Thread by @Helenreflects

To understand how The Brexit Party and other far right movements work, it's really crucial to read this classic paper by Susan Fiske, psychologist at Princeton. It's short, readable, and explains so much (I'm also putting a summary/reflections below). 1/
sci-hub.tw/https://journa…

Susan Fiske and her lab have been studying how people in various countries react to outgroup members, particularly in how they perceive them in terms of "warmth" (warm feelings) and competence, see e.g., some maps here: 2/
fiskelab.org/cross-cultural…

The Fiske lab has studied bias and prejudice against outgroups and minorities (e.g., foreigners, Muslims in mostly Christian countries) in many countries. They found that "only a small minority of extremists, harbor blatant biases that are more conscious" & commit hate crimes 3/

Fiske estimates that in Western countries, about 80% of people live in relatively homogeneous communities, with people like themselves, and they display subtle biases to outgroups. There are only 10% or so blatant racists who are out-front - dangerous and vocal though 4/

This is really important to keep in mind. People who commit hate crimes, draw swastikas etc, are really only a minority - a minority that can be emboldened if they think many others think like them (cue: Brexit, Trump), but a minority all the same. 5/

So while outgroup biases are latent in most people (80% of any country's population), the Brexit Party and other far-right movements have been very savvy in making them more explicit. How? Fiske and colleagues identify 2 causes for far-right sentiment increase 6/

(1) Threat to economic security makes people more sympathetic to far-right. Now, this is often misunderstood as in "the left behind" voting for Trump and Brexit. While austerity and being left behind does increase Brexit Party and other far right support, it's more complex... 7/

(Not summarisable in a tweet so here's the relevant excerpt by Fiske: Counterintuitively, typically people who show most bias against outgroups are NOT the most socially/economically deprived, but better-off people who perceive a threat to their ingroup (e.g., white British) 8/

This is a really important observation and it can explain several apparently contradictory findings about Brexit, namely on the one hand, austerity has exacerbated and contributed to the Brexit vote (summary here) 9/
voxeu.org/article/auster…

But on the other hand, people who voted for Brexit were also better-off pensioners in SE England, and the Brexit Party is projected to make bigger gains there. They felt the squeeze but aren't the most deprived, as Fiske's research predicts 10/ blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpol…

Austerity created this picture of the UK as a dog-eat-dog world where you have to protect "your own". If immigrants were bettering themselves coming from EU-27 countries to the UK, that must somehow mean things are worse for the UK population. Not win-win but zero-sum 11/

(2) next to perceived threat to economic security, perceived threat to traditional values also tend to embolden the far right and encourages extremist views. As Fiske puts it 12/

This importance of traditional values in support for Brexit and the Brexit party can be seen in several key features, for example, the very strong support of Church of England members for Brexit, higher than any other religious affiliation: 13/
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

The importance of perceived threat to traditional values also explains the strong support of older people for Brexit. Age correlates with Brexit even when controlling for factors such as education, see here for a good analysis. 14/ theconversation.com/brexit-how-the…

More globally, increasing inequality and the failure of nation states to stop the super-rich from channeling their money away from national governments, has contributed to austerity and threadbare public services, making a fertile ground for far-right sentiments to flourish 15/

See here for fascinating analysis and global perspective by Dasgupta. Febrile ethno-nationalism is not a sign of health of nation states, but a sign of nation states in crisis and decline. People get upset as they feel let down by governments 16/ theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/…

But instead of pointing the finger at oligarchs, the far right (Bannon etc) are having global networks in which they can use ads and campaigns to shift the blame to immigrants and other governments. That's how pluto populism comes to be 17/
ft.com/content/69fe48…

How to solve this? Fiske says education helps, because it can make us more cognizant of other people's values and can help people see that outgroup members (e.g., Muslims, foreigners) aren't as different and stereotypical as they were led to believe 18/

Also, the importance of "constructive intergroup contact that increases mutual appreciation. When contact features (a) equal status within the immediate setting, (b) shared goals, (c) cooperation in pursuit of those goals, and (d) authorities’ support" 19/

And this would provide "a basis for intergroup friendship. Genuine intergroup
friendships demonstrably do reduce stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination". This reminds me of Hannah Arendt, who said people who were fragmented were most vulnerable to far-right propaganda 20/

As I argued here, Arendt suggested people who are isolated and atomized can get lured by the far right because it gives them a “sense of having a place in the world - it offers a quick fix, return to traditional values 21/
blog.politicsmeanspolitics.com/why-blue-passp…

Notice how the Brexit Party, like other far right parties, does not offer realistic solutions. It offers a fantasy no-deal Brexit, just as unreal as the cakeist Brexit promised in the runup to the Referendum. But it does appeal to threats to economic situation and values 22/

(also interesting to note how the Brexit Party did not want to campaign on a blatantly racist platform either, as they probably did not want to alienate the majority of their voters). Instead, their racism is the subtle racism of policy (no deal, return of hard border etc) 23/

To conclude: the far right has been more savvy about using psychological research, international platforms and global communication than the left in winning political support everywhere. But the failure of nation states to honour the social contract plays into their hand /end