In this series I’ll be inching through Strange Bedfellows: The Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems, a recent paper by David Pinsof, David Sears and Martie Haselton, in the hope of strengthening my understanding of the authors’ arguments and opening paths to explore further. Here are some excerpts*:

What explains the contents of political belief systems? A widespread view is that they derive from abstract values, like equality, tolerance, and authority. Here, we challenge this view, arguing instead that belief systems derive from political alliance structures that vary across nations and time periods. When partisans mobilize support for their political allies, they generate patchwork narratives that appeal to ad-hoc, and often incompatible, moral principles.

The distinction between politics and morality also suggests that abstract, moral disagreement between partisans may be overstated. Rather than disagreeing about the general moral importance of tolerance, authority, or equality, partisans may merely disagree about who should be tolerated, whose authority is legitimate, and whose advantages are unfair. Rather than disagreeing about justice in the abstract, partisans may merely disagree about who deserves status (and how much), who deserves condemnation (and how much), and who deserves sympathy (and how much).

Alliance Theory makes two assumptions: 1) humans possess cognitive mechanisms for forming and detecting alliances, and 2) humans use propagandistic tactics to support their allies and oppose their rivals in conflicts.

Criteria for Choosing Allies

Similarity

All else equal, more similar individuals make better allies. Sharing the same beliefs, preferences, and expectations allows for more efficient and fluid coordination. People use “tags,” “markers,” or “identities” to assort with likeminded individuals, and they alter their appearance to signal commitment to a particular group over alternative groups**. 

Transitivity

Individuals who exhibit transitivity—i.e. who share the same allies and rivals—make better allies as well. Transitivity mitigates two risks: 1) infighting, where one’s allies enter conflicts against one another, and 2) betrayal, where one’s allies side with one’s rivals. 

Interdependence

Individuals who are interdependent—i.e. who reliably provide benefits to one another—make better allies as well. 

Stochasticity 

All of the above cues for choosing allies (i.e. similarity, transitivity, and interdependence) are self-reinforcing and partly stochastic. Similar people favor one another as allies, but allies also imitate one another, increasing their similarity. People favor transitive allies, but allies also adjust their loyalties to accommodate new allies, increasing their transitivity. Interdependence gives rise to allegiance, but allies also provide benefits to one another, increasing their interdependence. Small variations in initial social conditions can feed on one and another snowball into seemingly arbitrary alliance structures.***

—

* In this series, all indented sections are excerpts.

** I once went to a San Francisco restaurant with a friend, who looked around with an expression of disgust on his face, complaining, “ew, we’re surrounded by Republicans!” What was the giveaway? Most of our fellow diners were dressed conservatively.

*** Unfortunately, the authors don’t define ‘stochasticity’ and Google wasn’t of much help - the definitions change depending on the field of study. My best guess in the context of Strange Bedfellows is it has to do with the seemingly random nature of historical beginnings: Joe and Maggie bump into each other, then one thing leads to another; their bond strengthens and they get married. As with Joe and Maggie, so with political alliances. At a certain historical moment, the interests of various groups converge and then strengthen through self-reinforcing processes. But the continuation of alliances is not inevitable, given the shifting landscape of mutual benefit.

Next: Propagandistic tactics as ideological glue.

Reference:

Pinsof, D., Sears, D. O., & Haselton, M. G. (2023). Strange Bedfellows: The Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274433