Still. Small. Voice.
The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.
G.K. Chesterton
Is it possible to be all empiricist, rationalist and nativist at the same time? I wonder if we can combine or wrap up our personal and relative moral leanings as we find our way through our lives by a soulful, natural agreement with an empirical encounter (to be nativist and empiricist by degrees) whilst figuring (the proverbial) ‘it’ out for ourselves. Perhaps an ‘agreement-between’, a kind of consilience or “jumping together” as was proposed by E.O. Wilson of the evolution of Moral Psychology, out of the hands of one discipline and into the collaborative understanding of more than one [1].
Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Righteous Mind, helps us along in understanding our approach to finding certain moral solutions, as he relates how our minds can be divided in the consideration of solutions to moral dilemmas. He uses the metaphor of a rider (reasoning) on an elephant (intuition). Haidt reflects on our human minds as very similar to the minds of animals in general (presumably mammals) in that they are perpetually reactionary. Regarding our tendency to intuitively respond and base our responses on what is perceived, he writes that ‘within the first second of seeing, hearing, or meeting another person, the elephant has already begun to lean toward or away, and that lean influences what you think and do next’ [1]. It seems that we seek to appeal to the empathy of one another, if not by the way we look or sound, by some other way.
Jonathan Haidt, is a social psychologist at the University of Virginia. In “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt writes in order ‘to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature’ [2]. He is playful with his ethnographic examples, in some cases shared to generate a response of disgust, all intended to challenge our reasoning with regards to what is deemed right and wrong. Where intuition can be clear, reason (or, intuition’s proof) alone can be vague and may only be extended to prove one’s being correct and another’s incorrect as well as, perhaps, strategizing social status. One review, from the New York Times, argues that ‘his whole book is a deployment of reason to advance learning’ [2] and, his argument is quite persuasive, appealingly cynical.
A sliver of space (and, understandably so given the scope of his study) within a chapter of Haidt’s book, is given to the subject of Psychopathy. Aspects of the psychopath fascinate me, in particular, their lack of feeling and tendency to harm. Haidt explores the moral inclinations (not lack thereof but, certainly deviated) of psychopaths in another more in depth study [3] that interestingly uses the five moral foundations that are also of note in this book. His findings show entire the moral dysfunction (on each of the five moral foundations) of the psychopath with a more obvious digression in the way of an inclination to cause harm and a lack of perception of fairness.
The manipulation of the psychopath is methodical, extraordinary and can come across as very persuasive until, that is, they’re found out. Capitalism seeks to persuade the consumer and politicians the voter; Haidt makes it clear that the most effective way to a person’s heart (their pocket or checkmark/undivided attention/loyalty) is through the elephant, intuitive perception. What is the impression that wins our heart, that generates our empathy? Bodies are built in such ways, sermons are manufactured in such ways, brands are developed in such ways, as are political platforms. Watchman Nee, a founding Chinese Church Leader and Christian Teacher, defines the impression as a ‘mysterious something (that) expresses itself’ (4), something that is beyond our words and actions. When the impression of a person or situation meets with the intuition of another, judgements are made. These judgements will initiate attraction or repulsion. What good liberal democracy occurs when we focus our communication toward the elephant because, when the elephant comes your way, so does the rider. Is this manipulation? Is this strategic coercion?
Over the last week, as in depth as I’ve been able to go (at least, as time has allowed) with this book and its wonderful exploration of choice, choosing and morality, I have to admit that I’m not particularly happy (insecurities arising) with my mind’s efficiency and the its optimal and accurate operation. With all the information that I have had a chance to consider on subjects put forward in Haidt’s book, a robot could do far better than me; at least, given all the information that could be downloaded through programs for decision making and best approaches to moral challenges. The problem with this substitute, the lack of a defining feature characteristic in humans, the soul. I believe that the soul within us, provided it hasn’t been utterly shut down by our refusal to listen, can teach us between right and wrong. Perhaps, the soul has something more to do with the elephant that Haidt speaks of (albeit, the ‘elephant’ he defines clearly as our intuitions or emotions)?
Late this week I was sitting in an office with the door slightly open. The door creaked open slightly further and a woman leaned in. Downcast and in an obvious state of disconnection, she whispered, ‘I don’t know what to do’. Without a word, at my simple acknowledgement, she welcomed herself in, sat down and she said it again, ‘I don’t know what to do.’ Through my introduction, inquiry and care for her she kept saying these words, ‘I don’t know what to do.’ No tears, no prescriptive emotion, simply these words over and over again. Her intuition led her to a safe place where she could iterate ‘absence of reason’. Umm, where is the rider? Every utterance on my part was met with the same response. Eventually, she left. I intuited the soul of a woman crying out of dark place. And, I’m left wandering (perhaps, in a similar darkness) ‘I don’t know what to do.’
Watchman Nee continues in his book, the Release of the Spirit, that it is beyond our words and actions that determines ‘whether we can do the Lord’s work’ [4]. The ability to breakthrough, to connect (without an ulterior motive for making the connection, that is) draws us into a metaphysical engagement, that for lasting impact requires more than mere ‘reasonable’ strategy. It seems that people yearn for something to believe, someone to follow, a cause to fight for, a team that welcomes them; and, we are the players and, we are the played. Haidt concludes that social intuitionism offers a morality like rationalism yet, with a ‘truer’ integrity to the human experience [5]. The world around knows this about us and will battle for our attention the next time we are free to be seduced by their songs and colours and bright, shiny-white-perfect-toothed smiles. I don’t think people want to be played yet, this is the game we are born into and the challenge of ‘dog-eat-dog’, survival of the fittest. What is survival in this system but, slavery?
Jesus beckons us with the option, here’s the shot: ‘The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly’ John 10:10 (NKJV). Straightly, Nee acknowledges that ‘we are not able to edify others if we say one thing and emit from our lives another thing, if we act one way and live another way’ [4]. If it is freedom that we hope for others, the question remains, have we been set free?
Then, perhaps those we care for will not only be open to listen but, truly will be able to hear that ‘still small voice’ 1 Kings 19:12b (KJV).
Bibliography
[1] Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012.
[2] Saletan, William. “Why Won’t They Listen?” The New York Times, March 23, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html
[3] Glenn, Iyer, Graham, Koleva and Jonathan Haidt. “Are All Types of Morality Compromised in Psychopathy?” https://philarchive.org/archive/GLEAAT-4v1. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 384–398. The Guilford Press, 2009.
[4] Nee, Watchman. The Release of the Spirit. Indiana: Sure Foundation Publishers, 1965.
[5] Haidt, J. Bjorklund, F. “Social Intuitionists Answer Six Questions About Moral Psychology.” MORAL PSYCHOLOGY, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, ed. Oxford University Press, (Forthcoming). November 16, 2006 Draft 3.2.
About the Author
Chris Pollock
Dad of Molly Polly Pastor at the Mustard Seed Street Church Trail Runner4 responses to “Still. Small. Voice.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chris, besides the content of this post is a sweet view into your office and your posture towards interruptions. Jesus had a ministry of interruptions. Our semester’s reading has explored the global forces facing Christianity and we have yet to discuss the obsession with productivity and hurry (at least in White, Western, middle class Evangelicalism). You are embodying a different way.
Chris,
I agree with Shawn. What a gift to be welcomed into your office space as you tenderly cared for a lost woman. She knew what to do. She came to you, a safe and empathetic ear. You welcomed her with the ministry of Presence. That’s a holy space where holy work begins to happen in the heart. The light will come on in her mind’s eye. In time, it will. When it does, freedom will follow. But oh, how we love to be slaves back in Egypt. You’ll have to keep calling her out into the open space of Grace.
Chris,
What a special moment! Your willingness to just be available and listen in dire times of confusion a powerful testimony of your heart. The Apostle Paul in Romans 2 discusses the idea that the laws of God are written on the hearts of humanity. The idea that comes to mind is people know that stealing is wrong because they know how they feel when someone steals from them. Deep down I believe that all of humanity is seeking to fill a Jesus shaped void that only HE can fill. When we take the time to be the hands and feet of Jesus I believe we play a role in filling the void.
As a person who likes thinking my way toward solutions instead of feeling, I struggle to own that irrational part of me that guides much of my actions without me even knowing. Haidt didn’t go this direction in his book, but if I had more time, I might look more deeply into how the Holy Spirit intersects with the elephant/rider metaphor.