Professional Documents
Culture Documents
/I
146
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor
June, 1976
orr I&
ih.eUi=t%w*
A
z+&Ly!bgOR
&dig)
$!
vb~8
mbU% ~'b$m%%Phl
att
&a dbws*
tea.
rn coaaBgt
6f f3uZEqpb
Thinking About P o l i t i c s
!
!
The r e p o r t of t h e interview
In
over again and t r y t o r e t r a i n them and t r y t o help them, f still don't think
it's going t o make any difference.
1 l o s t a l o t of f r i e n d s ,
(pause)
I j u s t don't know.
I don't
'
No,
By o b j e c t s , we mean people, p o l i c i e s , i n s t i -
i
L-
-2-
(a,
!-
W
e p r e f e r t h e i d e a of mode of thinking,
r e f e r s t o as "belief
-- t h e box t h a t connects a p o l i t i c a l
o r behavioral response.
W
e seek a way of character-
thinldng about p o l i t i c s .
Some of us use a l l t h r e e
W
e do n o t s e e them a s h i e r a r c h i c a l
However, i t is n o t
i-
The X o c i e l .
We
W
e are,able t o asJimilate only certain p a r t s of t h i s domain because
relevance.
assfmilate.
it a grananar of b e l i e f s .
toward it.
Chart 1.
Chart 1 &out
----Step One:
Attention.
Here
I
-
As o b j e c t s p a s s b e f o r e us, some a r e of i n t e r e s t
them o r not.
t o on='s attent3.m that f s of concern here but, rather, the social psychol o g i c a l p r o w b y which a person focuses attention on those thiogs t h a t he
c a r e s about.
This r u l e s e l e c t s what i s
included i n t h e domain.
W
e can expect much v a r i a t i o n i n t h e content of what i s included among
i n t h e i r donain.
is:
Step Two:
Asshilation.
This concept is similar t o what Rosenberg and Abelson ( f n Hovland and Rosenberg,
1960) c a l l "cognitive Pile,"
f i l e d o b j e c t s i t is l i k e .
W e l o c a t e t h e o b j e c t by deciding w h a t previously
simultaneously.
Each mode has a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b a s i s of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r its f i l i n g
system.
Again
Some s e c t i o n s of an individual's f i l e
will be q u f t e gxoss.
Orientation.
We c a l l t h e set of such
One i s a b l e
t o deal with sn object because it is i i k e other things that one hae thought
-- in e f f e c t ,
Others
Again, our concern i s not with i n d i v i d u a l differencee but with t h e characteri s t i c graPmrara of each of the three modes.
The t h i r d q u e s t 2 o n we a s k f o r a
We do
1 indicates, d
y if
all of
A s Chart
First,
knconsistencies,
r e ~ d fn
t confasfern and dfsotientation.
A noa-attitude does not mean that a person w i l l produce no response,
If -
object in queetion.
f o r sqme reason,..oblfged
are r e m c ~ h b l yo b l i p h g . "
Types of k d e a .
To prevent the discussion 02 t h e modes fron becoming excessively abotract,
ake w911
employ a device.
the end
H e has learned c e r t a i n r u l e s of
thuinb f o r dealing d t h t h e s o c i a l world he encounters i n h i s immediate, weryday life and he t r e a t s public objects by extending these r u l e s t o those
o b j e c t s t h a t seem t o a f f e c t him in concrete ways.
Sometimes he has d i f f i c u l t y
of h i s a t t i t u d e s m y be mediated by surrogates:
f r i e n d s whose judgmat
He reco@fzes t h a t p o l i t i c a l events
"the)"'
o r a s e r i e e of such.
m y be mediated by surrogates:
H i s attitudes
f r i e n d s eho s h a r e h i s s o l i d a r i t i e s o r public
--
produced
a t a11e7 W
e acknowledge t h a t i n many eases her d e s i r e
interest b u t , i f she is wing Mode C, t h e system s t a t e s have acquired funct i o n a l autonmy &s a way of thinking about politics.
She r a c t s t o public
affect hlBP
CBDCBXPB.
W pafs f o r t h e system.
Vietaaa,
or
contracting examples
Pereonel Ibmerience;
#ode br
CatCrete way.
W
e include here e f f e c t s on family and fr1e.de.
G e e
Blt8
$8
aews
1-y
$6t
covered
Bhch
The p e 1 1 3 ~ 8 l l ~ i c aerxit
n from V i e t n a m i s a good example of an event
t h a t ie ualftrely t o be In t h e domain of relevance of most people operating i n
Durh$ tb period in which more than half a million Americans
tbir mod%
were statioPed kr Viatnsm and t h e r e were daily casualty lists, some might very
w e l l have
their damsin. By 1975, t h e war would have lost its salience f o r most
eat-
euch people;.
For the purposes of our example, we ' k i l l assume
the
is e t m s a l i e n t .
T&
8a
individual f o r whom
. '
180th
We assume t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e aa g r e a t v a r i e t y among
hie hope t h a t t h e r e a r e
For example,
people may
They may c l a s s i f y t h e i r
To a s s i m i l a t e a p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t , they
~ u s determine
t
i n which of t h e i r f i l e s i t belongs.
Their c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
We s t i l l
u n t a r i l y under taken.
me
about p e r s o n a l conduct in i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s .
may b e p r e s c r i p t i v e :
Some of t h e s e b e l i e f s
Others may be e m p i r i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s :
Individuals operating i n t h i s
i n o t h e r ways.
t o politics.
To know how a person o p e r a t i n g i n t h i s mode w i l l respond t o t h e American
W
e sug-
g e s t e d e a r l i e r t h a t one a p p l i c a b l e p a r t of t h e grammar i s t h a t d e a l i n g w i t h
f i g h t s . ' T h e r e a r e p o t e n t i a l l y many d i f f e r e n t b e l i e f s t h a t might be p a r t of
such a person's grammar.
If
well" may b e a p p l i e d a l s o .
The grammar of a mode i s i t s h e a r t
--
and v a l e n c e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l u l t i m a t e l y a t t a c h t o t h o s e p o l i t i c a l
o b j e c t s t h a t she a t t e n d s t o and can a s s i m i l a t e .
t i a l contraditions.
I f they a r e , t h e
Frequently, s h e w i l l b e a b l e t o
reqdres that we h o w not only she mode being ueed but something of the content.
It is Important to h d w che made for interpretins
Thio ie an a p i r i e a l task.
what: a person i s saying.
W
e prstride two vignette8 of individmls using a
Vf etnam:
Person #I: "ZVvebeen following the war newe because I had a aon ovex
that it could have been worth the ' . l i v e s of all these American boys.
~ind
you, X hoped the Sautk ~ietnhrmesecould do the Jot on their own, but i f they
cani t, that's their pr~b&emand not o u r s .
h g for oua: country and far justice, they jusr don't make much sense to me.
Where i s the justice in having my son killed and my friends' sons killed?
What good does i t do for the comtzy? Itqs Just nm~3nseand I b giad we're
f i n a l l y out of it."
Pereon #2:
If
peopie see that you are weak-willed and u n w l l l l n g t o follow through on sane-
place to stand up a d Light for what %e believe in, but sooner or later, we
l o t of 'people w e r e depend-
on ua.
W
e shouldn't have let those people down."
For some,
In
$8
If she does
'not herself have chfldren who would b e bussed, she is almost certa5n t o have
In any event, we w l l l
assume a person with a c h i l d who, under a court ordered integration plan, wodd
be bussed t o a school i n a neighboring crmmrunfty.
For our example, we w i l l assume that the person has a category of mente
igvoluntarily affecting family members and intimatee, including a sub-category
W
e w i l l further assume that "Protect your'
loved ones from danger" occupies a central place in her grammar of beliefs.
Such a person might express her artftoda as follows:
'person
83:
I'm a l l f o r c i v i l rights.
I have
bussed somewhere where there might be danger o r a t the very least disruption
-- 1 don't
tbhgs.
fcllow those
on with
mode.
city.
c a t i o n s of varying l e v e l s of i n t e n s i t y .
Fur m ~ s tpeople i n e i t h e r v a r i a n t ,
much of what i s covered i n t h e f r o n t page of a daily newspaper cr on t h e telev i s i o n news is not l i k e l y t o have much obvious relevance f o r t h e i r identiPication graups.
Although
$0
simihr way.
Examples
w e r e a f t e r over there.
And I don't
(Pause)
A l o t of people were k i l l e d
-- and
we d i d n ' t g e t out e a r l i e r .
an unnecessary war."
or, alternatively,
Person #6:
I don't r e a l l y
know how w e got involved over t h e r e but we a r e involved now and nothing can
change t h a t .
centage i n ending up l o s e r s .
That t o me over-
It comes down t o t h i s :
I'd l i k e
1)
Hence, i f
There i s no r e a l
f i l i n g system.
i n bussing per se and might be more concerned, f o r example, with q u a l i t y educ a t i o n f o r his children.
Such a person,
.
years.
A s f o r arguments about
them.
things.
US
"I'm a g a i n s t bussing.
they're e n t i t l e d t o ?
T h i s bussing program is no b i g g i f t .
They a c t
So why
And
it.
Mode C:
Ideolom
freed-,
,Public objects
In
These b e l i e f s
-18-
grammar of b e l i e f s of t h i s type.
grammars may.
consistent.
t o primitive.
Without knowing t h e content of t h e grammnr, we could not know how a
person using thls mode would respond t o t h e American withdrawal from vie<-m.
relief.
a r e pushing f o r s t i l l more.
They
il
-19keep r i g h t on going.
'
zany American l i v e s being l o s t and about too much domestic unrest don't move
me.
or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,
Person #lo: "I think we should have withdrawn from Vietnam four years ago.
I ' m not
But t h e f a c t
An example of a bus-
Person 811:
Now
But they
W e l l , I ' m a g a i n s t t h e government
-- l i k e t o
H e r e it 's a matter of
)
schoola o r i n t e g r a t i n g nelghborhcods."
or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,
Person 912:
'
The order
- they're
But people
r e s i s t i n g the constttution.
-- I
H know t h a t
so=
Same
t o b e hurt o r unhappy but they don't have the right t o disobey the law."
Swmnary of Modes.
modes of thinking
about p o l i t i c s .
4'
t h r e e s t r u c t u r a l elements:
of b e l i e f s .
Surrogate A t t i t u d e s
Not everyone i s i n t e r e s t e d in p o l i t i c s .
o r a confusing scene.
others.
by t r u s t and p e r s o c a l influence.
W
e w i l l c a l l att1,tudes a r r i v e d a t i n t h i s
fashion. s u r r o g a t e a t t i t u d e s .
I n s t e a d of being mediated by applying a grammar of b e l i e f s , surrogate
a t t i t u d e s are mediated by o t h e r people.
Candidates f o r p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e a r e a
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g c l a s s of p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s ; l e a d e r s of s o c i a l
movements a r e another.
Support f o r a p o l i t i c a l figure i s a form of p o l i t i c a l t r u s t .
It is t h e
W e f r e q u e n t l y suspend our
or another.
The e x t e n t t o which an a t t i t u d e is mediated by t r u s t o r mediated through
,. '
an a t t i t u d e .
By an anchored
W e l l anchored a t t i t u d e s w i l l b e "
I n t h i s sense,
W e regard them
The question of t h e p l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of a t t i t u d e s t h a t
are
a t t i t u d e t o d e s c r i b e an a t t i t u d e mediated by b o t h i n mutually c o n s i s t e n t
f eshion.
Chart 3 expresses t h i s modification of our o r i g i n a l model, introducing
surrogates a s an a l t e r n a t i v e mediator t o produce an a t t i t u d e while by-passing
t h e grammar of b e l i e f s .
W
e emphasize again t h a t both pathways t o an a t t i t u ' d e
by mode.
We argue t h a t t h e r e is a d i f f e r e n t b a s i s
A person operating i n t h e s o l i d a r i t y m o d e t r u s t s p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s on
b e t r u s t s those who s h a r e t h e
t h e b a s i s of t h e s o l i d a r i t i e s . they e x h i b i t .
A person operatfng i n an i d e o l o g i c a l mode trusts those who give indicat i o n s t h a t they want and a r e a b l e t o achieve d e s i r e d c o l l e c t i v e goods.
One
. '
To i l l u s t r a i e how t h e
''Well, I p r e f e r S i m y Carter,
It seems t o me t h a t he's a
Be i s n ' t crazy and likely
p r e t t y w e l l as governor.
H e sounds l i k e he's
ready t o t r y some f r e s h
weir
t h a t w e can a f f o r d t o
he stands.
You h o w e x a c t l y where
He is t r y i n g h i s b e s t t o do a d i f f i c u l t job.
Senator Jackson is t h e
The o t h e r s make a l o t
They're j u s t being p o l i t i c a l .
t h a t he's r e a l l y conmitted.
ones who call him a " r a c i s t " and c a l l those of us who support him "racists."
\
of anything t h a t happens.
they're
bear t h e social c o s t s .
I'm f o r him."
For t h e ideological mode:
Person #17:
should be.
H e recognizes
-..
t h a t doesn't really p r o t e c t our n a t i o o a l i n t e r e s t .
-- f o r
Person 818:
f o r No Udall.
"I'm
g r e s s i n l i n i n g up o t h e r s on a l o t of important f a s u e s
-- f o r example,
on
p r o t e c t i n g t h e environment."
Chart 4 expands t h e summary of t h e modes i n Chart 2 t o include t h e d i f f e r e n t bases f o r choosing surrogates i n mediating p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s .
--------
W
e have sketched t h r e e modes t h a t we believe a r e t h e most widely used
/'
W e claim no o r i g i n a l i t y
:.
i&entif'ications a s a b a s i s f o r responding t o p o l i t i c s .
than "politicaJ."
forums.
attend*
'.
identified.
useful t o
W
e assume t h a t an indi-
they would have an entry of 1.0 f o r t h i s mbde while the other two would carry
a weight of 0 .
It i s reasonable t o hypothesize t h a t moat people have a favored mode.
a c t e r i z e d a s r e l y i n g on a s i n g l e mode with r e s p e c t t o a s p e c i f i e d c l a s s of
objects.
W
e a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n a sub-
This is a meaningful
actress.
For tie,
this
%not
However, w e a r e ready
of
I n t h e end,
A.
In asking about t h e p o l i t i c a l
events that i n t e r e s t us, w e do not assume t h a t they employ the same category
. ,
.
.
Information
Our a r w e n t helps t o
If t h e interviewer appears
of
her true a t t i t u d e .
I f she is responding Fn a
f f an individual
Disagreement i s
is a device f o r
allow for simple agreement (for example, a forced choice item), t h e respondent may a c h i e v e - t h e same goal by agreeing with the most PnnocuousPy worded
alternative.
To do t h i s , one i s b e t t e r o f f exploring
s -11
issues.
Our
W
e d i s e h g u i s h ambivalence from confusion and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n .
06
T h $ s , d t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of o b j e c t s
n
2.
I f one
one's granrmar of b e l i e f s ,
4.
It: is possible
They may f i n d t h a t t h e d i c t a t e s of s o l i d a r i t y
i s an a d d i t i o n a l source of ambivalence.
Given these multiple source8 of ambivalence, i t seems useful t o us t o
a a s m e t h a t ambivalence will b e t y p i c a l of most people's a t t i t u d e s toward
most o b j e c t s r a t h e r fhan exceptional.
~ e s e a r c hs t r a t e g i e s based on t h i s
Grounding t h e Modes in S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e .
W
e Zlave l e f t unanswered such
elramgle,
mode.
news aeeeroblers
union paper
-- far
-a
O r perhaps p r o p r i e t o r s
disturbance t h e better.
questions?
One good way, not perfect by any means but among the best avail-
able, i s t o ask, and then t o listen as well as we cafl for each p r o p r i e t o r ' s
personal d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n .
ilz
a form t h a t can b e i n t e r -
nally analysed and conneceed t o such socia%categories as age and sex, then
we have reinvei~cedthe attitude survey In fts richest form."
It
***
When t h i s
occasionally the outcome, is not the prediction of human behavior, but rather
a fuller understanding of persons who ake not only objects to be observed,
but also themselves m i n d s trying t o graep the s-lgnificance of the human scene
i n which they perform."
Chart 1.
.inattentian
attention
domain of
relevance
non-aes W
at ion
asaimihation
=
non-attitude
disorientation
non-attitude
orientatfc;n
gramaa: of
beliefa
Chart 2
S-ry
A, Personal
Objects that
affect personal
Experience
I Clssses of
life
O'bjects that
B, Solidarity
Beliefs about
personal conduct
In interper son91
situations
fnterperaonal
sltll~~tiozls
I classes of
I soups
Beliefs about
intergroup
relations
I
C. Ideology
Objects that
affect
collective
goods.
Classes a
effecta on
co1lect;bve
goods
Beliefs relating
classes of
objects go
collective goods.
. .
,attent ion
inattention
'dQmaikl of
relevance
asshllation
non-assimilation
f i l i n g srysta
uon-at titud
C I I
ma-att itud
orientation
surrogates
Chart 4
Expanded Summsry af the Three Mbdes
I
Beliefs about
cstjlon groups.
Objects that
C.
Ideology
affect
collective
goods
Classes of
effect~lom
collective
goods
Beliefs relating
chases of
objects to
collective goods
Shared
beliefa about
collective
goods
this time.
2.
3.
- those indi-
l~eason,.f o r others....
1
who, working frm m a t e r i a l s provided by t h e promoters, transform a per-
(e, g.,
W e a r e concerned in
W
e were tempted t o call t h i s p a r t of a mode a "belief system" but feared
that t h i s term seemed as inclusive as "mode."
r.
6.
where convenient,
Collective goods
can be thought of as desired "system states" and the two terms w i l l b e used
interchangeably.
d i f f e r e n t properties of c o l l e c t i v e goods
-- in p a r t i c u l a r ,
exclusivity
Xi,
. . Xn conslmtee
it, i t c k t
(1961).
'
as:
&
used by t h e
if
9.
R e f ex encee
Achen, Christopher
1975 "Mass P o l i t i c a l Attitudes ancf the Survey Response," American
P o l i t i c a l Science Review 69 (December), 1218-31.
Axehod, Robert
Bales,
Rekerf
f,
Brown, Steven R.
1970 "Consistency axxi the Persistence of Ideology:
Some Experimental
..
Converse, P h i l i p E.
Continuatton of a Dialogue," i n
Reading, hss.:.Addiaou-Wesley,
Kelley, George
Kelley, Harold
8 . and Seidenberg,
New York:
Holt,
hum, Robert
1973 "Patterns of P o l i t i c a l Belief," i n J e a d M. Knutson (ed.) Handbook
of P o l i t i c a l Psychol.ogy.
Jossey-Baes,
1973.
LaPiere, R. T.
), 230-37.
Levine, Robert A,
Opinion Quarterly 35 (
), 571.77.
Luttbeg, Nonnan R.
Poaper, Gerald M.
1972 "From Confusion t o Clarity:
New Haven:
i
e,
Shibutani, Tomatsu
Prentice-Hall,