Diffusing Disgust
Jonathan Haidt’s text, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion is a societally relevant and thought provoking read. His text is also highly controversial “he’s at his worst, his cringe-inducing worst, when he tries to be polemical. He succumbs to his most embarrassingly hypocritical impulses in what are transparently intended to be concessions to the religious and conservative.”[1] The topic of morality is certainly significant to my research on refugee resettlement and resilience in the United States (ie. the three basic principles of moral psychology – our (human) evolution from tribalism “me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the stranger.”[2] As I seek to understand barriers to refugee resilience via attitudes/biases of individuals and communities, and policies of local, state and federal government, Haidt’s insight and theory on morality and conservatism vs. liberalism is applicable. “To explain this we turn to psychologist Jonathan Haidt from the University of Virginia who came up with the Social Intuitionist Model. It claims that moral judgements (accepting migrants who are fleeing persecution) are based on instantaneous, moral intuitions and then are backed up ex post facto by moral reasoning. In essence, our snap moral decisions have more influence than our reasoning; a tail wagging the dog.”[3]
In the TED Talk/Podcast “Can A Divided America Heal?” Haidt speaks specifically to immigration and morality. He connects the political divide to each party’s current state of “disgust” with each other – an attitude far beyond disagreement and verging on demonizing. Haidt goes on to say the “political divide in this country” is “even greater than racism in this country.”[4] “So this is, I think, where we’re getting at what’s possibly the new left-right distinction. I mean, the left-right as we’ve all inherited it, comes out of the labor versus capital distinction and the working class, and Marx. But I think what we’re seeing now, increasingly, is a divide in all the Western democracies between the people who want to stop at nation, the people who are more parochial — and I don’t mean that in a bad way — people who have much more of a sense of being rooted, they care about their town, their community and their nation. And then those who are anti-parochial and who — whenever I get confused, I just think of the John Lennon song “Imagine.” “Imagine there’s no countries, nothing to kill or die for.” And so these are the people who want more global governance, they don’t like nation states, they don’t like borders.”[5]
Essentially Haidt believes that both conservatives and liberals are right in their thinking. Each party’s belief system has value and merit. He speaks of a time when it was socially acceptable to have conservative viewpoints as a liberal or liberal viewpoints as a conservative. “For some reason, that divide became deep and it’s no longer safe or appropriate” to crossover in your thinking. Haidt proposes having intentional conversation with someone from your opposite political party – starting the conversation with acknowledgement and compliment of a value or belief of their party that is good. This exercise builds a bridge of empathy towards “other” and breaks down the “us vs. them” thinking.
Circling back to morality towards refugees, Haidt asserts that Americans aren’t struggling to accept different races in this country, but are struggling to accept different “cultures”. “Morality in a psychological sense is not about being a “good person”. It is about being a good group member.”[6] Conservatives rate moral characteristics of fairness, compassion, loyalty, authority, and purity as very important. Liberals rate only fairness and compassion as “very important.”[7] An example of a conservative view on identity is this – “locking our doors to the outside does not mean we hate what is on the outside. It just means we love what’s on the inside.” There is a fear that “liberals are exposing” the group on the inside to outsiders who will degrade the purity of the group. Perhaps one of Haidt’s best statements on the influences of today’s culture by the internet is this – “all the internet creates is porn and racism.”
However, if purity and loyalty is taken too far it becomes racism (the group is defined narrower, for example as “white Christian Americans”). The group is literally threatened by “people with darker skin or a different religion.” Parochialism is the idea that you have great loyalty and belief in your community, your neighborhood, your state and your country. If you identify with these values, you might be labeled a nationalist. Because of fear of society collapsing, nationalists become more racist, more homophobic and want to “kick out anybody” who’s deviant or different.
On the other extreme is the valuable idea of globalism. Globalism speaks to acceptance and value of not race, but cultures. And in order to build unity from patriarchal individuals, Haidt believes you need to show or develop a sense of commonality in our humanness and/or commonality in our culture.[8] Because of such divergent belief systems at home and abroad, “we will never have world peace.”[9] Haidt asserts if you value a generalist welfare state then you’ve “got to have an opinion that were all the same.” He goes on to discuss the idea that assimilation in immigration would work because the “right” sees common culture as valuable.
In addition to attempting critical conversations with those who are different politically from us, Haidt suggests diffusing disgust with love. As Christians, we have a tested guidebook with practical steps on loving others. Even Haidt acknowledges that diversity and immigration create creativity within the country and the economy grows. “It produces a lot of good things.”[10]
“Societies with high trust, or high social capital, produce many beneficial outcomes for their citizens: lower crime rates, lower transaction costs for businesses, higher levels of prosperity, and a propensity toward generosity, among others. A liberal nationalist can reasonably argue that the debate over immigration policy in Europe is not a case of what is moral versus what is base, but a case of two classing moral visions, incommensurate. The trick, from this point of view, is figuring out how to balance reasonable concerns about the integrity of one’s own community with the obligation to welcome strangers, particularly strangers in dire need.”[11]
[1][1] https://readingsubtly.blogspot.com/2012/04/enlightened-hypocrisy-of-jonathan.html
[2] https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-a-divided-america-heal-jonathan-haidt
[3] www.gulfinstitute.org/moral-intuition-and-the-migration-crisis-a-tail-wagging-the-dog/
[4] https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-a-divided-america-heal-jonathan-haidt
[5] https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal/transcript
[6] www.jafree.net/human-rights/why-we-cant-understand-each-other-about-refugees
[7] www.jafree.net/human-rights/why-we-cant-understand-each-other-about-refugees
[8] https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-a-divided-america-heal-jonathan-haidt
[9] https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-a-divided-america-heal-jonathan-haidt
[10] https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-a-divided-america-heal-jonathan-haidt
[11] www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-gloablism/
About the Author
Jean Ollis
13 responses to “Diffusing Disgust”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for your thorough reflection and summary of some of Haidt’s most important points. I found myself quite intrigued by his research, and at the same time wondered if he was overstating his claims at times. Since I’m studying xenophobia, I think our research may intersect at certain points. This in particular was helpful for me, as a very practical thing to do in response to our xenophobia: “Haidt proposes having intentional conversation with someone from your opposite political party – starting the conversation with acknowledgement and compliment of a value or belief of their party that is good. This exercise builds a bridge of empathy towards “other” and breaks down the “us vs. them” thinking.”
Hi Chris! The TED Talk was excellent – highly recommend. How do I not remember you are studying xenophobia? Yes, we will definitely have some intersecting resources!
Hey Jean, it sounds like the TEDTalk was really good. Would you recommend it?
You wrote, “He speaks of a time when it was socially acceptable to have conservative viewpoints as a liberal or liberal viewpoints as a conservative. ” I have a hard time trusting people who can’t see positive intentions on both sides. But I feel like the media does a lot to stir the pot, pitting people against each other in the public eye. Facebook also seems to make people feel like they can say anything–even hurtful and half-truthful things–without really being accountable for their words. But in face to face conversations with real people, I think most of us can say positive things about both sides. What is your experience?
Hi Jenn! I definitely recommend the TEDtalk. I agree with your observation relating to people who can’t see good intentions on both sides. As for face to face conversations, I want to believe MOST people can respond appropriately (and with better listening and empathy), however I’ve witnessed some heated conversations where a common ground cannot be found. It makes me sad and discouraged.
Jean,
It seems to me that even within the US church there is little motivation for dialogue across ‘party’ lines. Yet, I find that intriguing because the scriptures are replete with God demonstrating love across cultural boundaries, even in the Old Testament such as in Jonah. I wonder if it’s actually possible for us to recapture that sentiment, at least within the bounds of the church, where we are free to adopt points of view that are outside our assumed demographic of either liberal or conservative. If we are free to do this I think people would be much more willing to listen and consider another perspective rather than feeling they need to expend their energies in convincing of the rationality of their beliefs
Thanks for your thoughts Dan! I agree 100%
Hi Jean,
Thanks again for your really thorough work on this, and for drawing out the connections with your own interest area and research (something that you do consistently well!). I was also struck by the line that you quoted, which said, “Morality in a psychological sense is not about being a “good person”. It is about being a good group member.” What a challenging idea. I wonder, if this is increasingly true for “white Americans” (or, Americans of any stripe), how that plays out for refugees themselves. Many of whom come from strong religious or national or tribal identities. As they arrive and seek to integrate, do they continue to try and remain a “good member of the group”, if so, for a generation? Or less time? I suspect they are much more open to joining the larger ranks of society, so long as we let them…
Dave, I agree that the challenging concept of being a “good member of a group” is intriguing. How do we decide which group to advocate for or join? Definitely a complex issue!
Jean, your final statement was exactly the question I was pondering regarding your topic of immigration; how do you take someone’s concept of their safe happy neighborhood, and convince them that it is not at risk by opening the gates? Though I did not care for his understanding of religion much at all, his psychology was intriguing. Could you find anything in this text that might help you see the solution to that question?
Thanks for your feedback Shawn! I committed to looking for the strengths in different belief systems after reading Haidt…however it didn’t lead me to the solution to safety and security. I’m the type of person who believes in taking the risk. I guess we go back to seeking solutions through reasonable conversation!
Jean,
I appreciate the focus you took. It is not easy in today’s culture to see any good portrayed for the opposite of what you believe. Talking heads, social media and everything in between seems to relish and push the idea that if I am on the right or the left the other side has no redeeming qualities. Heck, in the last election you had one candidate call the other crooked every time he spoke her name and the other candidate call half the country deplorable. It is no wonder we have a lack of trust of each other. I like the idea of having a conversation with someone of the opposite belief system and starting off with something you find the other believes to be a good thing. Have you tried this in your research?
Jason
Jason,
Thanks for your thoughts! Regarding my research, I’m in the midst of interviews with stakeholders in the community. I haven’t encountered challenging/differing beliefs yet, but it would be beneficial to have that perspective. And I will use Haidt’s method to approach the conversation…I already use this strategy with family!
Beautiful post, Jean. Thank you for this.
Our friend Helen is visiting us in St Stephen. We had an evening meal of my homemade fish chowder, and heard about her work in the UK on behalf of refugees and trafficking happening in Europe due to the refugee crisis. It is the darker side of refugee resettlement; once they arrive in their new country, what meaningful work will they do? I believe, as you do, that welcoming refugees is a moral imperative (we’ve had refugees live with us in our home for months). But the broader issue is can they have legal status and work? Or will some be left in limbo, and forced to choose grey means of revenue generation (ie. through the sex trade)?