How To Fight Populism

How do you fight populism?

Populism is brew­ing in many Western demo­cra­cies. According to FT Magazine colum­nist Gillian Tett, we haven’t reached peak pop­u­lism yet. ¹Tett, G. (2015). Why we still haven’t reached peak pop­u­lism. Financial Times. https://​www​.ft​.com/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​a​6​6​5​c​b​b​2​-​9​519 – 11e8-b747-fb1e803ee64e

I’m wor­ried; pop­u­lism gone rogue rarely ends well.

Is there a way to fight back?
Or is it too late?

Here we go:

What is Populism?

Populism is a polit­ic­al ideo­logy and approach that seeks to rep­res­ent and cater to the interests and con­cerns of ordin­ary people, often emphas­iz­ing the divide between the “com­mon folk” and the “élite” or “estab­lish­ment.”

“Populist dis­course has become main­stream in Western demo­cra­cies, and cur­rent explan­a­tions and reac­tions to it may strengthen rather than weak­en it.”
Source: Government and Opposition ²Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39, 541 — 563. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​1​1​1​/​j​.​1​477 – 7053.2004.00135.x

Populism typ­ic­ally arises from a per­cep­tion that the exist­ing polit­ic­al and social sys­tems are unre­spons­ive or unfair to the needs of the major­ity. Populist lead­ers and move­ments across the polit­ic­al spec­trum, from left-wing to right-wing, often employ emotive rhet­or­ic to gal­van­ize pub­lic support. 

While pop­u­lism can give a voice to mar­gin­al­ized groups and drive neces­sary reforms, it can over­sim­pli­fy com­plex issues and, in some cases, lead to the erosion of demo­crat­ic insti­tu­tions and values.

Populistic sup­port­ers often com­prise people who used to enjoy a cul­tur­ally rel­ev­ant pos­i­tion in soci­ety but gradu­ally lost it. Trying to erad­ic­ate their claims with oppos­ing argu­ments could even have adverse effects:

Group psy­cho­logy mixed with aggres­sion, scape­goat­ing, and fear-mon­ger­ing can res­ult in a dan­ger­ous media logic cocktail. 

“Media logic plays a cru­cial role in social order, influ­en­cing sur­veil­lance, com­mer­cial­ism, social change, and mil­it­ary strategies.”
Source: Communication Theory ³Altheide, D. (2013). Media Logic, Social Control, and Fear. Communication Theory, 23, 223 – 238. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​1​1​1​/​C​O​M​T​.​1​2​017

Media and the Post-Truth Zone

The Media Polarisation Model

We often hear how the media cli­mate is “polar­ised” — a known and reas­on­ably well-under­stood effect of clas­sic media logic.

It also seems true that social media logic has amp­li­fied the effects of polar­isa­tion by group­ing people into echo cham­bers where con­firm­a­tion bias, con­ver­sion the­ory, and the hos­tile media effect are allowed to roam freely without any checks and balances.

“Political elites, par­tis­an media, and social media con­trib­ute to soci­et­al-level polit­ic­al polar­iz­a­tion, lead­ing to mis­per­cep­tions of divi­sion among the elect­or­ate and fuel­ing anim­os­ity and actu­al ideo­lo­gic­al polar­iz­a­tion over time.”
Source: Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences ⁴Wilson, A., Parker, V., & Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the con­tem­por­ary polit­ic­al and media land­scape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223 – 228. … Continue read­ing

More pro­foundly, media polar­isa­tion is prob­lem­at­ic because it draws false lines between extremes that aren’t neces­sar­ily per­pen­dic­u­lar. These “false lines” will force oth­er­wise bal­anced media con­sumers to place them­selves between the media-sug­ges­ted extremes.

At the extremes, sheltered by the social safety of a like-minded peer group (i.e. echo cham­ber), it’s pos­sible to dis­reg­ard oppos­ing evid­ence as “attacks” on their pos­i­tion. As the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is states, any such attacks will only strengthen the pos­i­tion of the extremes.

The Post-Truth Zone

The amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is sus­tains a “Post-Truth Zone” at the extremes through media polar­isa­tion. If a) the zone is wide enough and b) the extremes are suf­fi­ciently close to each oth­er, the forced “bal­anced” pos­i­tion between them will also res­ult in the “Post-Truth” Zone.

“Post-truth is a soci­et­al phe­nomen­on, influ­enced by the expect­a­tion that hon­esty is the default pos­i­tion, and the pub­lic tol­er­ance of inac­cur­ate and undefen­ded alleg­a­tions in polit­ics.”
Source: Nature ⁵Higgins, K. (2016). Post-truth: a guide for the per­plexed. Nature, 540, 9 – 9. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​3​8​/​5​4​0​0​09a

Since the forced “bal­anced” pos­i­tion will have a hard time shel­ter­ing any­one from our fear of social isol­a­tion, the spir­al of silence par­tially explains why extremes are so effect­ive in silen­cing the major­ity of oth­er­wise bal­anced media con­sumers. ⁶Silfwer, J. (2020, June 4). The Spiral of Silence. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​s​p​i​r​a​l​-​o​f​-​s​i​l​e​n​ce/

More often than not, in a post-truth soci­ety, hav­ing no opin­ion sud­denly seems like the only ration­al escape.

The iron pre­scrip­tion (men­tal mod­el). Senior advisor Charlie Munger argued: “I have what I call an ‘iron pre­scrip­tion’ that helps me keep sane when I nat­ur­ally drift toward pre­fer­ring one ideo­logy over anoth­er. I feel that I’m not entitled to have an opin­ion unless I can state the argu­ments against my pos­i­tion bet­ter than the people who are in oppos­i­tion. I think that I am qual­i­fied to speak only when I’ve reached that state” (Knodell, 2016). ⁷Knodell, P. A. (2016). All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll nev­er go there: Buffett & Munger – A study in sim­pli­city and uncom­mon, com­mon sense. PAK Publishing.

Learn more: The Media Polarisation Model

The Amplification Hypothesis

The Amplification Hypothesis

It’s com­mon to find that coun­ter­ar­gu­ments strengthen exist­ing beliefs instead of weak­en­ing them. 

The phe­nomen­on is known as the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is, where dis­play­ing cer­tainty about an atti­tude when talk­ing with anoth­er per­son increases and hardens that attitude.

“Across exper­i­ments, it is demon­strated that increas­ing atti­tude cer­tainty strengthens atti­tudes (e.g., increases their res­ist­ance to per­sua­sion) when atti­tudes are uni­valent but weak­ens atti­tudes (e.g., decreases their res­ist­ance to per­sua­sion) when atti­tudes are ambi­val­ent. These res­ults are con­sist­ent with the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is.“
Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ⁸Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the con­sequences of atti­tude cer­tainty: The amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, … Continue read­ing

How does the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is work? 

In a threat­en­ing situ­ation or emer­gency, we resort to the prim­al (fast­est) part of the brain and sur­viv­al instincts (fight, flight and freeze). ⁹Surviving the Storm: Understanding the Nature of Attacks held at Animal Care Expo, 2011 in Orlando, FL.

Establishing com­mon ground and exhib­it­ing empathy demon­strates a genu­ine under­stand­ing of their per­spect­ive, fos­ter­ing trust and open­ness to your ideas. Conversely, a stra­tegic mis­match of atti­tudes can serve as a power­ful coun­ter­meas­ure if your object­ive is to deflect per­suas­ive attempts.

Persuade

To per­suade, align your atti­tude with the tar­get. Otherwise, you will only act to cre­ate resistance.

Provoke

To put off a per­suader, mis­match their atti­tudes. When they are logic­al, be emo­tion­al, and vice versa. 

Learn more: The Amplification Hypothesis: How To Counter Extreme Positions

Gasoline on the Fire: The Conversion Theory

The Conversion Theory: The Power of Minorities

The dis­pro­por­tion­al power of minor­it­ies is known as the con­ver­sion the­ory. ¹³Conversion the­ory of minor­ity influ­ence. (2021, February 12). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​o​n​v​e​r​s​i​o​n​_​t​h​e​o​r​y​_​o​f​_​m​i​n​o​r​i​t​y​_​i​n​f​l​u​e​nce

“In groups, the minor­ity can have a dis­pro­por­tion­ate effect, con­vert­ing many ‘major­ity’ mem­bers to their own cause. This is because many major­ity group mem­bers are not strong believ­ers in its cause. They may be simply going along because it seems easi­er or that there is no real altern­at­ive. They may also have become dis­il­lu­sioned with the group pur­pose, pro­cess, or lead­er­ship and are seek­ing a viable altern­at­ive.”
Source: Changingminds​.org ¹⁴Conversion Theory. (2023). Changingminds​.org. https://​chan​ging​minds​.org/​e​x​p​l​a​n​a​t​i​o​n​s​/​t​h​e​o​r​i​e​s​/​c​o​n​v​e​r​s​i​o​n​_​t​h​e​o​r​y​.​htm

How does it work?

The social cost of hold­ing a dif­fer­ent view than the major­ity is high. This increased cost explains why minor­it­ies often hold their opin­ions more firmly. It takes determ­in­a­tion to go against the norm. ¹⁵Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a the­ory of con­ver­sion beha­viour. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209 – 239. New York: Academic Press

In con­trast, many major­ity mem­bers don’t hold their opin­ions so firmly. They might belong to the major­ity for no oth­er reas­on than that every­one else seems to be. ¹⁶Chryssochoou, X. and Volpato, C. (2004). Social Influence and the Power of Minorities: An Analysis of the Communist Manifesto, Social Justice Research, 17, 4, 357 – 388

According to con­ver­sion the­ory, while major­it­ies often claim norm­at­ive social influ­ence, minor­it­ies strive for eth­ic­al high ground. 

Given the power of norm­at­ive social influ­ence, minor­it­ies typ­ic­ally form tight-knit groups that can repeatedly com­mu­nic­ate the same core message.

Conversion Theory Examples

Most big shifts usu­ally start with a small group of ded­ic­ated people:

Minority Influence: A PR Approach

Organizations can cul­tiv­ate a sense of pur­pose and accom­plish­ment among par­ti­cipants by align­ing with a move­ment that chal­lenges a Stupid Majority.

Minority spokes­per­sons with sol­id con­vic­tions often pos­sess valu­able know­ledge and author­ity, enhan­cing their per­suas­ive abil­it­ies and influence.

Disproportionately, minor­it­ies can con­vert numer­ous major­ity mem­bers to their cause, as many in the major­ity may have merely fol­lowed the path of least res­ist­ance, made decisions without much con­sid­er­a­tion, or lacked viable alternatives.

Additionally, a sig­ni­fic­ant seg­ment of the major­ity might be dis­il­lu­sioned with their group’s pur­pose, pro­cess, or lead­er­ship, ren­der­ing them more recept­ive to altern­at­ive proposals.

But from a PR per­spect­ive, we must be cautious.

Minorities aren’t always right, and major­it­ies aren’t always wrong. Minorities can hold futile views while still exer­cising a dis­pro­por­tion­ate amount of power momentarily.

Learn more: Conversion Theory: The Disproportionate Influence of Minorities

Fear, Social Media, and Cancel Culture

Social net­works, which employ social media algorithms util­ising iter­at­ive test­ing to boost audi­ence engage­ment, have recently been scru­tin­ised for allegedly pro­mot­ing con­tent that height­ens aggression. 

Critics argue that these algorithms, designed to keep users engaged and act­ive on the plat­forms, inad­vert­ently pri­or­it­ise mes­sages that pro­voke strong emo­tion­al responses, often incit­ing anger or hostility. 

This phe­nomen­on raises ques­tions about the role and respons­ib­il­ity of social media com­pan­ies in shap­ing pub­lic dis­course and the poten­tial con­sequences of an increas­ingly polar­ized online envir­on­ment for soci­ety at large. Populism plays right into media logic using social con­trol and fear.

As such, the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is, fueled by con­ver­sion the­ory and social media algorithms, is a strong argu­ment against can­cel culture:

In short, we can nev­er fight pop­u­lism by fight­ing pop­u­lists.
The only way is to remove that which fuels their anger.

Fear: Cause and Effect

Politicians with a pop­u­list­ic agenda are often blamed for incit­ing soci­et­al fear and anger. Still, fear and anger were already present in the pop­u­la­tion; oth­er­wise, it wouldn’t have been sus­cept­ible to pop­u­list pro­pa­ganda in the first place.

Misplaced pride and frus­tra­tion with­in a pop­u­la­tion is a fer­tile breed­ing ground for any­one will­ing to stand against the élite. Such actions will grant even one indi­vidu­al enough power to rad­ic­ally shift an entire polit­ic­al narrative. 

Populist sup­port­ers will read­ily invest their ener­gies in their cham­pi­ons to do as they please — if noth­ing else, to “stick it” to the establishment.

Here’s why:

Populism is not about mak­ing people angry. It’s about mak­ing people angri­er. At their core, pop­u­lists are angry about some­thing and blame oth­ers for their loss of sig­ni­fic­ance. ¹⁷See also Pew Research Institute’s 2018 report on pop­u­lism.

How To Stand Up To Populism

To mit­ig­ate the rise of pop­u­lism, we must address the con­cerns of those who feel mar­gin­al­ized or dis­pos­sessed by social reform, ensur­ing that they con­tin­ue to per­ceive them­selves as cul­tur­ally relevant:

Progressive politi­cians must take extra cau­tion in times of social change. Groups that have enjoyed influ­ence nev­er take kindly to los­ing power and significance.

PR Resource: Cancel Culture

PR Resource: Spiral of Silence