Haidt (and Shermer's) Five Moral Dimensions of Politics
At TAM7 this year I heard a talk from Michael Shermer about tribalism, politics, and group dynamics. I enjoyed some of it but I started having problems about halfway through. The first problem came with this familiar diagram, which I've seen many times but never noticed something till now:
He asked folks to raise their hands: who self-identified as being on the liberal side (lots), who self-identified as being conservative (four). Then he asked who puts themselves at the top as a libertarian (lots). I waited for him to ask who was at the bottom, but he didn't. Why? Because with the political space represented that way it's a silly question. The diagram is a graphical push-poll. Nobody's going to raise their hand and say "yes, I love powerful authorities who tell me what to do", and that's before you orient the libertarians higher than either side, standing with the statue of liberty with swastikas at the bottom. Some people actually do love authority but you're never going to get them to admit it with that diagram. The next time someone shows something like that to me I'm going to see whether it's because they're trying to railroad me into declaring a libertarian affinity.
Then he brought up some work by psychologist Jonathan Haidt which I liked quite a bit more. Haidt divided politics into the five fundamental moral values: care (for others), fairness (reciprocity/justice), loyalty (to your family/group/nation), respect (for tradition/authority), and purity (avoiding disgusting foods and actions). Across cultures, liberals tend to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Conservatives value loyalty, respect, and purity higher. Everyone values care but conservatives valued fairness lowest and liberals value purity lowest.
Shermer said (if I remember correctly) that our political and social system is not left/right but a series of pragmatic value judgments about these dimensions' relative importance. There's a balance in a liberal/conservative system. Liberals' freewheeling freedom and altruism ("question authority, celebrate diversity, keep your laws off my body, help the weak and oppressed") and Conservatives' societal cohesion ("follow the rules, look out for your own, don't spoil a good thing, don't rock the boat"). Liberals want change and justice even at the risk of chaos. Conservatives want institutions and order even at the cost of those at the bottom. And both forces are important. You need people inside your group making sure things are free and fair, and you need people "on walls guarded by men with guns". Both sides are important.
Unfortunately I never got the chance to ask my question: does this square with the way that conservatives represent themselves? The conservative Republican party line is that they value personal freedom and liberty while it's the Democrats who want to set up big institutions to tell you how to run your life. Haidt's study seems to indicate the opposite which I thought I'd been noticing for some time - in practice liberals seem to be far more into the personal freedoms. (Eat what you want, smoke what you want, love who you want, worship who you want - or don't.) The rules and institutions they *do* embrace are to prevent harm and promote fairness - the United Nations, the Kyoto Protocol, CAFE standards, national health care. Conservatives support personal freedom as well - to join the army, to attend a christian church every Sunday, to love one opposite-sex partner in the conventional way. Conservatives seem a lot more concerned about collapse (of the family, of traditions, of society, of American military power, of currency sovereignty) with the implication that things are going to crap. Liberals see these changes far less negatively - getting rid of outdated ideas and baggage. Which seems to describe what I've been noticing since 2000 as I've moved from conservative to liberal - I'm far more drawn to the first two dimensions than the last three.
He asked folks to raise their hands: who self-identified as being on the liberal side (lots), who self-identified as being conservative (four). Then he asked who puts themselves at the top as a libertarian (lots). I waited for him to ask who was at the bottom, but he didn't. Why? Because with the political space represented that way it's a silly question. The diagram is a graphical push-poll. Nobody's going to raise their hand and say "yes, I love powerful authorities who tell me what to do", and that's before you orient the libertarians higher than either side, standing with the statue of liberty with swastikas at the bottom. Some people actually do love authority but you're never going to get them to admit it with that diagram. The next time someone shows something like that to me I'm going to see whether it's because they're trying to railroad me into declaring a libertarian affinity.
Then he brought up some work by psychologist Jonathan Haidt which I liked quite a bit more. Haidt divided politics into the five fundamental moral values: care (for others), fairness (reciprocity/justice), loyalty (to your family/group/nation), respect (for tradition/authority), and purity (avoiding disgusting foods and actions). Across cultures, liberals tend to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Conservatives value loyalty, respect, and purity higher. Everyone values care but conservatives valued fairness lowest and liberals value purity lowest.
Shermer said (if I remember correctly) that our political and social system is not left/right but a series of pragmatic value judgments about these dimensions' relative importance. There's a balance in a liberal/conservative system. Liberals' freewheeling freedom and altruism ("question authority, celebrate diversity, keep your laws off my body, help the weak and oppressed") and Conservatives' societal cohesion ("follow the rules, look out for your own, don't spoil a good thing, don't rock the boat"). Liberals want change and justice even at the risk of chaos. Conservatives want institutions and order even at the cost of those at the bottom. And both forces are important. You need people inside your group making sure things are free and fair, and you need people "on walls guarded by men with guns". Both sides are important.
Unfortunately I never got the chance to ask my question: does this square with the way that conservatives represent themselves? The conservative Republican party line is that they value personal freedom and liberty while it's the Democrats who want to set up big institutions to tell you how to run your life. Haidt's study seems to indicate the opposite which I thought I'd been noticing for some time - in practice liberals seem to be far more into the personal freedoms. (Eat what you want, smoke what you want, love who you want, worship who you want - or don't.) The rules and institutions they *do* embrace are to prevent harm and promote fairness - the United Nations, the Kyoto Protocol, CAFE standards, national health care. Conservatives support personal freedom as well - to join the army, to attend a christian church every Sunday, to love one opposite-sex partner in the conventional way. Conservatives seem a lot more concerned about collapse (of the family, of traditions, of society, of American military power, of currency sovereignty) with the implication that things are going to crap. Liberals see these changes far less negatively - getting rid of outdated ideas and baggage. Which seems to describe what I've been noticing since 2000 as I've moved from conservative to liberal - I'm far more drawn to the first two dimensions than the last three.