Let us say first that by no means are we “picking on” Rep. Jayapal or targeting her specifically, nor even her ideological band of the spectrum or her party. Hers just happened to be the first tweet that turned up in a search for “working people” as this column was being written. This is a problem for all of us.
The problem, succinctly: “I don’t work, I have no family, and I’m not part of your community, so who’s fighting for me?” Let’s break it down.
“We’re fighting for working people.“ This implies that people who aren’t working, can’t work, or don’t work, where “work” is narrowly defined as “employment in service to someone else for a wage,” aren’t worth fighting for, don’t deserve advocacy, and aren’t fully entitled to the rights of their humanity nor the privileges of their citizenship.
“We’re fighting for families.“ This implies that if you’re single or somehow outside of a traditional “family” unit, we’re not fighting for you.
One can make an argument by applying more liberal or broad definitions of “family,” but we also understand the point of using that phrasing is to conjure up mental images which are positive and comfortable and which a broad segment of the population identifies with. Mom, dad, a kid or three, family dog. That’s the picture that’s being painted; that warm fuzzy little spark inside you as you read that description is now associated with Rep. Jayapal and her endeavor.
But not everyone has a family. Certainly not everyone has a standard-issue all-is-well happy and well-adjusted family secure in their material possessions and confident in their future together as a unit.
When we say we’re “fighting for families” the automatic implication is that we’re not fighting for “people who don’t have families,” and people who don’t have families or who for other reasons don’t feel connected to that social structure feel that. Even people whose families are not blood feel that, people who have made that extension of the definition of the word in their own lives. Even though they’ve chosen to live outside the standard model, they’re fully aware of it and surrounded by it every day and they will feel on some level, consciously perceived or not, that the honorable representative is explicitly not talking about them, without regard for whether that is her intent.
When we say we’re “fighting for families” the automatic implication is that we’re not fighting for “people who don’t have families,” and people who don’t have families…feel that. Even people whose families are not blood will feel on some level that the honorable representative is explicitly not talking about them, without regard for whether that is her intent.
– custode founder john henry
“We’re fighting for our community.” Consider our imaginary friend Jill. Jill lives in Illinois or maybe Michigan. Her representative is a centrist Democrat who has frequently pushed back against more progressive priorities. She’s of a different sexuality, ethnicity, religion, hair color, and cultural context from Rep. Jayapal. There’s no particular reason for Jill to feel like she’s part of a “community” with Rep. Jayapal.
Let us take as given – we’ll explore it elsewhere and when – that all communication is, by nature, persuasive. By invoking “our,” Rep. Jayapal is engaging in what noted author and pioneer in the science of persuasion Robert Cialdini refers to as “liking.” (I have frequently recommended his “Influence: Science and Practice” as it was a highly useful textbook in one of my comm classes. His latest work is a revised edition of his better known “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which is considered both by CUSTODE and many others as among the fundamental textbooks on the subject of persuasion, for good or evil.
Cialdini’s term “liking” refers to a compliance-gaining tactic in which the speaker attempts to establish that “we are alike” somehow. Not that “I like you,” but rather “I am like you.” This isn’t by any means something Cialdini invented; he just named it. The tactic is as old as persuasion itself, and you recognize the ways it’s invoked today: talk of “main street” and the “one percent” are examples which have been used exhaustively by the left; on the right you have “real Americans” and “true patriots.”
Rep. Jayapal inadvertently engages the opposite effect by emphasizing the lack of common identity between her and Jill. When we’re fighting for “our community,” we’re not fighting for “your community.” “Welcome to our community,” “we’re happy to have you,” etc. also do not suffice; quite frankly, it violates Jill’s agency by entirely failing to ask whether Jill wants to be part of “our community.” If not, does that somehow mean she’s not worthy of those rights and privileges we talked about? We fail to find an ethical argument supporting that position.
So why do we continue implying it, and so many similar things we neither mean, nor believe, and which greatly undermine our efforts?
The prefabricated response to all of this, unfortunately, tends to be “that’s just how it is,” the great passive-aggressive perpetrator of misdeeds. We are leaders. If “that’s just how it is,” then it is up to us as leaders to change how it is because how it is doesn’t work.
Finally it should be said “out loud” again that we’re taking no particular position on Rep. Jayapal’s integrity, ability, commitment, or competence. Nearly every politician uses these types of tropes and many others to garner support quickly by appealing to emotions, because explaining facts to people and ensuring they’re capable of understanding them is much more expensive and time-consuming, and there’s an election coming, always. The same observations would be true if similar statements were coming from Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or thousands of other people. In no way is any of this information intended to imply or suggest that Rep. Jayapal’s personal attributes – ethnicity, gender, sexuality, skin color, ideology – are relevant factors, beyond the blazingly obvious statement that no matter what your beliefs and attributes might be, the only one you share with everyone is that we’re all human.
With that said, it thus becomes almost tautologically clear that while the “liking” tactic can be effective, it also carries the certainty of creating an outgroup, and that means you’ve excluded a bloc of voters from participating in your representation. This is precisely the opposite of the intended effect. Being aware of this problem and taking greater care in how you apply the technique of “liking” or other compliance-gaining or persuasive communication tactics will help you craft a much more effective message. Bonus points for including a cogent explanation to your audience as to why you’re not invoking given tropes and tactics, to help them be more effectively defended against attempts by others to unethically manipulate or disinform.