Designers navigating conservative power structures
When designers, armed with creativity and a commitment to social innovation, venture into spaces dominated by conservative power structures, they often find themselves walking a tightrope. On one side lies the solid ground of traditional norms and values; on the other, a chasm of unknowns, challenges and potential for change.
In both their work and personal lives, designers frequently interact with conservatives who exhibit discomfort when faced with critical examinations of their values and belief systems. One of the most effective ways to initiate this critique is to deconstruct a central tenet deeply embedded in conservative thought: the idea that certain aspects of society and the world are universal, natural and unchangeable. Examples include phrases like “there has always been rich and poor” or “there has always been war,” which often serve as comforting anchors. But these views can also prevent the recognition of dynamic societal shifts and nuances. Reframing this perspective can be a powerful starting point for critical discussions.
The role of naturalization in conservative discourse
In conservative discourse, phrases like “there has always been” followed by an issue of injustice or social problem work to normalize and naturalize these issues. Framing social problems as inherent or unchangeable elements of human society detracts from the idea that these issues may result from specific systems or structures that can be reformed. From a psychosocial perspective, this tendency can stem from cognitive biases, ideological beliefs and social dynamics that maintain a preference for the current state of affairs.
Status quo bias and system justification are among these influences, leading individuals to favor the existing social, economic and political systems. This bias is reinforced when people identify with groups benefiting from the status quo. Conservative ideology, which values tradition, social stability and gradual change, often treats certain societal issues as inevitable or unchangeable, especially if addressing them would require disrupting established systems. Social identity and in-group bias also play a role, as individuals align with their social or ideological groups, sometimes denying or downplaying issues associated with ideological out-groups.
Conservatism’s preference for incrementalism, which values stability over transformation, can inadvertently slow or block necessary societal progress. A common bias, the security-liberty tradeoff, often leads people to favor stability at the cost of personal liberties, fostering support for policies that may restrict civil liberties for the sake of societal order. Conservative views often also include skepticism toward social progress movements such as feminism or racial equality which may be seen as belonging to ideological out-groups. Such biases can inhibit societal acceptance and legal protections for marginalized groups.
The influence of ideology and bias on understanding social issues
Through a critical theory lens, statements like “there has always been” obscure the role of specific systems such as capitalism in creating and sustaining social problems. Framing issues like inequality or environmental destruction as inevitable or natural sidesteps the need for systemic change and can serve the interests of those benefiting from the current system. For example, accepting economic inequality as a natural condition can discourage challenges to the vast wealth disparities often exacerbated by capitalist economies. Similarly, viewing environmental destruction as unavoidable may mask the effects of capitalist practices that prioritize profit over sustainability.
Academics, design researchers and critical thinkers can challenge these narratives by focusing on the historical and structural factors behind social problems, promoting awareness of the ways ideology and bias shape our understanding. Drawing on ethnographic research, observations from political fieldwork and detailed analysis of meetings, several key elements emerge as useful lenses for understanding conservative thinking.
The conservative focus on individualism and stability
Conservative thinking often emphasizes individualism, rooted in historical values promoting individual rights, autonomy and self-reliance. However, this focus can detract from collective well-being, as societal goals and communal needs are overshadowed in favor of individual achievement. The emphasis on individualism and resistance to change often stems from a reverence for established customs, leading to hesitation in embracing transformative social changes.
This resistance to change is often accompanied by a stagnant view of societal evolution, which holds that societal norms are static and unchanging. This perspective limits an understanding of societies as dynamic and evolving and can hinder acknowledgment of the need for shifts in social structures. This view also reinforces a limited understanding of social constructivism, suggesting that societal norms are fixed rather than products of changing beliefs and values.
Structural blindness is another factor that appears in conservative perspectives, where the role of social structures in creating social issues goes unrecognized. Without understanding the influence of these underlying mechanisms, solutions to social problems often remain superficial. Additionally, power dynamics are frequently overlooked, a legacy from times when power imbalances went largely unchallenged, allowing concentrations of power that can worsen inequalities.
Historical misconceptions and their impact on modern conservative thought
Historical misconceptions also contribute to conservative perspectives. Racial essentialism, which categorized races hierarchically, perpetuates stereotypes and racial prejudices. Traditional views of gender as a binary between men and women exclude the identities of non-binary and gender-diverse individuals. Additionally, the rigid adherence to historical gender roles, developed over centuries, confines individuals to predefined expectations and limits freedom of expression.
A historical disconnect, where current issues are not connected to their historical origins, leads to solutions that fail to address foundational causes. Related to this is a tendency toward contextual oversimplification, where complex societal issues are reduced to quick fixes that lack depth. Neglecting interdependence between societal systems further leads to isolated interventions that fail to consider wider consequences, often limiting the effectiveness of solutions.
Empathy gaps and their effect on policy
Empathy gaps, which stem from a lack of understanding for perspectives outside one’s own social circle, are common in conservative perspectives and can lead to policies that fail to meet the needs of diverse communities. Discrediting the insights of vulnerable societal groups also limits the scope of societal discourse, as marginalized voices are often silenced. This discrediting reinforces a view of society that separates individual actions from broader collective responsibilities, weakening social unity and collective responses to challenges.
The tendency to prioritize immediate outcomes over long-term planning, an approach shaped by historical emphasis on short-term gains, leaves societies unprepared for future changes. This approach is also shaped by insular perspectives that prioritize national or local issues over global concerns, leading to limited understanding of global interdependence. Disregard for sustainability, inherited from an industrial era that prioritized growth, jeopardizes environmental health and the welfare of future generations.
The importance of epistemology and understanding bias
Skepticism toward scientific consensus, rooted in past resistance to changing paradigms, can impede evidence-based policy and foster resistance to expert knowledge. This bias is often linked to underestimating individual and collective agency, creating a perception that society is bound to certain trajectories. Misinterpreting social mobility as purely merit-based and ignoring barriers faced by marginalized groups also perpetuates inequities and reinforces societal divides.
These elements underscore the ontological and epistemic foundations of conservative thinking: the view of reality as fixed and unchangeable and a limited understanding of causality that fails to account for the interconnected nature of social issues. The conservative view that reality is static often leads to a rejection of systemic change and underestimates the role of human agency in shaping outcomes. Focusing on individual actions over structural influences further limits understanding of social constructs and power dynamics.
On an epistemic level, biases that overlook the influence of ideology on beliefs and discount expert consensus are common. Empathy and perspective-taking are often limited, which restricts a fuller understanding of social issues. Addressing these limitations involves education and awareness to highlight the complexity and changeable nature of social issues, the importance of systems thinking, the role of bias, the value of scientific knowledge and the necessity of empathy and perspective-taking.
The intersection of conservatism and right-wing ideology
Conservatism and right-wing ideology frequently intersect, though they are not identical. Both typically emphasize tradition, order and stability and both often prioritize individual responsibility and free-market capitalism. However, specific beliefs vary depending on cultural, historical and individual contexts. Often, the rise of right-wing ideology is linked to conservative responses to rapid social or economic changes. Conservatism, with its focus on maintaining order, gains traction during times of uncertainty or perceived threats to the status quo, contributing to the appeal of right-wing ideologies that promise a return to a perceived ideal past.
Right-wing ideologies frequently emphasize in-group and out-group dynamics, intensifying existing social divisions and reinforcing cultural or national identities. Conservative ideologies often reflect this as well, especially concerning immigration, nationalism and cultural homogeneity. Both conservative and right-wing perspectives share skepticism toward rapid societal changes, particularly in social norms and structures, which can lead to opposition to social movements advocating for change, such as those related to LGBTQ+ rights, racial equality and gender equality. This intersection illustrates how conservative and right-wing ideologies can reinforce each other in shaping views on tradition, order and change.