By Roy Eidelson
“They’re Different from Us.” It’s a favorite mind game of the 1% when they want to stifle broad opposition to their agenda. By manipulating our understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible, this psychological appeal takes advantage of prejudice to promote distrust and division within and across communities.
Today’s elites know that solidarity with the disadvantaged and mistreated is jeopardized whenever differences like race, gender, and religion are emphasized and exaggerated. That’s why so many one-percenters highlight these differences while downplaying similarities in the concerns and aspirations we all share. If this ploy works, it divides groups that might otherwise form a more united and more potent resistance. When such coalitions fail to materialize, the winners are the defenders of extreme inequality who’ve long ago forsaken the common good.
What makes these “They’re Different from Us” appeals psychologically effective is that we tend to view ingroup members more favorably than outgroup members. When we’re persuaded that someone belongs to the same group we do, we usually perceive them as more trustworthy, we hold them in higher regard, and we’re more willing to share scarce resources with them. In part, this positive bias reflects our belief that these individuals have a lot in common with us. Even if we’ve never met them, we imagine that their values, attitudes, and life experiences are probably similar to our own. However, if we see people as members of a different group instead, then we don’t care as much about their welfare and there’s a greater chance that we’ll view them as potential adversaries rather than allies. Such divisiveness is exactly what the 1% want.
The ambitions of one-percenters don’t require that they all hold explicitly racist or prejudiced attitudes about Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, or other groups—although some obviously do. But even those who don’t can still take advantage of the fact that bigotry in the United States continues to divide individuals and groups whose collective futures could be brighter if unwarranted suspicions gave way to mutual respect and support. Law professor Ian Haney López has described this approach as strategic racism: “purposeful efforts to use racial animus as leverage to gain material wealth, political power, or heightened social standing.” Journalist Naomi Klein has similarly noted, “White supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia have been the elite’s most potent defenses against genuine democracy.”
Today it’s clear that the leadership of the Republican Party and many titans of corporate America are comfortable supporting—or at least acquiescing to—a litany of racist and discriminatory White House policies. Their reward includes billionaire tax cuts, windfall profits, deregulation of their industries, and other favors reserved for them alone. For some this is perhaps a devil’s bargain; for others, it’s undoubtedly considered a win-win situation.
If we want to focus on the kind of differences that truly matter, we should turn our attention to the striking divergences between the documented policy preferences of the 1% compared to the rest of us. In a nutshell, Americans in general are much stronger supporters of a higher minimum wage, labor unions to strengthen workers’ rights, affordable healthcare for everyone, a more progressive tax structure, higher taxes for high-income earners and corporations, government initiatives to decrease unemployment, and a stronger social welfare safety net for those facing adversity. These are all worthy and achievable goals. The first step is to recognize and reject the manipulative “They’re Different from Us” mind game that’s designed to divide us.
Note from Kathie MM: This is a condensed version of an article originally published on Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201806/they-re-different-us-the-profiteers-prejudice
by Dot Walsh, with photos by Andy Celley
Carl Sagan considers how we can bridge conviction and compassion in dealing with those who disagree with and even attack our beliefs. Although he addresses the particular problems of pseudoscience and superstition, his elegant and empathetic argument applies to any form of ignorance and bigotry.
But kindness, Sagan cautions, doesn’t mean assent — there are instances, like when we are faced with bigotry and hate speech, in which we absolutely must confront and critique these harmful beliefs, for “every silent assent will encourage [the person] next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice.
Sagan’s central point is that we humans — all of us — are greatly perturbed by fear, anxiety, and uncertainty, and in seeking to becalm ourselves, we sometimes anchor ourselves to irrational and ignorant ideologies that offer certitude and stability, however illusory. In understanding those who succumb to such false refuges, Sagan calls for “compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest.”
