Facts or Values?
Some psychologists believe that people gravitate to different ideologies because they hold different values and tastes. According to this general view, liberals and conservatives want different things, and, as a result, they are inevitably drawn towards different visions of society that is promoted by politicians of different parties. These different visions are not rationally chosen but are to a significant extent based on emotions and perhaps even innate preferences. Just a few days ago, for example, we discussed the possibility that conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals.
Some of us at Zogby believe that this approach to ideology might be incomplete. Recently, we surveyed almost 5000 Americans to see what they believe about basic economic mechanisms. Though our questions were non-ideological, we found great differences among people of different ideologies regarding their economic beliefs – things that they believe to be the case, not that they would prefer to be the case. In fact, we found the correlation between economic beliefs and ideology to be almost three times stronger than between ideology and disgust, suggesting a significant role for knowledge and reasoning in ideological positioning. We presented these findings at the recent American Psychological Society Convention in San Francisco.
What is your view of the role of factual disagreements in ideology? Do you believe differing ideologies primarily result from our differing values or from our different beliefs about the world?
Loading ...
How does resentment or a long held grudge shape our politics or morality? This is a far better question.
I think people who are better informed and more inclined to think logically will always end up on a different political side than those conditioned to let their emotions prevail. Resentments are emotions. A major problem in this country is that our educational institutions are dominated by the emotion orientated rather than logical thinkers
I agree the question of what ideology someone will fall in line with is bigger than just a matter of tastes and values. One factor is a basic sense of identity or belonging. In some cases, cultural saturation is involved. For example, some folks will identify with whatever ideology their parents had, or which dominates their community … but if you ask specific questions you will find their particular beliefs differ, sometimes markedly, from the ideology they claim to belong to.
Another factor, too, is the degree to which someone believes ideological identity and adherence is even necessary in the first place. The basic assumption behind every ideology is that no matter what happens, no matter the conditions, social environment, the economy, etc., one’s given ideology will ALWAYS present inherently better solutions to any given problem, than those of any other ideology. The degree to which someone subscribes to this axiom will govern how strongly they support the ideology in all cases and with regard to all issues.
People who do not assume their given ideology is superior to all others in all cases, will be more likely to “mix and match” the specifics of their beliefs. Those who do, will be more rigorous about what they believe. Some ideologies, of course, are more likely to demand strict adherence than others, which alters their appeal. So some ideologies can end up being “looser” than others, in that there is more variation of thought among its adherents.
The extent of belief in the need for ideological adherence, then, ends up meta-ideological thinking, which of course muddles the whole question of how people identify themselves in the first place.