In 2020, in the height of the pandemic, I reported on some research by Professor Jer Clifton at the University of Pennsylvania, into what he and his colleagues were calling ‘primals’. These are core beliefs in the way one experiences the world, such as that the world is either basically safe or basically dangerous. Clifton identified 26 basic primal pairs, and as I noted in 2020:
“these primals appear to be stable over time, and deep-seated. Are they fundamentally a product of your experiences, your environment, or are they genetic? The researchers aren’t sure, yet, but these primals do develop early. And they group together in clusters. If you’ve got a basically positive outlook – you believe the world is safe, fun, and a nice place to play in, then you’re more likely to be grateful, trusting, growth-oriented, and happy. If you believe the opposite, you’re more likely to experience the world as unsafe, more likely to be depressed, and more likely to see danger everywhere.
There are no big gender differences – both men and women experience the world as pretty much safe (or unsafe) in the same number. And whether you grow up rich or poor doesn’t seem to matter, either as to whether you’re a believer in expanding the pie or fighting over the (finite) number of pieces.
But the most important belief is whether or not you think the world is a good place. If you do, you have more and better friendships, better well-being, happier life outcomes, and on and on.”
So those are primals, and they are (as their name implies) basic to the way we think and perceive experience. At the time, I called on Professor Clifton to find out more, because knowing where people stood on some basic primals would affect how we might communicate most effectively with them.
In this election year, in particular, politicians of all stripes are getting ready to attempt to persuade us of the validity of their point of view, and to win us over to their side, at least for long enough to throw the lever in their favor. And citizens themselves may get engaged in vigorous discussions about political subjects with members of the other party, hoping to persuade them of the error of their ways.
There’s long been a belief that one of these primals, whether you think the world is basically safe or basically dangerous, determines whether you are liberal or conservative. Liberals see the world as safe, so they are more open to change, immigration, and social fluidity. Conservatives see the world as dangerous, and so they want to keep things as they are, secure the borders, and keep the social order stable. But Clifton’s research suggests a different perspective. It’s not the safe versus dangerous primal that determines your politics in this sense. Rather, it’s how you think about hierarchies.
“Conservatives tend to see the world as a place where, like it or not, observable differences reflect real underlying value (high hierarchical world belief) that is somehow meant to be (high ‘intentional world’ belief) where station and attention received are usually deserved (high ‘just world’ belief, low belief that the ‘world is worth exploring’). Therefore, most hierarchies that emerge are best left as they are (high ‘acceptable world’ belief). However, unfortunately, change is slowly eroding the world’s hierarchies (low ‘progressing world’ belief). Therefore, constraining change and accepting inequality. . . is just common sense.”
On the other hand, he writes, “Liberals tend to see the world as a place where observable differences are superficial, rarely reflecting actual value (low ‘hierarchical world’ belief), cosmic purpose or intent (low ‘intentional world’ belief), deserved status (low ‘just world’ belief), or attention received (high ‘worth exploring’). Therefore, most hierarchies require reform (low ‘acceptable world’ belief). Fortunately, however, the world is getting better and change is taking us in the right direction (high ‘progressing world’ belief). Therefore, embracing change and rejecting inequality (the textbook definition of liberalism) is just common sense.”
So, the research into primals teaches us that the way to a conservative’s heart is through endorsing the existing order and slowing the pace of change, whereas liberals want to hear that the existing order can be changed and we can make the world a better place by upending the existing societal hierarchies. Politicians (and neighbors) take note: how you speak to your political beliefs through this lens of hierarchical order will determine how the voters of various political leanings receive you. You might want to tailor your message accordingly.
That distinction on politics and hierarchy was good insight.
As a grassroots organizer I just think of 3 doors.
There are those on my side, those behind for 2 are the vast undecided and door 3 are racists and fascists who don’t want people in their hierarchy to vote
A campaign is focused on Door 1 getting out your base and door 2 turning maybes into yeses.
I think the politics is more complicated than Clifton makes it.
For instance, Ohio just legalized abortion in a red purple state.
Nothing more primal than being born and who says what you can do with your own body.
When I talk to people to my right, I talk about how writing classes have been betrayed by corporate America.
But as an organizer you don’t usually have time to talk to your opponents. It’s hard enough to motivate the base.
They have a right to be angry at all the changes made in America. They’re just angry kicking down their imaginary hierarchy instead of corporations that make money on disruption and keeping 60% of American workers in the Dollar Store precarious class.
Solidarity takes a lifetime. Or it is like Hemingway said about bankruptcy. It happens slowly and then all of a sudden.
Thanks for the thoughtful distinctions.
Tim Colman
Good Nature Publishing
Tim, thanks for this thoughtful comment. Good luck finding and converting the undecided!
Fascinating analysis, Nick. Thank you. Makes my hair hurt, so I think I will just go outside into nature, take a walk, and listen to some music.
Hah! Your primal is clearly stress/politics v. nature/calm!