Hoschild is responding to new survey information and survey information should always be treated with skepticism.
In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: “How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today?” Democrats guessed 50%. It’s actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe “most police are bad people”. Republicans estimated half; it’s really 15%.This is the Grauniad, so expectations are low, but it is striking that Hochschild is so surprised and startled. This pattern of epistemic closure has been known for some time (and can be grossly overstated.) Certainly since The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt in which the phenomenon is discussed in some detail. Published seven years ago.
The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the study’s findings: the wilder a person’s guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.
This much we might guess. But what’s startling is the further finding that higher education does not improve a person’s perceptions – and sometimes even hurts it. In their survey answers, highly-educated Republicans were no more accurate in their ideas about Democratic opinion than poorly educated Republicans. For Democrats, the education effect was even worse: the more educated a Democrat is, according to the study, the less he or she understands the Republican worldview.
“This effect,” the report says, “is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.” And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.
Poor old Hochschild is trying to figure out why the reviled Republicans seem more aware of the diverse spectrum of political thought than are educated Democrats. Haidt identified the sources. From recollection it was primarily two-fold. Epistemic closure, i.e. living in bubbles was perhaps the biggest factor. Entertainment media, mainstream media, academia are all firmly of the left. If you are a Classical Liberal, Libertarian or Conservative, you are surrounded by the world-view of the hard left all the time. You can't help but be aware of the nuances of their positions. Not so for those of the hard left who are epistemically reinforced every day.
But it is more than that. I don't recall if Haidt has this point or not. If you are Classical Liberal, Libertarian or Conservative, even on the right, the tent is huge with economic conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, Burkean conservatives, Hayekian conservatives, etc. You live in a world of ideological diversity and pluralism already and are challenged to refine your perspectives constantly. In addition, every major social platform or mainstream media platform are all of the simplistic left. You are simply exposed to a deeper awareness of ideological diversity, not just of the left but of the right as well, and therefore are more accustomed to dealing with the likely implications of subtle differences.
Hochschild is inclined to attribute the absence of situational awareness on the part of engaged Democrats to grief. Perhaps. Here and there occasionally perhaps, but as a broad explanation? I doubt it.
She finishes her essay with some of the typical anthropological field visit "I spoke with an oil field worker in Louisiana", sort of thing but puts a seal on the conclusion that she is unaware of the American mainstream and fails to recognize that it is a foreign land inimical to her statist dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment