True - that is precisely what Emile Durkheim argued in the _Elementary forms of religious life_. I think it is a valid point - to a certain degree.
I think, however, that cognitive styles are like affections - most people experience a range of them, and they are triggered by circumstances. But there is also the functioning of the brain that predisposes them toward certain affections more than toward other; and sometimes changes in the brain chemistry can trigger affections that are totally inappropriate to the circumstances, as for example in the bipolar disorder where patients change their moods from extreme exuberance to extreme depression, sometimes overnight.
I would conjecture that cognitive styles are controlled by similar processes. Most people are capable of adopting a range of styles, from very rigid to very flexible in response to different environmental conditions. However, individuals differ in that respect in a similar way they differ in their affective predispositions, some tend to be more cheerful and upbeat, other more gloomy and depressed, and so on. There are also those with affective disorders which make them fall into extremes, e.g. depression, manic/depression etc. Likewise, people differ in what cognitive styles they usually operate, some tend to be more rigid and afraid of complexities, others - more flexible and free-wheeling. There are also those who fall into dysfunctional extremes: some extremely rigid and unable to function in a complex and ambiguous environment, and some extremely fluid or "flaky" and unable to function in a structured environment.
I think that puts a very different perspective on political behavior from that what we usually consider. Political behavior is conventionally explained in the rational choice terms. People vote their preferences based on their utilitarian (i.e. rational) interests. If they do not vote at all, it so because the marginal cost of voting (personal effort required to learn about candidates, go to the polling place, wait in line etc.) exceeds the marginal benefit obtained from the outcome of the election - a phenomenon known as the free rider problem.
The problem is, however, that explanatory power of the rat-choice model is close to nil in any aspect of life, not just politics. It is a pipe dream of utilitarian philosophers, normative rather than experiential - i.e. saying how people ought to behave rather than describing how they actually behave.
If you take the cognitive and affective factors into account, which I believe are ultimately controlled by neurological processes in the human brain, you will get a much better explanatory power accounting for such everyday observations as:
- people acting on impulse or emotions against their most obvious utilitarian interests, e.g. spending vast amounts of money on objects with little or no utilitarian value, such as posh restaurants, trendy clothes, jewelry, etc. to maintain their social status, appearances, relations with other people, their own emotional comfort, etc,;
- people systematically disregarding certain facts from their cost / benefits considerations, for example long term consequences, adverse impact on other people, etc.;
- people holding mutually contradicting accounts of the same facts depending on the context in which these facts are considered; e.g. killing is either good or bad, depending if it is a fetus or a despicable human being); These, and a sundry of kindred every daily life experiences cannot be explained by the rat choice model, so its proponents summarily sweep them under the rug by labeling them "individual preferences" - which translates: "random factors which our model takes as given but cannot explain their origins."
Another point is that - contrary to the views advanced by many ideologues (e.g. Carrol) that every person will ultimately see the truth and become a socialist if properly indoctrinated with the right party line - most people choose their politic with their hearts and affections rather than with their brains. Many have a natural affection toward the authoritarian style politics - because it gives them the cognitive structure that their brains need to "make sense" of the world. Many other have a natural affection toward a free-wheeling style politics - again because this is how their brains function. And still many other will oscillate between these two styles, depending on the environment or context in which they operate.
Only the third kind can potentially be swayed by political appeals, provided that these are political appeals of the right kind - appealing to their cognitive needs and emotions rather than utilitarian considerations. The first two types will naturally gravitate toward authoritarian or free-wheeling politics regardless of their ideological labels. Ideology does not matter that much, at best it is an ex post facto rationalization not the reason behind political choices.
Wojtek