The Difference Between Us and Them
I have always been curious about why people believe the things they do, particularly with respect to morality. My own views seemed to spring, almost fully formed, from the natural impulses of my soul at a pretty young age (12). Struggles for equality always resonated with me; I was instinctively against capital punishment, war, racism, greed, and oppression. Why did this come to be so? (Many people have asked, including my parents, who share none of this).
It also has struck me that many people hold views on different issues in sets, or bundles, that are consistent with those of the political party or ideology to which they subscribe. But what makes those sets or bundles of views internally coherent? Why isn’t it the case that people form views of different issues that fall on both sides of the spectrum? (I.e., are against labor unions but in favor of affirmative action, or are in favor of animal rights and against environmental regulation).
These questions puzzled me until I read George Lakoff’s 1996 book Moral Politics. Lakoff explained the basic worldviews behind conservative and progressive politics in an utterly coherent and persuasive way. (Some of you may know of Lakoff as a political advisor and progressive luminary -- try to ignore that. The book stands on its own). More recently, Rabbi Michael Lerner has echoed the same basic principles in his new book The Left Hand of God. Here’s what Lerner says: “[Left] means looking at the universe through the perception that love, kindness, generosity and caring for others are the central ontological realities of life, and that when they do not manifest in the world in which we live, the world is distorted and needs to be healed. [Right], conversely, means looking at the universe through the perception that life is a struggle of all against all, and that the only path to security is through domination of others.”
Lakoff’s unique riff on these basic ideas is that people view government in a way similar to the way in which they view the family. Thus, the models or concepts of how children should be raised that resonate with you bear on your policy preferences regarding how government should relate to its citizens. Lakoff calls the two moral systems “Strict Father Morality” and “Nurturant Parent Morality.” I will closely paraphrase him in my descriptions of them. But first it is important to note that most people do not have internally coherent worldviews, so one could conceivably use one model in her own family but another in viewing politics or, more likely, mix both in both spheres. In addition, many people do not subscribe 100% to one or the other worldview, but are susceptible to being influenced by both. I’m sure that many people struggle with Strict Father impulses but really aspire to be Nurturant Parents.
Strict Father morality presupposes that people operate based on rewards and punishments, and that if left to their own devices, people satisfy their desires rather than being responsible. Punishment and reward are lionized as the way to make children become good people. The exercise of authority, accomplished primarily through physical punishment, is moral because it teaches children to be self-disciplined. If children are not taught to become self-disciplined, they will not be able to survive in a difficult world.
Competition is central to Strict Father Morality because survival is thought of as a matter of competing successfully. Thus, competition itself is moral, and anything that undermines competition is immoral, because without competition, there is no source of reward for self-discipline. Through competition we discover who is moral, i.e. sufficiently self-disciplined to be “successful.”
The concept of moral authority in the community is patterned after the concept of moral authority in the family, i.e., citizens are subject to authority and are expected to be obedient. Those in authority are charged with setting standards or rules and enforcing them.
The most central piece of the Strict Father worldview, though, is the idea that the Moral Order is the Natural Order (what used to the called the Great Chain of Being). In this view, God has power/moral authority over people; people have power/moral authority over animals; adults have power/moral authority over children; men have power/moral authority over women. This way of thinking presupposes that certain classes of existing power relations are natural, and therefore moral. If whites are more powerful than blacks, for example, then whites must have moral authority over blacks (e.g., white man’s burden). A less controversial example: Since the rich are more powerful than the poor, then the rich must have moral authority over the poor. The myth of the American Dream flows from this notion: everyone has the opportunity to become successful. Therefore, if you don’t, you either haven’t worked hard enough or you aren’t talented enough. Either way, you are lower in the moral order and therefore the rich have moral authority over you. Hierarchy and dominance, in the Strict Father worldview, are necessary and moral.
This is a harsh, uncompassionate, and pessimistic way to view the world. It has always struck me as profoundly wrong and deeply immoral.
Nurturant Parent morality holds that “primal experience is being cared for and cared about, having one’s desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from mutual interaction and care.” Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected, and through caring for others. The obedience of children comes out of their love and respect for their parents, not out of the fear of punishment. Open, two-way, mutually respectful communication is crucial.
The principal goal of nurturance is for children to be fulfilled and happy in their lives and to become nurturant themselves. What children need to learn most is empathy for others, the capacity for nurturance, cooperation, and the maintenance of social ties, which cannot be done without the strength, respect, self-discipline and self-reliance that comes through being cared for and caring.
This model does not assume that people primarily learn through reward and punishment. Instead, it assumes that people learn by positive example and through positive experiences. In this view, people are interdependent, a nonhierarchical relationship. Hierarchical relationships should therefore be minimized, and legitimate authority comes from the ability to nurture rather than out of dominance. In the Nurturant Parent model, morality is empathy, being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and wanting that person to have a sense of well-being. Morality is also social nurturance (helping people who need help), self-nurturance (taking care of your own basic needs so that you can properly nurture others), and happiness (because unhappy people are less likely to be able to nurture others).
These are greatly simplified summaries of Lakoff’s theory, of course. I don’t even have space to get into the best part of his analysis, which is how each of these systems of thought lead to the conservative and progressive positions on various policy issues. The whole time I was reading, I was like, of course, why hadn’t I thought of this before? But it also scared me, because there is little to reconcile between the two views of the world.
Overall, though, with fits and starts and periods of partial regression following periods of progress, I believe that the world has been evolving away from Strict Father morality and toward Nurturant Parent morality for some time, and that we will continue to sweep more and more of the tenets of Strict Father morality into the dustbin of history as time goes on. And why not? Strict Father morality is gloomy, negative, and joyless, not to mention antidemocratic. Nurturant Parent morality is much more likely to create a world in which people are happy and spiritually fulfilled. And that’s the kind of world that I want to live in.
It also has struck me that many people hold views on different issues in sets, or bundles, that are consistent with those of the political party or ideology to which they subscribe. But what makes those sets or bundles of views internally coherent? Why isn’t it the case that people form views of different issues that fall on both sides of the spectrum? (I.e., are against labor unions but in favor of affirmative action, or are in favor of animal rights and against environmental regulation).
These questions puzzled me until I read George Lakoff’s 1996 book Moral Politics. Lakoff explained the basic worldviews behind conservative and progressive politics in an utterly coherent and persuasive way. (Some of you may know of Lakoff as a political advisor and progressive luminary -- try to ignore that. The book stands on its own). More recently, Rabbi Michael Lerner has echoed the same basic principles in his new book The Left Hand of God. Here’s what Lerner says: “[Left] means looking at the universe through the perception that love, kindness, generosity and caring for others are the central ontological realities of life, and that when they do not manifest in the world in which we live, the world is distorted and needs to be healed. [Right], conversely, means looking at the universe through the perception that life is a struggle of all against all, and that the only path to security is through domination of others.”
Lakoff’s unique riff on these basic ideas is that people view government in a way similar to the way in which they view the family. Thus, the models or concepts of how children should be raised that resonate with you bear on your policy preferences regarding how government should relate to its citizens. Lakoff calls the two moral systems “Strict Father Morality” and “Nurturant Parent Morality.” I will closely paraphrase him in my descriptions of them. But first it is important to note that most people do not have internally coherent worldviews, so one could conceivably use one model in her own family but another in viewing politics or, more likely, mix both in both spheres. In addition, many people do not subscribe 100% to one or the other worldview, but are susceptible to being influenced by both. I’m sure that many people struggle with Strict Father impulses but really aspire to be Nurturant Parents.
Strict Father morality presupposes that people operate based on rewards and punishments, and that if left to their own devices, people satisfy their desires rather than being responsible. Punishment and reward are lionized as the way to make children become good people. The exercise of authority, accomplished primarily through physical punishment, is moral because it teaches children to be self-disciplined. If children are not taught to become self-disciplined, they will not be able to survive in a difficult world.
Competition is central to Strict Father Morality because survival is thought of as a matter of competing successfully. Thus, competition itself is moral, and anything that undermines competition is immoral, because without competition, there is no source of reward for self-discipline. Through competition we discover who is moral, i.e. sufficiently self-disciplined to be “successful.”
The concept of moral authority in the community is patterned after the concept of moral authority in the family, i.e., citizens are subject to authority and are expected to be obedient. Those in authority are charged with setting standards or rules and enforcing them.
The most central piece of the Strict Father worldview, though, is the idea that the Moral Order is the Natural Order (what used to the called the Great Chain of Being). In this view, God has power/moral authority over people; people have power/moral authority over animals; adults have power/moral authority over children; men have power/moral authority over women. This way of thinking presupposes that certain classes of existing power relations are natural, and therefore moral. If whites are more powerful than blacks, for example, then whites must have moral authority over blacks (e.g., white man’s burden). A less controversial example: Since the rich are more powerful than the poor, then the rich must have moral authority over the poor. The myth of the American Dream flows from this notion: everyone has the opportunity to become successful. Therefore, if you don’t, you either haven’t worked hard enough or you aren’t talented enough. Either way, you are lower in the moral order and therefore the rich have moral authority over you. Hierarchy and dominance, in the Strict Father worldview, are necessary and moral.
This is a harsh, uncompassionate, and pessimistic way to view the world. It has always struck me as profoundly wrong and deeply immoral.
Nurturant Parent morality holds that “primal experience is being cared for and cared about, having one’s desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from mutual interaction and care.” Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected, and through caring for others. The obedience of children comes out of their love and respect for their parents, not out of the fear of punishment. Open, two-way, mutually respectful communication is crucial.
The principal goal of nurturance is for children to be fulfilled and happy in their lives and to become nurturant themselves. What children need to learn most is empathy for others, the capacity for nurturance, cooperation, and the maintenance of social ties, which cannot be done without the strength, respect, self-discipline and self-reliance that comes through being cared for and caring.
This model does not assume that people primarily learn through reward and punishment. Instead, it assumes that people learn by positive example and through positive experiences. In this view, people are interdependent, a nonhierarchical relationship. Hierarchical relationships should therefore be minimized, and legitimate authority comes from the ability to nurture rather than out of dominance. In the Nurturant Parent model, morality is empathy, being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and wanting that person to have a sense of well-being. Morality is also social nurturance (helping people who need help), self-nurturance (taking care of your own basic needs so that you can properly nurture others), and happiness (because unhappy people are less likely to be able to nurture others).
These are greatly simplified summaries of Lakoff’s theory, of course. I don’t even have space to get into the best part of his analysis, which is how each of these systems of thought lead to the conservative and progressive positions on various policy issues. The whole time I was reading, I was like, of course, why hadn’t I thought of this before? But it also scared me, because there is little to reconcile between the two views of the world.
Overall, though, with fits and starts and periods of partial regression following periods of progress, I believe that the world has been evolving away from Strict Father morality and toward Nurturant Parent morality for some time, and that we will continue to sweep more and more of the tenets of Strict Father morality into the dustbin of history as time goes on. And why not? Strict Father morality is gloomy, negative, and joyless, not to mention antidemocratic. Nurturant Parent morality is much more likely to create a world in which people are happy and spiritually fulfilled. And that’s the kind of world that I want to live in.
posted by Sandi | 7:56 AM
5 Comments:
Whit, I was just speaking to Duane (who refuses to comment for some reason) about the type of thing you mention in your last paragraph.
Maybe I'm way off, but is it not a bit presumptuous to identify a political ideology (or even more a political party) with one model or the other?
I say Lakoff (and then Sandi) boil down the theoretical ideology of each pretty well. But political rhetoric seems to provide ample examples of the loss of balance Joe and Whitney mention.
What's with the throwdown from the absent Sports columnist? I did not really have time to do a very well-thought-out comment yet, and still do not, but I would agree that there are very few people who would fit the extremes on either side.
There, DeJon, now comment on my post. :)
One of the things I've found helpful in deconstructing the bad kind of walls we build between ourselves is self-deprecation - hopefully a semi-fun demonstration of humility.
I practice this mostly in the religious realm, and I've found that the ability to poke fun at our warts disarms people. To wit: Well if you aren't claiming to be perfect after all, then I guess I don't have to outdo you either.
I find this refreshing and helpful.
It happens so much less in politics for some reason.
If we really don't fit neatly into "right" and "left" stereotypes, then it would make sense to me for all of us to be willing to point out those things and find out that we have similarities with the other side. But we rarely do that.
I think its mostly because politics is about power, and humility and power don't cooperate very well. But it "can" work in religion if you take the approach Jesus offers. (But not if you link religion w/the pursuit of power.)
Now what did Sandi write about? (Sorry Sandi, I'm not helping here!)
:-)
I think the fact that many self-proclaimed conservatives do not openly subscribe to the strict-father worldview is a huge mark of progress. :)
Joe, I think that the idea of "natural consequences," at least as regards how children learn, is not at all at odds with being a nurturant parent. The strict father view (and it is important to remember not to take these too literally, since they are conceptual frameworks rather than descriptive of the conscious views of particular individuals) holds that children must have consequences, primarily of the physical-punishment variety, imposed on them in order to become good citizens. That is not a natural consequence. So there's a distinction there.
When I said I thought the world was moving in the direction of being more nurturant parent, I was talking about the broadest patterns of western history, and meant that there had been improvement, not that we were anywhere near consensus on these things. In other words, fewer people believe fewer aspects of the strict father worldview than was the case 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago. This is a good thing.
Believing that people learn primarily in positive ways rather than negative ways in no way entails making the argument that every human flaw or shortcoming can be overcome by love. But a lot of them can.
Great comments, everyone. I knew that these ideas would get people talking!
P.S. I deliberately used the words "us" and "them" to be provocative. (I thought of putting them in quotation marks, but decided not to). And also because I couldn't think of a good title for this post. I'm not great with titles.
Post a Comment
<< Home