On the American Political System (II)
Scrutinising The Gears Of Identity Politics That Run Our Lives
D. H. Kang
A CAVEAT; THE EXPLORATION OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS BY SCRUTINY OF THE SYMPTOMS, AND HYPOTHESISING THE CAUSE. The examples I shall use to illustrate my point are American, but the problem itself is universal to democracy.
According to psychologists, we fall into one of five personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion-introversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. These personality traits determine whether we fall under the umbrella of liberalism or conservatism; the basic optimism of openness to experience is intrinsically linked to liberal ideology, and the preference for stability and order is associated with conservatism. It is natural for us, oblivious of inevitable human nature, to mistakenly believe that all our beliefs regarding politics are slowly developed through our maturation of worldviews. But political psychologists suggest that instead, they are driven by our natural personalities – something that segues into the concept of identity politics.
Indeed, among politically engaged citizens in America, one study showed that the questions individuals were more likely to ask were “what does this positional policy say about me?” compared to “what does this policy do for me?” This hints at the underlying psychological sorting that pervades democratic systems. In the words of Ezra Klein, a political journalist, “When we participate in politics to solve a problem, we’re participating transactionally. But when we participate in politics to express who we are, that is a signal that politics has become an identity.”
Perhaps it is very much similar to the mindset of sports. Whether Americans (and us as well) identify as a Democrat or Republican, becomes ingrained in identity, and that is when belief surpasses rationality. Perhaps before we even are able to react, we find ourselves on the defensive of ourselves; a natural human instinct. However the impact is clear. As we lose our ability to think objectively, discourse deteriorates into endless bouts of defamation and self-defence. It leads to an incapacity to express and to think – things which the democratic system itself largely hinges upon.
It certainly doesn’t help that we live in an age of digital media. The algorithms that recommend videos on YouTube or your social media feed play an unintentionally sinister role in propagating lies through the creation of echo chambers. Echo chambers refer to closed systems experienced by individuals that amplify existing beliefs and prevent exposure to rebuttal that is crucial in reaching synthesis at the end of our internal dialectic. Just think about the recommended videos as you go into YouTube that provide an endless abundance of re-affirmation and similar content to match your likes. Such is the power of the pervasive technological consequence of social media. Hence, it is clear as to why someone who might align themself with a certain political viewpoint, will find it increasingly harder to extricate themself and hear any other voices; they are trapped in a perpetual cycle of growing engagement and a feed that satiates that ever growing desire.
You might have seen 60-minute documentaries about people who have lost themselves after falling into the clutches of QAnon. This concept I have described about ingrained identity politics and its irrationality applies especially to conspiracy theories. When everything you see reaffirms your existing beliefs, it is a downward spiral and not even your closest and most trusted friends and family can pull you out. Even after Facebook, now known as Meta, banned QAnon on all its platforms, it continued to exist, festering in the dark. Such attempts to de-platform conspiracy theories have not worked for a number of reasons, including the presence of alternate websites such as the notorious 4Chan, and the fact that the de-platforming itself has fed into the beliefs of conspiracy theorists – that the world is trying to silence the truth from being spoken.
Even forms of non-digital media, struggling to keep up with the ever-evolving digital media, have no choice but to become more extreme and appeal to individuals on the fringes – in order to sustain themselves.
What is worse is our incapacity to filter through the vast amounts of information on the internet. More often than not, we look at the very first thing that pops up on our Google search and assume that it’s true – without going through necessary procedures. It’s a hassle, sure, but sometimes it’s as easy as taking five seconds to think about the trustworthiness and potential bias of the author, before we perhaps unintentionally spread incorrect information ourselves.
The problem is a broad one. It requires more than just the individual; it requires a change in societal conscience itself. So long as we remain social animals called humans, the need to be connected to each other, whether in-person or online will exist. Misinformation will always exist. Therefore, it is us who must become impervious. Intersectionality is a must.
