This is a nice overview of the work in moral social-psychology embraced by the
RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce). Smells a bit like Spiral Dynamics in some places - it's also heavily reliant on Jonathan Haidt's recent work, which poses problems for me due to Haidt's conservative bias (which he denies, and thus the problem).
Not long ago, I described 3 particular ‘meta concepts’ that are present or emerging in the RSA’s work. These were:
(i) Mental complexity and adult development – the notion
that there exists a ‘hidden curriculum’ of mental tasks in life that
require a certain level of mental complexity in order to navigate
effectively. Central to this concept is the importance of how we know, not just what we know, and of taking things as object that were once subject.
(ii) Cultural theory – the notion
that there are, to varying extents, four dominant cultures at play in
the world: egalitarianism, hierarchicalism, individualism and fatalism.
Proponents of this theory argue that efforts to tackle major challenges
usually need to embrace and draw upon a mixture of all of these (except
fatalism). This is particularly true of ‘wicked’ problems, which unlike
‘tame’ ones cannot be addressed through ‘elegant’ but blunt solutions
e.g. using only hierarchical sanctions to combat crime or individualist
incentives to overcome climate change.
(iii) Values modes – the notion
that most people fall into 3 predominant value groups: settlers,
prospectors and pioneers. Which type best defines you depends upon the
extent to which you are ‘inner directed’ or ‘outer directed’. The lesson
for policymakers is that policies and political messages need to be
tailored to fit each group, otherwise efforts at changing behaviour may
prove fruitless.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post, the reason why I’m trying to
identify these broader concepts is because they help us to make sense of
the world, acting in a way as umbrellas for all the other minor lessons
and rules that seek to guide our day-to-day actions. To put it another
way, the likes of cultural theory, mental complexity and values modes
offer maps of life’s terrain, whereas tit bits of information and the
latest research insights only give a narrow set of directions to where
we want to go, some of which often appear to contradict the paths laid
out by others.
Since posting that blog, I had a chance to read Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Righteous Mind. This, I believe, may act as a contender for a 4th
spot in the guidebook of meta concepts. Haidt’s book is an
extraordinarily rich account of the origins of moral psychology and a
revealing exploration of how the different states of our moral minds are
able to shape group behaviour and drive divisions in political and
religious communities.
Trying to distil the book’s contents into a single line or two is an
impossible task, but his central thesis can be broadly understand as
follows: there exist in the world a variety of intrinsically-borne
‘moral matrices’ that have helped to bind people into successful groups,
but which have also left us divided on lots of different issues. When
Haidt talks about ‘moral matrices’, he is referring to the different
assortment of ‘moral foundations’ – what might be colloquially termed as
morals or values – that each individual or group has. To put it in
simpler terms, Haidt draws parallels between moral foundations and taste
receptors; just as everybody has different preferences of flavours, so
too do they have their own distinctive moral palates.
Moral Foundations Theory,
as it is formally known, identifies 6 particular moral foundations that
make up our moral matrices, some of which are more prevalent than
others. Each of these are summarised in the table below.
Drawing upon the data gathered on his research website YourMorals.org,
Haidt argues that liberals tend to have moral matrices that are built
with only 3 of the Foundations – Care, Fairness and Liberty – whereas
conservatives have moral matrices that rest upon all 6. As a result of
the sheer breadth of their moral palates, the messages and policies of
conservatives are more likely to resonate with a wider segment of the
population than are those of liberals (or liberatarians).
The Righteous Mind goes on to
explore many issues in depth, but the Moral Foundations Theory alone is
likely to have sizeable implications for the way in which we seek to
pursue political, social and economic progress. We are already seeing,
for instance, how the left are attempting to tap into people’s Fairness
foundation receptors (a sensitivity for proportionality, not just
equality). Think Labour’s recent internal debate about introducing
conditionality within the welfare state. Conversely, witness how Mitt
Romney’s speech to the GOP convention was littered with phrases that
were intended to prompt people’s Care foundation (it will be interesting
to see what comes out when Obama gives his own speech in a week or so’s
time).
I imagine the Moral Foundations Theory could
also be a useful resource beyond the world of political messaging and
grand policy-making. For example, could it tell us anything about how to
make behaviour change initiatives more effective? Or about how teaching
methods could better support children with different moral dispositions?
No comments:
Post a Comment