This is a general review paper for the whole semester that need to draw as broadly as possible on the material from the class.
two questions that need around 700 words each,combined less than 1500 words.
I wrote part of the first question and provided data for remaining part, please modify it for me and continue writing it.
For the second question I provided many data/resources, please make use of them to complete the paper, thank you so much
First question:
A central debate within political psychology has always been, when framed in extreme terms, concerns the extent to which political elites can and do manipulate the general public, as opposed to the extent to which they must pander to the preferences of the mass public. Framed more modestly, this debate pits the view that the mass public is mainly responsive to elite initiatives, against the view that elites’ actions are strongly influenced by the public’s preferences. Discuss this question critically, drawing broadly upon material from throughout the course.
My starting: Do people really know what effect a specific policy will bring to their life? Most people get their idea from their party id or from the information they received through speeches from political figures. They are not analyzing the policy but submitting their consensus to the political agent they choose to decide for them. This delegation provide the power for the political elites to decide for the public, the decision they made is not really for the preference of the public but for the value of their party. The party filters voices and creates a set of value for the supporter to follow. The political leaders’ decisions will get support from their partisans regardless of negative results that may arise from their action. As a result public preference may be undermined.
The reason that elites can manipulate the general public is the existence of strong party identification. From the symbolic predisposition theory, we know that people usually get their political preference from their party id, and Party id are acquired early in life and are pretty stable through life. The American Voter” shows that party identification is acquired in pre-adult life, and parental party identification has a strong influence on children. It is a powerful element for elite to make use of. Political leaders can
I. The American Voter theory
The long-term effects of attitude changes during the “impressionable years”
Generational effects
Changes in response to:
Events, like 9/11, assassination of JFK
The zeitgeist (spirit of the times), like “the 60’s”
“Generations”
A birth cohort
A generational unit
Milgram experiment – obedience to authority
Intellectual context: 1950’s [Freud, learning]
Emphasis on formative early experiences + persistence through life
“
Process of political socialization (Hyman)
“A man is born into his political party….”
Lewinsky: aggregate change: minor
individual change: party polarization
especially in attentive public
Weak or absent predispositions
Primaries
New candidates
Unfamiliar issues
Phase 4: The new look (Kinder)
Telling the voter what to think
Persuasion
Telling the voter what to think about
Agenda-setting
Framing
Priming
even elites are not working well, aggregate change is minimum.
Deindividuation: lose conscience and good sense
Mass media can persuade gullible masses of anything
Public rational in aggregate, less rational individually
Attentive public as signal, rest of public as noise
Problem: attentive public most partisan, least open to change
Vietnam, Iraq wars
————————————
Second question:
Mass political violence, whether wars or genocides or massacres, typically is executed by ordinary people at the direction of political elites. Taking up just the elite side of the equation, how do you now view the various psychological factors at play; e.g., individual personality, group dynamics, cognitive biases, group prejudices, etc.?
Resources
3. Ego psychology
Unconscious conflicts =
unacceptable impulses vs. superego, ego
Produce anxiety
Emotion drives thought (rationalization)
The “public interest”
Rationalization of private motives
Ego Defenses
Reduce conflict and anxiety
Partially express impulse
Key ego defenses for political psychology
Projection
Reaction formation
Identification with the aggressor
Splitting
How diagnose conflicts and defenses, if unconscious?
Inappropriate affect
Tension and conflict
Indirect expression of the forbidden
4. Object Relations Theory
Parents as introjected objects
Transitional objects – teddy bears give security
Emotionally charged political symbols
Christ on a cross, the flag, “9-11”
Freud’s essays on society
Civilization and its discontents (1930)
Inevitability of destructive instinct
Options – none pretty
Introject, be miserable
Turn outward, prosocial aggression
Hostility against outgroups
Late 19th century Italy
Explicit elitism
Conservative sociologists: Mosca, Michels, Pareto
Inevitability of rigidly stratified society: iron law of oligarchy
Elites retain support through ideology, duping masses (Pareto)
Residue: Underlying central unstated element: Don’t challenge
Derivatives: Sophistic arguments used to sell it
Contemporary versions
of such derivations (misleading ideologies)
False consciousness/legitimizing myths
Political left on gullible masses: Thomas Frank
Not economic interests
Distracted by moral values
Mass Society Theory:
Germany in mid 19th century: traditional pre-industrial society
Deference to aristocracy
Strong religious life
Cozy villages
Close family relations
To World War I (1914)
Remained authoritarian empire
Rapid industrialization and urban growth
Large corporations and accumulation of capital
Labor unions and class polarization
Large bureaucracies
Germany, WWI to 1933
After WW I. collapse
Abrupt change of regime left unstable Weimar democracy
Economic depression, hyper-inflation, abortive revolution
Nazi regime elected in 1933
Mass society theory
Effort to explain rise of Nazism and fascism
Fromm (Escape from Freedom), Kornhauser
Rapid industrialization, urbanization produced:
Loss of community and political belonging
Alienated mass population
1930’s: Mass society theory
The appeals of fascism
Revive order (economy, bureaucracy)
Recapture traditional society (kinder, kuchen, kirke)
Subservience to authority and hierarchy, strong military
Nationalism: a new nationally-centered identity, sense of belonging
Rise of mass media (radio, movies) facilitates Nazi propaganda
1930’s: Mass society theory
Contemporary version
Parallels of mob psychology and mass society
Loss of normal community
Individuals are suggestible
Produces desire for tradition, religion, community
Mob-like swings behind strong leadership
On War (1931-2)
Origin: Individual violence through group force
“Civilization” replaced overt force with “law”
Why is the “rule of law” inadequate?”
Why is human history an unending series of conflicts?
I. Realistic group conflict theory
Idea: Conflicts of interest —-> prejudice —–> antagonistic behavior
Real resources
Rational choice/self-interest
Common sense, often manifest content of prejudice
Realistic group conflict cont’d
Classic case: V O Key Jr.: Southern Politics
Black concentration produces sense of threat
Slave revolts
And racially conservative politics
Data: Maps
II. Personality theories
Pathological personalities: “the bigoted personality”
The Authoritarian Personality (1950)
Marxist/psychoanalytic perspective
Focus on anti-semitism (funded by AJC)
The Authoritarian Personality
Theory of origins
Strict, punitive child-rearing
Resentment toward authority
Repressed and displaced toward other targets
Projected onto others
The Authoritarian Personality
Nine personality traits; e.g.,
Authoritarian submission
Authoritarian aggression
Power and toughness (projection of weakness)
Contempt for tender, imaginative
Specific items developed from case studies
F(ascism) scale
Effects of the Authoritarian Personality
Ethnocentrism
Glorify ingroup
Anti-minority antagonism
Anti-semitism
Racial prejudice
Glorify regime
Anti-dissenters
Anti-civil liberties
Totalitarian, undemocratic systems
Critiques
Politically biased: ignored leftwing (Stalinist) authoritarianism
Methodology: may not be personality, but class
III. “Working class authoritarianism” (Lipset)
Working class life
economically insecure, frustrating
unstimulating environment
Effects on personality
resentment, aggression
unsophisticated view of society and politics (Lane….)
Political attitudes
economic issues: left [class interests]
non-economic issues: rightwing
A bit elitist
IV. Social learning and conformity
Sociocultural prejudice is learned
Like political socialization
Anti outgroup separate from pro ingroup
Pettigrew theory:
Strong norms —> conformity to subculture
Jim Crow South
Bennington students
Weak norms–>personality (auth pers)
Southern anti-semitism
North on race
V. Groupthink — Irving Janis
Key concept: Group cohesiveness:
Face to face, positive valuation of group, clear norms
Influences group members
Think consistency theories
Benefits of cohesive groups
Cohesive groups usually valuable
Mutual liking
High morale, worker satisfaction
Mutual influence, consensus
High productivity
V. Groupthink — Irving Janis
Negative effects
Strong conformity pressures
Deviants: attempt to influence, expel resisters
Stereotype outsiders and outgroups
Dangers of groupthink – covered in readings
Mutual liking: Overestimate collective wisdom of the group
Mutual influence: Pressures toward uniformity
Reject dissenters
Ignore outside criticism
III. Loewenberg’s Heinrich Himmler
Goal: analysis of a single individual
Data: youthful diary = as good as it gets
Most plausible inferences
Control freak <—-anxiety about impulse control
Hardness, aggression <—– repressed rage against father
Condescension toward soft/weak/impulsive <——-projection of sexuality
= extreme defenses
So –
good-bad world
III. Loewenberg’s Heinrich Himmler
Proud of: obedience, control own revulsion at killing
Less plausible inferences
schizoid personality
conflict over id with mother
germany x incest fantasies
rescue fantasies <— protect mom
gastrointestinal disturbances
Quasi-scientific inferences
where’s the conflict and tension?
no rage: dog that didn’t bark
brother as control group
hypnotized girl
what ego defenses used?
Alternative: anti-semitism as cultural product?
I. Examples
Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, USSR, Nanking
II. Holocaust
Germany most civilized nation on Earth
Fell apart after WW I (Loewenberg)
Early 1930’s: 5 minority parties
1932-3: 5 elections, Nazis always plurality
1933: Hitler installs self as Chancellor, begins imprisoning undesirables
III. Elimination of European Jewry
Gradual
1935: Nuremberg Race Laws
1938: Krystallnacht – the Night of Crystal
1939: Curfew, euthanasia begins
1941 (apparently): Decision to eliminate
1945: 6 million Jews died (63% of European Jewry)
IV. Categories of explanation
Brewster Smith’s “map”:
Personality/motivation
Situation
Learned predispositions
V. Personality/motivation
Authoritarian personality
National character
Scapegoating and displaced aggression
Individual idiosyncracy: Himmler, Hitler
Problem: Millions of ordinary Germans served; all pathological?
Eichmann: “I was just doing my duty.”
VI. External situation
Conformity
Mob psychology
Conformity in ambiguous situations
Conformity in clear situations (Asch)
Requires clear group norm
Requires consensus
External situation (cont’d)
Obedience to authority (Milgram)
“Bureaucratization of evil”
Observers predicted little obedience; surprised
Conditions for obedience – diffusion of responsibility, legitimate authority, distance from authority, authorities’ consensus
“The policy process” (Kelman)
In real world, power/authority more complex
Authorization, routinization, dehumanization
VII. Choosing a target: learned predispositions
Choice of target unexplained above
Back to political socialization and learned prejudices
Goldhagen’s “eliminationist anti-semitism”
In 19th century, conservatives openly anti-semitic
Earlier emperors prevented its expression
Weimar in 1920’s weak
Nazi rule eliminated constraints
Controversial
VIII. No one-stop shopping: Kristen Monroe’s conditions
Ethnic divisions in society
Definition of outgroups as “the other”:
stereotyping; scapegoating
Legitimizing ideology:
Quasi-scientific
Demonizing, dehumanizing/distancing
Specific contextual factors: inflation, war, etc.
Perhaps requires perfect storm
Charismatic, single-minded leader?
Compliant army, police, bureaucrats?
The unexplained: Sudden nature of genocidal events?
Sinclair Lewis: “It Can’t Happen Here” – 1935
All too plausible
George Frederickson: History of racism
Scientific/biological racism
“Race” is innate, indelible, unchangeable
Not merely attitudes, but practices, structures
Seeks to establish permanent group hierarchy
F’s “Overtly racist regimes”
Five conditions
Explicitly racist ideology
No intermarriage/racial purity
Mandated social segregation
Outgroup excluded from power
Minorities poor
Germany, Jim Crow, apartheid
Hitler made world unsafe for ORR’s
Phase 1:The great propaganda scare
The Fine Art of Propaganda (1939)
Tricks of the trade
Father Coughlin
Psychological assumptions
Mass exposure
Highly attentive, isolated public
Gullible public
Massive effects