Politics as a moral contest

Nicholas EmlerUniversity of Surrey

What has politics got to do with morality?

……Everything

Britain’s immanent moral contest? Can you tell the difference?

Three men, identically dressed (though their ties are different colours!)

Contests have winners and losers

This is true of political contests too, though it is unlikely that the outcome of the contest in Britain on May 6th will be particularly dramatic.

But sometimes it is.

The fate of losers in a political contest

And the winner in this particular contest…. Pol Pot

It does matter who is in power, who forms the government

Died for “political” reasons 1900- 1987, 169 million people

of these, 38.5 million were killed by invading armies

the remaining 130.7 million were murdered by their own governments

• This presentation is about the requirements for participation in politics as a moral contest, about what it takes to be a particular kind moral actor, namely a political actor, to be a participant in the political life of society

The argument in brief:

• Politics is a moral contest – between competing views of collective moral priorities

• …but it is a contest at the level of collectives

• The contest has rules

• Political socialisation involves:

~ developing necessary resources and skills

~ interpreting the rules of the contest

~ choosing sides in the contest

Restated as outcomes of political socialisation:

1. Tools for engagement (interest, knowledge, judgments, action)

2. Beliefs about/attitudes towards procedure (knowledge of procedure; views about equality of participation, etc.)

3. Identification with a political position; an ideological perspective (party support ~ Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Green, etc.)

History of political psychology

To begin with, dominated by questions about ideological orientation (what side do people choose and why)

But with a sub-text:A concern with threats to civil … and

democratic… society ; threats interpreted in terms of political support for “dangerous” ideologies

1930s-40s: The principle threat

Mass political support

And the consequences

Voters discover consequences of their political choices?

What attracted people to this political ideology: Moral psychology to the rescue

1950s-60s: A change to the threat

Communism

And the bad habits of its advocates

Moral psychology to the rescue (again)

Late 1960s: The threat changes again

Responses to the threat

This time: Psycholinguists to the rescue?

But moral psychology not far behind!

1980s-1990s: A new threat – loss of interest in doing this and similar

Or perhaps not enough interest among attractive, young people?

Political apathy…and ignorance

2000s: Terrorism, mass appeal of fundamentalist ideologies?

2000s: Terrorism, the mass appeal of fundamentalist ideologies?

Historical changes in perceived threats to civil society

• 1930/40s: Fascism and the extreme right

• 1950s: Communism and the far left

• 1960/70s: Capitalism and the military-industrial complex

• 1980/90s: Alienation or apathy?

• 2000s: Terrorism?

Threats to civil society – moral psychology to the rescue

• 1930/40s: Fascism – Psychoanalysis

• 1950s: Communism -- Behaviourism

• 1960/70s: Capitalism and the military-industrial complex – Cognitive constructivism

• 1980/90ss: Apathy -- ???

• 2000s: Terrorism -- ???

Moral psychologies to the rescue

• Psychoanalysis explains Fascism: the rigid superego, projection and the authoritarian personality (Freud, Adorno)

• Classical conditioning explains extremism --- of both left and right: tough-mindedness as weak conscience (Eysenck)

• Dogmatism, closed mindedness explains extremism (Rokeach)

• Constructivism: Moral reasoning drives political orientation (Kohlberg)

Empirical challenges to political psychologies

• Psychoanalysis failed because its developmental theory did not stand up to critical scrutiny

• Eysenck’s theory failed because “tough-mindedness” could not be defined independently of ideological content

• Rokeach’s theory failed because left-wingers did not have higher “dogmatism” scores than moderates

• Cognitive constructivism…succeeded?

Studies linking politics and moral reasoning

• Haan, Smith & Block 1968

• Sampson, 1971• Sullivan & Quarter, 1972• Alker & Poppen, 1973• Fishkin, Keniston &

MacKinnon, 1973• Fontana &Noel, 1973• O’Connor, 1974• Rest, 1975

• Candee, 1976• Nassi, Abramovitz &

Youmans, 1983• Emler, Renwick & Malone,

1983• Gielen, 1986• Markoulis, 1987• Thoma, 1993• Barnett, Evans & Rest,

1995

Kohlberg’s stages ofmoral reasoning

• Level I: Concrete individual perspectiveStage 1 ~ punishment and obedienceStage 2 ~ instrumental relativism• Level II: Member of society

perspective/conventionalStage 3 ~ interpersonal concordanceStage 4 ~ social system• Level III: Prior to society perspective/principledStage 5 ~ social contract & utility, individual rightsStage 6 ~ universal ethical principles

The empirical link between moral reasoning stage and political orientation

• Stage four reasoning is associated with support for the political right

• Stage five reasoning is associated with support for the political left

Kohlberg’s constructivist interpretation ~ and some implications

• Achieved stage of moral reasoning shapes political-ideological orientation

• Initial political leanings should be conservative

• Developmental change brings movement towards the political left

• Those on the left will understand the arguments of the right, but not vice versa

• Political debate can produce movement towards the left, but not towards the right

An alternative – “socio-genetic” –interpretation

“Social system/conventional” (Stage 4) and “principled” (Stage 5) are not consecutive stages in the development of moral reasoning, defined by structure.

They are contrasting political-moral ideologies, differing in content, consensually defined and associated with contrasting political positions, and are expressive of these positions

Assumptions of a socio-genetic interpretation

1. The forms of reasoning are differentiated primarily in terms of content

2. These two forms of reasoning are equally available to supporters of left and right – no asymmetry of access based on cognitive-developmental differences

3. Political positions are also social roles – the positions are performed/expressed

4. Coherence in political positions is normatively defined and generated through social influence

Early tests of the socio-genetic interpretation

Emler, Renwick & Malone (1983): right-wingers can reproduce the (higher stage) moral responses of left wingers

Reicher & Emler (1984; also Emler & Stace, 1998): The two forms of reasoning are seen to convey different political orientations, but not differences in cognitive sophistication, complexity, moral adequacy, etc.

And criticisms:

Rest, Thornton etc: It is refuted by the evidence that social system/conventional and principled moral reasoning are consecutive developmental stages

Barnett, Evens & Rest (1995): The ERM (Emler, Renwick & Malone) results are artefacts of the response alternatives provided by the Defining Issues Test.

Barnett, Evens & Rest (1995)

Self-defined right-wingers and moderates do not choose principled arguments to represent the responses of left-wingers…if other options are available.

Specifically, they choose anti-authority arguments as most representative of a left-wing position

Emler, Palmer-Canton & St.James (1998): study 1.

Social-system/conventional and principled moral arguments do convey different political positions.

Possibilities:

1. Principled reasoning is associated with the moderate left

2. “Anti-authority” arguments are associated with the extreme left

Ratings of relevance of moral arguments to categories of person

1= completely irrelevant 5=highly relevant

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Self RightWing

ModLeft

ExtLeft

Anti-AuthSoc SysPrincipled

Study 2: Perception of the politics of candidates who differ in styles of moral

reasoning/arguments• Jones: uses social system/conventional moral arguments (stage 4)

• Brown: uses principled moral arguments (stage 5)

• Smith: uses anti-authority moral arguments

Ratings of candidates by party political committees (7=highly suitable; 1= not at all

suitable)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Conservative Labour

JonesBrownSmith

A modification to our hypothesis

• Our findings were also beginning to suggest that “stage 4” or conventional moral reasoning is associated with the political right

• BUT, “stage 5” or principled reasoning is not associated with either left or right

Study 3

• Perceptions of others’ politics (7=very left wing) as a function of their moral reasoning and one’s own politics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Right W Centre Left Wing

Soc SysPrincipled

Interpreting study 3

• People who are themselves on the political left see a large difference between the politics of someone who uses stage 4 and someone who uses stage 5.

• People who are themselves on the political right see very little difference

Accounting for the findings• The Defining Issues Test of moral reasoning (and

Kohlberg’s Moral Judgement Interview) are ipsative measures. They force a choice between stage 4 and stage 5 (a choice that a respondent would not otherwise have made)

• Social-system/conventional moral reasoning (stage 4) is associated with a political position; principled moral reasoning (stage 5) is not

• When forced to choose, left wingers avoid stage 4 arguments and so mostly choose stage 5; right wingers are equally comfortable choosing stage 4 and stage 5

Moral reasoning and politics:Ipsative (ranking-based) versus non-

ipsative (rating-based) scoringCorrelation of self rated politics with moral reasoning: Conventional (stage 4) Ranking Rating -.22* -.25* Principled (stage 5) Ranking Rating +.26* +.10

Correlation of Conventional & Principled (rating based): +.25

Emler, Tarry & St.James (2007)

Interpreting Emler, Tarry & St. James

• The standard ranking-based or ipsative scoring method shows the normal pattern, with principled or stage 5 reasoning correlated with political orientation

• When a rating-based scoring method is used, there is no significant relation between stage 5 reasoning and political orientation

• Note, when respondents are not forced to choose, stage 4 and stage 5 scores are positively correlated, suggesting they are not consecutive developmental stages at all

Explaining political orientation (opinions and party preferences)?

• The influence of parents ~ Newcomb; Jennings & Niemi;

• But parents and their children may share political views because they also share…

~ local culture ~ class position• The influence of principles or values

(Individualism, equality, post-materialist values)• Some evidence also that personality predicts

political orientation

~ and the political significance of principled moral reasoning?

The two factor structure of political attitudes• First factor: Ideological left-right• Second factor: “libertarian/authoritarian (Heath,

Evans & Martin, 1993)“democratic enlightenment” (Nie, Junn & Stehlik-Barry, 1996) (also: “political tolerance”)

• Discriminant validity: first factor predicts voting, second does not (Banks et al., 1992)

• Second factor related to education, first is not (Bynner, Romney & Emler, 2000)

Interpreting the second factor

• The second factor corresponds to variations in beliefs about the rules of the political contest, including beliefs about who should have political rights (right to vote, freedom of speech, right to protest, etc).

• Most research has focussed on political tolerance because, although most people believe in equality of rights in the abstract, many are unwilling to extend these rights to unpopular groups

Explaining variations in beliefs about the “rules of the political game”

Explanations that have been advanced:

1. In terms of personality, specifically the big 5 factor of “openness”

2. In terms of self esteem; people with low self esteem express less political tolerance

3. In terms of effects of formal teaching in schools

4. In terms of the moral effects of formal education

Explaining variations in beliefs about the “rules of the political game”

Research we are currently conducting provides no support for either “openness” or self esteem as explanations for variations in political tolerance

We propose that tolerance is influenced by the effects of formal education, and specifically the effect on sophistication of moral reasoning

Stage 5 or principled moral reasoning underlies principled support for political tolerance, and equality of political rights

But does every individual have a political position? –degrees of

involvement in the role of political actor

• Converse (1964): most adults do not have coherent political views in the sense of stable, ideologically-organised attitudes. The political world is divided between small, ideologically sophisticated political elites and mass publics with no organised political views.

• But it may be more a matter of degree• Even so it begins to look like the role of political

actor is optional

Resources for the role of political actor

• Being a social actor – being able to make moral judgments about other actors – is an imperative

• Being a societal actor – making moral judgments about collective priorities – is more optional

• What are the requirements or resources for being a societal actor , for playing a political role for becoming “engaged” in the political life of society?

Following Converse: Proliferation of engagement/participation variables

• Involvement• Awareness• Knowledge• Participation• Interest• Opinionation• Efficacy

• Expertise• Exposure• Attitude stability• Identity salience• Ideological coherence• Attentiveness• Engagement

Responses to the proliferation

Luskin (1990): focus on political sophistication, and its precursors

Delli-Carpini & Keeter (1996): focus on knowledge, and its precursors and consequences

Zukin et al (2007): behavioural expressions of political engagement (and their precursor)

Nie et al (1996): engagement as outcome; a factor-analytic solution

The nature of engagement• Nie et al.: engagement as a latent variable

• All indicators of engagement relate to education

• Education decides the outcome of a competition for a necessarily scarce resource…

… a central role in the political “contest”

• The effect of education on engagement is substantially mediated by its impact on network centrality

…but

• Indicators of this latent variable differ in kind.

• They include motivational, attitudinal, cognitive and behavioural “indicators”

• Variations in “engagement” predate network centrality

Elements of Political Engagement• Interest in politics• Attentiveness to political affairs• Knowledge of politics• Opinionation (having opinions or making

moral judgments about political questions)• Ideological identity (having interrelated

opinions, structured in terms of a political identity

• Participation/Political action (voting, demonstratiing, etc)

A causal-developmental sequence?

InterestAttentive-

nessKnow-ledge

Opinion-ation

Ideo-logicalidentity

Politicalactor

The multiple roles of education in the development of political engagement

• Correlated outcome

• Direct (cognitive) effects

• Role taking opportunities

• Incidental – social environmental

• Contingent effects – competitive allocation of opportunities

Education effectsCorrelated

Direct (skill development, information

transmission)

Role taking

Social environmental

Mediated (e.g., via

effects on network centrality)

InterestAttentive-

nessKnow-ledge

Opinion-ation

Ideo-logicalidentity

Politicalactor

The role of education: varies with element

• Interest ~Correlated outcome• Attentiveness ~Direct (cognitive) effects• Knowledge ~ Direct (skills + information)• Opinionation ~ Role taking opportunities• Identity ~ Social environmental• Behavioural engagement ~ competitive

access to political roles (via network centrality in longer term?)

Other direct determinants of engagement

• Mobilization efforts• Opportunity structures• Formal group membership – organisational

involvement (cf. Putnam)• Skills – e.g. “civic skills”, communication and

organisational skills (Verba)• Sense of efficacy (Morrell)• Personality (Vecchione & Caprara)

A moral basis for engagement?

• A sense of obligation or civic duty (Delli Carpini & Keeter)

• Origins of a sense of civic responsibility? Socialisation, family influences, Zukin et al)

A preliminary test of the causal developmental model of engagement

Available variables:Interest in politicsResponsiveness (positive, not cynical about politics)Attentiveness (talks about politics, political news exposure)Opinionation (has opinions)Intention to vote (intends to vote)Political activism (rallies, demonstrations & meetings,

leafleting, organising meetings, writing to MPs)Note: we did not have a measure of political knowledge

Anchoring the simplex: social class

A simplex model fit for engagement GFI = .973 AGFI= .934 RMSR= .045 .34

.67 .48 .42 .34 .32 .25

.18 .11 .01 .05 .04

Socialclass

Educationalattainment

InterestAttentive-ness

Responsive-ness

ActionVote

intentionOpinion-ation

Interpreting the outcome of the SEM

• Opinionation (having opinions on a range of political and social issues) appears to be a consequence of action

• (Note: In this analysis social attitudes, or “opinions”, are moral judgements)

To conclude:• Politics is a moral contest, a contest between

different views of collective moral priorities.

• People participate in this contest to varying degrees

• In order to participate one needs a moral point of view, probably based on clarity about moral value priorities (e.g., equality or security versus freedom)

• Participation depends on a view of the rules of the contest, influenced by intellectual moral sophistication

• Participation also requires skills and resources, motivated by a sense of moral duty