Grammar of political discourse and hate
In contemporary political discourse, there is a prevalent assumption that individuals holding opposing viewpoints possess fundamentally different mindsets. Yet, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that people actually harbor remarkably similar concerns and thought processes: the majority are inclined to protect members of their own group when confronted with potential harm. When an intentional agent inflicts harm upon a vulnerable patient, the agent is perceived as the perpetrator and the patient as the victim. Individuals tend to rally in defense of the victim, particularly if the victim is part of their own group.
The essence of political discourse lies in the strategic manipulation or framing of issues in a manner that casts certain individuals as perpetrators of harm, while positioning others as saviors of victims. The perception of harm varies greatly depending on whether the victims are affiliated with one’s own group or if the perpetrators belong to an external group, and this dynamic significantly shapes individual political orientations and allegiances.
Individuals frequently align themselves with distinct groups based on their adherence to particular ideologies. For example, liberals often identify minorities, such as undocumented migrants, as victims, whereas conservatives are inclined to perceive the majority as the aggrieved party. This dichotomy is evident in various global conflicts. In the case of Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, Western nations typically view Ukrainian citizens as victims and Russians as aggressors. Similarly, in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Europeans commonly sympathize with Palestinians as victims and view Israelis as perpetrators. Within India’s political landscape, the ruling party often portrays Hindus as victims of minority Muslims, while opposition factions may reverse these roles.
Within political discourse, social media platforms wield considerable influence in both shaping consensus and molding perceptions of political agendas. However, given their predominant ownership by corporations, which frequently align with established power structures, there exists a tangible risk of propagating an unprecedented propaganda machine: echo chambers. These digital environments possess the capability to sway or even rewrite public perception, dictating who is perceived as a victim and who as a perpetrator, contingent upon the prevailing political incumbency.
In the current landscape of rapid news dissemination, heightened emotions often drive information consumption, often at the expense of factual accuracy. Social media platforms, functioning as attention markets, relentlessly pursue user engagement. Rather than facilitating conflict resolution, these platforms thrive on the incitement and perpetuation of discord, thereby perpetuating an endless cycle of contentious discourse.
This dynamic exacerbates the proliferation of misinformation, amplifying narratives that align with prevailing emotional biases — even when these narratives are demonstrably false and lack social utility. Negative stories, with their innate ability to garner more attention and spread more rapidly than positive ones, dominate the informational landscape. Consequently, events such as elections, propaganda campaigns, and instances of civil disobedience become particularly lucrative for social media companies.
The resultant outcome is the emergence of ideological echo chambers. Within these insulated enclaves, individuals find themselves shielded from opposing viewpoints, exposed solely to the amplified reverberations of their own beliefs. This phenomenon underscores a stark reality: public discourse is increasingly fragmented, with individuals operating within diverse and oftentimes conflicting mental frameworks. As social media platforms continue to shape our perceptions of victim-hood and perpetration, it becomes imperative to acknowledge the profound influence these digital arenas wield in modern political discourse.
Within this discourse, it becomes evident that insights from the psychology of the mind offer valuable perspectives on understanding political discourse and conflicts. Individuals’ affiliations with specific political parties and their alignments with particular nations frequently derive from their perceptions of who assumes the roles of perpetrators and victims.
The conceptual framework proposed by Daniel Wegner and Kurt Gray, regarding the nature of the mind, provides a compelling lens through which to analyze these dynamics. Their model posits that individuals perceive the minds of others along two distinct dimensions: experience and agency. Experience pertains to the capacity for experiencing moral emotions, while agency involves the attribution of responsibility and the exercise of self-control over one’s actions. By leveraging this conceptualization, we gain deeper insights into morality and how individuals evaluate various actions within political contexts.
For instance, the act of disciplining a child for their errors might be perceived as morally objectionable, as it involves a deliberate infliction of harm by an agent upon a vulnerable individual. In contrast, the act of eliminating a mosquito is typically not regarded as immoral, as mosquitoes are not believed to possess moral emotions. This distinction in the perception of harm is influenced by how individuals attribute the dimensions of experience and agency to various entities.
Individuals frequently prioritize the protection of their immediate kin, group, tribe, or nation. Consequently, anyone perceived as causing harm to these entities is viewed as an adversary. Within social groups, individuals tend to consider those who share their mindset as equals, assuming they uphold similar social and moral norms, while perceiving others as possessing inferior or divergent mindsets. This perception can rationalize the infliction of harm upon those perceived as possessing different or lesser minds, implying a lower dimension of experience. As a result, political discourse often revolves around the categorization of perpetrators and victims, influencing which side individuals lend their support to in conflicts. This dynamic evolves as actors are assigned differing roles of perpetrators and victims, thereby shaping the narrative of the political landscape.
