the same way, protests have erupted on university campuses to prevent conservative political speakers from appearing who might say things that those vigilantes find offensive.
Of course, all of us would prefer that other people see the world as we do, and we all find certain viewpoints distasteful and even offensive. Yet, most of us begrudgingly tolerate beliefs and actions that violate our own as long as no one is hurt. No matter what we might personally think about taking a knee during the national anthem or asserting political views that we find distasteful, most people understand that other people are under no obligation to see things the way that they do and believe that others are entitled to think and do what they wish as long as their behavior is not illegal and does not directly harm other people. Despite their personal preferences, most people allow others the freedom to choose what to believe and how to act.
Social vigilantes, on the other hand, display a particularly pernicious variety of runaway egoicism in which they are convinced that their personal views should be imposed on everyone. Just as the vigilantes of the old west believed they were acting on behalf of society as they enforced their view of the law, today’s social vigilantes believe that they are acting on behalf of society to enforce correct ways of thinking and behaving.
Given the diversity of people’s beliefs and few agreed-upon criteria for judging them, what would lead someone to conclude that his or her personal view of reality should be imposed on everyone? What moves someone from merely disagreeing with other people’s beliefs and actions to insisting that everyone else conform to his or her own judgments about what is and is not acceptable?
Donald Saucier and Russell Webster at Kansas State University have begun to explore this question in their research on social vigilantism. Their research shows that social vigilantes go beyond believing that their views are correct, which we all do, to explicitly trying to propagate their beliefs. Typically, social vigilantes regard the mere expression of beliefs or attitudes that are contrary to their own as akin to a social “crime” that must be prevented if possible and punished should it occur. When other people do not share their beliefs, social vigilantes become upset and angry, and they take action to change other people's beliefs, which fuels conflicts with other people.
Not surprisingly, social vigilantes score high in dogmatism – the tendency to be closed-minded. But not all closed-minded people take it upon themselves to impose their views on others. Social vigilantes are not only dogmatic but are also highly motivated to control other people, and they narcissistically believe that their views are so incontrovertibly superior that they should make an ongoing effort to change others’ "ignorant" beliefs. Ironically, they are also the sort of people who display a great deal of resistance (what psychologists call reactance) when other people try to persuade or control them which, of course, is what social vigilantes try to do to the rest of us.
Social communities must have standards regarding appropriate behavior to protect people from being disadvantaged and harmed. But, in a complex, heterogeneous society — particularly one that values personal autonomy and freedom of speech — trying to get everyone to think and act in line with one’s own beliefs is not only futile but also arrogant and disrespectful. Social vigilantes display an egoic lack of perspective-taking in thinking that everyone should share their beliefs and that their views should take precedence over everyone else’s.
When I encounter a social vigilante who is determined to impose his or her beliefs on others, I’m reminded of how we responded to bossy kids in elementary school who insisted that everyone do things their way: “Who died and made you sheriff?”
References
Saucier, D. A., & Webster, R. J. (2010). Social vigilantism: Measuring individual differences in belief superiority and resistance to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 19-32.
