Ending the blame game

In the wake of the United States election, who still thinks identity politics is both a reliable indicator of voter loyalty and a sturdy tent pole for the entire political grievance industry?

President Donald Trump’s unexpected success with Latino voters in Texas and Florida, for example, suggests members of this group widely ignored their supposed collective duty to oppose the president on immigration. One in three Black men in the Midwest also voted for Trump, again in conflict with their alleged best interests. In California, voters defeated an attempt to revoke Proposition 209, thus ensuring racial identity cannot be used as a factor in the university application process. And given the overall closeness of the contest, president-elect Joe Biden’s embrace of the tropes of Black Lives Matter and the Green New Deal clearly failed to electrify the electorate.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THIRD-WORLD CONDITIONS.

— AVI BENLOLO

Yes, Trump lost. Perhaps deservedly so. But a review of the entrails of Biden versus Trump suggest big problems on the horizon for anyone who thinks they can neatly divide the electorate into victim and oppressor based on claims to historical or current injustices. Allegations that society is riven with racism, oppression and colonial/genocidal tendencies have become ubiquitous on both sides of the border of late; as have efforts to pit different groups in perpetual conflict with one another. Now it appears the appetite for such identity wars may be waning. Perhaps science can explain why.

Intriguing new Canadian research in social psychology suggests an incessant focus on decrying the sins of the past via repeated accusations, apologies, statue removals and other performative acts of citizenship can actually make things worse by reducing broad-based support for more practical measures. This suggests the best way forward is not to repeatedly berate certain groups (i.e., white men) for what their forebears might have done, but to encourage a shared sense of accomplishment going forward. Using identity politics as a cudgel isn't the path to a better future.

In an academic study published last year, business professor Ivona Hideg and psychologist Anne Wilson, both of Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., investigated how to build broad support for employment equity programs meant to advance women in the workforce. To do this, they ran several experiments in which the subjects, mostly undergraduate students, read varying descriptions of the changing role of women in society, after which they were asked whether they supported a proposed program meant to enhance job prospects for women. Some of these snapshots emphasized overt gender discrimination from the early 20th century when females were not allowed to vote or own property. Others focused on the progress made by women since the 1970s.

The results reveal a striking difference in how men and women react to reminders of the past. Presented with guilt-inducing examples of gender discrimination from the early 1900s, male respondents proved much less likely to support present-day remediation policies than their counterparts who were shown more recent and less pointed information. Female responses did not vary in this way.

“Although the history reminders were meant to invoke support for current policies, we found men who were presented with instances of historical injustice against women tended to deny the extent of presentday discrimination and demonstrated less support for employment equity policies,” Wilson said in an interview earlier this year. Such a reaction, she argued, is consistent with psychology's social identity theory, which states that individuals derive their sense of self-worth from belonging to groups demarcated by gender, race, religion, politics and other tribal connections.

Social identity theory predicts that an attack on one's group — including claims of misconduct by long-ago members — will trigger a self-protective response to deny or deflect. Further experiments found a link between low self-esteem among male subjects and low support for programs that address gender discrimination. “The use of history can backfire by eliciting defensiveness among majority groups,” Wilson concluded.

We ought to consider this a significant result with applicability far beyond gender issues. Repeatedly hammering a dominant social group, be they males, whites, settlers, etc., for a litany of past sins appears to be a poor choice of tactics if the goal is to build universal support for programs meant to remediate present-day inequities. A more solicitous and even-handed approach to history — highlighting progress and problems in equal measure without casting blame — seems better suited to success.

Even if you tend to be dismissive of social identity theory, experiments involving undergrads or employment equity programs in general, these findings should still make intuitive sense. You'll always get farther with honey than vinegar. Beating your enemies senseless over past crimes is unlikely to do much good. It's also plain wrong, as Canada's history properly contains much more to celebrate than lament.

Nonetheless, a Manichean version of history is clearly the preferred perspective among perpetually outraged groups. The notion of a clear delineation between good versus evil supports the idealized victim/oppressor narrative that drives Black Lives Matter, the New York Times' 1619 Project, as well as the bulk of Indigenous issues in Canada and nearly every other claim to injustice made today. While it may be pleasing for claimants to hammer away at their alleged oppressors, it's probably undermining the ultimate goal — a more equitable society.

“It's not enough to say that one particular group has been bastards since the beginning of time and still are,” said Wilson. “It is counterproductive to treat dominant groups that way, especially since they still have a fair bit of power to make change.” From a purely pragmatic point of view, nothing is likely to get better unless and until the majority agrees it should. Blaming this group's ancestors for an unrelenting litany of sins, legitimate or not, is unlikely to put them in a mood to help over the long-run.

You can either fight old battles with old stories. Or you can put the history wars and identity politics aside and focus on making everyone's future better. At least, that's what science has to say about it.

RESULTS SHOW STRIKING DIFFERENCE IN HOW MEN AND WOMEN REACT TO THE PAST.