No Soap, Radio

In the run up to the midterm elections amidst shifting public sentiment and economic hardship I've been seeing more frequent posts on social media asking how it is possible that people on one side or the other of the political divide continue to subscribe to their partisan views. Posts often describe cult behavior or political echo chambers as the cause but I wonder if those are just facile descriptions rather than explanations.

We might not find it flattering, but social science reminds us that Humans are herd creatures. Our need to fit in goes well beyond family, or geographic boundaries and may be vestigial survival behaviors hard wired in our DNA. Our identities are framed by membership in communities defined by faith, class and politics. Belonging to a community means we accept its rules--formal or implicit, and once accepted we will do our best to fit in. Nevertheless, these communities are not egalitarian. Individuals may compete for stature and engage in overt or covert behaviors to advance their position, gain recognition and validation. As such the power to influence, even co-opt the nominal rules of a community or its baseline values can be harnessed by a relative minority of its members.

So, what does the title of this post have to do with human herd behaviors? If you were a child of the 50's you may recall that the expression "no soap, radio" enjoyed a brief period of fame. It derives from a joke--well not exactly a joke, but a psycho-social experiment in herd behavior and the human tendency to conform. The joke or prank, went this way. An Elephant and a Hippopotamus are taking a bath together. The Elephant asks the Hippo to kindly pass the soap, to which the Hippo replies, no soap, radio. Get it? Well don't feel bad if you don't, the punch line doesn't make sense and it wasn't supposed to.

The point of this practical joke was to see how many people pretended to get it. Often it was told in a group setting and one or more confederates were in on the gag. At the punchline they would laugh and not a few listening in would join in even though it made no sense. The joke, was on them. Very few people had the courage to say, i don't get it. The need for acceptance and desire to preserve membership in community outweighed their logic or common sense. In other words, even when apparent community behavior is at odds with our experience, values, or expectations we are unwilling to expose ourselves to possible rejection by our community.

Perhaps I am guilty of over simplifying but it often feels as if this same behavior is at work when it comes to politics. A small number of those who post, let's call them influencers, generate a disproportionate amount of the content that appears on social media sites, whether these are political zealots, or state actors sowing political discord. At the height of the anti-vaccine movement, researchers found that almost all of the posts, meme's, blogs and articles raising concern over vaccines were generated by fewer than a dozen people. Through the power of the Internet that content was reposted again and again by an army of sycophants and true believers.

A combination of peer pressure and perhaps earned cynicism led thousands of otherwise rational people to join in unflinchingly, without question or validation, without asking fundamental questions about the source or legitimacy of the negative claims being made. Fear is an especially powerful emotion, so much so that it inveighs against reason, caution or suspicion. It is no different when it comes to the political landscape of the present. Fear of violence by those who hold opposing political perspectives, fear of those who speak another language, are of another race or class or practice a different faith, fear of anyone who is not a card carrying member of our specific political community is at the heart of our fealty. Even when facts, personal experience and evidence suggest that our fears are misplaced, most are unwilling or unable to say I don't get it.

It is tremendously difficult to break the cycle of reinforcement, especially when a handful of individuals keep stirring up those fears out of their desire for power over the community or divisive interests. An instructive lesson can be found not that far back in our history during the post war period known as McCarthyism. For about five years our country was gripped by a witch hunt for those who belonged or ascribed to the views of the Communist party. The so-called Red Scare cost thousands of Americans their livelihoods, family, friends and even their freedom as a handful of political actors conducted a campaign against those they accused of disloyalty to the country. Out of fear of being tarred with the same brush, still more willingly or reluctantly renounced colleagues, neighbors, and acquaintances lest they be swept up in the purge.

In the end, the cycle of fear, denouncement, and reprisal outpaced itself and televised hearings focused attention on the unsubstantiated claims, bullying tactics and hysteria that were at the heart of the movement. A rare bi-partisan censure by the US Senate gave Americans permission to say what they lacked the courage to say before, I don't get it and I never did. When a fire begins to consume all the available fuel it cannot sustain itself. Whether we have reached that point yet is unclear but what is apparent is a growing sense of disbelief and discomfort with the direction we are headed as a nation. We do not agree on what the destination should be but increasingly Americans seem to agree that the present state of affairs cannot be sustained. Regardless of which side of the political divide we stand on, our response to the next political post we see or hear should be, no soap, radio.