Happy Independence Day!
Here’s a thought. That person you know who holds those horrific political views that you (rightly) cannot stand? They are not necessarily evil. They may, in fact, even be ‘good’.
But why do they believe in all that toxic stuff anyway?
Jonathan Haidt believes that he has the answer to that question. The social psychologist developed Moral Foundations Theory and also a few metaphors or descriptions so we could all understand it.
Our political beliefs, he says, are like the five taste receptors in our tongue (salt, sweet, sour, bitter, umami).
When it comes to food and taste, each person has their own preference. Some people (like me) like food that combines salt and sour. Others might prefer the savouriness of meat (umami). Similarly, Haidt says that each person’s politics is unique, based on the ‘six taste receptors’ of their morality.
Six taste receptors of morality
These ‘tastebuds’ are triggered almost instantaneously whenever we’re faced with a dilemma or question, and Haidt says they evolved over thousands of years. In other words, we’re wired for it.
1) Care: We don’t like to see others being harmed. When we see individuals or animals being victimised or in danger, this ‘tastebud’ gets activated in our minds. The opposite of care is harm, and so this aspect is called the Care/Harm foundation.
Example: Those who work in animal rights and child development are likely to identify strongly with the Care/Harm foundation.
2) Fairness: We like to see people rewarded for their efforts. And at the other end of the spectrum, we don’t like to see people get an unfair advantage over others. This moral tastebud is referred to as the Fairness/Cheating foundation.
Example: The reservations/affirmative action debate these days is usually dominated by those who are against it. Their reasoning? That reservations give an unfair advantage to those who get it. In India, this is associated with upper caste politics. But it would be wrong to say that people who strongly identify with the Fairness/Cheating foundation are anti-reservations. Those who are pro-reservations argue powerfully that reservation is about righting historic wrongs.
3) Loyalty: We like team players and reward such people. On the other hand, we don’t like those who betray our group or tribe. This is referred to as the Loyalty/Betrayal foundation.
Example: Those who emphasise their own caste, or nationalism/jingoism in India are likely to identify strongly with the Loyalty/Betrayal foundation. For example, such people tend to be fiercely anti-Naxal.
4) Authority: We like order and hierarchy because they make us feel like life is predictable. Order and hierarchy make us feel safe. On the other hand, we frown up those who seek to revolt or shake up the order. This is known as the Authority/Subversion foundation.
Example: Those who trust institutions such as the legal system and Parliament; those who don’t like to question the Prime Minister or President once they’ve voted for them — such people are likely to identify strongly with the Authority/Subversion foundation.
5) Sanctity: We understand certain things as sacred and pure, and we don’t like it when these things are desecrated or polluted. This is known as the Sanctity/Degradation foundation.
Example: Hindus who uphold the sacredness of the cow, Muslims who don’t like to eat pork, those who don’t like to eat meat, etc., and generally those who centre their politics around such ideas are likely to identify strongly with the Sanctity/Degradation foundation.
6) Liberty: We would all like the freedom to do what we want to do. And we oppose those who dominate or bully us. This is known as the Liberty/Oppression foundation.
Example: Those who fight for freedom of expression and the freedom to marry whomever they want, for example, are likely to be invested in the Liberty/Oppression foundation.
When our moral tastebuds clash
Our strongest moral dilemmas occur when these moral foundations clash with each other. This is when we get divided along political, religious, gendered, casteist and other lines.
Jonathan Haidt believes that in the West, those “on the political left [and liberals] tend to rest most strongly on the Care/harm and Liberty/oppression foundations.”
He goes on to write:
“these two foundations support ideals of social justice, which emphasise compassion for the poor and a struggle for political equality…Social justice movements emphasize solidarity — they are all for people to come together to fight the oppression of bullying, domineering elites.”
Liberals also identify with the Fairness/Cheating foundation.
In contrast, conservatives in the West tend to draw from all moral foundations, with an emphasis on Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation foundations.
So while conservatives may understand why social justice movements demand radical change, they equally value preserving institutions.
What does it matter if a person is ‘good’ but is being evil?
On 14th July, we discussed these moral tastebuds and more in a Clubhouse discussion. A colleague had a thought. She said something like, “what does it matter which moral tastebud a person identifies with? Or that he is ‘good’ person? If he is trying to curtail my freedom, I would consider him evil.”
I agree with her. There is no contradiction here. This isn’t just because I strongly identify with the Liberty/Oppression foundation. It’s because rights are inviolable. Or should be considered so.
Rather, Jonathan Haidt’s six taste receptors is a tool we can use to understand the vast majority of ‘regular’ people. It is a tool we can use to have meaningful conversations. Once we know why we believe what we believe, it becomes easier to establish common ground.
Haidt writes in the conclusion of his book:
“So the next time you find yourself seated beside someone from another matrix [moral tastebud], give it a try. Don’t just jump right in. Don’t bring up morality until you’ve found a few points of commonality or in some other way established a bit of trust. And when you do bring up issues of morality, try to start with some praise, or with a sincere expression of interest.
We’re all stuck here for a while, so let’s try to work it out.”
Moral tastebuds in India
How can the six moral tastebuds explain the many ways in which we’re divided in India? How can it explain why we support the BJP or the Congress? Where we are on the reservations debate or for that matter, on claims of ‘Love Jihad’? How we deal with the label of “urban naxalite”?
I’ve made a start with this piece by bringing up these questions and providing some examples. But the topic requires collective conversations and more reporting. In that spirit, I’d like to hear from you. If you have a thought, leave a comment.
Otherwise, TBC…
Postscript
I found an intriguing reference to the Hindu gods Vishnu and Shiva in Haidt’s work. In a TED talk on Moral Foundations Theory, Haidt said:
“Think about yin and yang. Yin and yang aren't enemies; they don't hate each other. Yin and yang are both necessary, like night and day, for the functioning of the world. You find the same thing in Hinduism. There are many high gods in Hinduism. Two of them are Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer…so we could think of Vishnu as the conservative god…Shiva's the liberal god. And they work together.”
Jonathan Haidt developed these ideas and more in his book The Righteous Mind, whose subtitle is Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. As you can see, I modified the subtitle for my headline.
The illustration I used in the piece can be found in his book. It is by the The New Yorker cartoonist Frank Cotham. His art can be bought here.
If you liked this post, do consider sharing it.
And/or subscribe to Media Buddhi.