The Only Righteous Mind
In his book, “The Righteous Mind,” Jonathan Haidt offers his findings in moral psychology that seek to explain why some people are “liberals” while others are “conservative.” Or to put it another way, “Why is everyone who disagrees with me so stupid?” According to Haidt, it is not because some of us used pure reason to evaluate all the options and decide accordingly, while the others failed to reason, but more that we are each wired to prefer either order and predictability (conservative) or variety and diversity (liberal).
Any Christian leader involved in the ministry of spiritual (trans)formation and discipleship knows that nobody makes decisions based on reason alone, and the deeper one goes into theological anthropology, the more easily one can see this truth. Even more, Christians are skeptical about the reliability of any of our faculties, including reason, all of which are fractured by the fall. To quote a clichéd proverb: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding (Prov 3).” The Bible understands that none of our faculties can be trusted. According to one reviewer, “Though the Enlightenment project is devoted to putting reason in charge—and even succeeds to some extent with the highly educated minority—our emotional reactions shape our moral judgments, and thus our social order.”[1]
I was particularly interested in Haidt’s research related to group behavior and the paradox of group members acting both selfishly and selflessly simultaneously. It’s as though the individual members of a group have to behave selflessly in order to protect the selfish interests of the group. Haidt argues that “human nature is mostly selfish, but with a groupish overlay that resulted from the fact that natural selection works at multiple levels simultaneaously.”[2] Since my research is centered on xenophobia, I was hopeful that Haidt might wonder if xenophobia arises more as a “groupish” attitudinal behavior than an individual one, or at least he would discuss something of the social psychology of xenophobia, but to no avail.
Xenophobia is literally means “fear of strangeness.” It is the fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners, or anything which is perceived to be strange, foreign, or different. It is commonly understood as “fear of the other,” and according to CNN, goes by the name of Donald Trump. But liberals don’t have a “Get Out of Xenophobia Free” card, as both conservatives and liberals are largely xenophobic toward each other. But I wonder, if I were to accept Haidt’s arguments, it would seem to me that conservatives, who, according to Haidt, place a higher emphasis on the virtue of Loyalty, could be more vulnerable to xenophobia.
His chapter titled, Why Are We So Groupish?, caused me to wonder whether Xenophobia is not an individual attitude, in that it doesn’t arise at the level of individual consciousness, but is a collectively shared attitude that arises from the collective consciousness, that seeks to protect the moral foundations of a particular group. The xenophobia of President Trump toward brown immigrants, as expressed in speeches on the campaign trail and subsequent actions as president, did not arise in isolation. His is the voice of a large xenophobic voting block, seeking to protect their moral foundations, which they perceive to be threatened by the outside. According to Haidt, every group needs to suppress the vices of cheating, betraying and subverting the group in order to survive the process of natural selection.
One reviewer, William Weston, focuses on Haidt’s synergy with Emile Durkenheim’s approach to the emotional roots of social solidarity. He suggests that Haidt draws most on Durkenheim’s argument that “human society rests on the emotional bonds within our groups.”[3] This explains why human beings, who are primarily selfish creatures, biologically, can express such selfless behavior within groups, such as being a religious martyr.[4] Weston continues: “Durkenheim emphasizes that our attachment to the collective conscience and consciousness is not simply intellectual; rather, it is first an emotional bond. We are devoted to our shared understanding as a central part of who we are. And we are devoted to other people in our groups, on up to society as a whole, because we share an understanding of, and devotion to, a collective conscience and consciousness…Durkenheim argues that every society needs a shared sense of the sacred to hold together.”[5] In other words, in order for a group to survive and protect the sacred sacred (namely justice, loyalty and authority), it has to punish cheaters, sanction betrayers, and stop subverters. But the problem we face today, in part, is that we perceive threats that are not real, and act according to perception rather than reality.
Haidt has caused me to reflect on the emergence of the Christian community as an oddly inclusive, enemy-loving community in the Roman Empire. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, George Weigel writes: “Christianity modeled a nobler way of life than what was on offer elsewhere in the rather brutal society of the day. In Christianity, women were respected as they weren’t in classical culture and played a critical role in bringing men to the faith and attracting converts. In an age of plagues, the readiness of Christians to care for all the sick, not just their own, was a factor, as was the impressive witness to faith of countless martyrs. Christianity also grew from within because Christians had larger families, a byproduct of their faith’s prohibition of contraception, abortion and infanticide.”[6]
How was it possible for an emerging community to not act as “groupish” as the other groups in society at that time? I suppose the answer lies in the realm of theological anthropology. Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe is God incarnate, did not fall prey to the dualism we know today that Haidt describes. Christians believe that in Jesus, we serve an others-centered, enemy-loving God who strongly criticized selfish and groupish behavior. In other words, Jesus’ genes were not “selfish” as Haidt suggests are for all other human beings. As the fully “Human One,” Jesus was not “groupish” in the way Haidt describes the rest of humanity. I don’t disagree with Haidt’s description of moral psychology, but I wonder how spiritual formation might “rewire” our brains to be less xenophobic, less selfish, more inclusive, and more understanding of the other. At the end of the day, Haidt agrees with the Bible that the fundamental problem is human selfishness. It’s as though he has discovered scientifically what Christians have based our entire lives on for two thousand years.
For the Christian, the question isn’t so much, “Can liberals and conservatives understand their differences enough to work together?” but “Can the Church in America rise above its political binaries to become more like Jesus?” And the answer is “Yes, with God’s help.” Christians are able to factor in the transforming role of the Holy Spirit to literally “renew our minds” (Rom 12). Overall, the book is helpful for any pastor serving a politically diverse church. We are far from the unity that will come with Christ’s return, so we need to understand one another in order to love better, and that’s the gift this book offers. But Christians cannot be content with mere “understanding.” We must work to “stand firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel” (Phil 1). For that, we look to the truly Righteous One.
___________________
[1] William Weston, “A Deeper Durkheimian Society for Haidt’s Righteous Minds,” Springer Science+Business Media no. 51 (09/19/2014): 686-91, https://link-springer-com.georgefox.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12115-014-9841-7.pdf (accessed April 3, 2018).
[2] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion(New York: Vintage Books, 2013), 222.
[3] Weston, 686-91.
[4] Ibid, 686-91
[5] Haidt, 687-8.
[6] George Weigel, “The Easter Effect and How It Changed the World,” Wall Street Journal, 03/30/2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-easter-effect-and-how-it-changed-the-world-1522418701 (accessed April 3, 2018).
About the Author
Chris Pritchett
2 responses to “The Only Righteous Mind”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chris,
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
I loved the long quote from the WSJ. Early on Christianity did demonstrate a different way and was completely countercultural. Now, I’m afraid, we demonstrate more of a cultural faith, one that seems bent on ensuring our own perspective is the one that prevails over society. I think this represents the antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus.
I hope the Church in the US can rise above its binaries but if you read Jay’s post it doesn’t seem likely, particularly if we are unwilling to even sit at the table with other brothers and sisters who have a different perspective. Very sad.
Hello Chris,
Great post! I appreciated your citing Durkheim and Weigel. The latter wrote a book called “Evangelical Catholicism” which I’ve found helpful. I also appreciated how you reflected theologically on this — rather than just discarding the psychological work of Haidt, you built and integrated on his research.
I agree with you that the answer to rising above our xenophobia must be with the church leading the way forward as we become more like Jesus. Perhaps Jesus was “groupish”, it’s just that His group was the whole of humanity rather than the divided groups we regularly pit against one another.