Paul Randolph asks if 2017 was all about uncompromising decisions

What do Brexiteers, Trump supporters, and Islamic fundamentalists all have in common? Throughout the latter half of 2016, many of us stood scratching our heads in bewilderment at the astonishing train of political and social events that unfurled. Roald Dahl’s ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ have been firmly put in the shade by the increasingly surreal nature of reality.

A basket of ‘deplorables?’

How could so many apparently sane and sensible people support Trump for President when on any objective basis he appears so comprehensively unsuited to the office? How did Brexiteers persuade otherwise level-headed and rational individuals to vote for an outcome that countless others regard as lemming-like economic and political suicide? And how do Islamic fundamentalists continue to transform scores of young people into focused and committed jihadists, willing to die for their interpretation of a religious cause – especially when so many of them seem aimless and faithless?

These accomplishments do not arise out of fleeting moments of madness. They are symptomatic of an enduring process. Brexiteers continue to believe that leaving the EU is the better option, in the face of an abundance of evidence to the contrary. The experts – bankers, economists, academics and social scientists – who supported the ‘Remain’ campaign have been ignored and dismissed as irrelevant by Brexiteers who can’t understand why they ‘didn’t get it.’

During the US Presidential election Trump supporters flocked behind him, despite ever-increasing revelations about his past and present moral and ethical bankruptcy. His previous business dealings, the demise of his casino empire, conduct towards employees, contractors and investors, dubious tax affairs, alleged predatory behaviour towards women, mocking of the disabled, and his bizarre views on Muslims, race, foreigners and Putin have been incessantly aired on Twitter. Yet none of these shortcomings were perceived as being sufficient to disqualify him from a position as ‘Leader of the Western World.’ Indeed, they seemed merely to strengthen his position.

And young radicalised jihadists persisted in queuing up to die, in the face of widely-broadcast confirmation that these atrocities serve only to unite people, to intensify their defiance, and strengthen their resolve to resist such fundamentalism.

So what is it that each of these groups have or do that enables them to achieve seemingly miraculous results in the face of apparently overwhelming odds?

Feeling good about ourselves matters

One clue is that they each tap deeply into one of the most essential emotions that characterises human existence – our self-esteem. It is well established that we all share a need to feel good about ourselves. We harbour an overwhelming desire to think well of our actions and decisions, and equally we crave approval.

Even when we don’t care about the opinions of others, we still have a strong aspiration to be true to ourselves. This need for self-approval and the endorsement of others is a powerful motivating factor in all human transactions and governs many of our daily decisions and activities. We are all influenced by our egos and the widespread effect this has upon human behaviour may be underestimated. Self-esteem is not static. It can go up and descend to great depths very rapidly. As a result we spend considerable time, effort and energy on a daily basis constantly building up and protecting our self-image.

Deprivation is a potent factor in self-esteem. When people have no jobs, no reasonable standard of living and little prospects of achieving one in the foreseeable future; when they feel ignored, forgotten and ‘left behind;’ when they feel demeaned and humiliated – this is when self-esteem hits rock bottom. So when a promise is made that they will be able to feel good about themselves again – or about their country – they are ready to bite hand off anyone who says they can deliver.

Low self-esteem is often made worse by a perception of unfairness. When others are seen enjoying the benefits that many do not have, especially when those benefits are believed to have been secured through corruption, dishonesty, exploitation and manipulation, this is when the sense of degradation becomes acute. So when there is an offer to “drain the swamp,” banish corruption, eliminate the economic divide and restore equality, people are ready to follow in whichever direction they are lead.

But it is not only the deprived who experience low self-esteem. The wealthy and powerful are also susceptible to attacks upon their own image. Losing control equates to a loss of power, and relinquishing control over issues upon which we place important value is equally demeaning. To lose control over laws, regulations, borders, immigration and over other vital economic and social policies can be experienced as wounding and shameful to national pride. So when assurances are given that control will be returned and all power restored, or to “Make America great again,” many will eagerly place blind trust in such pledges.

The young and isolated, when struggling with difficult social issues, harbour a sense of rejection, of being discarded by society and not belonging anywhere. These makes the suitably open to radicalisation. The opportunity to be welcomed into a ‘brotherhood,’ with the guarantee of finding a new meaning in life and being part of an ‘epic battle’ offers a beguiling attraction that is potently effective in reinstating lost self-esteem.

The formidable effect that self-esteem has upon our behaviour has been reinforced by scientific evidence. A study by neuroscientists in Italy¹ demonstrates how the ‘social pain’ of humiliation or rejection activates the same circuits of the brain as physical pain. The low self-esteem of those who see themselves as social and economic exiles is interpreted by the brain in such a way that it actually ‘hurts.’ It is little wonder that so many will eagerly reach for the pain relief temptingly promised by others.

Self-esteem will dictate Brexit

If self-esteem played a significant part in the political environment in the latter half of 2016, it is reasonable to assume that it will continue to do so throughout 2017, and particularly in the Brexit and other international trade negotiations.

Negotiating teams in each case will consist of officials from a variety of government departments and agencies, with a supporting cast of advisers and experts, all of which offers a fertile environment for fuelling self-esteem. Promotion, career paths, and all forms of upward mobility are dependent upon catching the eye or securing the endorsement of another, and so the need for approval in political hierarchies is absolute.

It would be comforting to believe that the numerous and diverse issues that need to be negotiated for Brexit will be considered without emotion and won purely on hard, rational, economic, fiscal and social grounds. But every negotiator may well have their own agenda, and there will be widely differing priorities for each of them. Will a hard or a soft Brexit bring greater approval from the electorate? Will securing access to the single European market be viewed as a dominant issue? Is a deal on immigration likely to attract more votes than an agreement on fishing policies or continued EU sanctions on Russia?

Regardless of the personal integrity of each member of the negotiating team, there is a danger in how these issues will be promoted, argued and resolved. Matters are likely to be governed as much by individual emotions and egos as by the uncontaminated logic of monetary arguments.

Untying the knots of negotiation

It is widely accepted that mediators can facilitate resolutions and help find common ground where negotiations have failed. Mediation skills aim to assist in bringing vastly opposing views closer together.

Both sides in the Brexit negotiations may start poles apart. The negotiators carry with them the mutual distrust of their respective governments and the scepticism and cynicism of millions of constituents. The negotiating teams will find it difficult to ignore the constant stream of one-sided and negative partisan views. The level of ambiguity surrounding negotiations and desire to achieve certainty is likely to lead to a greater tendency for drawing red lines and setting strict boundaries.

Mediators are skilled in addressing the interests of all parties in such a way to preserve ongoing working relationships, while avoiding win or lose decision-making processes. If these techniques are deployed by negotiators, the two sides will be able to move away from ‘positional bargaining,’ and edge closer towards principled and interest-based negotiations.

Similarly if the negotiators are able to adopt a mediator’s empathic approach it could enable both sides to feel more properly ‘heard’ when dialogue becomes difficult, unconstructive or seemingly impossible. Alternatively, where commercial relationships need to be terminated, a mediator-like approach can achieve acceptable results that minimise acrimony and encourage greater cordiality in the parting of the ways.

Most importantly, the psychologically-informed negotiator will recognise and understand the powerful influence of self-esteem that runs through all negotiations. By utilizing such understanding, knots can be untied, obstacles overcome, and the route to an agreement becomes achievable.

R​eferences

¹ “Empathy for Social Exclusion Involves the Sensory-Discriminative Component of Pain: A Within-Subject fMRI Study” from the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) of Trieste: published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (February 2014).

‍