The Science of Left-Right Morality<\/strong><\/p>\nSo how do conservatives think\u2014and more important still, what do we know scientifically about how they think?<\/p>\n
Perhaps the earliest and most influential thinker into this fray was the Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff, with his classic book Moral Politics and many subsequent works (most recently, this item at Huffington Post). Lakoff\u2019s opening premise is that we all think in metaphors. These are not the kind of thing that English majors study, but rather real, physical circuits in the brain that structure our cognition, and that are strengthened the more they are used. For instance, we learn at a very early age how things go up and things go down, and then we talk about the stock market and individual fortunes \u201crising\u201d and \u201cfalling\u201d\u2014a metaphor.<\/p>\n
For Lakoff, one metaphor in particular is of overriding importance in our politics: The metaphor that uses the family as a model for broader groups in society\u2014from athletic teams to companies to governments. The problem, Lakoff says, is that we have different conceptions of the family, with conservatives embracing a \u201cstrict father\u201d model and liberals embracing a caring, empathetic and \u201cnurturing\u201d version of a parent.<\/p>\n
The strict father family is like a free-market system, and yet also very hierarchical and authoritarian. It\u2019s a harsh world out there and the father (the supreme and always male authority) is tough and will teach the kids to be tough, because there will be no one to protect them once the father is gone. The political implications are obvious. In contrast, the nurturing parent family emphasizes love, care and growth\u2014and, so the argument goes, compassionate government control.<\/p>\n
Lakoff has been extremely influential, but it\u2019s important to also consider other scientific analyses of the moral systems of left and right. Enter the University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, whose new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion has just come out. In his own research, Haidt initially identified five (and more recently, six) separate moral intuitions that appear to make us feel strongly about situations before we\u2019re even consciously aware of thinking about them; that powerfully guide our reasoning; and that differ strikingly from left and right.<\/p>\n
Haidt\u2019s first five intuitions, or \u201cmoral foundations,\u201d are 1) the sense of needing to provide care and protect from harm; 2) the sense of what is just and fair; 3) the sense of loyalty and willingness to sacrifice for a group; 4) the sense of obedience or respect for authority; and 5) the sense of needing to preserve purity or sanctity. And politically, Haidt finds that liberals tend to strongly emphasize the first two moral intuitions (harm and fairness) in their responses to situations and events, but are much weaker on emphasizing the other three (group loyalty, respect for authority, and purity or sanctity). By contrast, Haidt finds that conservatives more than liberals respond to all five moral intuitions.<\/p>\n
Indeed, multiple studies associate conservatism with a greater disgust reflex or sensitivity. In one telling experiment, subjects who were asked to use a hand wipe before answering questions, or to answer them near a hand sanitizer, gave more politically conservative answers. Haidt even told me in our interview that when someone like Rick Santorum talks about wanting to \u201cthrow up,\u201d that may indeed signal a strong disgust sensitivity.<\/p>\n
More recently, Haidt and his colleagues added a sixth moral foundation: \u201cLiberty\/oppression.\u201d Liberals and conservatives alike care about being free from tyranny, from unjust exertions of power, but they seem to apply this impulse differently. Liberals use it (once again) to stand up for the poor, the weak; conservatives use it to support the \u201cdon\u2019t tread on me\u201d fulminating against big government (and global government) of the Tea Party. This, incidentally, creates a key emotional bond between libertarians on the one hand, and religious conservatives on the other.<\/p>\n
Haidt strives to understand the conservative perspective, and to walk a middle path between left and right\u2014but he fully admits in his book that conservative morality is more \u201cparochial.\u201d Conservatives, writes Haidt, are more \u201cconcerned about their groups, rather than all of humanity.\u201d And Haidt further suggests that this is not his own view of what is ethical, writing that \u201cwhen we talk about making laws and implementing public policies in Western democracies that contain some degree of ethnic and moral diversity, then I think there is no compelling alternative to utilitarianism.\u201d It\u2019s hard to see how thinking about the good of the in-group (rather than the good of everyone) could be considered very utilitarian.<\/p>\n
But to my mind, here\u2019s the really telling thing about all of this. When you get right down to it, Lakoff and Haidt seem to be singing harmony with each other. It\u2019s not just that they could both be right\u2014it\u2019s that the large overlap between them strengthens both accounts, especially since the two researchers are coming from different fields and using very different methodologies and terminologies.<\/p>\n
Lakoff\u2019s system overlaps with Haidt\u2019s in multiple places\u2014most obviously when it comes to liberals showing broader empathy and wanting to care for those who are harmed (nurturing parent) and conservatives respecting authority (strict father). But the overlaps are larger still, for the strict father family is also an in-group and quite individualistic\u2014in other words, prizing the conservative version of freedom or liberty.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, both of these systems are also consistent with a third approach that is growing in influence: The cultural cognition theory being advanced by Yale\u2019s Dan Kahan and his colleagues, which divides us morally into \u201chierarchs\u201d and \u201cegalitarians\u201d along one axis, and \u201cindividualists\u201d and \u201ccommunitarians\u201d along another (helpful image here). Conservatives, in this scheme, tend towards the hierarchical and the individualistic; liberals tend toward the egalitarian and the communitarian.<\/p>\n
Throwing Kahan into the mix\u2014and yes, he uses yet another methodology–we once again find great consistency with Lakoff and Haidt. Egalitarians worry about fairness; communitarians about protecting the innocent from harm; hierarchs about authority and the group (and probably sanctity or purity\u2014hierarchs tend toward the religious). Individualists are, basically, exercisers of the conservative version of freedom and liberty.<\/p>\n
Terminology aside, then, Lakoff, Haidt and Kahan seem to have considerably more grounds for agreement with each other than for disagreement, at least when it comes to describing what actually motivates political conservatives and political liberals.<\/p>\n
And in fact, that\u2019s just the beginning of the expert agreement. In all of these schemes, what\u2019s being called \u201cmorality\u201d is emotional and, in significant part, automatic. It\u2019s not about the conscious decisions you make about situations or policies\u2014or at least, not primarily. Rather, the focus is on the unconscious impulses that shape how you think about situations before you\u2019re even aware you\u2019re doing so, and then guide (and bias) your reasoning.<\/p>\n
This leads Lakoff and Haidt to strongly reject what you might call the \u201cEnlightenment model\u201d for thinking about reasoning and persuasion, and leads Kahan to talk about motivated reasoning, rather than rational or objective reasoning. Once again, these thinkers are essentially agreeing that because morality biases us long before consciousness and reasoning set in, factual and logical argument are not at all a good way to get us to change our behavior and how we respond.<\/p>\n
This is also a point I made recently, noting how Republicans become more factually wrong with higher levels of education. Facts clearly don\u2019t change their minds\u2014if anything, they make matters worse! Lakoff, too, emphasizes how refuting a false conservative claim can actually reinforce it. And he doesn\u2019t merely show why the Enlightenment mode of thinking is outdated; he also stresses that liberals are more wedded to it than conservatives, and this irrational rationalism lies at the root of many political failures on the left.<\/p>\n
Getting Through<\/strong><\/p>\nOn the one hand, the apparent consensus among these experts is surely something to rejoice about. Progress is finally being made at understanding the emotional and cognitive roots of the culture war and our political dysfunction alike. But if all of this is really true\u2014if conservatives and liberals have deep seated and automatic moral and emotional differences\u2014then what should we do about it?<\/p>\n
Here, finally, we do find real disagreement among the pros. Lakoff would have liberals combat conservative morality by shouting their own values from the rooftops, and never falling for conservative words and frames. Haidt would increase political civility by remaking our institutions of government to literally make liberals and conservatives feel empathetic bonds and the power of teamwork. And Kahan has done experiments showing that talking about the same issue in different value laden \u201cframes\u201d leads to different outcomes. For instance, if you discuss dealing with global warming in an individualistic frame\u2014by emphasizing the importance of free market approaches like nuclear power\u2014then you open conservative minds, at least to an extent. We\u2019ve got data on that.<\/p>\n
It shouldn\u2019t be surprising that the experts become dissonant as they move from merely describing conservative morality to outlining strategy. After all, there\u2019s a heck of a lot more uncertainty involved when you start to prescribe courses of action aimed at achieving particular outcomes. Understanding conservatives in controlled experiments is one thing; trying to outline a communications strategy with Fox News around, ready to pounce, is another matter.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, here\u2019s what I\u2019ve been able to extract.<\/p>\n
Clearly, you shouldn\u2019t try to persuade your ideological opponents by citing threatening facts. Rather, if your goal is an honest give-and-take, you should demonstrate the existence of common ground and shared values before broaching anything controversial, and you should interact calmly and interpersonally. To throw emotion into the mix is to stoke automatic, moralistic, indignant responses.<\/p>\n
Such are some scientific tips about trying to communicate and persuade–but liberals should not get overoptimistic about the idea of convincing conservatives to change their beliefs, much less their moral responses. There are far too many factors arrayed against this possibility at present\u2014not just the deeply rooted and instinctive nature of moral intuitions, but our current political polarization, by parties and also by information channels.<\/p>\n
You can\u2019t have a calm, unemotional conversation when everything is framed as a battle, as it currently is. Our warfare over reality, and for control of the country, is just too intense. And in a \u201cwartime\u201d situation, conservative have their in-group preferences to naturally fall back on.<\/p>\n
But if we merge together Lakoff and Haidt, then I think we do end up with some good advice for liberals who want to advance their own view of what is moral. On the one hand, they should righteously advance their own values, not conservative ones. But they should remain fully aware that these values are somewhat limited since, as Haidt shows, conservatives seem to have a broader moral palette.<\/p>\n
To reach the political middle, then, it certainly wouldn\u2019t hurt to demonstrate much more loyalty than liberals are used to emphasizing, and to show respect for authority as well\u2014which doesn\u2019t come so naturally to us. What authority should we respect? I suggest either the authority of president, or perhaps better yet, the authority of the Founding Fathers. Let\u2019s face it: Conservatives have insulted, defiled, and disobeyed the secular, rational, and Enlightenment legacy of the people who founded this country (if you want to get moralistic about it).<\/p>\n
When it comes to loyalty and unity in particular, liberals could stand to look in the mirror and try to be more\u2026conservative. Not in their substantive policy views, but in their ability to act as a team with one purpose and one goal that cannot be compromised or weakened. Diversity is great for our society\u2014but not for our objectives. And that means we have something to learn from conservatives: They may not know how to make America better, but they certainly know how to take a strong, united and moralistic stand in order to get what they want.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s an example that liberals could do worse than to follow. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Article: How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives by Chris Mooney in his upcoming book ‘The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science\u2014and Reality’. The Text: If you\u2019re a liberal or a progressive these days, you could be forgiven for being baffled and frustrated by conservatives. Their views […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
How The 'Right' Brain Works<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n