As a politics junkie and someone utterly absorbed in narrative psychology, for me this election period is an absolute gift. It keeps moving, it’s exciting, I am waiting all the time for my favourite political podcasts to come up with another perspective - that is The News Agents, Electoral Dysfunction, The Rest is Politics and Not Another One - as my top four. Given this affliction, I find it so interesting that it is apparent that so many people not only do not share my passion or interest but are actually really bored and have a sense of disdain for the whole process.
I was listening to some vox pops last week where, time and again, the ideas that people shared were along the lines of ‘they’re all the same’, ‘they are all as bad as each other’, ‘they don’t say anything’, ‘they don’t do anything’, ‘they all lie’ and ‘they’re all boring’. This is how these people feel. As a political person, I am quite disappointed in this as it illustrates that some are not prepared to join in a rational discussion or engage in critical thinking and I do not like that as it spoils my fun. However, the narrative psychologist within me wakes up - this is their story. This is how they feel, this is their response to what has been presented to them and how it fits with them. It annoys them.
In some ways, this disenchantment provides space for populist performers, one in particular who needs no more mentions, who chooses not to spend time in thought or rational debate but just says things that might get him a cheer. He buzzes around like a wasp. I hope he gets caught in a pot of jam but others do not share my view, clearly. He is gaining traction.
The use of language surrounding politics is fairly silly and I wonder if that puts people off. There are labels for ordinary things - like changing your mind, for example, which gets called a ‘U-turn’. Changing your mind in the light of factors such as changing circumstances, new information, a shift in position, a different perspective, rational thought, being open to persuasion, gaining wider thought - is a good thing. If people were prized for not changing their minds, it would be ridiculous. And yet, it is used as an insult or criticism. We all change our minds all the time. ‘I thought you were going to the pub tonight’ ‘I decided I’d watch this film’ HEADLINE - woman U-turns on pub decision.
All of the fudging and half-truths are quite frustrating and ridiculous as well. Handing things over to independent experts or commissions or panels instead of just making a decision. Such as the decision by Sunak not to comment on the betting scandal while the Gambling Commission were looking at it. A difficulty for him here was that it was simple enough for people to see through it - did they put a bet on or not? Simple. If it was something more involved and nuanced he might have got away with it.
Silly language, silly lies, silly swerves - I suggest they may be part of the disillusionment.
It is a shame that this whole process is not more interesting to people as at the heart of it is how we spend everything - not just our money but also our time and efforts. This should be of interest to everyone as the resources that we have available to us are immense and if we were to mobilise and organise ourselves then we could find a way for everyone to be doing something that they like, are good at, enjoy and be comfortable and satisfied with. There is no real reason why we could not achieve that, it is perfectly possible and maybe if people perceived that that is what we are out to do, they might be in. They are not very interested in a mud-slinging contest of negative ideas though.
One of the uses of narrative psychology is to help us understand who people think they are and, of course, who we are. By developing an understanding of that, we can figure out where we might fit, ethically and helpfully, into that. I do not think that some of our politicians have quite mastered this yet.
A positive change in this direction, in terms of research, has been the rise in focus groups. A shift away from purely quantitative data - which, naturally, has great use and its place but ignores story - to an approach which embraces the type of qualitative data that can be collected from focus groups does allow a narrative to be understood. It seems, in some cases, to have been over-generalised by ‘typing’ groups of people but, I suppose, some general conclusions do have to be drawn and so this is nearly inevitable. At least it is not a survey, at least stories are being told and sense being made in the telling. Some of the more considered policies may have been developed in this way.
It seems we need a better understanding of the bored and the disillusioned and what they do want. They might not be willing to tell us at the moment. They are too bored.