Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind II - Individualistic vs. Sociocentric Societies
<br>
In his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/03073…; target="”_blank”"><i>The
Righteous Mind</a></i>: <i>Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion</i> (Pantheon, 2012), Jonathan Haidt identifies one of the
biggest obstacles to government ethics in the U.S.: the fact
that we have an individualistic society, placing individuals at the
center, rather than the more common sociocentric society, which
subordinates the needs of individuals to the needs of groups and
institutions. Ours is a society of rights, while sociocentric
societies are societies of obligations. Government ethics is all
about obligations, and dealing responsibly with conflicts between
one's obligation to one's community and one's obligation to one's
family, friends, and business associates, one's self-centered
community.<br>
<br>
Local government officials often talk of their rights when it comes to
government ethics. Elected officials have the right to make a living
on the side. Spouses of government officials have a right to do
whatever they want; they should not be hampered by their spouses'
obligations. Government officials speak of their privacy rights when
there is talk of financial disclosure requirements. And, of course,
government officials speak of their right to legislative immunity,
even though this is not a right at all, but a way to protect
constituents from having their representatives pressured by the
executive branch.<br>
<br>
Rights have almost no place in government ethics. But it is
difficult for people in our society to see past rights in order to understand obligations,
unless the obligation is stated as a clear legal requirement and enables behavior that benefits them. For example, in some states local elected officials are obligated to vote. Local elected officials seem to have no problem
understanding and following this statutory requirement, perhaps because it is so clear and simple, perhaps because it allows them to
participate with a conflict. In other words, it is a
lesser obligation that, to their benefit, they can call an
overriding obligation. The balancing was done long ago by the state legislature.<br>
<br>
The individualistic-sociocentric distinction also lies behind the
problem of seeing how harmful ethical misconduct is. We easily
understand harm done to individuals (including the undermining of
their reputations and preventing them from participating in matters
where they have a conflict), but we do not so easily understand harm
done to institutions or communities. In any scandal, most of the
talk is about personal misconduct, personal integrity, and personal reputation. The effect
on the community's pride, citizens' participation in government, and
the anger citizens feel is rarely discussed (the principal exception
is the misuse of taxpayer funds).<br>
<br>
In a sociocentric society, the talk would be of the tribe and, most
likely, of the ancestors. We talk of the Founding Fathers to
buttress our arguments. We don't talk of how our actions today would
cause them agony and possibly lead them to take vengeance on us. The
past is past, and the future (our obligations to our community's
children and grandchildren) is often ignored just as easily.<br>
<br>
A related issue that Haidt raises is the different ways in which
people differentiate between violations of moral rules and
conventional rules, that is, between violations that harm
individuals and violations that break taboos, but where no one is
harmed. Haidt was involved in a study that showed that social class
was the principal determinant regarding how people differentiated
between the two. Wealthier people tended to differentiate the most
between them, while poorer people tended to see both sorts of
violation as equally wrong.<br>
<br>
This might explain why wealthier people,
including most people who are active in politics, see ethics
violations as more minor than the average citizen, who becomes very
angry when officials use their positions to help those with whom they have
special relationships, even when no one is directly harmed.<br>
<br>
Continue with <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/summer-reading-righteous-mind-iii-soc… next post on this book.</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---