Gestalt Psychology and Donald Trump

"The whole is other than the sum of it's parts." - Kurt Koffka

The often-misquoted phrase above is a Gestalt concept. Gestalt is German and could be translated as “to take shape.”  Koffka was referring to the fact that the human mind perceives everything within a context. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Every person, event, or idea is perceived within a context of everything around it, before it, and similar to it.  The whole is completely independent of the parts, meaning that when put into context, things take on an entirely new meaning to us than the individual parts might imply on their own. When two people experience the same phenomena totally differently, I think of this.  Context changes perception, and perception is everything. "The whole is other than the sum of it's parts."

In the days following the presidential election, I found myself studying people from an objective psychological perspective.  I have found it interesting that people can perceive our next president in such drastically different ways.  Half of America views him as a blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, fear monger.  Let’s call these folks Group A. The other half of America sees him as a loud talking, brazenly honest, no-nonsense, business mogul who they hope will clean up America.  Let’s call them Group 7.  (Yes.  Group 7.  Calling them Group B would imply a level of similarity that isn’t there.  Anyway…) To group A, members of Group 7 appear to be racist.  They must be.  After all, if you want to be led by a racist, you must, at the very least, be okay with racists.  That kind of makes you racist.  This is the view from group A.  But, as I observe the interactions between group A and group 7, it occurred to me that it may not be that simple.  As I watched the two groups interact, something strange was happening.  Signals were getting crossed.  Members of Group 7 were becoming outraged at the very idea that they might be racist or sexist or any of those things.  They were offended at the very implication. 

Being the scientist that I am, I sought some new data.  I endeavored to engage a few trusted friends who I knew to be members of Group 7.  (In the spirit of full disclosure, I was, until recently, a card-carrying member of group A.  I renounced my membership and am currently unattached.)  I inquired about their views on the things Trump said and did.  My inquiries would always start with a simple question:  Do you have a problem with the hateful language that Trump uses?  Invariably, they said they saw none of the racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia that I spoke of.  Still fascinated, I dug deeper.  With one particular friend, I offered some concrete examples.  What I found was exactly what Koffka said.  When my Group 7 friend heard Trump talking about cleaning up the Black community using “law and order,” he didn’t hear references to George Wallace and Richard Nixon.  He didn’t think about the blatantly racist policies that disproportionately impacted and criminalized Black communities and Black people under officials who had used this language in the past. When I asked, he acknowledged that he didn’t hear these things, because they don’t impact him directly.  The historical context of this language was lost on him. Thus, he was able to ignore certain things.  Having ignored the history, he was able to hear Trumps words at face value.  And, at face value, who doesn’t like law and order?  Who would argue against that?  

On the issue of registering or keeping out Muslims, my Group 7 friend saw no issue.  He was not touched by the Japanese internment camps or the Jewish holocaust, so the history of registering people based on affiliation with a religious group or ethnicity was not sensitive to him.  To him, Trump was simply attempting to keep us safe.  My friend would never be the one asked to register, so the details, logistics, and history of such an idea never entered his mind.

When I asked my friend for his views on Trumps wall, built to keep out the “bad” Mexicans, I once again found that context is everything.  To my friend, the idea of keeping bad people out of America was fundamentally sound.  Why would anyone argue against keeping bad people out?  Who likes bad people?!  Because my friend would never have to worry about being misidentified as a bad person, the implication that we needed a wall to deter the bad Mexicans didn’t sound scary at all.  I mean, if differentiating the “good ones” from the “bad ones” is that easy, why not build a wall to keep the bad ones out? 

Hearing me explain the historical references and possible problems with these ideas, my friend was able to understand, on an academic level, why someone could be concerned.  Still, there was no emotional or tangible connection to this concern.  It inspired interest.  It did not inspire fear.  There was no outrage.  Because, even when the dots were all connected for him, it did not change the fact that none of this would actually impact my friend in ways that he could foresee.  For him, Trump is not a problem.

In talking to, and really listening to, friends who support Trump, I have learned that, by nature and virtue of the fact that they are not intimately connected to the oppression that Trump is hinting at, many people simply do not catch the hints.  When people refer to the hateful and inflammatory language that Trump uses, many people simply have no idea what they are talking about.  Like two people speaking to each other in different languages, these two groups talk at each other.   Not much is heard.  Even less is understood.  It’s not that all Trump supporters are racist.  I don’t believe that to be true at all. Some, undoubtedly, are. But, I believe the issue is that some people are so insulated against oppression that vague references to it have absolutely no meaning to them.  Someone can be speaking in racially charged “dog whistle” language, and certain people will think nothing of it.  Just like a dog whistle, it can only be heard by those for whom it is meant.  For some, though, life experience creates a different context in which to hear this language.  They are connected to a history that provides another part to the gestalt. 

Whether you are in Group A or Group 7, I’m betting you have been wondering how it is that the other side sees things the way they do.  Next time you think this, remember what Koffka said.  “The whole is other than the sum of it’s parts.”

Convenience Liberals

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. 

He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. 

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. 

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. 

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict. 

     The words above are all quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Read them carefully, and you will discover something that I found striking. When he talks about oppression and change, he isn’t actually talking to the oppressor, necessarily. In the quotes above, he is speaking to and about the inactivity of those he calls, in Letter From A Birmingham Jail, “moderates.” I have come to refer to these folks as convenience liberals. In all of these quotes, Dr. King is expressing his frustration with the folks who would, on some level, have called themselves allies, and yet chose silence and/or inactivity rather than to stand beside him in the fight for freedom and equality.

     The events of the past month have led me to conclude that Dr. King was right. It is not the bad guys who are the problem. It is the “good guys” who choose to sit idly by and bear witness to oppression that are the death knell of justice. The bad guys are steadfast in their convictions. They are vocal in their opposition to equality. They stand up against love and hope. Their position is clear. They do exactly what is expected of them, thus making them easier to deal with.

     One is not disappointed by his enemies, because he expects nothing from them. Disappointment comes by way of friends who speak support but don’t act on it.

      As Dr. King said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

The Coffee Party

The United States government was designed to maintain power and ownership among rich white heterosexual men. It was written explicitly this way. So, I can’t be too angry or even too surprised that the system is working exactly as intended. But, if we don’t like the way it is intended to work, we actually do have a blueprint for fixing it.

After the first inauguration of Barack Obama, anger among a certain segment of the population swelled to new heights. Angry and afraid of what they perceived as the loss of their great nation, the Tea Party was formed. Over the past several years, their power grew. Out of that power and sentiment, Donald Trump emerged. He is now the next president of the United States. Like it or not, they worked together and got it done. He spoke their language. They heard his call. They came out in droves to vote for him. Good for them.

If you don’t feel like that party speaks to your needs, it’s time we do exactly what they did. I propose we start a new party. We can call ours the Coffee Party, because we will be a little darker and a little stronger. Better yet, let’s call it the Everybody Else Club. This club will have one rule. We are against the oppression of anyone. Ever. Period. This party will be all about inclusion and justice for all people. This country may have been designed to maintain power among rich white heterosexual men, but we outnumber them, so we can take it from them if we want to. But, we would have to work together. Who are we? We are the Native Americans. We are women. We are people of color. We are the LGBT community. We are Muslims and atheists and everyone in between. We are the disabled and the poor. We are all of the marginalized people of this country. If we decided to suddenly stick together at all cost, we’d be choosing the next president. We’d be running Congress. We’d be writing the laws. It would work fine, because our goal would be equality for everyone. The only people who would fight against that are the people who benefit from the oppression of others. That makes it really easy for us to identify who doesn’t belong in our club.

Dr. Martin Luther King said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” It’s time we start remembering that. So, be mad. I get it. Sometime soon, though, let’s get organized. Somebody call a meeting soon. I’ll bring the donuts.