System Justification Theory

This is a theory that originated with Karl Marx and was taken on again by social psychologists.  The system justification theory is an endorsement of a rationalization for the system in power even if it promotes inequality.  My professor related that it is a belief that binds and blinds.  It is accepting the way things are and believing that people and groups get what they deserve.   It is an ideological buffer that is purported to maintain the status quo and is dependent on political orientation.  I tend to be concerned when a theory is based on Marxism.  It is strange how the teaching of Marx is so prominent in all the fields of studies these days.  Being a non-traditional student I can remember a time in America when the teachings and ideology of Karl Marx was looked upon as the father of communism and not in a good way.  But that was then and this is now.  And now I can't sit in any class that Marx isn't mentioned.  Strange how things can change so much.

Terror Management Theory

Today I learned about terror management theory.  This theory is very interesting, especially with the implications that social psychologists link to it.  Terror management was developed by Ernest Becker in the 1970's in his book called Denial of Death.  Basically, it is that we all fear death and have great anxiety over dieing.  In order to manage this fear we engage in cultural worldviews that aim to protect us.  We adopt cultural prescriptions that shield us from our fears.  Such as cultural beliefs in God, religion, family, morality, and ethics. 

Other theorists have argued that people will gravitate towards leaders with the same worldview of God and faith and with slogans that will symbolically deliver us from death...usually with dreams and hopes of prosperity.  The theorists argue that the conservative movement exploits death with the war on terror and that they can protect us.  So I thought if this was true that maybe a good campaign slogan for one of our many conservative candidate's could be Victory Over Death.  I may have just been very tired in class today as I had been up since 5:45 but I thought it was funny.  I mean why beat around the bush.  Just declare it as such if that is the case.  Well, except most people don't know that they are being manipulated by change and influence agents.  So this might be way over the top.  Nevertheless, I am going to pay close attention to this campaign cycle and see if it is true that the conservative candidates use the terror management theory.

GOLD ISN'T MONEY

Today the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, said that gold wasn't money.  Congressman Ron Paul had a good sparring match with the Chairman today.  Ron Paul talked to Bernanke about the fact that the national debt has gone up 5.1 trillion dollars and still the economy is in bad shape.  He asked why all the money has gone to big banks and big corporations who were already making money.  He also put it out there that if consumer spending is so important to the economy then maybe it would have been better to distribute the money to the consumers which would have given $17,000.00 to every single American.  He said they couldn't have done any worse with the money.  Paul pointed out the inflation is truly at 9% per year and that groceries and goods are up 35% according to a free market group that still figures inflation the way it was done 3 years ago before the fed's changed it. 

But the best part of my day was when Ron Paul mentioned that gold was at $1,588.00 today, while the dollar has been devalued 50% and Moody's is considering downgrading the dollars rating and this is the 2nd time Moodys has mentioned doing so.  Then Ron Paul asked, "Do you think gold is money?"  And Bernanke paused, looked up just a little to the left and then looked back at congressman Paul and answered "No, it's an asset."  Wow...really Ben!  That was a big one!  Bernanke went on to explain that in the trade it is called "a tail risk."  People buy it when they think the economy is "really, bad bad and fear the outcomes."  Well, now that does make me feel . I will sleep just fine tonight knowing how our Chairman thinks.  Boy, I think it is getting a little turbulent out there...ya, better buckle up!

Watch The News? Are You Kidding!

Sometimes being an older college student (non-traditional seems to take the sting out of older) is challenging in mores ways than one.  Some days I truly do feel very different from the rest of my fellow students and today was one of those days.  I have to admit I went to class excited for the lecture today on political psychology and its implications for political behavior. 

It was when the professor asked if anyone ever watched Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News.  I raised my hand.  And then he said, "well like anyone would watch the news every night.  And I said, "I am somebody & I watch Brian Williams every night."  Then one of my classmates said, "well sure my parents watch the nightly news, they don't have a life."  And I thought, so I am a full-time student just like you but because I make the time to watch the news and stay informed, I don't have a life.  It kinda got under my skin.  I also watch Bloomberg News and read The Economist...To me that is life...real life on what is happening in the real world that will effect each and everyone of us. 

Besides...is the only reason to get a college education to make money?  Isn't it also (and maybe more importantly) to be educated and to think and to be informed.  Not one of the classmates said they watched the news.  Some said they were too busy on Facebook.  Now there's living a life! 

What I find most interesting about today's lecture was on what influences political behavior.  We watched Obama's February 2008 "Yes We Can" speech set to music and sung by pop musicians.  When the students were asked how they felt after watching that they were stating how it makes them want to vote for Obama.  One girl said when she saw it in 2008 that she felt sorry for her parents and other republicans.  All I could think of was that 5 minute advertisement for Obama was using everything we were learning in the class on how applied social psychology works to influence and change behavior in the direction they want.  It made me think this stuff really works!

Tocqueville and Two Possibilities of Equality

After last nights blog on the two most prevalent values across all cultures being equality and freedom, I thought I would follow up with what Alexis de Tocqueville said on the two ways of equality.

Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans:

"So, for a people who have reached the Anglo-Americans' social state, it is hard to see any middle course between the sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man.  One must not disguise it from oneself that the social state I have just described may lead as easily to the one as to the other of those results.  There is indeed a manly and legitimate passion for equality which rouses in all men a desire to be strong and respected.  This passion tends to elevate the little man to the rank of the great.  But the human heart also nourishes a debased taste for equality, which leads the weak to want to drag the strong down to their level and which induces men to prefer equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.  It is not that peoples with a democratic social state naturally scorn freedom; on the contrary, they have an instinctive taste for it.  But freedom is not the chief and continual object of their desires; it is equality for which they feel an eternal love; they rush on freedom with quick and sudden impulses, but if they miss their mark they resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing will satisfy them without equality, and they would rather die than lose it.
  On the other hand, when the citizens are all more or less equal, it becomes difficult to defend their freedom from the encroachments of power.  No one among them being any longer strong enough to struggle alone with success, only the combination of the forces of all is able to guarantee liberty.  But such a combination is not always forthcoming.  So, nations can derive either of two great political consequences from the same social state; these consequences differ vastly from each other, but both originate from the same fact." (Democracy in America)

Values and Postmaterialism

Rokeach is considered to have done the most influential study on values (according to my textbook) by studying all major values of all human cultures (1973).  He argued that the two values that were most related as important were equality and freedom.  He assigned equality the rating from low vs. high and freedom the same and he matched them into four categories as four separate ideologies.  They were as follows:
1. Socialism as high equality and high freedom.
2. Communism as high equality and low freedom.
3. Capitalism as low equality and high freedom.
4. Fascism as low equality and low freedom.

A different study on values by Inglehart (1977) centered on the generational differences, not in terms of left or right but of materialism and postmaterialsim.  He argued that values of recent generations were more inclined to postmaterialism, which to Inglehart meant people "value orientation that emphasizes self-expression and quality of life over financial and physical security." I am more inclined to think that these studies were likely to be characteristic of values by those coming out of the 1960's and early 1970's than post 1980's.  Things changed in the 80's and all the postmaterialist hippies turned into extremely materialist yuppies.  So for me I am surprised that my textbook that was published in 2008 is quoting studies from a different timetable. Nevertheless, the authors then jump into today and state that that such value orientations are tied with how people will vote today and showing a clear bias by stating that Green parties provide a clear example of value orientation by voting for postmaterialist ideals. Nevertheless, they concluded that it is the ideological standing between left-wing and right-wing positions that are of "paramount importance for understanding political behavior."  Just makes me wonder why they bothered citing the other studies when they turned out not to be very relevant.  Or does it serve the purpose of placing heuristics and biases that might become a part of our less conscious and unconscious thinking but may nevertheless influence our thinking unknowingly.  After all that is what influence and change agents do.

The End of Ideology? I Think Not!

Applied social psychology has linked up with political psychology to figure out our political behavior and why we do what we do or don't do.  One thing the influence and change agents want to know is whether ideology is still important today or has it changed from previous generations.  The importance of this knowledge will help them to better predict people's voting behavior.  They assumed that if ideology still mattered that people would vote consistently with their ideology, such as left/liberal & right/conservative and vote accordingly.  However, that is not what they discovered.  They found that since WWII, the left/right ideological differences no longer played an important role in politics.

Because:
1. People's attitudes lacked consistency.
2. People didn't seemed to be moved by ideological requests.
3. There wasn't a fundamental difference between left/right ideologies.
4. There wasn't ample differences between left-wing and right-wing view points. 
This research was done in 2006.  Personally, I find this hard to believe.  Most right-wing conservative are vehemently different than left-wing liberals.  Just mention Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin to a liberal and see how that goes.  Or mention the legalization of medical marijuana to a conservative and be sure to duck.  I see people firmly planting their political actions accordling to their ideology.  Nevertheless, I am just stating what I am being taught in a major university.