The Identity Trap: How Political Labels Make Us More Prone to Violence

Have you ever told anyone, "I'm a remainer"? Or said "Oh, they're a leaver" when discussing somebody else? Felt an instinctive response to seeing someone engrossed in the Daily Mail or sharing a story from openDemocracy? If you are reading this, then the odds are you have. Uncomfortably, as we touch on this latest episode of Changed My Mind, featuring political neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod, that means the likelihood of you condoning political violence rises. But you probably don't see it that way.

Political violence that is, violence committed to challenge, attain, or retain political power is on the rise in democracies. In the UK, politicians, especially women and those of colour, report avoiding events for fears over harassment and safety amid a stark rise in the number of alleged crimes against MPs and an increase in spending to protect politicians. The threats don't stop when they leave office either: last month, former Conservative cabinet minister Penny Mourdant said there hasn't been a day in the two years since she lost her parliamentary seat when there has not been a live police investigation or an ongoing court case relating to her safety.

There are many reasons for this rise in harassment. But our responses to it are shaped by our identities and the world around us.

The Identity Triggers

Once you go from perceiving "I believe" to "I am", it triggers a different, more intuitive set of brain responses. You favour people who agree with you, and disfavour those who don't, even when you operate in completely unrelated fields.

As Leor says, when identity is something they treasure dogmatically, extreme leftists and extreme rightists end up having a really similar psychological profile. This finding challenges the conventional wisdom that political violence is a phenomenon of the far right. Instead, it suggests that the psychological mechanisms that drive support for political violence are present across the political spectrum.

And in the right environments, such as those of stress or uncertainty, Leor has found that dogmatists possess "the most cognitively rigid minds and are also the ones who are willing to support harming and hurting people who believe differently. People who seem to threaten their own group are more willing to engage in violence."

The dogmatist individual is unlikely to view an endorsement of violence that way. Instead, the lens is one of self-defence, and there is a growing body of work that shows these rigid personalities are more likely to engage in self-harm, too, to protect a group, leader or ideology that they are fused with.

Identity can ebb and flow. Some identities can be strengthened during events such as the Olympics, especially if you are winning a lot of gold medals or defeating old enemies. Others are more enduring and potent; often because people really care about an issue, and have seen or experienced a deep injustice, such as racism or sexism.

But Isn't It Just Authoritarians?

Historically, it was thought that authoritarians had a bigger disposition to support political violence, an idea shaped by researchers such as Else Frenkel-Brunswik.

Like many social psychologists of the 1940s and 50s, Frenkel-Brunswik had fled the Nazis and was desperate to understand how millions of people had condoned or turned a blind eye to genocide. Delving into childhood, she asked what traits predispose children to authoritarian regimes, concluding that those who tend towards right-wing authoritarianism were more cognitively rigid thinkers. They see the world in more binary black-and-white ways and struggle to adapt to nuance and shades of grey, she thought, believing this made them more likely to justify violence.

But there was a flaw in this work. It considered the cause to be authoritarianism. Not the rigidity and dogmatism of the brain, a concept that can be found in people who hold on to identities strongly. Wherever they are on the political spectrum. Political science and political psychology have uncovered many differences and similarities in how conservatives, liberals, and others think in the decades since Frenkel-Brunswik's research. But on support for political violence, it only told a partial story.

The research of Leor Zmigrod and others has built on this foundation, revealing that the cognitive rigidity that underpins support for political violence is not confined to one end of the political spectrum. Instead, it is a trait that can be found in individuals who hold any identity dogmatically, regardless of their political orientation.

The Neuroscience of Rigidity

The neuroscience behind these findings is compelling. When individuals hold identities dogmatically, their brains process information differently. They become less able to adapt to new information, less tolerant of ambiguity, and more likely to perceive threats where none exist.

This cognitive rigidity is not just a psychological trait; it has a neurological basis. Studies have shown that individuals with rigid beliefs have different patterns of brain activity, with reduced activation in areas associated with cognitive flexibility and increased activation in areas associated with threat detection.

The implications of these findings are significant. If cognitive rigidity is a neurological trait that can be found across the political spectrum, then efforts to reduce political violence must address this underlying psychological mechanism, rather than simply targeting one political group or ideology.

The Environment Matters

While cognitive rigidity is a predisposing factor for support for political violence, the environment plays a crucial role in activating this predisposition. Stress, uncertainty, and perceived threat are all factors that can trigger rigid thinking and increase support for violence.

In times of economic hardship, political instability, or social change, individuals may be more likely to cling to their identities dogmatically and to perceive those who disagree with them as threats. This creates a fertile ground for political violence.

The rise of social media has also played a role. By creating echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to information that confirms their existing beliefs, social media can reinforce cognitive rigidity and increase polarization. The algorithms that drive social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, often by promoting content that is divisive and emotionally charged.

The Role of Leadership

Political leaders also play a role in shaping the environment that can trigger political violence. When leaders use divisive rhetoric, dehumanize opponents, or encourage violence, they create a permission structure that can lead to real-world harm.

The rise of populism in many countries has been accompanied by an increase in political violence. Leaders who appeal to identity and emotion, rather than reason and evidence, can exacerbate polarization and increase the risk of violence.

However, leaders can also play a constructive role. By modelling respectful dialogue, condemning violence, and promoting social cohesion, leaders can help reduce polarization and create a more peaceful political environment.

What Can We Do About It?

The answer isn't to stop campaigning for progress. But it does demand recognising that if you are a progressive activist, you may not be the right messenger. When political violence occurs, condemn it publicly. Enforce rules evenly, and protect the independence of those enforcers.

On a personal level, we can also practice making our brains more malleable. If they can become more dogmatic, they can become more flexible, too. That demands asking yourself about a time you changed your mind and why, a question at the root of the podcast series we have produced with openDemocracy for the past seven years.

Strategies for Reducing Political Violence

1. Acknowledge Your Own Bias

The first step in addressing political violence is to acknowledge our own biases and the ways in which our identities shape our perceptions. By recognizing that we are all susceptible to cognitive rigidity, we can begin to challenge our own assumptions and be more open to alternative perspectives.

2. Practice Cognitive Flexibility

Cognitive flexibility is the ability to adapt to new information and change your mind when presented with evidence. This is a skill that can be practiced and developed. By actively seeking out diverse perspectives, engaging with people who disagree with you, and questioning your own beliefs, you can increase your cognitive flexibility.

3. Condemn Violence Publicly

When political violence occurs, it is important to condemn it publicly, regardless of who commits it. By making it clear that violence is unacceptable, we can help create a norm that discourages violent behaviour.

4. Support Independent Enforcers

The independence of law enforcement and the judiciary is essential for maintaining the rule of law. By protecting the independence of these institutions, we can ensure that rules are enforced evenly and that individuals who commit political violence are held accountable.

5. Promote Social Cohesion

Social cohesion is the glue that holds societies together. By promoting dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect, we can reduce polarization and create a more peaceful political environment.

The Role of Education

Education is also a crucial tool for reducing political violence. By teaching critical thinking skills, media literacy, and the importance of respectful dialogue, we can equip individuals with the tools they need to navigate a complex political landscape.

Schools have a particular responsibility to promote these values. By creating environments where students learn to engage with different perspectives and to challenge their own assumptions, we can help build a more tolerant and peaceful society.

The Importance of Dialogue

Dialogue is essential for reducing political violence. By creating spaces where individuals can engage with each other in a respectful and constructive way, we can build understanding and reduce polarization.

The Changed My Mind podcast series, produced with openDemocracy for the past seven years, is a testament to the power of dialogue. By exploring the stories of individuals who have changed their minds on important issues, the series demonstrates that it is possible to bridge divides and find common ground.

The rise of political violence in democracies is a cause for concern. But by understanding the psychological mechanisms that drive support for violence, we can take steps to address them.

The research of Leor Zmigrod and others reveals that cognitive rigidity, not political ideology, is the key factor in support for political violence. By addressing this underlying trait, we can reduce polarization and create a more peaceful political environment.

On a personal level, we can practice cognitive flexibility, engage with diverse perspectives, and condemn violence when it occurs. On a societal level, we can promote dialogue, protect independent institutions, and invest in education.

The challenge is significant, but it is not insurmountable. By working together, we can build a society that is more tolerant, more respectful, and less prone to violence.