The sweet poison of ‘us’ against ‘them’

There are many cases in history of people with power spreading false or exaggerated, divisive beliefs positioning a favoured ‘us’ group against a demonised, dehumanised other – a ‘them’ who somehow constitute a threat to ‘us’. Regrettably, the method is common because it’s an easy and effective way to manipulate people for political or economic gain. The primary aim, I surmise, is to exercise influence over people identifying with the ‘us’ group but of course this may include persuading those people to act against the demonised ‘them’ in some way. False us/them beliefs have been constructed in many ways. Historically, some of the more popular grounds on which to define us/them differences have included ethnicity or race¹, religion or culture, gender, sexual orientation, and political views.

The historical use of us/them beliefs is a worthy topic of study, but it is especially important to pay attention to their contemporary use for two reasons. One, we are now in a better position than ever before to understand in detail how us/them beliefs act on human psychology and why they’re effective as a tool of manipulation. And two, with this understanding, we can recognise how us/them beliefs are shaping our social fabric and politics today in new and dangerous ways. A point to note is that, while not all false us/them beliefs are conspiracy theories, these are a very common sub-type of the genre.

How false us/them beliefs affect us

Human neuropsychology is designed by evolution to be acutely aware of other people and their behaviour, with particular attention on how others are disposed toward the self. We are a social species. As we pay attention to other people, acute stress arousal can arise in response to behaviours associated with potential threats to the self. ‘Threat’ in this case is about a (conscious or unconscious) perception that a social situation or interaction carries risks to one’s social standing, sense of coping, or safety. Many kinds of situations are likely to stimulate a threat perception, including but going well beyond a direct physical threat. These include socioeconomic challenges such as struggling to pay bills and forms of direct human interaction such as being subject to discrimination or bullying.   Researchers talk about negative social evaluation – a sense of being perceived by others in a negative way – as a particular stressor. The stress demands of such situations will be greater and last longer if the subject of the perceived threat does not see any way to resolve or avoid it, shifting arousal from acute to chronic stress. Chronic stress arousal causes psychological pain and disturbance and over time can undermine mental or physical health.

The role of perception in ‘reading’ a social stimulus as a threat opens the way for a person’s beliefs about the world to play a role. If I believed wrongly that co-workers in my workplace were complaining about me behind my back, then I would perceive those people as a threat (in the sense defined above) and that perception would cause a stress response, even though the basis of it was false.

It is precisely these features of human social psychology which render us vulnerable to manipulation through false us/them beliefs. When a person in a position of power promulgates an us/them story this can have a manipulable effect on others, not simply by implanting an idea as such but by stimulating a felt sense of threat among people identifying with the ‘us’ group, resulting in stress arousal and psychological discomfort. Commonly, the ‘them’ group is represented as a dehumanised, hidden, powerful and malevolent force, adding a sense of powerlessness and victimhood among the ‘us’ group and increasing the stress-inducing potential.

When the ‘us’ group is primed in this way the storyteller can then position themselves as offering the solution to the (confected) threat. In addition to a demonised ‘them’, the belief structure may incorporate an idealised view of ‘us’ as the ‘true’, ‘right’ or ‘chosen’ people whose potential is being suppressed. These are the underlying psychological dynamics in which manipulation of the ‘us’ group becomes possible whether through persuading people to click a like button, shift voting intentions, give money, march in the street, or engage in violence.

Of course, people identified with the demonised ‘them’ group are likely to have their own affective responses to popular uptake of us/them beliefs, potentially including severe stress load through felt risks of exposure to discrimination or other forms of violence.

In general, people exposed to other stressors in their lives such as financial hardship, housing insecurity, unemployment, or social isolation may be more liable to the influence of false us/them beliefs. Beliefs can be tailored to put the blame for such problems on the demonised ‘them’ group and offer people a false sense of control and shared identity to set against their everyday struggles. In these ways, false us/them beliefs can be attractive: a sweet poison.

Also, it is important to add that people at large are not wholly vulnerable to the falsities or superficial attractions of us/them beliefs. There are various resources that people can use to be sceptical of, or resistant to these beliefs: knowledge of the world, trust in science or public institutions, critical thinking, education about online environments, and so on.

The political use of us/them beliefs

Since the early 1980s, people positioned on the political right in Australia and other countries have made prolific use of false us/them beliefs to gain or maintain power and influence, targeting disadvantaged or minority social groups, or groups seen to represent progressive political views, or both. The former have included, for example, migrants, First Nations people, LGBTQI+ groups, and the unemployed. The latter have included leftist ‘elites’, feminists, environmentalists, progressive media, public institutions, climate scientists, Indigenous leaders, advocates of DEI policies, and gay or trans rights activists.

Consider just a few examples from Australian politicians: Pauline Hanson’s claim that Australia would be ‘swamped by Asians’; Peter Dutton’s hyperbolic statements about ‘African gangs’ in Melbourne; Joe Hockey’s characterisation of unemployed people as worthless ‘leaners’ sponging on society’s ‘lifters’;  Peter Dutton’s representation of the proposed Voice to Parliament as a power grab by Indigenous ‘elites’; Tony Abbott’s long campaign to represent climate change as a leftist-greenie conspiracy; the list goes on and on.

But this political method has now slipped well beyond control of the party-political right, aided by the internet and digital technologies and exploited by the re-emergence of far right, autocratic politics. The false or exaggerated us/them belief structure is now the basic bread and butter of a range of far-right media outlets. And any fool with a keyboard can launch a fear-mongering conspiracy theory online and rely on social media algorithms to bring followers into the fold. And for new far-right movements, these are opportunity to reinvent old playbooks in a new form.

These changes also mean that any political motivations behind the selling of divisive us/them beliefs have become indistinguishable from commercial interests operating in the attention economy. Leaked messages from Fox News hosts in the aftermath of the 2020 US election showed how their selling of conspiracies about a ‘rigged’ election was done cynically for purely commercial reasons. I don’t believe Alex Jones claimed that ‘they’ faked the Sandy Hook school shootings for any reason other than because it made him money to do so. In a candid moment, Steve Bannon, acknowledged the right-wing media approach was not to engage in a genuine contest of ideas but to cause disorientation by ‘flooding the zone with shit’.

Against this background, the repetitive and extreme use of false us/them beliefs has now produced something which goes beyond any one application of the method; a conspiracy mindset predisposed to accept almost any new claim, however unlikely, that ‘they’ are a threat to ‘us’. Right-wing political leaders claiming to value self-reliant individuality have in fact cultivated a sizeable cohort of people primed to feel victimised by almost any societal norm at all.

This is the world that the mainstream political right has ushered into being and in which they have now become inextricably tangled. This is one major reason why right-wing parties have shifted their attention from the upper-middle class to poor and working class, less educated voters. It’s where their new, mainstream political method works best.

None of this is intended to assert that issues or critiques coming from the conservative right are always just cynical attempts to play politics. Among the scattergun of issues presently characterising the neoliberal-social conservative political right that are some which warrant serious public discussion. It would be surprising if there were not. It would be good to see more public debate on such issues involving voices from across the political spectrum. However, as I see it, groups on the political right, while wanting to appear as credible voices in public discourse, often show little real appetite for any such nonpartisan engagement, and that says something about the real intent.

Nevertheless, there is a question about where social conservative values sit in all this and, when/if the opportunity arises, the form of government they portend.

Conservative values and societal wellbeing

What beliefs and values are motivating the political right’s political use of false or exaggerated us/them beliefs? There are several plausible answers. As noted earlier, the practice can be undertaken cynically, simply to control an audience or make money. It’s an obvious strategy for movement building based on racist or sexist beliefs. It’s a tried-and-true strategy in election campaigns. But what role if any do social conservative values play in driving use of this political method?

The political and social values that we label ‘conservative’ are not easy to pin down. It’s more of a collection of ideas than an internally coherent philosophy. However, based on my own work and some further reading, I suggest the following: the heteronormative nuclear family and associated gender roles, individualism and individual liberty, personal responsibility, property rights, moral authority and social order, religious belief and values, small government, tradition and associated institutions, and a hierarchical view of society. For the most part, conservative political leaders have also aligned themselves with neoliberalism and the rise of global capitalism over the last 40 years. For many, these values are ties to an Anglo-American, Christian and colonialist view of history and social order. Taken together, these values constitute the conservative view of the good society.

Clearly, a proportion of the political use of us/them beliefs defines the ‘us’ in these terms, as the people who identify with those conservative values, sometimes including an imagined silent majority of ‘ordinary’ people. Obviously, politically engaged leftist groups can then be constructed as a threat to these values (and the imagined conservative social order) on a wide range of grounds such as atheism or criticism of religion, feminist and pro-choice values, support for LGBTQI+ rights, recognition of social factors impacting on people’s health or socioeconomic position, and more.

Thus, a conservative might argue that, at least in these cases, my description of political use of ‘false’ or ‘exaggerated’ us/them beliefs is unjustified. Surely, they might say, these are legitimate critiques based on a recognised school of political thought. In general, the facts tell a different story and indicate a deeper form of dishonesty.

First, some of the us/them beliefs deployed by avowed conservatives such as Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton contain obvious fabrications and falsehoods. Despite all the values, it’s still cheap political gamesmanship of the worst kind.

Second, conservative political leaders support for neoliberalism has contributed to socioeconomic conditions of stark inequality and entrenched poverty in most liberal democracies. A mountain of evidence shows these conditions undermine the family relationships, child development and other things conservatives claim to value.

Third, the relentless promotion of false or exaggerated us/them beliefs contributes directly to social division and psychological distress, and that is part of the intended effect.

Fourth, the consistent, perverse denial of anthropogenic climate change has obstructed policy action on a global threat acknowledged by Margaret Thatcher to the UN in 1989.

Fifth, while the folksy elements of conservative values may give the impression of an inclusive political project, the abundant use of us/them beliefs gives the real game away. The actual conservative political project is one where the ‘right’ people, those seen to embody conservative values, use State powers to exercise control over groups seen to disagree with or fail to live up to those values. The concepts of moral authority and ‘natural’ social hierarchy in conservative thought speak to a more basic belief in superior and inferior classes of people. As I’ve argued elsewhere, in the right-wing individualist worldview, wealth is seen as evidence of personal superiority while poverty and blue-collar crime are markers of deficient individuals. Thus, an authoritarian tendency is present with conservative values.

With rare exceptions, I do not see conservative political leaders and media commentators even coming close to acknowledging any of these five facts. This is where the falsity of their us/them scaremongering lies.

Stable societies, caring communities, healthy families, shared values and capable people all have important role in realising actual societal wellbeing, described and affirmed by convergent evidence from neuroscience, psychology and public health. I don’t make light of honest socially conservative intuitions that these attributes are valuable or that they’re at risk under current social conditions. But conservative political leaders and their media cheerleaders have done much to create those conditions, and their preferred ‘solutions’ will make the problems worse not better.

1.       The concept of ‘race’ originally claimed that humans were divided into distinct types based on inherited physical, mental, or behavioural characteristics. Modern genetics has shown that theory to be false, but ‘race’ continues to be used to define groups based on physical characteristics which may have been associated historically with geographically separated populations.