The book's goal is to shed light on, as stated in the secondary title, "Why good people are divided by politics and religion." As discussed on this blog on numerous occasions, most Americans agree on most policy issues; we're not the divided nation we're told we are. However, to approach politics in the United States is to enter a highly divisive, polarizing atmosphere where one is encouraged to choose ideologically—liberal or conservative, or maybe libertarian—and then support the corresponding political party.
Haidt (pronounced height), chooses to examine the polarizing atmosphere, and explores the nature of the ideological discord. Liberals and conservatives tend to work within different value systems. And though there's overlap, it's where there isn't that Haidt focuses his study.
What follows is an analysis of morality, its evolutionary origins, and just how much humans have in common. The foundation of Haidt's approach to ethics is Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), a sound point of departure, in my view. Put simply, Hume says that when you articulate a moral judgment, you are merely giving voice to something you sensed internally. "Moral distinctions are not the offspring of reason," says Hume, arguing that "Morality is more properly felt than judged of." (As English musician and producer Brian Eno has said, "The body is the large brain.") If this is the case, and the research continues to suggest it is, our sense of morality is part of our genetic inheritance.
Haidt then presents his work in moral psychology, specifically, his Moral Foundations Theory, and compares (borrowing an analogy from Hume) our sense of morality to our sense of taste. Humans have only five taste receptors, yet across cultures there exists a culinary diversity. Similarly, there exists a moral diversity. However, we share an evolutionary core. Our moral differences lie closer to the surface; the people in Mumbai, Brussels, Phnom Penh, Memphis, and San Salvador look at the world in slightly different ways, but just as with taste buds, they share the same mental structures, or cognitive modules. By better understanding how human morality is configured—and where, more than how, we disagree—the more likely we are to better communicate.
A word of comment. What Haidt is attempting to do is help initiate a rational conversation in American politics. He's correct that the two sides have demonized the other, virtually squelching substantive dialogue. And while I appreciate his goals and approach, it is crucial to bear in mind that the liberal and conservative labels don't accurately reflect what people want or don't want from the government. While a plurality of Americans (38 percent) describe themselves as being conservative, most in this group tend toward at least some liberal policy preferences. In aggregate, most of the country sits at or near the liberal center. Haidt acknowledges this, but unfortunately dedicates only one sentence to the subject (page 322).
The polarization is therefore largely artificial. Once you ask people specific policy questions outside the blue-red framework, a durable national consensus emerges. Haidt uses the bickering on Capitol Hill to illustrate his points, but the divisions in Congress have little to do with the population. Furthermore, these theatrical divisions and hostilities encourage the erroneous conclusion that the two dominant parties exist far apart on the political spectrum. Drawing the critical distinction between the population and the legislature is vital to understanding how the country works.
I think underlining this issue would have strengthened his case. But Haidt is right about the culture in Washington, and the power that ideology (group identification) can have over us, and that it's our responsibility to communicate more effectively with one another as well as impose pressure on our lawmakers.
That said, the book is rich with information and insight; a professor of mine many years ago used to speak of "one-volume educations." The Righteous Mind includes integrated, well informed discussions of philosophy, psychology, sociology, evolution, religion, and politics. In a sense, the book is an update on what we know about ourselves as humans. Moreover, despite the subject matter being thoroughly academic, the writing is clear and lively. A good one for the summer reading list.
The Righteous Mind on Amazon
