Research has found that people with different political ideologies perceive threats differently. Compared to the political right, which prioritizes physical threats and threats resulting from deliberate evil, such as rockets and terrorism, the political left prioritizes symbolic threats such as identity threats and demographic threats, as well as threats global that develops slowly and exponentially, such as global warming or pandemics. The political left also sees opportunities to make peace with other groups. According to Prof. Hirschberger, Vice Dean of the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, a group cannot exist without both political sides, because both sides have their advantages, and the group cannot survive without it. Different political ideologies serve as a means of survival for the entire group, says Hirschberger, “an indication of “Naive Realism” is the belief that only one side is right in political discussions and must win and therefore that side is other wrong and must be lost. . Naive Realism tends to think that we see the world objectively, and that others are ignorant, irrational or biased. Dr. Group’s Survival Motivation Theory. Hirschberger indicated, however, that the optimal balance between different political ideologies is adapted to the whole group and is promoted to encourage survival and success.
According to Hirschberger, “if we agree that there are all these different threats and that each group needs to identify threats and opportunities, then it’s not ‘who’s right?’ the political discussion is about, but “what is the best balance between the different ideologies. “? People intuitively understand that ideological diversity is beneficial to the group and when asked to decide what percentage of each ideology would be best in a given setting, such as a parliamentary committee they always show a slight preference for the group which they recognize rather than the opposite. political ideology, but also recognizes the need to include the other ideology and even use the balance between ideologies strategically. For example, in the context of the group’s security and safety, even those on the political left understand that it is advantageous for the group to increase the percentage of the right wing in a committee dealing with this issue. Similarly, the right wingers also prefer to increase the percentage of the left wing in committees that deal with issues such as human rights, the environment, and democracy. Winston Churchill recognized the need to use ideological diversity strategically when he famously said, “I have always come to fight wars and encourage other conflicts with great strength and victory, and then the hand of friendship to offer to the people who were in charge. Therefore, I was always against the Cafes during the quarrel, and against the Jingoes in closing it”.
According to Hirschberger, people with different political ideologies who appreciate the value of the other side understand the need for ideological diversity and this intuitive understanding benefits the whole group. This is especially true in times when political discussion is fair; the political left contributes to the group by promoting relations with other groups, by protecting the moral image of the groups, by maintaining human rights and by supporting progress through technology and science. As well as being wary of hometown security, the political right favors the group by focusing on its history and traditions. Ideally, these different underlying ideologies could complement each other and offer adaptive advantages.
In recent years there has been radical political polarization; a phenomenon that has been observed in many societies around the globe. This political polarization takes the political discussion to an end, which can be seen in the current situation in Israel, or the riots surrounding the Inauguration of President Biden in January 2021. These unfortunate events not only prevent people identify benefits. other political ideologies, but they also use their advantages as a weapon against the other political side and by doing so they can be seen as an autoimmune reaction that threatens the group as a whole.
Hirschberger says that “Émile Durkheim, the French sociologist who formally founded the academic discipline of sociology, saw the group as a superorganism: a society is like a living organism and as in any complex living organism, there are many cells that are not known . each other, they are still working together in perfect synchronization, to promote the survival of the organism”. “In this way,” says Hirschberger, “you can look at different groups in a society; they can feel antagonism towards each other and show different survival strategies, but under normal conditions, they work together to promote the survival of the group. Under unusual conditions, as in Israel today, the groups work against each other, and society is in danger of survival. “
When asked whether all extreme ideologies have a place in society, Hirschberger says that as long as these extreme groups are small and kept under control, they can play a role in the survival of society, each in his own way, balancing each of them. others and the rest of the political ideologies in the group (for example, the reaction they get could move the group away from extremism). As long as they are balanced, these ideologies will help a society maintain the delicate balance between tradition and progress.
For more information click here
