Understanding the Conservative Mind
Psychologist, Lissa Johnson (pictured above) has
given us a revealing insight into the mind of the political
conservative, in an article published in New Matilda. Lissa is a
clinical psychologist interested in the psychology of ideology and
politics, and the philosophy and politics of psychology.
“If the Abbott Government was an individual, he would be a psychopath,”
she begins before giving a detailed description of the mindset that
happily allows and promotes ultra-right wing extremism. The article
should be compulsory reading for those of us who constantly struggle
with certain aspects of the mainstream media.
Detailed studies into the difference between the psychological right
and left have been going on in earnest for the past 20 plus years. The
results are now in the public domain for all of us to examine and, I
have to say, there is not much there that surprises me.
The conservative mind is indeed a curious animal and betrays itself
through language and form. Johnson, in her article, sets about
dissecting the Abbott government’s aversion to equality for all, their
resistance to change and explains the reasoning behind their attitude to
the unemployed, the disadvantaged and those on the lower levels of the
socio-economic ladder.
They have an aversion to social and economic equality. They suffer
from ‘Right Wing Authoritarianism’ which rejects openness and
accountability. They are hierarchical in structure, anti-egalitarian
which Johnson tells us, “correlates with conservatism but also with the
‘dark triad’ of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and
Psychopathy.”
But,conservatism comes in degrees and not all who vote conservative
necessarily embody these characteristics. For those who enter politics,
however, the stronger the psychological underpinning, the stronger the
views.
For example, conservatives have a pressing need to arrive at fixed
and firm answers to complex questions, described by psychologists as a
need for cognitive closure. In other words, they need to keep things
simple. One can only presume that they have a short attention span and
this pressing need is for their benefit, rendering any further review
unnecessary.
Their need for cognitive closure means they shun open mindedness, and
they are suspicious of science and the arts and distrust foreign food
and culture. Already we can see how this manifests in policies on boat
people and climate change.
AsI read Johnson’s article, I could not help comparing it with my own
upbringing as a Catholic. The hierarchy, the inflexibility of rules, the
dominance, inequality and resistance to change. The Catholic Church was
able to maintain this inflexibility through relentless psychological
pressure and trauma.
It makes me wonder if the Catholic contingent in the Abbott
government’s ministry, is a reflection of an elite conservative mindset
finding justification for its lack of compassion, humility and empathy
toward the disadvantaged; a justification that allows them to keep it
that way.
My own view is that conservative parties are only interested in
governing for today. They have no vision for tomorrow, no grand plan.
They would rather let tomorrow take care of itself. They will say what
is necessary to win support, concealing their true intent. Their intent
is being the government rather than about governing.
Johnson says that a full and frank disclosure of their intent would
render them unelectable. So they cleverly disguise their inner drive
when addressing a predominantly egalitarian society by sugar-coating
their aims and by ‘legitimising myths’ that reinforce fear and scarcity.
They use the stereotype (poor people don’t have cars) or fear (budget
emergency) to illustrate various myths.
The wearing of the Burqa is a classic example. So too, the
uncertainty of debt and deficit, ‘age of entitlement’ and the like, all
of which appeal to an elite which is itself uncertain and fearful and
perceives these issues as a threat to its way of life.
Andthen there is the issue of prejudice, a conservative log jam that
breeds racism and the belief that underprivileged minorities are
responsible for their own circumstances; that sexual minorities and the
unemployed, welfare recipients and single mothers threaten the good
order and structure that society must uphold and maintain.
And so, after having gained power, conservative governments begin
winding back the clock, repealing uncomfortable reforms that promote and
support a more egalitarian society.
They conveniently forget or simply discard their pre-election sugar
coating and engage in legitimising their myths to justify restructuring
society back to the hierarchical, authoritarian model. They move on
dissenting voices, invoke extreme and unnecessary legislation to
‘protect’ their prejudices and reinforce their two principal aversions:
equality and change.
Johnson’s article quite neatly encapsulates what most of us on the
left either already know or have long suspected. Not that we are without
fault but at least we err on the side of compassion, empathy and
fairness. But, by knowing how to identify the idiosyncratic oddities of
the conservative mindset, we are better able to articulate a more
socially responsible alternative.
You can read the full article here.
No comments:
Post a Comment