The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

This is an unusually difficult review for me to write, because I have somewhat mixed feelings about this book. I wanted to love it; and I actually did end up loving it a whole lot, but not quite as much as I was hoping to for some reason. I'm a political scientist with a background in sociology and a strong interest in psychology; so, as you might imagine, I've always had a fascination with social psychology in general and political psychology in particular. I haven't yet had the opportunity to teach a course on political psychology; but I've wanted to for some time now. I devour everything I can get my hands on that deals with the underlying psychology of political affiliation, political decision making, and political violence. In the course of my study of the subject I have encountered the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt on several occasions (if you search online you can find videos of him giving talks on his subject of expertise; and he also has a website -- YourMorals.org -- that deals with his work); and I've been intrigued and impressed with his unique approach to understanding political affiliation, as well as with his calls for greater civility and a willingness to compromise in the political arena. So, when I saw that he had written a book on political psychology, I simply had to read it. I began reading with very high hopes. Not only was I expecting this book to unlock the mysteries of why some people are "conservative" and others are "liberal"; but I was also hoping that this would be the ideal text to assign my students if I ever taught a course on political psychology. Haidt's book lived up to my hopes and expectations in some ways, but not in others. I would definitely recommend it to political psychology students; but I'm not sure that I would want to use it as the primary text for teaching the subject.I really did love this book; but as I was reading it I kept getting the nagging feeling that something about it was just a bit off -- something that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Now I don't want to leave the wrong impression; so I want to say up front that this is a wonderful, well-written, thought-provoking book that everyone ought to read. I've given it five stars because I genuinely believe it's worthy of the highest possible rating. Haidt's theory of political affiliation is original -- one might even say radical -- flying in the face of much of the conventional wisdom within the social and behavioral sciences; but if you are willing to consider Haidt's argument with an open mind, it actually makes a whole lot of sense. So, when I say that something about this book felt a bit off to me, please don't interpret this as a criticism of Haidt's theory, his approach to the subject, or his writing style. This is a book that you really ought to read, and that you will probably enjoy. That said, I still felt slightly dissatisfied after reading it; but it was hard to say exactly why.After some reflection, I think that my dissatisfaction was due to three things. First, I felt that Haidt's argument was a bit anticlimactic. Haidt spends most of the book laying the foundations for his theory of political affiliation; and the theory he finally presents is, at least in my view, quite compelling. But, after all that setup, I was expecting more of a discussion of how this theory can be applied to help us understand why different people hold such radically differing views on such a wide range of political issues. But Haidt skimped on the application of his theory. The main insight that Haidt gives us into why some people are liberal while others are conservative or libertarian is that a combination of nature and nurture has predisposed some people to build their morality primarily on just three core principles -- care, liberty, and fairness -- while predisposing other people to build their morality on six principles -- care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity -- and still others to build their morality on a single principle -- liberty. As I'm sure you've guessed, those in the first group become liberals, those in the second group become conservatives, and those in the third group become libertarians. This is certainly an important insight; but I was hoping for more. For example, I wish Haidt had given us a bit more insight into how the three liberal values shape liberal policy positions, how the six conservative values shape conservative policy positions, and how the lone libertarian value shapes libertarian policy positions. He did briefly discuss some of the differences between liberal, conservative, and libertarian views of the economy; but he didn't really have all that much to say about the myriad other policy issues that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians routinely fight over -- e.g. abortion, equal pay, gay marriage, affirmative action, collective bargaining, voter access, immigration reform, taxes, entitlements, gun control, civil liberties, criminal justice, drug laws, military spending, the conduct of foreign policy, the appropriate use of military force, etc. Haidt's theory does provide a framework that can help us to understand why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians might take different positions on these issues; but he doesn't spell it out for us issue by issue. I really wish he had. I think it would have been very useful, and would have made his excellent book even better.Second, while I admired his efforts to treat liberals, conservatives, and libertarians with equal respect, and not to treat conservatism as if it were some sort of mental disorder (as many political psychologists are wont to do), I ultimately felt that he went a little too far in his efforts to be "fair and balanced", and ended up glossing over some of the biggest moral failings on the right (e.g. sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, jingoism, xenophobia, demagoguery, anti-intellectualism, and science denialism) in the interest of portraying conservative values as being just as legitimate as liberal values. Besides, the conservatism that Haidt found worthy of praise was old-fashioned Tory conservatism -- a cautious, genteel, intellectual form of conservatism based on the ideals of serious thinkers like Edmund Burke, who mainly just wanted to preserve society against the sort of chaos that often accompanies radical change -- which bears little resemblance to the "red meat" conservatism that prevails on the American right today. So, when Haidt advises us to pay attention to what conservatives have to teach us about what it takes to maintain a healthy, functioning society, he's really talking about old-school conservative intellectuals of the center-right, like George Will and Colin Powell, not the dogmatic culture warriors of the far-right, like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. In fact, Haidt has relatively little to say about the conservatism represented by the evangelical Religious Right or the Tea Party movement, where ideological zeal often manifests itself as an ugly form of demagoguery. It's almost as if he wants to sweep this under the rug so he can sell the idea that mutually respectful civil discourse and bipartisanship are actually possible in this day and age. I think this book would have been better if Haidt had stuck to trying to explain partisanship rather than trying to find a cure for it.And third, although I found Haidt's argument quite compelling, there are certain aspects of it that might alienate some readers, causing them to simply reject Haidt's conclusions out of hand without much critical thought. The last thing I would ever want to do in a classroom is to alienate any of my students so they stop listening to what I have to teach. So I'm more than a little reluctant to assign a highly controversial text that many students will likely have a knee-jerk reaction against. Why might this book be controversial? For one thing, Haidt's theory draws heavily on evolutionary psychology, which is rejected by many on both the right and the left. Many progressives decry evolutionary psychology as "politically incorrect" because it argues that much of human behavior -- including such things as gender differences, xenophobia, and aggression -- may be innate parts of human nature that can never be changed by social engineering. Many conservatives, on the other hand, reject evolutionary psychology because they don't believe in Darwinian evolution at all. So Haidt's use of evolutionary psychology may be enough to cause some readers to reject his argument outright. In addition to this, he bases much of his argument on the evolutionary principle of "group selection" -- a theory that has been pretty firmly rejected by biologists for several decades now, but which Haidt argues ought to be reconsidered. But perhaps the most controversial part of Haidt's argument is his treatment of religion. Haidt himself is an atheist; so he makes no pretense of actually believing that any religion is "true". He looks at religion purely from a psychological and sociological perspective in an attempt to figure out what function religion has played in human society throughout history. Yet he forcefully rejects the anti-religious fervor of the so-called "New Atheism" popularized over the past decade by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, among others, with its assertion that religion is a dangerous "meme" -- a "virus of the mind" -- that is inherently harmful to human wellbeing. Haidt devotes an entire chapter to refuting the New Atheists' claims about religion, arguing that religion has actually been a force for good in the world which serves to strengthen social bonds and discourage individual selfishness, and that religion is actually a product of natural selection. So, his treatment of religion is unlikely to win Haidt any friends from among either the devoutly religious or the fervently irreligious. And, on top of all this, Haidt defends conservative values that many liberals find abhorrent, arguing that they are just as vital to the wellbeing of society as are liberal values. So, suffice it to say that this iconoclastic book is liable to alienate many different people for many different reasons. Haidt butchers a lot of sacred cows in these pages. So, I suspect that plenty of folks will simply reject everything that he has to say out of hand. While I am an advocate of open-minded critical inquiry, I'm also a pragmatist. I know that many of my students are not going to be as open-minded as I would like them to be; so, as an educator, I have to be sensitive to this if I want to help them learn. A little controversy in the classroom can be healthy; but too much can derail the entire lesson plan. I wouldn't want the class to get sidetracked by debates over tangential issues that are not directly relevant to the subject I'm trying to teach. So, if I were to teach a course on political psychology, I would be a bit hesitant to use this book as the main text for fear that students would get too distracted by some of its more controversial elements. However, I would consider using this book as a supplemental text, and would definitely put it on the recommended readings list.Anyway, these three problems are relatively minor, and do not detract from the overall quality of the book. They simply leave me ever-so-slightly dissatisfied, perhaps because my expectations were unreasonably high. I would certainly recommend Haidt's book. I really do feel that it deserves to be read and talked about. There's no doubt in my mind that it deserves a five-star rating. But I'm afraid that the five stars I give it will have to come with an asterisk.

What's in your head, zombie?Hey, hey, hey. What's in your head,In your head,Zombie, zombie, zombie?-- The Cranberries"Righteous Mind" is my second book by Haidt. Both books I place in a short stack of books that when I was finished with them, my life actually seemed different. After Happiness Hypothesis, it was changed for the better. After "Righteous Mind," it seemed to have taken me down a peg or two. But, that's OK, it was still a great read."Righteous Mind" is sort of a "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" meets politics. For those not familiar with "Mistakes Were Made," it is a book that shows how insanely easy it is to manipulate people, along with the fact that most people always think they are right. If anything goes wrong, most people start pointing fingers, because if everyone thinks they are perfect, how could they be the ones that made the mistake?Just how easy is it to manipulate people? Just releasing a good smell or a bad smell before interacting with people can heavily influence the way the interaction will go. If it is a good smell, the interaction will be more positive. If it is a bad smell, the interaction will lean negative. Or, you could have the best business plan in the world, and blow an important meeting to discuss it, because you shook hands wrong ("The Charisma Myth," by Olivia Fox Cabane)."Righteous Mind" builds a great case that there are certain foundations that appeal to the majority of people. We will say that there are five to six of these areas. Haidt claims that Democrats only focus on two to three of these areas, while Republicans focus on five to six of these foundations. In that respect, Republicans have a broader appeal than Democrats, because they cater to more "tastes."Haidt also shows how, not only do Democrats have this narrow focus, but that they are so opposed to the expanded foundations, there is no chance of compromise. So there really is no chance of unity between the two parties or America; nor is there any real chance for Democrats to expand their core base of supporters.I've often tossed around the notion that some books are so important that they should be used as textbooks in high schools. Outside of a few gross examples used for their moral shock value, this book really should be read by students in every school in America.For one, it is a great counter-argument for books such as Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene." It also shows, with research to back it up, how something can be beneficial to groups of people, even though *you* don't really understand it or that it may go against "science." In fact, I think Haidt understands a lot more about religion than a lot of religious people. If you read between the lines, I thought he came close to making one of the best arguments for intelligent design that I think I have ever read, and it was written by a self-described liberal atheist.With all that said, I think Haidt totally missed one thing. While he shows that people that know moral ethics are no more moral than anyone else, what would have really made the book more interesting to me is if he took a page from Martha Stout's, "The Sociopath Next Door." What if sociopaths are using the foundations Haidt speaks of, simply to manipulate people?I'm going to quote Deepak Chopra:-=-=One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over religious beliefs, and then go on to lead similar lives. Niche's famous remark that God is dead, should be changed to God is optional. If the government kept round the clock surveillance on those who felt they were abiding by divine law, and those who never gave a thought to living by God's rule book, I imagine that sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, would look exactly the same. If anything, the balance of intolerance and lovelessness would probably tilt to the most loudly religious people in any society.-=-=I'm going to alter the quote slightly, for the way I would imagine it if it were written for "Righteous Mind":-=-=One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over political beliefs. Niche's famous remark that God is dead, should be changed to God is useful to manipulate people. If the people kept round the clock surveillance on Republicans, who felt they were abiding ethically, and Democrats who never gave a thought to living by ethics, I imagine that sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, would look exactly the same.-=-=I think Haidt totally misses another reason there can be no compromise between Republicans and Democrats. Yes, Republicans do appeal to a broader range of "tastes" than Democrats, but that they do so simply to get votes.Yes, the same does go for Democrats, as well, but their narrowed scope lowers the hypocrisy meter a tad. While the two parties have consistently moved the country in the same direction, one of them continually harps on the fact that they are more moral. Consistently, the words coming out of the Republican party's mouths said they would do something different, yet they failed to do so, time after time.On some level, Haidt was cynical, but on another level, he takes politics at their face value. Perhaps he was afraid of what he would find if he dug too deep?Anyway, as Deepak says, "One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over religious beliefs, and then go on to lead similar lives." It's really kind of sad that no matter how similar we are, we divide over things that lie mostly between our ears. They don't come into play in the real world that often, and rarely really even affect us as we go about our day to day business.The sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, are all pretty much the same, yet we all seek out our hive of clones, because that is what makes us comfortable.On some level, I think Haidt is right on the money. But on some level, it makes me sad that simple thoughts bouncing around in our heads can so easily divide us, sometimes even violently. After all, considering how easy it is for a sociopath to manipulate people, wouldn't it be bad if someone were dividing us on purpose by putting thoughts into our heads to do just that?What's in your head, zombie?