The implication of this finding is important in that in calls into question the foundations
of both symbolic politics and rational choice theory. In terms of symbolic politics, the results
presented in this paper demonstrate that it takes more than leaders simply making appeals to
hostile myths and symbols to rally mass support, but that pre-existing cognitive biases must be
present in order for people to support chauvinistic and hostile policies. Therefore, in order to be
successful leaders must first appeal to their base, or the people that already share their hostile
views. This suggests that counter to the majority of constructivist accounts of persuasion, there
is much more to the story than elites and norm entreprenuers simply promulgating their ideas and
effortlessly changing the hearts and minds of people, as whether or not people will buy into such
ideas largely depends on preexisting cognitive biases.
Futhermore, strong negative emotions
do not seem to play the central role that symbolic politics accords them. This is not say that
symbolic politics is incorrect, as hostile myths and symbols are still at the root of ethnic hatreds.
However, it does mean that the process whereby people are socialized to believe such ideas is far
more complex and lengthy than currently conceptualized. On the other hand, for rational choice
theory, the implication of the research findings is that the decision to follow ethnic leaders and
their hostile initiatives is not about cost benefit analyses and changing preference orderings, but
whether or not people already harbor hostile feeling towards the target group, which is the
argument that symbolic politics makes against rational choice theory. Hence, the decision
making process is not a rational one, but is rather driven by negative stereotypes and cognitive
biases.
91
For examples of this presentation of effortless social construction process see Thomas Risse, Stephan C. Ropp,
and Kathryn Sikkink, The Power Of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999); and Nina Tannenwald, Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo,
International Security, Vol, 29, 2005, Ted Hopf, The Promise of Constructivism in IR Theory, International
Security, Vol. 1998; and Stephano Guzzini, A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations,
European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, 2000.
40
Convention