Why good people are divided by religion and politics (Review of The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt)
Jonathan Haidt is a moral psychologist. His field is the intersection of philosophy and psychology. Freud + Aristotle. I had seen him speak in Ted Talks and so on over the past years but I just recently read his book "the Righteous Mind" which is an explanation, using his moral foundations theory, of how divided we have become over matters of religion and politics. It has helped me broaden my own perspectives while gaining respect and insight into the mind of the other. Here I do my best to summarize the book and present his ideas in an effort to bridge the ideological divide that has polarized our nations, communities, and even, or especially, our homes.
The Rider and the Elephant
To start off he explains the psychology of morals, or how morality comes about in our own minds. Haidt uses convincing evidence to suggest that as rational as we think we may be it is intuition that comes first. If you have read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell or Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman then you will agree that most of our decisions are made quickly, without much deliberate planning. Even and especially with our moral decisions we rely more on what feels right as opposed to what is the best argument. So what of rational thought you may ask? It plays an important role but more often than not our rational, prefrontal cortex, "slow-it-down" thought process is used more as strategic reasoning after an intuitive inkling. The metaphor he uses to illustrate this phenomenon is the elephant (intuition) and the rider (reason). There may be times when the rider is able to convince the elephant to go one way or another but most of the time it is the elephant calling the shots. It is the rider who then acts more like a press secretary than a CEO. In other words, your intuition brings you to a moral conclusion and your rational thinking comes up with valid reasons why.
This is important because when we are disagreeing with someone else on a political or religious issue we have to remember that our elephants are going completely different directions. No matter how convincing your rider's arguments may be, they are most likely to fall on deaf ears if the elephant doesn't follow first. If you're arguing about vaccines, veganism or the Vatican you will not convince anyone else with just reason. This is why everyone is so convinced that anyone on the other side is just stupid. How could they honestly believe that? Our moral psychology leaves us with blind spots.
6 Moral Foundations
One example of a blind spot that most WEIRD people (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) and especially progressives is the notion that morality is exclusively about harm and fairness. This is Haidt's second poignant argument. He has identified six moral foundations that comprise what humans see as moral. Progressives tend to place importance in the first three: care as opposed to harm, fairness as opposed to cheating, and liberty as opposed to oppression. You will often hear progressives reduce issues of morality (like legalizing drugs or prostitution) to harm. If someone in the confines of his or her home does X,Y, or Z and it doesn't harm anyone else, why should it be illegal? Progressives also tend to be on the side that is fighting for disenfranchised minorities. You're not going to see many conservatives fighting for women's rights or gay rights etc. What progressives miss is that there are three other foundations for human morality: loyalty as opposed to betrayal, authority as opposed to subversion, and sanctity as opposed to degradation.
So is this a battle of the first three "liberal" foundations vs. the three "conservative" foundations? Not in the least. What separates conservatives from liberals is that, while they rank care, fairness, and liberty lower than liberals do, they still value all six foundations across the board. Some argue that this is the conservative advantage in any election. Our elephants have more to say about our vote than our riders do and liberal elephants are only enticed by two or three key moral factors. In contrast there are twice as many areas of focus that a conservative campaign can utilize to motivate voters. Either way, we can see how people on both sides see the 'other' as repugnantly immoral. Their whole moral foundation is different. They're not speaking the same moral language.
To give you an example, progressives have a hard time looking at issues like reproductive rights outside of the care/harm matrix. The numbers show that providing access to birth control options and teaching preventative methods will decrease teen pregnancies and other sexual health concerns. They see the utility in having policy that promotes sexual health and that's it, argument over. Conservatives, on the other hand, look at the same issue and are intuitively moved to consider the sanctity aspect of morality as well. Sure a few pregnancies can be avoided but that still doesn't stop the defiling of a sacred act that is meant to be the supreme expression of love which is important and moral to them. Did you notice how your elephant reacted to this last statement? You either had a feeling of affirmation or confusion/rejection. In similar fashion, conservatives tend to look at environmental issues merely in terms of utility. Sure the environment is important but are we going to drastically cripple our economy to make a tiny dent in the amount of carbon in our atmosphere? This is one issue wherein progressives have come to apply the sanctity foundation. The earth's health is something that transcends temporary financial gain and should therefore be placed as a higher priority. The earth is sacred and even if recycling and using clean energy makes the tiniest difference at least I can feel good about myself that I am not contributing the problem (or at least contributing to the problem less than others are). You can cite studies or statistics in either direction but each side's elephant has already chosen.
Morality Blinds and Binds
So it isn't until the latter quarter of the book that Haidt finally gives us his definition of morality. Here's a quote:
Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible
He reminds us that this is a definition of morality not a prescription of what is moral. The point is that morals help us become less about 'me' and more about 'we'. They improve interpersonal relations and they emphasize cooperative goals. A dictatorship or a cult may provide an effective moral system according to this definition but still be qualitatively 'bad' for mankind. Morals bind us together. A lot of criticism is given to any in-group for shaming the other but his argument is that this is how we have been enforcing morality ever since the first time that we huddled around a fire and shared a meal. If someone in the group was taking more than their fair share, they were punished and shamed. Groups actually increase cohesion by enforcing their norms and cohesion is good! Read Putnam's "Bowling Alone" or anything by Brene Brown or Dr. Sue Johnson and you will be convinced that life is about connection. We are psychologically at our best when we are a part of the hive. Haidt repeatedly expresses his assertion that we are 90% monkey and 10% bee. Yes we are selfish but we are also intensely groupish and the smaller and more cohesive the group the more secure and well we feel. Soldiers say they fight for their country but ultimately their true alliance is with their brothers in arms. We love being in the in-group, you might even say we need it. Sharing and reinforcing morality is one of the most effective ways to create, sustain, and fortify our groups. The biproduct of this, and it is admittedly nasty at times, is that sometimes we find ourselves outside of the in-group. As much as we try to be inclusive there will be some who always feel on the outs and they will suffer for that but is dismantling our tribe the answer? Jon Haidt would suggest not.
What can we do instead?
Hopefully by reading this blog you will have come to the conclusion that the political 'other' is not a complete idiot (if you still feel this way then read the book). By understanding that we all have blind-spots, that we all approach morality from a slightly different set of rules and expectations, and that we are all inherently motivated to cling to our communities. You do not have to agree with your political or ideological foe but do the due diligence to understand how it is they have come to their conclusion. Why is their elephant on that side of the argument? There will be a logical reason. Have dinner with the 'other' and take a trip outside of your echo chamber. The air is fresh.
Special interest groups, churches, and social clubs are going to have their set morality and while it may intentionally exclude people it will also create a strong bond that benefits society outside of its membership. If you find yourself in a business or church whose morality doesn't even go near your elephant then start shopping (way easier said than done I know). We expect those groups to enforce their morality so to ask them to change might be asking them to implode. Don't join PETA to try and persuade them to eat more red meat and don't join the Blue-Collar Comedy tour and ask them to eat less. My hyper-idealistic hope is that everyone would find a social 'home'. An in-group to call their own. Once we're safely secure in our tribe we can then look to welcome and collaborate with other tribes without forcing a culture war or assimilation.
Where we really need diversity is in our public institutions and governments. Diversity of all kinds but especially of opinion and morality. We need more conservatives to be able to express themselves in universities and schools. We need more liberals to be able to express their ideas in rural settings. We need more minority governments or at least more elected officials who aren't afraid to look a good idea in the eye even though it goes against their party's ethos. Policy committees should have representation from across the floor. Members of parliament (or insert other elected official) should be encouraged and allowed to fraternize with their other party colleagues. I think we as voters should take a good hard look at moderate parties and candidates and not fall into the rhetoric of them being luke-warm or fence sitters. In Alberta, my elephant has parked in the Alberta Party's camp as I feel like they offer good ideas that could appeal to both sides. Seeing how the federal conservative leadership race is going leads me to believe that they will not be moderate but time will tell. Our options are being pushed further and further to the extremes. In the U.S. it is even more polarized.
Here's hoping that some good ideas may prevail and that we may enjoy our tight-knit social networks enough to give us the courage and safety to reach out in the spirit of fraternity to those that disagree.
Zac
(In an effort to cut down on clutter in my small house I have made a New Year's resolution to refrain from buying any new books. I got the Righteous Mind from the Lethbridge Public Library and I hope to write summaries like this for all the books I read this year, eliminating the need to buy them. Stay tuned for more :)
Comments
Post a Comment