WUWT reader “Carl” Submits this story:
New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists
Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.
That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.
Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
[I dub it the “Gleick effect”. – Anthony]
UPDATE: Pamela Gray in comments provides the abstract:
This is why you see people like Van Jones being washed clean of his radical roots, and wearing a suit and tie on CNN. You should read Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change”. There is a good reason he has a smiley face on the cover. Here is the summary from Amazon’s site:
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism…
The study is good news for radical enviro-politicians.
With the study in hand they can say something like, “we can ignore the folks blocking the good work of my friends the environmental activists because those folks are just negative stereotypers.”
John
Tim Ball says: “About 20 percent say, “You have convinced me the world is coming to an end. So I want the big house and the big car and I am going to enjoy the last few years as long as I can.” I understand there was a study in Texas a little while ago that confirmed what I had discovered. ”
You can only scare people by telling them there’s no future for so long. I grew up expecting the world to end before I got to 35. Now it’s thermogedon.
At some point everyone goes ” WTF, live for today and make the best of it.”
It does not incite people to forgo what they have today for some hypothetical gain “for our grandchildren.”
Looks like Steven Schneider et al should have stuck to being honest instead of trying to be “effective”. His trivial and naive political strategy of scare stories is neither honest nor effective.
Once again we see cause and effect being reversed, no doubt wittingly. This idea that we start out hating environmentalist nutcases and therefore don’t accept CAGW is so idiotic it’s a wonder anyone could seriously claim that to be the case. It is, of course, completely the other way around: we know the science of CAGW is complete BS and therefore hate the environmentalist nutcases who ram this BS down our throats.
This applies to anything and everything in life, and has done since the dawn of time. If we have a disdain for X, it follows that we will have equal disdain for those who insist that we embrace X. I mean: DUH.
This helps to explain why journalism is among the least trusted professions, as most journalists having long since veered into social and political activism. Most trusted: armed forces and education. I have no doubt that the esteem given teachers will slide as more and more take up the cause, whatever that cause may be.
So with this study as justification will some bright radical enviro-politician introduce ‘anti-negatve-stereotype’ legislation?
John
How about scientivists, like the disappearing MWP trick chart charlatan Magician Mann?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers
I hope the effect applies in their case, too.
Baa Humbug says:
I dislike tree hugging sandal wearers because they always have dirty feet and their women don’t shave under their arms nor anywhere else. 🙂
—
What does your preference for women to resemble pre-pubescent teenagers have to do with the climate debate?
Keep your p0rn fantasies to yourself please.
Just a side remark but from the comments I conclude that most posters here have absolutely no clue about the real intentions behind the “social reset of our societies”. They want you dead ASAP and reduce population number to “sustainable” levels. Any idea why they have come up with a concept of the carbonfootprint as a measure for restrictive policies which is absolute ape shit since we live on a carbon life based planet, why they have declared CO2 a poisonous gas which is ape shit too, why they talk about obligatory birth control measures and “humane programs” to prevent pain and suffering of those people who have no sustainable futures and have become “obsolete” and why they are constantly projecting three planets in their propaganda to illustrate their claim that we consume more resources than the planet is able to deliver which of course is ape shit too, They want to micro manage the human population in the same manner as they want to manage all other life on the planet and they now have become a political force. In the Netherlands for example WWF and Greenpeace have a seat at the negotiation table when the government meets with industry and workers and their demands get integrated into the policy.
In the mean time your 2005 model Volvo Diesel is no longer aloud in the Green Zones, most of the 80 km/h roads have been cluttered with speed bumps and now allow a maximum speed of 60 km/h and if you move to another home you automatically get a smart meter to control your electric power use. We also see the emergence of neighborhood committees to promote the “social fabric” among communities. This is a tested concept of a control model which was applied for decades in the DDR until the Berlin Wall came down.
The “change artist” who resides in the White House today is advancing the same agenda.
I really hope you get the picture because this is serious shit and they rape sccience and common sense to get what they want.
Europe is screwed and the only hope I have is that the house of cards called EU will collapse ASAP.
http://green-agenda.com
Zeke said on September 29, 2013 at 10:31 am
that leftists are in favor of big government, because he cites written history about communism and other leftist movements that favored big government. Many people who consider thermselves progressives want fair wages, equal rights, businesses to play fair, no pollution, and government to stay out of their bedrooms. Nowhere near all of them want a big, controlling government.
Greg,
What is a “pre-pubescent teenager”? Never heard of that one before.
Makes me wonder. Do we have any deep cover mobys pushing the climate change, making
outlandish, easily recognized false claims in the service of “the cause”?
Could it be that Joe Romm is working for the angels?
How about Chris Moody _ too freakish to be real? What about that other clown, Scott Mandia.
A deep cover operative whose mission is to discredit the alarmist camp?
Bill McKibben?
Not a chance.
Every one of them are as wacked in the head as they appear.
I learned very quickly to assure people that I’m a conservationist (as are most out here) but not an environmentalist. And I explain that my researches focuses on water and land use, rather than saying “environmental history.”
Conservation = save the baby seals/wise use Environmentalism = kill the humans/ban meat (at least in the minds of a goodly number of people I talk to).
Greenpeace in Russia…
‘They were even seen as terrorists’: Why people seem to hate activists, but not what they stand for
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/27/they-were-even-seen-as-terrorists-why-people-seem-to-hate-activists-but-not-what-they-stand-for/
Growing up in Ore., I started to dislike environmentalists when they essentially destroyed the timber industry over the spotted owl.
Well first up, what the hell is social justice? What is it’s definition?
Jay,
I got to your post and stopped reading.
“Jay says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:00 am”
I have been working out a similar line of thinking for some time; it isn’t developed quite well enough post anything in great detail in writing, but the jist is that every “social movement”, yes environmentalism and feminism (there are others) have at their core a hate group that keeps them alive, vital, and progressively doing great damage to innocents, and the poverty-stricken.
In the early phase of such movements, an ill is posited, (unfairness between the sexes; rivers on fire and smog chocked skies… you name it); an antagonist is identified (men; capitalists); members are recruited; organizations organized; hierarchy established; the whole shebang is somehow funded; full-scale battle begins.
Perhaps there was a legitimate gripe; from there some “action”, usually social, media like themes on TV shows for example; and even legislative action. Change is demanded and received; inevitably there are harmful unintended consequences: generally swept under the rug.
That’s round one. To keep this short, just stick with these two examples – environmentalism and feminism and start in your mind’s eye from their inception to the present day. Look who runs the hierarchy; look at cash-flow; look at their future plans.
What I see is quite irrational and passion-filled. A succinct word that comes to my mind is hate.
Feminism: Hate for men and boys
Environmentalism: Hate for humanity in general; the poor in particular.
Peter Miller says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:24 am
To be fair, there are those who genuinely care about the environment…
Yes, and as an environmentalist myself for decades it was the hijacking of the movement by hypocritical anti-science eco-activists that forced me to suspend support of many of the organizations, local and international, that I had long cherished. The negative transition of the “movement” not only forced me to be much more selective with my support of time and money, but also raised my hackles. The good news from my perspective is that there are still many worthy conservation causes that have maintained their original directives and have not expanded their scope to encompass their “limits to growth.”
As for the “stereotypical” hate and intolerance that now permeates the ideology of so many environmental NGOs, I initially tried playing the “nice guy” and use reason to allay my stance. It was an abject failure and a waste of effort. I was met with such hostility and attempts at shutting down the discussion that my only recourse was to fight fire with fire. This intolerance by those who were erecting groupthinktanks persuaded me more than anything to alter my tack and reduce my tact.
In light of this study, if its conclusions have merit, perhaps my own methodology is faulty and ineffective. No matter. There are enough “nice guys” out there covering that angle and I prefer positioning myself even as a bit soldier on the front lines and strenuously opposing those who try so hard to silence my voice. Having grown up where I grew up and living the way I did makes me better suited to fight than negotiate anyhow. And in this particular case, why even try to negotiate with tyrants? Figuratively speaking, it’s far better in my eyes to raise your fists, go on the offensive, and smack some sense into unyielding and unreachable opponents, especially now in their hours of desperation. Their anti-human agenda needs to be squashed and going all touchy-feely ain’t gonna cut it in my view. Um, Cheers!
The late George Carlin: Environment
They are being kind by characterizing the behaviors of activists as ‘stereotypes’. As if they aren’t generally sanctimonious, disparaging and hypocritical…?
What the political psychologist has said is that progressives cannot acknowledge the truth about their own need for increased government in all areas of life, including diet, education, medical treatment, private property, private contracts, etc.. They cannot acknowledge the fact that they need to insinuate government into every human act. This makes the self-reporting of progressives totally unreliable, in his experience, even correcting for university samples vs. general public.
It may be that the commenter above, DL Klipstein, does not recognize the use of increasing federal and global controls in order to reach these “progressive goals.” For example, no two people can make an employment agreement, without the progressive middleman declaring “fair wages.” The doctor must submit to federally mandated “exchange panels” in treating patients. The state is the final arbiter in “what is best for the child,” as opposed to the parent. This is the legal reality of what these slick slogans mean.
And I do think there are some people who are to air-headed to realize they are Maoists with five-year plans for “remaking the economy,” in particular, agriculture, energy, and water use. But silly, uninformed credulity can turn deadly for many people, so these are no less responsible than the Communist hard-liners who know what they are crafting.
One just has to look at Al Gore. He is the number two reason I’m not a alarmist. The number one reason is the data!
It is interesting that this is a “new” idea, as the reverse, that people will emulate in behaviour those they admire, is the basis of both Madison Avenue and religion: we wear the clothes and drink the drinks of favoured celebrities, and decide what we (white, American Christians) on what “Jesus would do”. That we do not wish to do what those we do no like do, is no surprise.
What is not considered is that we do not behave as environmentalists (or feminists) would have us do even though the goals are worthy, may be because we recognize the extreme ends to their behaviour or aspirations. From the earliest age we have learned that extremists mostly miss the point of existence being a balancing act, that the “correct” behaviour is somewhat less than the ideal (though certainly more than the minimum).
Pamela Gray says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:07 am
Abstract plus first page.
====
thanks Pamela….
They qualified the stereotypes….but not why there is a negative connotation attached to them
That’s a shame, because it would have told them more….
I know I do, I’m sick and tired of them screaming wolf about every little thing…when almost all of it never pans out to be true
What people dislike is the stridency more than anything. With stridency comes ad hominems, the ‘I know best, do what you’re told’ bossy boots. Any self-regarding person hates that.
Feminists hate man rather than promoting women. Many feminists actually hate a lot of women too. i’ve worked with some and it was striking that they bitched about their female colleagues.
They also want to impose a totalitarian solution. People don’t want that. They want freedom to choose. They don’t want to hear that all men are evil, that all men treat women badly, that every human is a danger to the earth, that every human kills polar bears.
Arguments which are shaped in the ‘law of unintended consequences’ would be more relevant as they are usually more accurate. Equally, the ‘the previous way of doing this was logical back then, but now times have changed’.
Before 1945, men went to work and to war, women ran the home. A few women hated that, a few men hated that. But most saw it as a satisfactory compromise when a lot of work was hard physical labour. Now, with automation, the male strength argument is disappearing. But men really hate being told that they were evil for fitting into society as it was.
Equally, it’s the rise of human population that has caused environmental stress, not mass evil. What was no problem with 200 million humans is a great problem with 5 billion or more.
You won’t change the radicals though.