The deliberate over-simplification of complex questions

I studied Sociology as part of my degree 50+ years ago and enjoyed it. Margaret Mead’s work was a key part of the studies. She felt the methodologies involved in experimental psychology research supporting arguments of racial superiority in intelligence were substantially flawed. There isn’t a hierarchy of cultures with “Western” at the top and “primitive” at the bottom. Later I read a brilliant book “Riding the Waves of Culture” co-written by a Dutch Shell colleague of mine Fons Trompenaars . As with Mead, Trompenaars rejects the sometimes postulated superiority of one culture over another. He says that to understand we have to ride the waves of cultural differences.

Contrast these approaches with that of Right Wing academic Professor Matt Goodwin. He tweeted:

“If you look at the top 20 nationalities given visas to work in the UK last year, only 1 is from Europe and only 3 belong to the Anglosphere”

This is barely disguised White Supremicist rhetoric. The conclusion is not really even hidden. Europeans and citizens of ex British Empire English-speaking “Dominions” (the Anglosphere) (overwhelmingly white) are preferable to the brown or black or Asian nationalities that dominate visa issue. It’s nothing to do with ability or experience, it’s race/colour Goodwin objects to.

Race and colour are the most obviously visible aspects of culture. As is language. Australians and New Zealanders and (most) Canadians have English as their mother tongue and are white. Similarly most young Europeans these days are English proficient, and they are white as well.

Educated influencers like Goodwin (he’s far from alone) are vocal opponents of multiculturalism – the idea that nations benefit from a mixture of cultures among their people. Reform leader Nigel Farage says “we must discriminate when it comes to who can come into our country”…. and opines that multiculturalism had been a “huge error” and that “successive governments haven’t thought it mattered”.

Academics like Goodwin and clever politicians like Farage don’t need to provide rational reasons for their polemics . Slogans will do , and flags of course. These associate what is pure bigotry and xenophobia with a faux-patriotism and “pride” for your country. So the Union Jack and, increasingly the English St George’s flag are weaponised for petty nationalism. This has drifted into absurdity with the painting of the cross of St George on the ground at roundabouts – you couldn’t make that up !

History teaches us that political power can be gained not by reasoned and complex arguments but by imagery, slogans and the purveyance of a phoney blame culture. Reform is entirely predicated on this. Three quotes from Josep Goebbels can help us here:

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.

Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated 
are confident they are acting on their own free will.

Preposterous though the “patriotic” demonstrations are, and utterly lacking in either intellectual or practical substance, the demonstrators would no doubt argue that they have been “…acting on their own free will”. Farage gives them cover – he is an “identity” politician, deliberately shallow. (Trump is another of course). They relish binary challenge, reducing complex issues to a “For or Against” question. This cannot avoid over simplifying complex questions.