Both-Sideology in Social Psychology:
A Full-Throated Critique 

John Jost, New York University 

In social psychology these days it is commonplace to read or hear that liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists are equally intolerant; equally prejudiced; equally (im)moral; equally dogmatic; equally susceptible to rumor, misinformation, and conspiracy theories; equally lax about upholding democratic norms; and equally prone to political violence. According to this narrative, we are expected to abandon the evidence of our own eyes and ears in favor of comforting but false equivalencies. Upon close inspection, each of these empirical claims turn out to be false, as I will show in my Kurt Lewin address this summer (see also Jost, 2021). Such claims are out of touch with our lived experience and what journalists are telling us about the “real world,” a world in which right-wing authoritarianism is on the rise all over the world, including in the United States, where the very existence of our democracy is at risk in ways no one could have imagined 20 years ago.  

It is understandable that social psychologists—who are often more liberal than the general population and the politicians who control their purse strings—would want to downplay left-right ideological asymmetries in psychology and social behavior. Intellectual humility and active open-mindedness are important values, and entertaining false equivalencies is perhaps one way in which these values are performed. It is useful for researchers to empathize with the people they are studying, up to a point. However, ignoring or denying genuine differences in values and ethical commitments, especially when it comes to dangerous and antisocial forms of behavior, is not only anti-scientific; it is potentially disastrous for humanity. We need social psychologists to refrain from wishful thinking or hiding their heads in the sand, when they could be working together to predict and prevent the next fascist wave at home or abroad. Self-censorship and Swiss-style neutrality may be tempting, but they are ultimately escapist and not viable as long-term solutions to the very real problems we are facing. 

Why are contemporary social psychologists so enamored of “both-sideology” and “whataboutism”? I suspect there are several interrelated reasons, in addition to those noted above (and a few I don’t have the space to mention here). For one thing, there is a long tradition of social psychological theorizing that prioritizes subjective definitions of reality over objective matters; but at some point, doing our job requires distinguishing between social representations that are more vs. less accurate—and those that are more vs. less consistent with standards of fairness and social justice (Jost & Kay, 2010). For another, social psychologists’ aspirations are frequently universalistic, forever in search of “human nature.” Our theories emphasize purportedly general processes to the exclusion of specific contents. Undoubtedly, biological evolution has played a formidable role in the development of our species. But so has cultural evolution. Liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists may well possess the same biological “hardware,” but the ideological “software” is different, and the sooner we realize it the better. There are major differences between a worldview that is based on equality and progress and one that is based on tradition and social order (Jost, 2021). In other words, leftists and rightists are not merely “dot overestimators” and “dot underestimators,” to use the language of the minimal group paradigm. I believe it is impossible to do good social psychology “in a vacuum”—that is, without considering the role of history, culture, economic systems, and political leaders and institutions in shaping our behavior.  

Our founding father, Kurt Lewin (1948) deeply appreciated historical, cultural, economic, and political factors, as well as the necessary connections between liberal democracy and social science. He realized that each depends upon the success and vitality of the other. If we compromise our social science—even for seemingly benevolent reasons, such as maintaining harmony—we jeopardize our democracy. And, conversely, if our democracy falls there will be no true social science. When Lewin fled Nazi Germany for the United States, he brought with him sophisticated ways of interrogating prejudice, social conflict, and, above all, the dangers of anti-democratic leadership. He was not so naïve as to embrace false equivalences between the liberal-left and the authoritarian-right—the kind of both-sideology that too many social psychologists today take for granted. We are lucky to have inherited Lewin’s legacy. Let us not squander it, for if we lose it, we may never get it back.  

References 

Jost, J.T. (2021). Left & right: The psychological significance of a political distinction. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Jost, J.T., & Kay, A.C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S.T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th edition, Vol. 2, pp. 1122-1165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Harper & Brothers.  

back to menu