Human Temperament and the Roots of Ideology
One of the keys to alleviating ideological conflict and polarization is seeing how personal and subjective factors drive our political leanings. If we can identify and observe those drivers in action, and perceive that they are not objective facts, we can reduce the absolutism underscoring notions of right and wrong and see some validity in opposing viewpoints.
In a previous post, we looked at American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s ideas contained in his book The Righteous Mind. Haidt argues that our various political orientations are not governed, as we like to think, by our intellect and reason but by self-serving moral reflexes rooted in our evolutionary past, as well as in our cultures. Whether we take a conservative or liberal approach on any issue, will depend to a significant degree on which moral foundations influence us intuitively.
Are there other factors that similarly impact our political proclivities? Can our life experiences and their impact on our emotions and temperament also, unbeknownst to us, affect our political outlooks?
Individuals and collectives who have experienced victimization, trauma, prejudice, or other forms of injustice or hurt—whether more real or more perceived—tend to be the most vociferously outspoken voices on the political left.
Champions of that ideology tend to demand state intervention to mitigate injustice or assist the citizen, especially victims. This is viewed as a virtue, whereby the state is caring for the unfortunate, or taking from the rich to give to the poor. Implicit is that if there is no intervention, damage will not get repaired or worse will come. Though driven by a form of idealism, and in some cases genuine compassion, such progressive viewpoints are pessimistic about future outcomes, at times, presuming the worst.
People who lean more towards the political right view such state intervention as less necessary, or deleterious because they put forward complicating and artificial interventions in natural or organic processes such as cultural and societal norms.
Behind both views may lie a kind of temperament which influences people’s leaning in one way or another. Temperamentally, people who lean left may be more acutely fearful and anxious of the vicissitudes of life and their ability to manage them, or the ability of others to do so – thus the need for a larger and more powerful entity, such as the state, to intervene and mitigate their fear. The desire for justice, or perhaps even revenge, for past wrongs may exacerbate these tendencies to want to control the future.
In this regard, calls to regulate social rules and norms, through safetyism, political correctness and the cancel culture of the so-called “woke” movement are examples of this sort of behaviour.
The need for control, stemming from fear, does also manifest in the behaviour and thought on the political right. Xenophobia and paranoia of government by extreme right-wing ideologues, more close-minded views on racial mixing, and the blurring of the lines between church and state are all such examples. Jonathan Haidt, for instance, tells us, that people with conservative views, are less open to new experiences.
Yet, those who lean more right may simply, generally, have more trust in life and belief that matters will sort themselves out in ways other than through state intervention. This greater trust may be related to being less anxious about the nature of life. Whereas progressives tend to demand certainties and guarantees, conservatives may simply be willing to live with more ambiguity and risk. We see this play out in a wide variety of issues ranging from COVID to Brexit.
Temperament as a foundation for political behaviour might explain much. But can we drill even deeper to better understand the psychological basis of these temperamental propensities? And is there a way to bridge the divide created by them?
We’ll examine that in our next post.
RELATED STORIES
