Political Party Stereotypes and Stereotyping in General
“In the US, issue ownership analysis is part of broader theories about voter ignorance. We know from many surveys that the general public has very limited knowledge of political institutions and policies. They tend not to know very much about broader social trends either. This means that electors draw on various informational short-cuts to make political decisions. This includes stereotypical views of political parties, based on assumed previous policy success or failure, or on perceptions of how political party members feel about an issue, on the assumption that interest or sincerity will translate into successful policy.
According to the American literature, some issues are not owned by any party but are ‘performance’ issues. The economy is put into this category, as whether or not it is going well is sufficiently obvious to voters, from regular news reports and everyday experience, for them to form their own views directly on the issue without going via a prior party stereotype (in one paper, parties can have a ‘lease’ on the economy as an issue, but one which would end with their recession or another party’s boom).
Even where issues are ‘owned’, the standing of parties is not immune to very salient contrary information, such as debacles and scandals. Sometimes there are long-term changes (this seems to have happened in Canada). But in the more normal course of events, when there is little grabbing voters’ attention, they draw on party stereotypes to form views. Once established, these stereotypes tend to be reinforced; we all have our theories about the world, and pay more attention to information that confirms our views than to information that challenges our views.”
The above quote comes from an article by Andrew Norton on the subject of issue ownership by political parties in Australia (drawing upon US scholarship on the subject.) It got me thinking (a little) about how common stereotyping is in general. I have no doubt that racism and anti-Semitism are kinds of stereotyping where select members of each group (the ‘bad’ ones) are held out as representative of the entire group and used to reinforce negative stereotypes about the entire group. It is not just blacks and Jews that are stereotyped in this manner. Roman Catholic clergy are subject to stereotypes that are no more logically justified than the racist and anti-Semitic ones. Priests are routinely stereotyped as sexually repressed and ’suspect’, and in more extreme cases they’re characterised as paedophiles. Bishops are stereotyped as dishonest ‘enablers’ of abuse. No doubt that given the large size of each group there will be some that ‘fit’ the stereotype perfectly. But if individuals deserve to be treated on their merits then stereotyping may not only be illogical but also immoral. The unfortunate thing is that stereotypes often effectively serve the interests of some individual or individuals. Anti-Catholic and anti-clerical stereotypes are often used to further a reform agenda (which may or may not be a justified end.) Plenty of other negative stereotyping occurs, for example, those on the political left are often described ‘bleeding hearts’ and those on the right are often viewed as lacking compassion. War time also sees stereotypes used to ‘demonise’ opponents.
Stereotyping in politics occurs not only at the party level but at the individual level. The previous Prime Minister was often stereotyped (as being ‘clever’ in the pejorative sense) and the present Prime Minister already has the ‘nerd’ stereotype thing happening (and I’m sure there are worse to come.) When a member of a party does something wrong, they are held out as being representative of their party as a whole rather than as an individual who has failed and who may or may not be representative of their party as a whole. The stereotyping that goes back and forth in standard political discourse sets a very bad example , but perhaps is unavoidable given the way the electorate responds to things.
Stereotyping is part of the pathology of some mental illnesses, such as social phobia where sufferers often stereotypes themselves as overly anxious (more than they ‘really’ are) and socially incompetent with others viewed as confident and intolerant of the sufferer’s flaws (leading to even more anxiety.)
We seem to have a logical double standard though because negative stereotyping is considered wrong (unless it’s against ‘bad’ people) but positive stereotyping is fine. Perhaps all the positive stereotyping that occurs sets the wrong example and people conclude that if positive stereotyping is logically sound then negative stereotyping is as well. I try not to stereotype if at all possible (in a positive or a negative sense) but I don’t think I’m 100% successful at it.
Update:
Check out this post on the neurology of stereotypes for a more detailed discussion of the subject.
Related Posts
- The Pope’s Visit to Australia
- Workchoices Advertisements
- The Political Compass
- Representing Arguments
- Oz Politics Test
Comments
2 Responses to “Political Party Stereotypes and Stereotyping in General”
Leave a Reply
Stereotyping gets a bad name, but none of us could function without it. We have neither the time nor the cognitive capacity to evaluate every person and situation individually. Obviously this can create problems when stereoypes are inaccurate, though this may not be as big a problem as it seems, since when things matter most we tend to go for more individual evaluation. Consequently, you get people who say they do not like blacks/Jews/gays/whatever, but the particular people they know who are black/Jewish/gay or whatever are somehow ok.
Thanks for your comment. I hadn’t given full consideration to the advantages of generalisations like stereotyping. Obviously they must have an advantage of some kind or else their prevalence would make no sense. They provide a useful shortcut to conclusions that are usually non-contentious.