Arak Journal

Purity and Extremism: An Examination of Identity Politics

By Kyle Lacey

One winter night, as I had so many nights before, I stayed up late with my father to talk about college, my future, and everything else. Most of the lights were out, my dog was asleep beside me, and the other members of my family had long since gone to bed. Meanwhile, Fox News played quietly in the background. My father and I discussed the economy and engaged in political debate, which mostly consisted of my father just explaining why taxes are evil as I nodded along. “You’re going to grow up to be a Republican,” he said with just a hint of smug confidence. Just then, like a clock striking midnight, the angry visage of Tucker Carlson appeared on the TV screen, and I immediately thought, “If that’s what he means, then I sure hope I don’t.”

At the time, I was almost proud to remain unaligned, assuming the “I don’t care about politics” stance like a badge of apathetic teenage honor. My father must have confused this for impressionability, which, to his credit, was not entirely incorrect. For me, remaining neutral was the best way to avoid being upset?after all, everyone on TV was just so angry. It was not just the Republican Party that I felt uncomfortable supporting; rather, I found myself unable to subscribe to the extreme viewpoints that often seem to occupy the focus of the media world on both sides. It seems that not only has social media and the online political world become more polarized and aggressive than before, but also that one’s political affiliations have become more about “political purity”?that is, the idea that when a party line is defined, it is deemed wrong for an individual to deviate from the views laid out for them by the collective values of their party (Shotwell). Political purity is a bipartisan phenomenon, causing members of political groups to accuse others within their same party of being too different from the party line to be a “proper” member. This creates an environment in which it feels impossible to express one’s thoughts if they differ from the majority, which causes both frustration and an increase in the degree of like-mindedness among a group?or, rather, a decrease in the diversity of voices. For example, the adoption of one belief about fiscal policy seems to irrevocably implicate a certain belief about social policy. In the United States?a nation built and sustained on the parables of the proverbial “melting pot” and the American Dream and the acceptance of diverse perspectives?it confuses me to think that there are largely only two possible ideologies to which one may subscribe, two schools of thought to define so much of one’s worldview. Yet voting, and generally being engaged in politics, is not only everyone’s right, but their responsibility as citizens; surely, it does not have to be so overwhelming.

To put it in somewhat reductive terms, for the last 90 or so years, the political parties in America have followed the same guidelines for fiscal and social beliefs: the liberal Democrats support more government-funded social programs and less corporate involvement in government operations, while the conservative Republicans prioritize lowering taxes and leaving American industry to manage itself in the private sector. Unfortunately, tied up in these economic perspectives?for which either side could be argued?are the corresponding social beliefs. It seems illogical that a certain belief about taxation essentially necessitates a belief about abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, minority issues, or other non-economic topics. Yet, there is a general sense that one’s stance on these issues necessarily accompanies whatever economic ideology they align themselves with. This, again, is the notion of purity, a frustrating and often-illogical component of modern political discourse. I have observed that many Americans would identify the state of politics today as more extreme and polarized than in years prior, especially following the 2016 presidential election and the “Fake News” epidemic. However, I argue that the modern political culture has deeper roots than the last election. Purity, social media-driven politics, and the rise in polarization all share a common timeline, and each one contributes to the hostile and somewhat immoderate environment of our current political culture. In this digital age of politics?that is, the age of both purity and polarization?social media and partyism not only cause frustration and tension between political groups but also force the intertwining of political beliefs with one’s identity, thus irreversibly entangling them with issues of privilege and individual liberty.

Scholars have pinpointed social media and online political communities as an important talking point in discussions of extreme and increasing polarization in politics. H. Akin Unver, a professor of international relations at Kadir Has University in Turkey, identifies “information-seeking behavior, long heralded as one of the strongest political tools for citizens,” as something that has been corrupted and manipulated by the media (128). In other words, if a politically-active member of society strives to be informed before voting, he or she may now find “evidence,” no matter how dubious, used to support propaganda or fake news articles. If a voter cannot distinguish fake, sensationalist media from legitimate sources, then his or her effort is rendered useless. This information paradox is especially problematic when a citizen seeking information deliberately chooses certain headlines and articles in their research to confirm their previous biases or defend certain opinions. In the case of online political communities, these articles serve as a means of confirmation bias and can be shared around and taken out of context, leading to an entire group dynamic based on repeatedly validating each other’s political beliefs by artificially bolstering the credibility of preconceived biases.

This phenomenon is especially prevalent in more extremist groups, in which the polarization of the community, along with this concept of repeating similar ideas to one another, characterize what is sometimes known as an “echo chamber” (Tornberg 1). In his mathematical model of the spread of fake news, Petter Tornberg identifies two factors that cause news to spread more quickly and with greater distortion: (1) an online community of like-minded individuals and (2) the high degree of the polarization in the community where the news is introduced (6). Based on this model, the more like-minded and extreme the community is, the more likely it is that a factually-incorrect and provocative article will spread (8). Criticisms of Republicans in the current political climate point to the idea of the echo chamber, citing right-wing citizens as more susceptible to the effects of these online communities. While perhaps true, the little research that has been conducted on the subject is presented in a way that makes it difficult to justify pinning such an accusation on one single political group.

The evidence that some partisans are less likely than others to consider dissenting opinions is sparse at best and an egregious misrepresentation at worst. One study, conducted by two professors of political science at Tufts University, concludes that conservative Republicans are more unwilling to accept positions of compromise when choosing to support certain candidates or policies. The questions in the survey required both numerical answers (e.g., “Ideally, where do you think the minimum wage should be set?”) and worded explanations (Glaser and Berry 115). However, due in part to the requirement that the bulk of their data must be numerical for data analysis purposes, the survey mainly addresses issues of fiscal policy. The survey lacked questions regarding social issues, which comprise a major component of both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms. (One exception to this was the inclusion of a question regarding immigration policy; however, immigration is inextricably tied to economics in a way that makes it difficult to analyze from a purely social point of view.) The survey design is especially problematic when its data concludes that Republicans are necessarily less willing to compromise than Democrats, based solely on fiscal policy (122). In a 2019 interview, the then-South Bend, Indiana, Mayor and 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg stressed how important it was that “[Democrats] never budge on our bedrock commitment to racial and social justice” (“Mayor Pete Buttigieg”). Glaser and Berry state that much of Republican political psychology comes from a moralistic streak, meaning their political views are founded on and justified by personal feelings of what is fundamentally right or wrong (108). They suppose that conservative Republican morality lies in protecting tradition and structure, which is consistent with the answers from self-identified Republican survey respondents. However, they do not address this idea that Democratic morality comes from a position of advocacy for social justice and equality, a position which is arguably based even more strongly in a sense of ethics than the stated conservative moralism. Because the survey design completely overlooks the issue of social justice, which is a major priority for many Democrats, it is not a fair representation of either side’s overarching belief and willingness to compromise in politics. It is not hard to imagine that if a new survey were designed to quantify the extent to which voters were willing to compromise on social justice issues, the results would show the same unwillingness to settle that the Republican respondents demonstrated over fiscal issues.

Furthermore, a lack of compromise suggests that the group making concessions believes, on some fundamental level, that the other group is incorrect in their proposal. In many cases, this moral-driven animosity is taken to extremes; Democrats refer to Republicans as racist, fascist, or Nazis, while Republicans call Democrats uninformed “snowflakes” or socialists. The name-calling stems not just from the simple desire to discredit the other group but also from each faction’s most extreme political views being taken out of context. When far-left or far-right groups make headlines, they become the perfect fuel for the other side’s echo chambers. The headlines get blown out of proportion as they bounce around a network of partisan news sources and commentators, creating an “us-versus-them” mentality among both citizens and politicians.

This practice of labelling and name-calling has been widely criticized. In her famous op-ed for The New York Times, Bari Weiss argues that the proliferation of labels like “fascist” and “alt-right” “dull the effects of the words themselves” and consequently cause people to ignore the language identifying an actual extreme politician as an “extremist.” In other words, when people throw names around in order to impugn the character of their opponents, they remove the distinction between exaggeration for the sake of rhetoric and actually identifying and holding accountable problematic behavior and speech. However, this practice remains common among extreme political communities, especially online. As these media interactions become more commonplace, causing further political polarization across the board, more members of each political party are increasingly inclined to ostracize the opposing group. This alienation happens both online and in real life, where it can be harmful in many areas.

The rhetoric used to marginalize an opposing political party may be so divisive that it turns into a form of prejudice or outright discrimination. Political researcher Cass R. Sunstein proposes a new term to describe this phenomenon in the hyper-polarized political climate: partyism. Like other “isms” that indicate prejudice against a certain group, partyism refers to “a form of hostility and prejudice that operates across political lines” (1). Not only is this hostility entirely unproductive, but it also fosters a political climate where it becomes “unusually difficult to address serious social problems” (2). While political gridlock is not a new phenomenon, Sunstein cites numerous studies and poll statistics to demonstrate that partyism is a new and growing concept?one which affects everything from scholarship applications, trust between individuals, and even marriage approval (e.g., 49 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats would feel “displeased” if their children married outside of their political party). What proves particularly compelling about Sunstein’s research is that “partyism can motivate partisans . . . to avoid [an opposing party’s] members altogether when forming a group” (7). While this statement refers to real-world interactions, such as in the workplace or within a friend group, it is not unreasonable to apply this principle to online interactions, as such findings are consistent with the aforementioned online echo chambers.

Not only does partyism create single-minded communities, but it also helps shape the attitudes and actions of those who engage in them, fueling the echo-chamber and polarizing the community further. Devaluing the opposition’s point of view, whether via an inflammatory tweet, a comment taken out of context, or a fake news article, is an important action in a partyist community. Because partyists tend to only see two possible viewpoints?the “right one” and the “wrong one”?passing content around with the intention of slandering the “wrong ones” becomes a twofold act of self-affirmation and other-group alienation. Put differently, by discrediting the other side, partyists attract voices who will agree with them and repel those who will not. Furthermore, it has been established that the “digital space benefits emotionally-charged content over verified information” (Unver 140), which is a dangerous pattern when the internet is increasingly integrated into daily life, thus implicating partyism in day-to-day interactions.

Given this result, where does a moderate fit into the modern political climate? In a typical “us-versus-them” situation, there is never a third option: a compromise. When people live and interact in a like-minded bubble, they will not give even a passing consideration to the other side’s point of view or interests. Whether through outright dismissal of opposing party members or an unwillingness to compromise on actual political issues, citizens with extreme political views not only disregard those with different beliefs but actively seek to discredit them, using unverified figures and quotations lacking any context. But while the culture of partyism has become more extreme in the past decade, some level of partyism is always going to be present in a two-party system. This comes from the fact that people’s political ideologies are informed by their identities and experiences; therefore, those whose backgrounds warrant a more extreme political belief may not be able to morally justify supporting any belief coming from a different political party, lest their primary political view become compromised. In other words, people adopt certain ideologies to protect their way of life. This is important in both fiscal policy, in which the decisions made may have a direct impact on the amount of money an individual has to support themselves, and in social policy, wherein decisions may allow an individual more rights and freedoms.

Therefore, it is likely a privilege to be able to compromise on these issues in the first place. In the case where a moderate would support both a Democratic and a Republican policy simultaneously, it is reflective of that individual’s privilege, since supporting one policy may be implicitly compromising a different belief. For example, someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal may choose to vote for an extreme Democrat in an election. Perhaps they vote with the understanding that they may have to sacrifice their fiscal views to support their social beliefs. This means that they have the privilege to compromise this belief. For instance, their financial situation may be sufficiently secure that a potential increase in taxes would not destroy their livelihood?but this, of course, does not reflect every individual’s situation. An extreme Democrat voting for the same candidate may be doing so out of necessity. This hypothetical citizen may need more welfare systems to support their children or may feel unsafe in their town due to their gender identity. There are still many reasons to hold tight to certain political beliefs, even if it earns them the title of “extremist.”

In general, people adopt certain ideologies because some information?whether factually correct, exaggerated for the sake of a narrative, or just flat-out wrong?has led them to believe that their way of life is being threatened. This causes?and is perpetuated by?the notion that one’s political beliefs are not only intimately connected to but must be absolutely fundamental to their identity as a whole. Thus, people do not perceive their views as “wrong”?even in extreme cases?because individuals formulate their opinions around what is best for their lives and experiences. The majority’s experience comes out of the echo chamber and creates the party line, from which deviation is seen as immoral or “wrong.” Consequently, the political ideology becomes an identity in itself for many people. In such a volatile political environment, the discourse no longer becomes about the country; it is about protecting and bolstering the values closest to them. It becomes acceptable to support these values with misinformation, because in a purist echo-chamber, everybody believes it. The most important thing is that the foundations of their collective identity remain unchallenged.

Works Cited

Glaser, James M. and Berry, Jeffrey M. “Compromising Positions: Why Republican Partisans  Are More Rigid than Democrats.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 133, no. 1, 2018, p. 99-125. Academic OneFile, doi:10.1002/polq.12735.

“Mayor Pete Buttigieg Is Unsure the Mueller Report Will Change Anything.”  YouTube, uploaded by Late Night with Seth Meyers, 19 April 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j9F3ZzucgM .

Shotwell, Alexis. “The Folly of ‘Purity Politics.’” Interview with Julie Beck. The Atlantic, 20 Jan 2017, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/puritypolitics/513704/#:~:text=In%20her%20book%20Against%20Purity,counterproductive%2C%20she%20says%2C%20to%20actually.

Sunstein, Cass R. “Partyism.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 2015, no. 2, 2016, p. 1-27.

Tornberg, Petter. “Echo Chambers and Viral Misinformation: Modeling Fake News as Complex  Contagion.” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 9, 2018, p. 1-21. Academic OneFile, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203958.

Unver, H. Akin. “Digital Challenges to Democracy: Politics of Automation, Attention, and Engagement.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1, 2017, p. 127-146.

Weiss, Bari. “We’re All Fascists Now.” The New York Times, 7 March 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/were-all-fascists-now.html.

Paper Prompt

The Other? Paper

ENGL110 ? Spring 2020

40 points

BACKGROUND

This paper follows in the vein of the Disruptive Narrative, but this time, you have the opportunity to explore lives and identities outside of your own. In considering people different from us, we are engaging with the philosophical concept of the Other.? This term was coined by famed philosophers Edmund Husserl and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. These men were associated with the field of phenomenology, which studies the way we process and react to things that we encounter in the world. Their conception of the Other? describes a person or thing that is alien or foreign to a certain person given their unique background and identity.

ASSIGNMENT FRAMEWORK

Following the concept of the Other,? I therefore want you use this paper to study a phenomenon or issue unique to a community you deem Other.? In doing so, it should be your goal to uncover issues specific to people of certain identities and form an argument about this form of identification for an audience of people like yourself, who are similarly unfamiliar with these issues.

To successfully complete this assignment, it is again essential that you narrow the scope of your project and adopt a particular focus rather than writing on broad topics. You won?t want to start from the question, What is it like to be a woman Rather, you might study the role of women in the film industry or the historic barriers to the publication of black women?s writing. The range of topics is truly endless, just as it was in your disruptive narratives. Just as was the case with the previous paper: If you can provide justification for studying any community that you want to know more about, use your proposal to defend your choice.

REQUIREMENTS & SOURCE USE

Since your topic will be largely unfamiliar to you, extensive research will be necessary. For this paper, you need at least three scholarly, peer-reviewed academic sources, although you will likely want to incorporate a few more texts as well. In that vein, after you?ve satisfied the scholarly research requirement, feel free to consult an array of nonscholarly sources, ranging from newspaper articles to credible blogposts or tweets. I would dissuade you from using more than ten sources in this paper. After all, you should be engaging meaningfully with each source, and an extensive bibliography of outside voices can be difficult to incorporate without distracting from your original argument.

Other than the change in prompt and number of required sources, the other major requirement for this paper is that you use secondary sources more strategically and synthesize them throughout your writing, a practice we will explore at length in class. Therefore, academic synthesis?in addition to argumentation, organization, and source use?will be the fourth major component of your grade with this paper. As you will see, it is incredibly important to use a range of sources that support, complicate, and even expand your main idea. For more information, a loose grading rubric can be found below.

As always, while your sources should inform your argument, they should not dominate. I understand the balance between asserting your voice and allowing your sources to take over is difficult. For that reason, your papers will undergo several stages of drafting and even a week of in-class revision stations to ensure your sources are being used in service of your point of view. This time will be productive, and I hope you use these opportunities to collaborate with both me and your peers to create truly exciting research papers. Consider these papers to be your entry point into academic writing. They will prove challenging, but I encourage you to use them to explore and expand both your interests and worldview.

    Below, you can find a breakdown of the final grade, a checklist of requirements for this assignment, and a basic rubric laying out my expectations.

Grade Breakdown:

Final Draft            30 points

Peer Letters            10 points

                40 points

Checklist of Requirements:

• A paper proposal describing a paper topic that explores an issue relevant to a community or category of identity with which you do not identify

• A narrowly framed argument pertaining to an issue or concern associated with the group being addressed as part of the topic

• Two drafts submitted through Canvas

• One round of peer letters completed in response to your peers? first drafts

• One scheduled conference with your instructor to discuss your progress and second draft

• Three scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources

  • Additional scholarly or nonscholarly sources will likely be needed in addition to this basic requirement. (No more than ten sources.)

• Meaningful synthesis of sources throughout the paper