The history of division between left-wing and right-wing thinking is as old as civilisation itself. The early Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato understood this problem and puzzled over how to solve it, focusing on what society should be and how to make it work best.
Today, this division is as strong as ever and is most visible on social media, which bustles with circular arguments as the two sides stand their ground and become ever more entrenched in their views and further apart in their thinking. Social media can provide a forum for discussion and a search for agreement, or a platform for the statement and re-statement of entrenched views. The former is constructive, the latter damaging.
However, social media also provides a faceless means of communication allowing users to have no fear of retribution and feel free to be brutal in a way that they would not in person. Also, without access to body language and tone of voice, it is rife with miscommunication and misunderstanding. Twitter’s restricted number of characters increases the temptation to score quick points. But how often do you see an online debate end in a person changing their mind?
Social media often acts as either a battleground or an echo-chamber. We follow or befriend individuals based on shared opinions and outlooks, so the messages we share are most often aligned with the majority of our friend group. Opposing views are often met with resistance that crescendoes into argument and eventually unfriending, unfollowing or blocking. Rather than attempting to understand those with opposing views, we vilify and discard them. This article aims to explain the basis for this divisive thinking and how we can work toward more empathic and productive communication in all forms, particularly across social media.
In his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, Andrew Heywood writes that, the left-wing is characterised by "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterised by "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism.” In it’s simplest form:
Right-wing thinking is Protective.
Left-wing thinking is Supportive.
Let’s refer to these two groups as Protectors and Supporters, who think protectively and supportively. We need both these types of thinking to keep us safe and thriving. To favour one to the exclusion of the other will end in disaster. For example, if you give your soldiers weapons, ammunition and armour, they may feel protected and ready to protect, but that will be almost worthless if they do not have the support of proper training, nutrition and orders.
Each of us has a mix of protective and supportive thinking. Where we sit on this spectrum, with support on the left and protection on the right, alters according to numerous factors including our wealth, status, age, health and wellbeing, all of which can fluctuate throughout our lives. Upbringing, identity and ethnicity also play a significant part in our ideologies.
Protective thinking is a response to a perceived threat to an individual or their “identity group”; people of the same neighbourhood, class, colour, ethnic origin, or even fans of a particular sports team. However, if the threat level is reduced, an individual’s thinking will move across the spectrum from protection to support.
Age is as important as any factor in our thinking. As we grow older, we create and acquire valuable assets such as family, possessions and wealth, which require an increasing amount of protection. This is why older voters often show a preference for protective (right-wing) voting. They have more to protect than younger voters do.
A person’s thinking can alter radically according to the perceived level of threat. Recently I spoke with a friend whose entire career has been devoted to supporting communities and bringing them together. Recent events in the US have dramatically increased division and tensions, such that he feels a much greater level of physical threat to his loved ones and close network. For the first time in his life he has felt the need to keep guns in his house to protect his family. Theoretically it is possible for the entire world population to shift toward a protective mindset, if all people perceive the same threat. The feature film “Independence Day” explores this possibility when all humans unite as one to protect the Earth from an invading alien force.
When Supporters and Protectors argue with each other, one side is effectively shouting “SUPPORT!” while the other side is shouting “PROTECT!”. You can see why this veers quickly away from mutual agreement and toward animosity and anger. To add fuel to the fire, Protectors will perceive Supporters’ arguments as a threat to their ideology, thus driving the Protectors into ever more protective thinking. The Protectors will defend against this threat with some form of attack, often on the character of their opponent and his/her identity group. The Supporters’ facts and arguments are met with a barrage of abuse that seems to miss the point entirely. Eventually the Supporters become so frustrated that they also resort to name-calling. It is like children arguing in a playground.
It is baffling to Protectors that Supporters want to protect a large group of people with whom they have nothing in common. Surely society cannot afford to do this. Why expend valuable resources on supporting outsiders instead of protecting our identity group? There simply aren’t enough resources to support everyone. Easier to protect a select few. Meanwhile, the Supporter cannot understand why anyone would not want to support the most under-resourced individuals so that society can improve as a whole.
Our ideological preferences encourage us to see and interpret all things through the prism of either Support or Protection. When a campaign or political movement begins, Supporters will seek to understand who is asking for support and why, while Protectors will seek to understand what the threat is and how to protect themselves and their identity group.
Right-wing politicians (Protectors) use threat as the main thrust of their election campaigns, usually framing this threat as being embodied by another group: immigrants, foreigners, or people with a different skin colour, nationality or identity. Having amplified or created this perceived threat, the politicians promote their leadership as the best method of protection. However, once voted in, these politicians will drive forward policies to protect their own identity group, often the wealthy elite rather than the voting majority. Incumbent right wing politicians will claim that they would have delivered on their election promises if it were not for the “bogeymen”; the threat from abroad or those with an alternative ideology. And the cycle continues.
Left-wing politicians appeal to voters who feel that support is the most needed resource. The incumbent left-wing politicians will promote policies that support the most disadvantaged. Often their excuse for failing to deliver on election promises is that the right-wing protectors (usually large corporations) were not willing to give up any of their resources to support those who most need them.
So, how can we learn from this stalemate and make progress? Positive change can only happen if we listen to opposing views and seek to understand them. The first rule of negotiation is to find out what the other side wants and show that you are seriously considering their proposition. Try translating this methodology to your encounters with those with whom you disagree. Instead of attacking the proponent of an opposing ideology, try asking some salient questions to find out what they really think and why. Instead of presenting opposing arguments, ask questions.
Recognising where you yourself sit on the Protector/Supporter spectrum is essential to a proper understanding of opposing views. So, firstly, ask yourself whether you are protecting or supporting? Even if you are a mix of both, you will probably lean more to one side. Once you are able to establish which type of thinking you have, it will allow you to change the language of your follow up questions to suit the person with whom you are conversing.
Secondly, use language with which your conversationalists are most comfortable (see the definition in paragraph two of this article). Empathetic reassurance is a strong means of dissipating anger in your conversationalists. If they are a Protector, ask them how best we can provide society with protection? If they are a Supporter, ask them how society can best be supported. This language will make them calmer and more attentive. Now you can ask the Protector, once protection is provided, how we can support those who need it most. And ask the Supporter how we can protect those who we have supported.
At this point, you will have spoken their language, showed you can listen and asked them the best way forward. People appreciate being heard more than anything. If you manage to do this, you have a far greater chance of keeping them calm and rational.
It is important to understand that anxiety is a state of distress in reaction to threatening stimuli, so it is more than likely that Protectors are in a state of anxiety, which makes them tend toward an aggressive defence against the perceived threat. This angry attack from Protectors often causes an angry counter-response from Supporters, which soon escalates into unmanageable levels of aggression. A common misconception is that anger is a productive emotion in negotiations because the participants view the negotiation as competitive rather than collaborative. Society progresses best when citizens collaborate.
These ideologies and debates have always existed in societies, social media has simply brought them to the fore and into sharp relief. It provides a hotbed of animosity, with proponents of opposing ideologies competing to shout louder and convince the other side that they are fools. But it does not have to be this way. Even if one of the two opposing sides attempts to listen and understand the other, the dialogue will improve dramatically. Instead of trying to win the argument, let us to try to understand each other. This means really listening, rather than just waiting for your turn to speak so you can beat the other person into submission. Really listening and understanding each other will move people from reactive fear and anger toward a more calm and strategic discussion. This is true in all forms of communication and in all walks of life: business, politics, sport, family and friendships.