Ideological labels function as group identities, not coherent philosophies.

Evidence

Conover and Feldman (Reading 11) argued that ideological labels like liberal and conservative have symbolic, identity-based meanings, even if they lack philosophical coherence or fail to define opposite poles on a single dimension. To the extent that people identify with certain political groups, they also have positive or negative associations to other groups, such as capitalists or police officers or marijuana smokers or members of disadvantaged groups. Conover and Feldman found that people who identify with conservatives differ from liberals primarily in that they are more favorable toward groups that exemplify the status quo, groups that foster social control, and groups that are probusiness. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 126 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In Reading 11, Conover and Feldman (1981) propose that ideological labels like liberal and conservative are important to people as social identities, even if the common usage of these terms lacks philosophical coherence. Insofar as people value their affiliations with certain political groups, they can be expected to hold positive and negative attitudes toward other political groups. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1816 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The mere label of a target group becomes a mandate to distort them — Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 145; Nativism was a critic’s label, not a self-chosen identity. — John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of…, 22; Ideological labels function as identity markers more than coherent belief systems. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 126 (+13 more)

Broader Connections

• Ideological labels function as identity markers more than coherent belief systems. #corroborates (1.00) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 126
• Ideological labels function as social identities that shape group attitudes #expands (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1816