These days, there’s a pretty simple answer to any question you don’t know the answer to: Google it. Information is more accessible than it has ever been, and, for many reasons, the dissemination of information is one of the most remarkable accomplishments of human civilization to date. But this advancement of society has come at a cost, one far greater than we often acknowledge.
Indeed, as sources of information become more varied, we must confront an unfortunate truth: The human mind is more vulnerable to manipulation than we like to admit, and this vulnerability poses a major threat to society that must be addressed.
“Get the money out of politics” is a common slogan — one that Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-VT, has rallied people around in his presidential campaign. One thing that we often don’t consider, however, is what this phrase actually says about human behavior. After all, the primary role of money in political campaigns is to control the framing of information and the frequency with which it is presented. Money does not literally buy votes, and it doesn’t change the information itself.
What campaign advertisements can do is provide selective information framed in a positive light, which can have a profound impact on prospective voters.
Granted, money is also important for things such as campaign management, and ads also serve to increase name recognition. All in all, however, political advertisements make up the bulk of campaign spending, and they can have a tremendous amount of importance in swaying or mobilizing voters.
Lost in the argument over money’s role in political campaigns is the fact that this debate implies, and possibly proves, that we are not so much consumers of information as slaves to it. By asking to “get the money out of politics,” we are consciously acknowledging the vulnerability of our minds. We declare that money is ruining politics but are swayed by the very ads this money buys.
Of course, this type of persuasion did not begin in politics. These same tactics have been used consistently, and with great success, in commercial advertisements for some time. The psychology of marketing paints a frightening picture of our choices and preferences, a picture in which our minds — our intellectual, moral and political identities — are puppets of which we are not the master.
Our brains are exceedingly susceptible to external influence, and it is this susceptibility that makes money in politics powerful.
This phenomenon has far reaching implications. For one, it exposes free will and independent thought as delicate, and perhaps even illusory, features of our existence. These characteristics, long perceived as inherent in our humanity, are revealed, increasingly, to be highly vulnerable and requiring rigorous protection. The persistent illusion of our own independence, however, has made it difficult to enact change.
As time goes on, technological advances figure to increase exponentially the ability of political campaigns to frame information to the electorate, making money in politics all the more valuable — and dangerous. A recent New York Times article refers to the emergence of “neuropolitics,” by which politicians attempt to monitor voters’ responses to ads on a neurological level through such metrics as facial coding and biofeedback.
The insidious effect that our sources of information can have on our views, particularly our political ones, is disconcerting. Our sources of information are profoundly important in shaping our views. A Gallup poll indicates that about 71 percent of teens rated their political beliefs as “about the same” as those of their parents. With a plethora of news sources available today, people can choose (and often do, according to a recent Pew Research Center study) to view information that aligns with their current beliefs.
Conservatives and liberals alike are susceptible to confirmation bias, or the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconception. As we have seen, so is the increasingly defunct American political system.
The days of mind control may not be around the corner, but a less obvious threat is looming. Sooner or later, we must confront the increasingly apparent fact that our minds are in many ways a product of our surroundings. In the words of one of my English professors, “Consciousness is constructed.” The thoughts and ideas that we consider our own are not inherently ours but rather are our inheritance as citizens of the world. These thoughts and ideas enter us as if by diffusion throughout our waking lives. Regulations and restrictions may be applied to mitigate this problem, but the overarching issue is rigid. There is no escaping the fact that people will always be shackled by the viewpoints and opinions with which they are presented.
Nicholas Esemplare ’18 is a double concentrator in English and economics. He can be reached at nicholas_esemplare@brown.edu.
