Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
Introduction: political psychology as an
interpretive ield
Psychology and politics
The American political scientist Charles E. Merriam described psychology as a ‘kindred’ science (Merriam, 1924). McGuire (1993) writes
about the ‘long affair’ between psychology and political science underpinned by frequent transformation of topics, procedures and theories.
What Merriam and McGuire have in common is that they understand
the relationship between psychology and politics as the study of ‘political behaviour’. A variety of ‘dei nitions’ of this relationship has been
suggested. For example, Sears et al. (2003) see the relationship between
psychology and politics as the ‘application of what is known about
human psychology to the study of politics’ (p. 3). For others, it is about
discerning how ‘human cognition and emotion mediate the impact of
the environment on political action’ (Stein, 2002, p. 108). According to
Lavine (2010), the relationship is ‘dei ned by a bidirectional inluence:
just as the psyche inluences political orientation, the polity leaves its
mark on who we are’ (p. xx, emphasis in original).
This book does not attempt to offer yet another dei nition. Instead,
it tries to qualify the relationship between psychology and politics by
proposing alternative approaches, different conceptual tools and a different vision of human psychology and political behaviour with roots in
epistemological, theoretical and methodological presuppositions arising
from the discursive (Billig, 1987; Harré and Gillett, 1994; Middleton
and Edwards, 1990), narrative (Bruner, 1986; Polkinghorne, 1988) and
sociocultural (Middleton and Brown, 2005; Valsiner, 2007; Wertsch,
2002) turns in psychology, the human and the social sciences, giving
rise to what can be broadly termed an interpretive political psychology.
An interpretive political psychology suggests that political psychologists can attain a deep level of understanding of political behaviour
by researching different social and political orders – discursive, cultural and semiotic – in their own terms. When political psychologists
research attitudes, racism, public opinion, political ideology, and so on,
1
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
2
Political psychology as an interpretive ield
they are, arguably, describing universalistic and particularistic presuppositions of modern culture. An interpretive political psychology likens
the work of the political psychologist to that of the anthropologist who
uncovers the various meaning-making layers through which society is
organised and reproduces itself (Moscovici, 1972).
The book describes a style of doing political psychology in Europe
that has developed out of dialogue with, as well as critique, of North
American approaches. It has been argued that political psychology can
be described as a ‘problem- centred ield’, whose concerns arise from
‘those social problems and puzzles that emerge throughout history
and in speciic locales’ (Nesbitt-Larking and Kinnvall, 2012, p. 46).
European social and political psychologists have a long tradition of
exploring distinctively European political and social psychological
issues such as fascism and bigotry, ideology and nationalism, social and
political identity, values and political attitudes, collective action, mass
and elite constructions and understandings of politics. To these one
can add more recent concerns with the relationship between national
and European identity, ‘New Europe’, political memory and identity,
ethnic minority construction and ethnic identiication, understanding
social and political change in Western and Eastern Europe. It is hoped
that the book will make a timely contribution and advance political
psychology by putting European research perspectives i rmly on its
intellectual and empirical agenda.
There are many books on political psychology, but very few devote
much attention to European approaches. For instance, the latest fourvolume set on Political Psychology, edited by Howard Lavine (2010),
makes only scant reference to European political concerns or European
social psychological contributions. This conspicuous absence cannot
be disregarded because it reproduces a skewed vision of what political
psychology is and how it is actually practised around the world. This
book is an attempt to redress the balance by fostering debate around
relatively underrepresented perspectives in political psychology that
can provide a renewed foundation or check for contemporary analyses
of political behaviour. The aim is not to further divisions, but encourage perspectives particularly suited to the declared task of developing
a genuinely international dialogue of traditions of research in political
psychology around the world (Haste, 2012).
Interpretive political psychology
The inclusion of an interpretive dimension in political psychology has
three major implications. First, it can expand political psychology’s
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
Interpretive political psychology
3
traditional focus on political behaviour, narrowly understood in an
individualistic theoretical and methodological framework. Much of
the theoretical and empirical content of contemporary political psychology is driven by the search for explanations of real-life events in the
‘real’ political world and scene. These explanations have as a basis
the testing of abstract academic theories, the prediction and modelling of political behaviour rather than real-life events and practices,
interpreted in their own terms, with academic theory or models merely
as an appui. As Marková has recently argued, the discipline of social
psychology has historically nurtured and enforced the use of ‘methods of proof’, opposed to ‘methods of discovery’ (2012, p. 113). This
has led to social and political psychologists not being able to address
directly in their work the tension between the requirements of scientiic knowledge and the less easily dei nable and discernible features
of political behaviour they are researching. As Serge Moscovici has
aptly noted, the relationship between psychology and politics is necessary, functional and yet sometimes unpredictable and not at all obvious (Moscovici, 1989).
Second, it can foster a debate about the meaning of ‘scientiic knowledge’ that crosses beyond the experimental or survey canon that
dominates contemporary political psychology. As Sandra Jovchelovitch
argues, ‘within psychology… there is a strong tendency to consider lay
knowledge and everyday understandings as obstacles, noise and errors
to be removed: the superstitions, mythologies and false beliefs they carry
should be replaced with the truth of expert or scientiic knowledge’
(2008, p. 437). It should be the task of political psychology to discover
principles; not only universal, but also contingent, relative principles
underlying the interpenetration of discursive, cultural and semiotic
orders. One must broaden the sweep of social scientiic enquiry, away
from the nature of the thinking individual and belief systems to massmediated communication, social interaction, social practices and lay
sources of knowledge. It is perhaps erroneous to think that simply using
‘adequate methods is equivalent to scientiic investigation’ (Moscovici,
1972, p. 21). Political psychologists need to respond to explicit challenges of studying social and political behaviour and challenges set by
their colleagues in other disciplines. Political psychology has started the
dialogue with biology, genetics, neurosciences; yet, at the same time,
it neglects its dialogue with linguistics, critical psychology, sociology,
media studies, or philosophy. In order to enrich the depth and breadth
of its conclusions and impact in the ‘real’ world it needs to draw upon
some of their assumptions, questions and methods. As a genuinely
interdisciplinary project political psychology should be able to provide
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
4
Political psychology as an interpretive ield
the intellectual space in which concepts and theoretical traditions from
different ields can cohabit.
Third, it can lead to a reconsideration of the image of the person and society implicit in contemporary scientiic approaches and
a re- examination of political psychology’s conception of the relation
between human nature, language and culture. As the chapters of this
book show, public opinion, democratisation, personality, prejudice,
collective memory, and many other notions with origins in social and
political theory are concepts connected in myriad ways to concerns of
culture, language and community. The increasingly i ne technologies
of polling, experimentation and neuro-imaging construct individuals
that ‘come to “it” the demands of the research; they become, so to
speak, persons that are by nature “researchable” from that perspective’
(Osborne and Rose, 1999, p. 392). We tend to coni ne to strict experimental situations and cognitive modelling what is already diffused (in
some form or other) in culture (cf. Moscovici, 1972). As Moscovici suggested, it is society’s ‘social theory’ that we need to be able to discern,
to describe, to analyse; social and political psychology is not practised
in a ‘social vacuum’ (Tajfel, 1972).
Political psychologists seem to stop short of examining social and political life in depth and very rarely concern themselves with what Allport
called ‘the concrete person’. Political psychological analyses should
not only be derived from general laws and psychological concepts but
rather from lives (as actually lived) and social practices (as actually performed). One ought to start not only with the question of how reality is
intelligible to us, as researchers, but how reality is intelligible to social
actors who experience it as such. As political psychologists we should
consider seriously idiographic aspects of social existence, and treat
people and politics as products of social activities and social practices.
The relationship between psychology and politics stands in need of
explanation; it does not explain anything in itself. What we make of it is
constituted, and limited, by our techniques of measuring it, our narratives, our discourses, our representations, our identities, our collective
memories. Following Moscovici, this book argues that political psychology has remained for too long the prisoner of a ‘pragmatic culture’
that evades the contingent, relative, particularistic aspects of social and
political experience.
There is a further point to be made, and this pertains to European
political psychology. Only by becoming an interpretive discipline can
European political psychology develop itself as a worthwhile enterprise. The themes of its research and the contents of its theories do
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
Political behaviour as social practice
5
not need to be borrowed from across the Atlantic; they must relect the
issues of its own social and political organisation. In 1972, Moscovici
identiied the ‘advantage’ of American social psychology as being not
necessarily one of methodological or theoretical advance but more an
issue of taking ‘for its theme of research and for the contents of its theories the issues of its own society … and making them an object of scientiic enquiry’ (1972, p. 19, emphasis in original; see also Moscovici and
Marková, 2006 for a history of the development of social psychology
in Europe).
Contemporary European political psychology must heed Moscovici’s
message; it must turn towards its own social and political realities,
devise its own axioms, hypotheses and questions, from which it can
derive its own ‘scientiic consequences’ (Moscovici, 1972, p. 19).
Political behaviour as social practice
It is conventionally assumed that the task of the political psychologist is
to account for the variety of manifestations and complexity of political
behaviour. The political psychologist is generally interested in problems and solutions to these problems that are valid in their own right
for everyone, at any time and at any place. A consequence of this is
that political behaviour is mostly conceived of as the result of universal,
habitual and automatic processes rather than as a product of human
social practices. Another consequence of this is that actual behaviour is
given less and less attention (Baumeister et al., 2007; Potter, 2012).
Political psychologists devise more and more complex technical
vocabularies used to describe political behaviour. The contemporary
political psychology of political behaviour is founded on the epistemological structure of ‘justiied belief’ against a reality ‘out there’ which
expects description and explanation. The route to knowledge is positive,
and more than often based on normative models of social and political reality. Yet, what makes political psychology distinctive is that it
deals with what Hannah Arendt has called the ‘realm of human affairs’
(Arendt, 1958). Politics (and political behaviour) is not a dimension
outside this realm of human affairs; it is only, sometimes, mistakenly
treated as such. Some political psychologists treat political behaviour
as a substantive entity (that can be measured and aggregated, and
whose distribution can be accounted for in statistical form); others have
treated it as a concept or idea, a sensitising concept that guides rather
than prescribes the steps taken by their enquiries, anything other than
i xed, stable, inevitable or ‘real’.
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
6
Political psychology as an interpretive ield
There would be no talk of public opinion, values, prejudice, collective memory, political rhetoric, social and collective identities, and so
on outside the social practices of people and outside ‘the psychological
social contract’ witnessed in the ‘collaboratively constructed and collectively upheld versions of social reality that come to dominate society’ (Moghaddam, 2008, p. 882). Political psychologists tend to restrict
themselves to describing what the social and political world means to
them, neglecting, in the process, what it means to the social actors that
participate in and create that world.
Overview of the book
The ield of political psychology is a continually expanding one. The
book offers a selective, yet coherent, presentation of a diverse ield.
Inevitably, only a segment of relevant literature has been included.
Each of the chapters of this book argues that political behaviour must
be looked at as an issue in its own right. This includes exploring the
idea that political behaviour should be treated more as an evolving and
transforming ield of social activities and social practices, charting its
symbolic, communicative, social interactive manifestations, made and
unmade in social relations between people. Chapters also discuss the
value of analysing the range of social judgements, political commitments and positions, issues of stake and accountability, made relevant
by social and political actors in talk or texts. Political meanings and
communications are ‘far more volatile than is commonly supposed’
(Edelman, 2001, p. 82). Increasingly, it is the subjective, contingent
meanings that people attach to political behaviour that can predict or
determine its political consequences.
The i rst two chapters of this book focus on public opinion and human
values against the background of understanding social change and
democratisation processes. The i rst chapter focuses on public opinion,
dilemmas of ideology and the rhetorical complexity of attitudes in the
context of researching nostalgia for communism and appreciating the
democratic competence of individuals. Chapter 2 focuses on universalistic and aggregate models of human values and extends the argument
from the i rst chapter to the democratic competence of nations and the
spreading of democratic values. The two chapters urge political psychologists to resist the temptation to purge political behaviour of dilemmas, ambiguities and apparent contradictions.
Chapter 3 proposes a discussion of the political psychology of intolerance by suggesting an alternative conception of prejudice as social accomplishment and discursive study of delegitimisation and dehumanisation
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
Overview of the book
7
of ethnic minority groups. Chapter 4 introduces the reader to the study
of social representations as building blocks of understanding community
life and meaning-making. The chapter asserts that social and political
reality ‘has no smooth and direct passage to knowledge’ (Jovchelovitch,
2007, p. 99); rather, it is mediated by social representations as cultural
resources and foundations of ‘thinking’ societies.
Chapter 5 contends that the key task of political psychology is to analyse the social nature of identities and group practices. It argues that
identities are not merely activated but rather elicited and moulded by the
social context in which they become relevant. The chapter constructs
an argument against the commonly held idea that ‘singular identities
[can] reliably predict behaviour, attitudes and values’ (Wetherell,
2009b, p. 10). Chapter 6 discusses the issue of collective memory and
its link to and inluence on political narratives. It proposes a sociocultural approach to researching collective memory that can help political psychologists to turn it into a proper object of political psychological
concern. The chapter argues that political psychologists need to study
memory as a social and cultural product, and remembering/forgetting
as social and cultural practices.
Chapter 7 extends the notion of political behaviour to the pragmatics
of discourse and communication, and the mutual relationship between
discourse and politics. The chapter argues that discursive actions are
socially constitutive of social conditions, social and political ‘realities’
and discursive practices of various kinds reproduce visions of people,
society and politics. Chapter 8 continues the discussion in Chapter 7
by arguing that political discourse needs to be studied as a social activity. Both chapters argue that the key aim of political psychology is to
further the systematic study of politics in action, the study of people’s
practices and social interaction. Both chapters argue for a reorientation
of political psychology to researching how politics is done in everyday
and elite language practices, and identifying the ‘rhetorical conditions’
under which politics is actually performed. Social and political ‘reality’
or ‘context’ cannot be said to exist without social interactions and communications between people.
Chapter 9 introduces a discursive approach to political communication and mass-mediated politics. The chapter argues that political communications should be considered as carefully produced discourse, an
interactive and social interactional process of political meaning making. A
focus on language and communication processes can give political psychologists a more comprehensive foundation from which to address the
complexity and the continually transforming nature of political communications. The chapter shows how political psychologists can learn
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
8
Political psychology as an interpretive ield
from conceptions of political behaviour in media, communication and
discourse studies.
The Epilogue argues that political psychology can only move proitably forward if it does not continue to ignore its past and its rich heritage
from around the world. The ield of political psychology has the potential
to contribute to understanding and tackling social problems in the real
world. Fuli lling its potential will require not only devising state- of-theart methodological innovations or insisting on theoretical borrowings
from neighbouring disciplines of psychology. It will require, primarily,
extending its (many) dei nition(s) of political behaviour to include language, culture, social representations, communication and alternative
approaches which are no less ‘scientiic’ than the experimental or survey canon. It will require reconsidering the image of the person implicit
in contemporary scientiic approaches and theoretical imports. It will
require re- examining its conception of the relation between individual
psychology (‘human nature’) and collective performances (‘culture’).
Only by exploring, developing and pursuing systematically an interpretive outlook, can political psychology become a genuine social and
political anthropology of modern culture.
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
1
Public opinion and the rhetorical complexity
of attitudes
The collective will and the ‘ideal’ democratic citizen
‘We, the people, feel and know that we have become more signiicant
than ever before, with the narrowing of the barrier that separates “us”
and our range of experiences from our elected representatives and
their range of experiences.’ This is what social psychologist, Hadley
Cantril, in his 1942 paper, ‘Public Opinion in Flux’, was writing about
the importance of ‘good morale’ in American democracy, especially
‘national morale’ associated with the war effort. What Cantril acknowledged in 1942 (and he was not the only one) is what politicians, ‘spin
doctors’, and so on take for granted today: the fundament of democracy lies in the ‘faith in the judgment of the common man’. Cantril was
writing about the person, the ‘citizen’ who ‘given suficient facts and
motivated to pay attention to those facts … will reach a decision based
on his [her] own self-interest as a member of a democratic community’
(1942, p. 151). When writing about ‘we, the people’ Cantril points to
the direction of political democratic accountability (from citizens to
their elected representatives) and thus brings into the foreground one
of the most fundamental political hopes – that the will and reason of
‘the people’ ought to prevail. Cantril’s words express faith in the selfgoverning, autonomous and omnicompetent citizen (Dalton, 2008) –
the ‘ideal’ democratic citizen.
This chapter shows how political psychologists’ concern with the
‘collective will’ is paralleled by a concern with, search for and description of the democratic citizen. The i rst part of the chapter maps the
various meanings and expressions of this collective will condensed into
the notion of ‘public opinion’. The chapter then goes on to describe the
main assumptions behind researching and understanding the democratic competence of citizens, especially those related to political knowledge and political sophistication.
The remainder of the chapter is dedicated to exploring the idea
that public opinion is one of most debated expressions of democratic
9
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-01768-9 - Political Psychology: Critical Perspectives
Cristian Tileagă
Excerpt
More information
10
Public opinion and the rhetorical complexity of attitudes
politics. It focuses on the rhetorical complexity of attitudes and paradoxes of opinion that arise in the course of attempts to reconcile with
the communist past in Eastern Europe. In doing so, it challenges the
notion that people carry in their heads fully formed or preformed attitudes. The chapter argues that it is important to show how social actors
are appraising social/political realities and how attitudes and political
experiences possess a highly visible rhetorical complexity. These concerns are developed further in later chapters of this book, especially
Chapter 6 (with reference to collective memory and political narratives), Chapter 7 (with reference to the role of language in politics) and
Chapter 8 (with reference to the complexity of political rhetoric). The
chapter ends by arguing that political psychology scholarship should be
more about what citizens themselves expect of democracy and perhaps
less about what democracy expects of citizens.
The ideological cleavages of societies create their own models, images
of ‘ideal’ democratic citizens – what Lakoff (2002) has called ‘model
citizens’. In the United States, for instance, national politics engenders
its own categories of moral politics and moral action (the ‘ideal’ conservative citizen is diametrically opposed to the ‘ideal’ liberal citizen).1
Political psychology offers the best examples of a search for the ‘ideal’
democratic citizen, where the stability of preferences and world views
(Ansolabehere et al., 2008; Converse, 1964) goes together with the
belief that democratic experience can be maximised by accommodating
individual differences (Mondak and Hibbing, 2012; Stenner, 2005). In
their search for the ‘ideal’ democratic citizen, political psychologists
build and rely on ‘convenient ictions’ (Riesman, 1954), and they build
models of social and political behaviour that emphasise rationality over
irrationality, responsibility over irresponsibility, citizenship over other
means and ways of belonging and acting in society. It has been argued
that this search for and description of the collective will and ‘ideal’
democratic citizen is one of the foundational ‘mystical fallacies of democracy’, an unattainable, ‘false ideal’ (Lippmann, [1927] 2009).
Political knowledge and the democratic competence
of citizens
The study of democratic competence of citizens and involvement in politics starts with the classic observation that the ordinary citizen fails to
1
As Lakoff argues ‘conservative and liberal categories for moral action create for each
moral system a notion of a model citizen – an ideal prototype – a citizen who best
exempliies forms of moral action’ (2002 , p. 169).
© in this web service Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org