Was it Polarization or Propaganda

IF 0.5 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
C. T. Nguyen
{"title":"Was it Polarization or Propaganda","authors":"C. T. Nguyen","doi":"10.5840/JPR20211022183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to some, the current political fracture is best described as political polarization – where extremism and political separation infest an entire whole population. Political polarization accounts often point to the psychological phenomenon of belief polarization – where being in a like-minded groups tends to boost confidence. The political polarization story is an essentially symmetrical one, where both sides are subject to the same basic dividing forces and cognitive biases, and are approximately as blameworthy. On a very different account, what's going on is best described propaganda – where a discrete set of bad actors have manipulated some part of the media environment. The propaganda story is usually told as a highly asymmetrical story, where only some media consumers are under the spell of the propagandists. Which is right? I consider two analyses of the 2016 American election, and suggest that the propaganda account has better empirical support. I also offer a diagnosis of the appeal of the polarization story. Those who accept a polarization account are often political centrists, who accuse those at the political extremes of motivated reasoning – of believing what they find comfortable. Such centrists also tend to treat political extremism as the product of the irrational belief polarization, arising from living in like-minded groups. But, I argue, these arguments are too quick. First, we can’t dismiss a group as irrational merely because they are likeminded. The existence of like-minded group can be explained in terms of irrational belief polarization, but it can also be explained by rational convergence on the truth. Second, belief polarization is not always irrational, such as when its emotional effects are used to repair impaired self-confidence. Third, political centrists are also subject to similar debunking argument. When we accept a polarization account, we get to feel the comfort of being “above it all”. Political centrists are just as plausibly subject to the irrational effects of living in like-minded groups. Belief polarization isn’t just for extremists.","PeriodicalId":44494,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Research","volume":"7 1","pages":"173-191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPR20211022183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

According to some, the current political fracture is best described as political polarization – where extremism and political separation infest an entire whole population. Political polarization accounts often point to the psychological phenomenon of belief polarization – where being in a like-minded groups tends to boost confidence. The political polarization story is an essentially symmetrical one, where both sides are subject to the same basic dividing forces and cognitive biases, and are approximately as blameworthy. On a very different account, what's going on is best described propaganda – where a discrete set of bad actors have manipulated some part of the media environment. The propaganda story is usually told as a highly asymmetrical story, where only some media consumers are under the spell of the propagandists. Which is right? I consider two analyses of the 2016 American election, and suggest that the propaganda account has better empirical support. I also offer a diagnosis of the appeal of the polarization story. Those who accept a polarization account are often political centrists, who accuse those at the political extremes of motivated reasoning – of believing what they find comfortable. Such centrists also tend to treat political extremism as the product of the irrational belief polarization, arising from living in like-minded groups. But, I argue, these arguments are too quick. First, we can’t dismiss a group as irrational merely because they are likeminded. The existence of like-minded group can be explained in terms of irrational belief polarization, but it can also be explained by rational convergence on the truth. Second, belief polarization is not always irrational, such as when its emotional effects are used to repair impaired self-confidence. Third, political centrists are also subject to similar debunking argument. When we accept a polarization account, we get to feel the comfort of being “above it all”. Political centrists are just as plausibly subject to the irrational effects of living in like-minded groups. Belief polarization isn’t just for extremists.
是两极分化还是宣传
根据一些人的说法,当前的政治分裂最好被描述为政治两极分化——极端主义和政治分裂在整个人口中蔓延。政治两极分化的说法往往指向信念两极分化的心理现象——在志同道合的群体中往往会增强信心。政治两极分化的故事本质上是对称的,双方都受到相同的基本分裂力量和认知偏见的影响,并且应该受到大致相同的指责。从另一个非常不同的角度来看,现在发生的事情最好被描述为宣传——一群不连续的坏人操纵了媒体环境的某些部分。宣传故事通常是一个高度不对称的故事,只有一些媒体消费者受到宣传人员的蛊惑。哪个是对的?我考虑了对2016年美国大选的两种分析,并认为宣传账户有更好的实证支持。我还对两极分化故事的吸引力做出了诊断。那些接受两极分化说法的人往往是政治中间派,他们指责那些处于政治极端的人是出于动机的推理——相信他们觉得舒服的东西。这些中间派还倾向于将政治极端主义视为生活在志同道合群体中产生的非理性信仰两极分化的产物。但是,我认为,这些论点太快了。首先,我们不能仅仅因为一个群体志同道合就认为他们不理性。志同道合群体的存在既可以用非理性的信仰极化来解释,也可以用理性的真理趋同来解释。其次,信念两极分化并不总是非理性的,比如当它的情感效应被用来修复受损的自信时。第三,政治中间派也会受到类似的揭穿论点的影响。当我们接受两极分化的说法时,我们会感到“高于一切”的舒适。政治中间派同样可能受到生活在志同道合群体中的非理性影响。信仰两极分化不仅仅是极端分子的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The Journal of Philosophical Research is an annual peer-reviewed journal uniquely committed to the advancement of all areas of philosophical inquiry. It publishes articles from any philosophical orientation, in English or French, that make a significant contribution to the field. A generous length limit provides an outlet for essential works such as bibliographies, translations, and commentaries that are difficult to publish because of unusual length or complex format. JPR is particularly interested in helping new authors and an outstanding group of referees provides written comments on submitted manuscripts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信