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.”