Cleavage politics in ordinary reasoning: How common sense divides

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study explores how the ideological divide between the radical right and liberal left is anchored in the common sense reasoning of ordinary citizens. Across Western Europe, cleavage research has documented a divide in attitudes towards immigration and cultural liberalization which some view as a new cleavage of ‘universalism’ versus ‘particularism’. Yet it is unclear how this squares with the fact that most citizens are non-ideologues with only moderate political interest and knowledge. Building on Clifford Geertz, Pierre Bourdieu, and recent research into the politics of group identities, we theorize how even in the absence of fully worked-out political ideologies, citizens mobilize forms of common sense reasoning based on group distinctions and moral intuitions. We apply this approach in a rare qualitative comparison of political reasoning on both sides of the new divide, analyzing narrative interviews (N=64) with groups positioned on its opposing sides: workers or small owners voting for the radical right; and sociocultural professionals voting for the liberal left. We show how ‘common sense particularism’ and ‘common sense universalism’ draw on distinct intuitions regarding the worthy self, the scope of solidarity, and the normative status of community. These intuitions resonate with class-specific social experiences and group referents.