What Psychology Tells Us About Dispelling Worldviews

Apparently it's difficult. This piece by David Ignatius on why facts don't seem to matter for Trump supporters is apt for my own research on contrasting views between peace activists and policymakers. In fact, trying to persuade the other and convincing them why they're wrong (or you're right) seems particularly onerous if the research of this 1979 study, "Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence" stands correct. It appears that attempts to debunk myths even has the potential opposite effect of reinforcing myths.

So applied to the politics of peace, activists are socialized at an early stage to hold particular views about nukes, bases, drones etc...As they interact with policymakers, who themselves are socialized into viewing peace through a different lens (i.e. realist, liberal international etc...), neither side cedes ground in trying to understand the facts. The result is polarization of views.

I'm going to need to find some collaborators in psychology and sociology to help me out here.

What Psychology Tells Us About Dispelling Worldviews

Apparently it's difficult. This piece by David Ignatius on why facts don't seem to matter for Trump supporters is apt for my own research on contrasting views between peace activists and policymakers. In fact, trying to persuade the other and convincing them why they're wrong (or you're right) seems particularly onerous if the research of this 1979 study, "Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects ofPrior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence" stands correct. It appears that attempts to debunk myths even has the potential opposite effect of reinforcing myths.

So applied to the politics of peace, activists are socialized at an early stage to hold particular views about nukes, bases, drones etc...As they interact with policymakers, who themselves are socialized into viewing peace through a different lens (i.e. realist, liberal international etc...), neither side cedes ground in trying to understand the facts. The result is polarization of views.

I'm going to need to find some collaborators in psychology and sociology to help me out here.

Chick-fil-A and Campus Pride

An inspiring piece from Shane Windmeyer, founder of LGBT organization Campus Pride, in the Huffington Post.  This acts as a type of truce between Chick-fil-A and LGBT groups which boycotted Chick-fil-A last summer and demonstrates the courage and wisdom of Mr. Windmeyer and Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. Initiated by Mr. Cathy, the two men began to engage in sincere, respectful dialouge to try and understand the perspectie of the other. Particular telling was Mr. Cathy's desire to first understand rather than be understood. At the same time, Mr. Cathy (nor Mr. Windmeyer) did not compromise his beliefs (i.e. his Biblical-based views about marriage defined as union between man and woman).

This dialouge resonates with the themes of some of my own research about discovering mutual respect and finding common ground among people despite polarization stemming from different worldviews. These lessons definitely apply to politics (i.e. read Congress). Windmeyer writes

"It is not often that people with deeply held and completely opposing viewpoints actually risk sitting down and listening to one another. We see this failure to listen and learn in our government, in our communities and in our own families. Dan Cathy and I would, together, try to do better than each of us had experienced before...It is about sitting down at a table together and sharing our views as human beings, engaged in real, respectful, civil dialogue.

Our mutual hope was to find common ground if possible, and to build respect no matter what. We learned about each other as people with opposing views, not as opposing people. During our meetings I came to see that the Chick-fil-A brand was being used by both sides of the political debate around gay marriage. The repercussion of this was a deep division and polarization that was fueling feelings of hate on all sides."

 

Out of this dialouge, Campus Pride has ended its campaign against Chick-fil-A.  Chick-fil-A has also diverted some of its philanthropy away from more controversial, political groups. This is not selling out or compromising beliefs - but an action fostered out of learning and growth through respectful dialouge.

Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt

Just read Michael Barnett's article "Evolution without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt." Here are few reactions, and some insights for my own research.

Barnett’s theoretical claim is the adaptation of evolutionary theory to social science (in this case the evolution of ethics and humanitarian organizations). Institutions and humanitarian groups have evolved over time – taking on larger roles and responsibilities, becoming more relevant in IR. Evolution, however, may not have actually led to progress. The political environment forced agencies to adapt. “The combination of environmental mechanisms and organizational culture led many humanitarian agencies to adapt to their environment in ways that incorporated politics…Actors respond to a world of change…there are strong pressures to conform to their environment” (624). Barnett goes on to conclude “There are many examples of the possibility of the practical ethics of aid agencies becoming politicized, mainstreamed, and tamed as a consequence of external pressures” (656). However, there is the fear that these NGOs may actually be reproducing and expanding the very world order (one dominated by politics, directed by powerful states) that they claim to resist. The environment “can have a pronounced impact on the principles of principled actors and enmesh them into the very world orders that they want to resist and transform” (626).

What’s striking here is the overwhelming emphasis of structure in Barnett’s argument. Barnett admits that the environment does not determine everything, and that actors have choices. But the choices are bounded within the limitations of the environment. Should there be more room for agency. I found his overviews for CARE and World Vision more plausible than MSF and UNHCR (i'm still puzzled why he uses an IGO for the "accomodationist" category).

Barnett’s piece in IO has given me different ideas about my (failed) grant proposal on “The Politicization of North Korea.” Empirically, he raises many of the same issues and questions that I do regarding human rights and humanitarian aid agencies. How do altruistic groups become wrapped in politics? Barnett provides a theoretical hook grounded in evolutionary theory to answer this question. Due to the nature of the grant proposal, I wrote a very policy-specific to North Korea. To turn it into a working paper, I could, however, follow Barnett’s example and formulate a general theory explaining/describing how human rights rights and humanitarian aid organizations operate within a given political environment, using North Korea as one case (Burma, Congo, Iran are other possible examples).

New Research

After rejections from fellowships this year, I'm back to the drawing board regarding research topics. Hopefully I can turn the "Politicization of North Korea" topic into at least a paper.

Peter Katzenstein's address at the Rising Powers Initiative project launch was the first time in a while I felt my intellectual brain ticking. Anyway, here are 2 possible topics I might explore:

1) Social Movements in International Relations: this would extend out of my first book project on anti-base movements. Lately, we've seen protests/riots/social mvts around: Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Iran just to name a few. Do these movements have any implications for international relations? If so, it's not apparent. I'd like to come up with a theory which helps us evaluate the impact of social movements in IR. A domestic-int'l linkage type argument if you well. One think PK argued was that revolutions don't come from below, but are top-down. The storming of the Bastille and people power come to mind when we hear revolution. But by then, it's too late.

2) Let's Talk (International conferences and forums). We've seen a proliferation of global summits (the nuclear summit, Copenhagen, etc...). Are they effective, or a waste of time? Have western diplomats adopted eastern practices of talking about talks. Has process become valued as much as outcomes for Western diplomats - an adoption of the ASEAN way?

Hard and Human Security: North Korea and Iran?

I met my former dissertation adviser at a conference in Baltimore earlier this month, and shared with him my research ideas related to North Korea. He was OK about the use of network analysis, but troubled by a study focusing on just one country. He sees a fixation on one country as a bad career move. Instead, I should make NK one case of a larger theoretical problem. Iran immediately popped to mind.

Iran and NK are both nuclear proliferaters with dubious human rights practices where the US focuses almost exclusively on the former and treads lightly on the latter. However, Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has made a pointed case that supporting democracy (i.e. the opposition) and human rights (those arrested or beaten after the June election unrest) can result in both moral and tactical benefits.

But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral. The Post writes:

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is at the lowest level of popularity one can imagine," Ms. Ebadi said. "If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause. But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."

Ms. Ebadi suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy. Iran's people are not as wedded to the nuclear program as the regime wants outsiders to believe. A democratic government would be unlikely to build a nuclear bomb, she said, and even if it did, the weapon would not be a threat in the hands of a government that would not view America or Israel as enemies. By contrast, she argued, even a seemingly ironclad nuclear agreement with Mr. Ahmadinejad might be of little value: "Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow. Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"

Hmmm...we could ask this same question about trust in signing an agreement w/Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately, in NK there is no visible opposition to work with. We only have the regime to work with. However, as with all governments, hard-liners and moderates do exist within the regime. If there's a way to identify and sway moderates, and perhaps open the country to the outside, could a more credible nuclear deal be struck?

Not In Anyone's Backyard

My article on the emergence of a transnational anti-base movement was published this month in ISQ. I was surprised when a colleague at Temple forwarded me a link with a review of it on the Duck of Minerva blog.

http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2009/09/not-in-anyones-backyard-andrew-yeo-on.html