Not My Words, But

Ok, this is not my blog. It is the blog of Brad Listi, I love his blogs. Plus I thought I would share it because he is talking about group identity and we have discussed in class in talking about propaganda. So here it is, he has a very cynical sense of humor (which I like) but he makes a lot of good points.









I read something interesting the other day about group identity and how it factors into our political beliefs.

Basically, the gist goes as follows:

We often vote not in accordance with our best personal interests, but rather in accordance with our perceived group interests.

In short, group interest is often a better indicator of behavior than personal interest.

And in a lot of ways, I suppose this assessment amounts to basic common sense.

It seems obvious that many voters don't pay attention to politics.

And yet many of them vote, often passionately.

They don't know enough about the candidates, or the government, or the government's legislation, to be able to make even the most basic calculations about what is in their own best interests.

But they are able to wrap their minds around perceived group interests.






How would a devout Christian from Corpus Christi, Texas vote?

How would a San Francisco vegan Buddhist vote?

How would a rock-climbing outdoorsman from Boulder who teaches Outward Bound courses in the summer vote?

How would a freethinking, blue collar intellectual with a military background vote?

How would a gay Latino fashion designer from Miami vote?

How would a New York City Jewish social worker vote?

How would a black Tallahassee schoolteacher vote?

How would a rich, white, 32-year-old stockbroker from Hoboken vote?

How would a one-legged stripper from Las Vegas vote?

How would a disaffected high school senior whose favorite band is The Killers vote?

How would the scion of a wealthy southern family vote?





These are the kinds of questions we might ask ourselves as we make our calculations.

It's often subterranean, I suppose.

Subconscious.

Other times, it's right at the surface.

However it happens, it would appear to be a natural human egoic tendency to identify ourselves as a part of some sort of group.

Even if we're anti-group and anti-community and staunchly independent and this is what we pride ourselves on, we're still susceptible to this kind of mind-based group identity. In this particular case, we would see ourselves as part of the anti-group group. The staunchly independent group that prides itself on not being a part of any particular group.

(With thanks to the late Bill Hicks, such individuals might easily be members of the People Who Hate People Party.)






How would a novelist and community college teacher from Los Angeles vote?

(For Obama. Maybe McCain.)






I'm probably as guilty of it as anyone.

I'm sure this kind of thing has informed my decision-making process thus far.

I'm sure I see myself as a member of "writer" group or "teacher" group or even "non-group group."

My guess is that 99.9 percent of us are probably susceptible to this kind of thing in one way or the other.

Who among us really knows what the fuck is going on?







I went to the University of Colorado at Boulder, where I got my undergraduate degree.

Living in a place like Boulder at the age of, say, eighteen or nineteen, almost certainly had an impact on my political worldview.

Ditto for living in Los Angeles.

Then again, I was raised by traditional Southern parents in the ultra-conservative Midwestern suburbs.

An overwhelming majority of my family could be classified as conservative.

Somehow I wound up with a more progressive bent.





Where you live would appear to matter.

Your environment would appear to matter.

Unless, of course, you're a member of the I'm a staunchly independent thinker who reflexively operates in defiance of the general intellectual tendencies of the vast majority of the sheep people in my environment group.





What happens in your life would appear to matter.






If you want to get people to do something (even that which may fly in the face of their own best interest), get them to feel like a part of a group.

All political campaigns aspire to create this kind of feeling among voters.

They want you to pick a team, to feel like a part of the team.

They want you to put a sign in your yard.





This is how the Manson Family operated.






Perhaps a more obvious and widespread example of this kind of psychology at work would involve the military.

Talk about operating in defiance of your own best personal interest.

There's a selflessness involved in military service that is intrinsic to the whole operation.

Some of it is admirable; some of it is necessary; some of it is brutal and destructive.

There's a reason why all (male) soldiers have to shave their heads.

And why they all dress exactly the same.

And why they all chant together, and march together, and eat together, and so on.

Military psychology is designed to elevate the group identity while pretty much obliterating any vestiges of independent identity or independent thought. It's a sophisticated system in a lotta ways. An incredibly effective design, developed over centuries and across cultures.

Victory hangs in the balance.

Survival hangs in the balance.

For a military unit to be effective at killing and defeating its opponent in battle, its soldiers must be absolutely committed to the group identity.




It's weird when you think about it:

The vast majority of violence and atrocity in human history has not been inflicted by criminals or lunatics, but rather by ordinary, everyday people operating in the service of a group identity, a collective ego.





-BL



PS. What group are you in?


Currently listening :
Remain in Light
By Talking Heads
Release date: By 25 October, 1990