Prabir Purkayastha
Are right-wingers dumber than others? How else can we
explain the tenacity with which a set of them hold on to beliefs in flying
machines and genetics 7,000 years back, or deny evolution or climate change?
Why does the right, confronted with evidence contrary to its belief systems,
prefer to invent its own facts? Why have a number of studies shown a
statistically significant correlation between lower intelligence and holding
racist beliefs or other prejudices
Well, it appears that there is an element of truth in
conservatives being dumber. It is not that they are born less intelligent; but
they “use” their brain in a different way. Studies in psychology show that
certain kinds of people use the amygdala, that part of the brain that processes
emotions including fear, more than the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), the
part of the brain that processes uncertainties and conflicts. There is a
correlation here: those who are prejudiced have a larger amygdala, and those
who are more open, a larger ACC region. This is not a cause-effect issue; it is not that people are more conservative because they
have a more active amygdala. It is also
possible that in those fearful of
change, the amygdala gets enlarged; if people are willing to deal with uncertainties, their ACC
could grow more. The brain does not develop only on its own; it is also a
product of our thinking.
What is the consequence of
being unable to handle uncertainties? It promotes what would be called
low effort thought. The mode of thinking dominated by our fear of the unknown,
or venturing into uncertain territory, leads to remaining imprisoned in our
existing belief system. Venturing into conflicts and uncertainties call for
greater efforts in thinking through
contradictions. Being open requires more mental or cognitive effort. Being
closed requires much less.
Such low effort thinking happens not only to people who let
their fears govern their responses. It
also operates under conditions when our ability to think reduces. In a study
carried out on people with different levels of alcohol, it was found that
people became more conservative in their responses as alcohol level in their
blood increased. Similarly, if they were subjected simultaneously to other
cognitive tasks, or asked to give answers with less time to respond, they again
“became” more conservative. A lower effort in thinking is correlated with a
more conservative response.
It is not only in political thinking that we see this kind
of phenomena. We see it also, for example, among vaccine deniers, a group in
the US that cuts across the political spectrum. A study on vaccine deniers
shows that irrespective of the way vaccine deniers were approached, their
desire to vaccinate their children did not increase. Even when they corrected
their belief that vaccination does not cause the disease or autism - a belief
prevalent among vaccine deniers – there was no change in their opinion on the need to vaccinate
their children. Some of the methods of communicating the benefits of vaccination
actually backfired: when shown pictures of diseases vaccination could prevent, the parents
associated the vaccines with the disease.
This is where the fear processing comes in. Even before the cognitive process begins, the fear centre
starts processing the “new” data. If it confronts an existing belief system that sees such new
data or facts as a danger, the response,
for conservatives, is to change
the facts. The less the person is willing to think about uncertainties, the
more likely he or she is to stick to her framework or belief system. This is
why, be it climate change, evolution, or closer home, the mythical achievements
of ancient Indian science, the right wingers come out with their “alternate”
set of facts, or even an alternate universe!
The conservative or right wing mind thinks in terms of
simple belief systems based on existing prejudices. If there is racism in
society, they are more likely to mirror it. If there is hatred for other
communities, they are more likely to reflect that as well. Change in thinking
demands more effort. Repeating what
parents and other authority figures tell you requires less effort. It’s
not surprising then that authoritarian
figures who lay down the “law” are so much a part of the right.
The people who prefer to live in low effort thinking mode do
not find it easy to interact with people
outside their own group – be it race, religion, or language. Encounters with
those who come from a different cultural background requires a higher level of
effort; this is true even to understand
what others are saying. This is additional cognitive load, requiring additional
effort. Right wingers tend to avoid interaction
with other groups, and also exhibit hostility toward these groups. Being
anti-immigrant, or believing that other communities are different, is a
consequence of staying away from them, and so
reinforcing existing prejudices.
Not only is there empirical evidence of right wingers tending to be dumber than the
left, there is also an explanation of why it is so. Of course, such studies are
based on the controversial premise that intelligence is measurable in some way.
And these measures are based on averages;
they do not tell us anything about a particular individual on the right
or the left. But we do see that if we
test a large number of people, on the average, the less intelligent are also
likely to have views that are more prejudiced.
These studies also explain why the right wing is
continuously engaged in fear-mongering. In India, for example,why does the
right spread the myth that “the Muslims are growing faster than Hindus” even
when figures show that corrected for economic status, there is no difference
between the growth rate of the two communities? In the US, it has been the fear
of the “blacks”, and now, also of Muslims, equated with “terrorists”. Hence the
prominence of the war on “terror”in the west, particularly among the Republican
right. Thus a Netanyahu in Israel could
talk about a giant, left-wing global
conspiracy to defeat him in the elections.
The fear factor dominates the right-wing base. The more they can sell
their stories of threat, the greater the
chance of fearful people changing sides.
It’s in this way that communal riots that create fear among communities becomes
fertile ground for the right.
So how does the left approach the people? Do we approach the
people with the same strategy as the right? Make them more scared about their
future with the rise of the right? Talk about how our future is in danger with
the current set of policies?
Can we also use fear as an instrument?
A similar approach by the left simply would not succeed. Increasing fear as a strategy --
even when there is a genuine threat to the people – will lead to more
conservative responses and increase the chances of people moving further to the
right. Fear promotes conservatism and not a radical response.
George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics, has advanced the
argument that the left should not use the metaphors of the right. In his view, people think in metaphors, and
all abstractions such as “tax cuts” and “reliefs” relate to how they perceive
the metaphor of “relief”. If the left talks critically even of tax reliefs,
they reinforce the belief that tax cuts are actually “reliefs”. Relief is a
positive metaphor – relief from pain or other afflictions. The minute we use
the word relief, the critical message is offset by the positive metaphor associated
with relief.
Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple. The research on
how we think shows that people do not think only in terms of positive or
negative metaphors. They have a belief system, not just a set of
metaphors. Any argument or factual contradiction
of such a belief system leads to the rejection of either the argument or the
facts, and not a change of the belief system. We have to change the way people
think rather than choose a different language of presenting facts. We could, of
course, stop using certain words and phrases as Professor Lakoff recommends;
but that’s not enough. The crux of the
issue is the underlying belief system,
and so the question: can make them think deeper?
How, then, do we change belief systems? First, pedagogically
speaking, it is active learning that produces systems of knowledge. Systemic
understanding develops when we interact with the world. It is by doing science
experiments that we learn about the natural world. Learning by rote –
memorising “knowledge” -- or a passive mode of learning, leads to the inability
to distinguish between “received” wisdom and scientific knowledge. An active
mode of learning helps to think through contradictions, and so develop a
scientific viewpoint. A passive mode promotes conservative thinking.
An understanding of society is no different. Instead of
class room experiments of science, we have movements in society that are our
laboratories. Here we learn about the social system of which we are a part.
While trying to change society we really
understand it.
A number of well meaning people fault the left for not being
more effective communicators. What they miss is that communication is only one
part of the problem.
The right's increased power of communications is a
consequence of the rise of neoliberalism, its transformation of the media, the
role that advertising and advertisers play, and the new monopolies emerging
withe rise of digital technologies. These media monopolies and their support
for the right, coupled with the weakening of the traditional movements of the
left, constitute the real challenge.
The neoliberal economic order has fragmented the workplace.
It has led to the weakening of unions and the working class movement, not only
in India but all over the world. How do we organise working class movements
under the structural changes that are taking place under neoliberal capitalism?
Only by addressing this central problem can we also address the left's problem
of communications.
No comments:
Post a Comment