miss_s_b: Cognitive Dissonance

miss_s_b (

miss_s_b) wrote,
@ 2010-04-12 03:24 pm UTC

Current mood:	aggravated
Entry tags:	frustration, politics

Cognitive Dissonance

Had a comment passed back to me today by my mum. One of her friends, who is a local voter, has apparently opined that nobody is going to vote for me because I have 'all that ironwork' in my face. Well, yes, I have a small eyebrow piercing, and my tongue is pierced. Now, aside from the question of whether this has any impact whatsoever on my ability to represent local people and/or hold the local council to account - and I would posit that it doesn't - the guy in question is someone who is to be regularly found in the pub complaining how politicians are all the same, they are all corporate guys in suits, they don't understand the concerns of the working man, they're only interested in lining their own pockets, etc.

I just don't get it. If the electorate don't like the idea of self-important corporate men in suits being your representative, why don't they stop voting for them, and instead vote for someone who is none of those things? Or is an eyebrow ring more important than all that?

Don't get me wrong, I always knew that my appearance would be an issue, I'm not that naive. It's just a bit depressing to have the kind of attitude expressed by someone who has known me since I was eight.

Oh well. All I can do is put myself before the electorate and let them make their judgement. Hopefully not all of them will judge on how many piecings I have - or, for that matter, what colour my hair is - and will instead look at what I stand for.

(17 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

	no subject moriarty 2010-04-12 02:48 pm UTC (link)
	Ahhh, the faint whiff of hypocrisy that signals an oncoming election. (Reply to this)

	no subject el_staplador 2010-04-12 03:09 pm UTC (link)
	The cynical side of me says that there will be some people who will not vote for you so that they can continue to think that politics is occupied entirely by corporate guys in suits. (Reply to this)

	no subject andrewducker 2010-04-12 03:18 pm UTC (link)
	Aah, but when he says "not in suits", what he means is "wearing what I wear" not "wearing something different to a suit". People are fantastic at rationalising. (Reply to this)

	no subject http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/ 2010-04-12 03:32 pm UTC (link)
	He probably also wants someone who'll change their mind when circumstances change...but doesn't want politicians who'll do U-turns - as well as wanting someone independently minded and not beholden to your party, but not a rebel either. (Reply to this)

no subject

jamie77
2010-04-12 03:46 pm UTC (link)

A guy in a nice suit may get potential voters to agree with him and vote for him but come election time, there are many guys in many nice suits out and about and there is always the danger that there just come one monolithic lump. Lass with tongue stud though, that will certainly snag the old grey cells and might just jog the memory when the chips are down and it comes down to that all importnat moment, 'I want to vote for a candidate who will... Oo, now waht did that nice lass with tongue stud say she stood regarding x, y and z*?'

*Other than being the last three letters of the English alphabet of course, I am pretty sure the Liberal Democrats manifesto is free from radicalism in that area.

(Reply to this)

	no subject karohemd 2010-04-12 03:58 pm UTC (link)
	My local councillor is a long-haired, eyebrow-pierced geek (Neil McGovern), so ner. (Reply to this)

Two points

(Anonymous)
2010-04-12 04:19 pm UTC (link)

First, and most importantly that isn't cognitive dissonance. 'Cognitive dissonance' describes the phenomenon that when incoming information does not fit with prior commitments an individual and in to which they are emotionally invested they will modify their interpretation of the information so it actually enhances rather than diminishes their adherence to said commitment. The classic example, from which the term gained momentum, was a case study of apocalyptic cultists after the apocalypse failed to occur; they became more committed to the cult than before. Cognitive dissonance does describe the behaviour of Labour (or for that matter, in the states, Democratic and Republican voters) who become more committed to their party the less they deliver on promised objectives, proportionate to the time and money already invested in support. What you are describing is a subtle incongruity or incoherence or inconsistency of beliefs.

Second, if people have an 'image' of authority they wish people to adhere to that's a fact about them you'll just have to live with. It's the reason why most women in politics have short hair and almost politicians dress in suits. Remember that scene in Milk where Sean Penn has to get his hair cut before he can win office? I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's the world. If you want to make life harder on yourself, that's your prerogative but it's not the voters' fault they have subconscious models of what authority figures ought to look like*

*If I were going all psychoanalytical on you I'd suggest that piercings and unusual hair colourings and the like are part of a rebellious, non-conformist aesthetic and as such you are presenting an image diametrically opposed to what most people associate with responsible authority and the reason you do it is because on some level that's the image of yourself you wish to convey. But that image doesn't sell easily when you're running for office.

(Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 5 comments) (Show 5 comments)

Re: Two points

miss_s_b
2010-04-12 05:31 pm UTC (link)

You know where I said above that I wasn't naive enough to think my appearance wouldn't matter? Could have saved yourself a lot of typing there.

And as for your argument that a refusal to acknowledge that one's own actions in continuing to vote for men in suits contributes to the prevalence of men in suits in politics is NOT cognitive dissonnance... Well, perhaps it was a slight misuse of a fairly technical term, but it's slightly less abrasive than the original title this entry had.

Last edited 2010-04-12 05:34 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	Re: Two points innerbrat 2010-04-12 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	this. And also, Jennie? You smell. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

Re: Two points

telegramsam
2010-04-12 06:52 pm UTC (link)

Don't you just love it when someone comes out of nowhere to "enlighten" the "poor widdle misguided fools", and doesn't even bother signing a name of some sort?

People ARE shallow and make snap judgements about character based on appearance, but I think it's important for non-conformists to at least run for office. Jeannie may or may not win this time around but as more non-white-straight-business-men-in-suits run for political office, the public as a whole will EVENTUALLY have to start paying attention to them and pull their heads out of their behinds.

Also, *sometimes* people can surprise you.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	Re: Two points ginasketch 2010-04-12 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	Now I'm going to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	Re: Two points andrewhickey.info 2010-04-12 08:49 pm UTC (link)
	You see that bit on the right? The bit that explains why Jennie is a Lib Dem at all? Try reading it. Rebellious non-conformists deserve representation too... I also suspect that it'd take more than a haircut to turn Jennie into a man in a suit... (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject ginasketch 2010-04-12 04:39 pm UTC (link)
	I wish I could say "in before Mansplaining" but I guess that didn't happen. (Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

	no subject karohemd 2010-04-12 04:46 pm UTC (link)
	I have my popcorn ready. ;) (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject miss_s_b 2010-04-12 05:33 pm UTC (link)
	It appears that's a very rare occurrence these days. Thanks for making me giggle though hug (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject ginasketch 2010-04-12 07:14 pm UTC (link)
	hugs (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

pmoodie
2010-04-13 09:49 am UTC (link)

I'm sure there are some eedjits out there who won't vote for you because of your appearance. But on the other hand, there are probably a few people who will vote for you just because you have colourful hair, piercings and tattoos! So it might even out.! :)

In any case, anyone who bases their voting choices on a candidate's appearance is a fool, and a fool is umlikely to vote for you no matter what you look like.

(Reply to this)

(17 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)