The discipline of psychology is an instrument of power that can be used for social ‘good’ or social ‘evil’
Introduction
The association of power and politics cannot be undermined in any circumstances and the changes in the controls of political parties have different psychological implications. The following essay reflects on the application of psychology as an instrument for power in social ‘good’ and ‘evil’ through a reflective understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of psychology in politics and scientific principles. Furthermore, it was essential to integrate the ideas with practical observations from the distinct domains of psychology to determine a relevant association between psychology as a discipline and politics (Alain, 2015).
The references to prominent empirical approaches such as Milgram’s obedience studies, Bandura’s analysis of moral disengagement, and the Stanford Prison Experiment could be used as major inputs for discussion on the power of psychology as a discipline in the context of politics. These studies are capable of depicting viable insights into the factors leading to the changes in mental behavior and representations of individuals, nations, and groups (Blowers, 2013).
Theoretical underpinning of psychology principles in politics
As per G. Kerbel, clinical psychology has a formidable association with politics and six elements of clinical theory can be applied in the case of politics (G. Kerbel, 2017). The different entities include information and psychology of change, principles of change, communication proficiency, the association between psychopathology and political behavior, the interplay between values of progressive movement and models for healthy human development, the conventional practice of narrative, metaphor, emotional action and their applicability in the domain of political action and speech. The psychology of change is a profound element that can be related to the influence of psychology in politics (Buss, 2015).
Therefore politicians are more likely required to identify the psychodynamics of social change and therefore impact social ‘good’ or social ‘evil’. Social ‘good’ in the context of politics can be described as the leveraging of political power and authority for rendering a positive impact on society in terms of social benefits such as basic amenities, law and order, and justice. On the contrary, as per Carlile & Jordan, social ‘evil’ in the context of politics can be explicitly associated with the misuse of political power by groups, individuals, and people to accomplish personal interests(Carlile & Jordan, 2005).
The second element associated with the psychology of politics involves the principles and practices associated with behavioral changes which have been largely neglected in academic research and studies on psychological power in politics. It is imperative to observe that the principles and practices of behaviorism are related to the illustration of the significance of power in punishment and reward.
According to Kerbel, the application of this element of psychology in behavioral change in the context of politics could be capitalized on to accomplish social ‘good’ objectives such as social partnerships with local communities as well as foreign nations or national level authorities and agencies (Kerbel, 2017). The present-day practices and principles are associated with examples such as cognitive-behavioral interventions which provide viable insights into the accomplishment of directed actions and outcomes.
Clinical psychology estimates that the metaphor, emotion, and narrative in every political action also lead to a determination of political influence over positive and negative circumstances for society. Communication expertise in political events is also subject to psychological factors that have helped in determining the effectiveness of communication. Some of them are a selection of words, inflection, manager’s credibility, listener’s characteristics, and medium of presentation of the content. The consistent references to the models of healthy functioning alongside sustaining the values of a progressive social change relate to positive social impact in the context of political power (Holding, 2013).
Milgram’s studies were directed toward the demonstration of the extent of determining the impact of situational forces on an individual. The studies were termed obedience studies since they depicted the outcomes related to compliance with the demands of an authority figure in an organization or group. The impact of Milgram’s studies was reflective of extreme levels of obedience or reluctance. Bandura’s model of moral disengagement and dehumanization can be considered as a viable resource for reflecting on the impact of political power on the social ‘good’ or social ‘evil’ (Mellers et al., 2015).
The model illustrates the factors that could be used to alter the behavior and actions of an individual toward immorality.
The psychological variables are capable of predicting the use of power by an individual and therefore they could be effectively involved in the creation of plausible approaches to the selection of political leaders. The implementation of the model of disengagement can be used to determine the considerable factors that could potentially alter the behaviorism of an individual (Rivers, 2013). Some of the notable events refer to developing a perception of reprehensible conduct in the individual, a comprehensive understanding of the negative factors associated with conduct such as ignoring, misinterpretation of consequences, sense of responsibility for the relationship between the negative outcomes and the relevant reprehensible conduct.
The perception of consequences of the reprehensible conduct and detrimental outcomes on the victim is also accountable for signifying the role of psychology in describing political power’s influence on social ‘good’ and social ‘evil’. However, the model of disengagement is also associated with prominent setbacks such as the dependent variable of shock intensity and the subsequent situational manipulation (Zimbardo, 2004).
The Stanford prison experiment is one of the notable historical accounts wherein power utilization was corrupted to exercise social ‘evil’. The research was directed toward the dehumanization and deindividuation of victims, the control of prisoners by the guards, and the consistent setting of a prison environment. The outcomes of the prison experiment were aligned with the issues of dominance and submission, control and rebellion, coercive and restrictive roles, power and powerlessness, freedom and servitude, and identity, and anonymity as the major psychological constructs studied in the research.
According to Zimbardo, the experiment was associated with prolific outcomes of violence and sadism among individuals with comparatively higher levels of morality in normal conditions. Therefore the study of psychology could provide a pragmatic impression of the power dynamics in politics, especially in the context of realizing social ‘good’ and social ‘evil’ (Zimbardo, 2004).
Integration of ideas and empirical findings
The findings from empirical studies and historical precedents associated with psychology as well as the socio-cultural constructs of psychology concerning the domain of politics could provide further insights into the arguments for and against psychology’s significance as a discipline in politics and power. The responses that can be drawn from the different experimental approaches and theoretical underpinnings of psychology in the context of politics and power are accountable for positive implications.
As per Shaver, the use of psychology’s theoretical paradigms for an explanation of the personality and situational impact on determining behavior and general socio-cultural influences could be a major insight into the responsive capabilities of the general public (Shaver, 2015). The situationist approach has been a primary resource for determining the political influence exercised over the society for positive or negative outcomes. Thereafter the critical response to this statement could be noticed in the negligence of the political, environmental, economic, and psychological conditions.
Mellers et al said that most of the time, the characteristics of power in a political individual are derived from the narcissist nature of the individual which could also be attributed to psychology as a discipline (Mellers et al., 2015). People associated with politics are more likely to fare better in areas of narcissism such as leadership, exploitativeness, arrogance, and superiority as well as self-absorption and self-admiration.
Criticisms of the concept of psychological paradigms in determining social good and social evil in the context of the domain of politics are also imperative. The concerns for perceiving good and evil are ambiguous and hence the discussions on the legitimacy of decisions concerning psychology can be used for predicting the orientation of power dynamics in the political scenario. Furthermore, the review of the case of the Stanford prison experiment and Milgram’s obedience studies could also be assumed as major influences on the research for determining the impact of power on social impact.
Furthermore, the implications of cognitive dissonance should not be neglected concerning the case of politics since it is a domain where the participants are required to communicate the rationalization for bad behavior in specific cases (Carlile & Jordan, 2005). The working of political organizations is directed towards changing or sustaining the existing frameworks. Hence the friction is responsible for the progression of political governance and the existence of numerous political parties in the governance structure.
In contrast with behaviorism, ideological justification and limitations created on the individual identity of individuals can be assumed as the prominent entities from the review of psychology’s role as a discipline in the determination of power dynamics in political scenarios. The exertion of social ‘good’ or ‘evil’ can be considered as an outcome dependent on the psychological traits of an individual in power (Carlile & Jordan, 2005).
Conclusion
The report was reflective of the theoretical underpinnings related to psychology’s application in politics and historical references to the Stanford prison experiment. The most profound outcome that could be associated with the report is the critical reflection and suggestions for apprehending the setbacks in power dynamics in the arena of politics.
References
Alain, L. (2015). Ethics and Politics: What About the Principle of “Respect for the Person in their Psychic Dimension”? Bulletin de psychologie, (4), 311-317.
Blowers, A. (2013). The limits of power: the politics of local planning policy (Vol. 21). Elsevier.
Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Psychology Press.
Carlile, O., & Jordan, A. (2005). It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy. Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE, 11-26.
Kerbel, S. (2017). Psychology and Politics. Cognitive Policy Works. Retrieved 21 March 2017, from http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/trash/psychology-and-politics/
Holding, D.H., (2013). Principles of Training: The Commonwealth and International Library: Psychology Division. Elsevier.
Mellers, B., Stone, E., Atanasov, P., Rohrbaugh, N., Metz, S. E., Ungar, L., … & Tetlock, P. (2015). The psychology of intelligence analysis: Drivers of prediction accuracy in world politics. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 21(1), 1.
Rivers, W. H. R. (2013). Psychology and politics: and other essays (Vol. 37). Routledge.
Shaver, K. G. (2015). Principles of social psychology (Vol. 28). Psychology Press.
Zimbardo, P. (2004). The psychology of power and evil: All power to the person? To the situation? To the system. The social psychology of good and evil, 21-50.
