In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt offers an explanation for divisions over religion and politics. I got this book after a friend recommended it, not knowing how useful it would be in my quest to learn more about why we think the way we do and how much it would change my thinking on a variety of subjects. Some of it was a little technical for me as I am still quite new to reading about psychology, but I got through most of it well enough. I’ll probably have to read it at least a few more times to really grasp some of the finer points of Haidt’s message. In the next few paragraphs, I’ll do my best to sum up his main in my own words.
Our genes influence the development of our brains. As a result of this developmental process (over which we have no control), some people are more open to new things and less concerned with tradition, while other people are more skeptical of new things and value tradition more. The former are more likely to become liberals and the latter are more likely to become conservatives. If either seeks out like-minded people or spends much of their lives in environments which are similar to their preferences, this effect is strengthened. Additionally, our views are determined by our emotions/passions and then reason comes in afterward to justify those views. Haidt rejects the idea that we can use cold, hard reasoning to derive our views and instead proposes that reason exists to serve the passions. He compares the passions and reason to an elephant and someone riding on the elephant; the elephant moves in a certain direction and the rider then tries to defend the elephant’s movement while having no control over which way the elephant goes. This is why appealing to reason fails to change anyone’s mind while appealing to the passions offers a chance succeeding.
Haidt also describes six moral foundations we use as humans, which, like our views, are determined by our biology and our emotions: care, fairness/proportionality, loyalty/ingroup, authority/respect, sanctity/purity, and liberty. The foundations we value most and the extent to which we value them are heavily influenced by our culture; simply looking at people who identify with certain groups reveals the foundations that they most value. Generally speaking, libertarians mostly focus on liberty, liberals mostly focus on care and fairness, and conservatives tend to keep all of them in mind. Haidt argues that societies that focus on many foundations are more stable than societies that focus on only a few.
We have the capacity to “turn off” our individualism and temporarily become part of a larger whole, or superorganism. Examples of this include people in the military and sports fans cheering for their favorite team. The reason that we can do this is because people in the past who developed this ability tended to perform better than people that couldn’t. This, as well as the powerful influences of our biology, our upbringing, and our culture individual, makes it difficult for individuals to change their values to be markedly different from the values of those around them.
To sum up Haidt’s thesis, disagreements about religion and politics originate from differences in biology, upbringing, and culture. Once I read The Righteous Mind, it became a lot easier to see people who disagree with me on politics or religion in a positive light. The book helped me realize that most people I’ve met (and probably ever will meet) want the best for everyone and the real disagreements are over how to bring about that goal rather than if that should be the goal or not. It’s hard to see someone in a bad light when you know they want things to go well and why they see their ideas as the best way to make that happen. I think this book has the power to bring a great deal of civility and understanding to difficult conversations, and I’d love to see that happen.
