You are here
Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind VIII: Groupishness
Monday, July 16th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Government ethics is naturally focused on the selfish aspects of
people's conduct, the aspects that make them provide special benefits to themselves, those
who help them, and those to whom they feel special obligations. But as Jonathan Haidt argues in his book The
Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion (Pantheon, 2012), people are not just selfish. They're also groupish. And
our groupishness causes a lot of problems, as well. Most of the
problems derive from Haidt's principle, "Morality binds and blinds."
This pithy, paradoxical phrase refers to the fact that groups of people who put their groupishness ahead of their selfishness tend to do better. The rules that bind such effective groups are usually moral rules (think of an army's rules). But being blinded by groupishness can lead to ethical misconduct.
Haidt argues that it all started with "shared intentionality," something that distinguishes humans from the other apes. For example, one person pulls down a branch, the other picks the fruit, and there is an expectation that they will share the meal. This is not something that chimpanzees do. If the fruit picker were to take the fruit and run, this would be a simple case of ethical misconduct. It's theft, of course, but it's theft of something that was partially his. It's more going against expectations, putting one's self-interest ahead of the group (even if the group is only two in this simple example), than it is theft.
It's useful to look at a local government as a complex form of shared intentionality, with rules that ensure fairness and conduct that is in the interest of the group, which is the entire community. An official who grabs a contract and brings it home to his family is acting unfairly, going against expectations, and putting his family's interest ahead of the other families in the community. He can do this only because someone is holding the branch for him, putting him in the position to be able to grab the contract. Without the representatives of the rest of the community holding the branch, he may not have been in a position to profit from the contract, or at least not to the same extent.
The problem is that group morality, while fostering internal cohesion, suppressing internal aggression, and preventing free riding, also fosters external aggression, including aggression between subgroups. The effects of this, in the local government context, include the feeling of being an in-group with special rights (as opposed to the out-group, that is, the rest of the community) and partisan rancor.
Haidt also talks about Emile Durkheim's theory that people exist at two levels: as individuals and as part of their society, and that each has distinct "social sentiments." Individuals are bound to each other by such sentiments as honor, respect, affection, and fear. But they are bound to a social entity by different sentiments, especially by what Durkheim called "collective effervescence," that is, the passion and ecstasy generated by group rituals, such as religious rituals.
Government has group rituals, too, but those of local governments tend to have the greatest effect on government officials and employees. Ordinary people are placed on a pedestal, given titles and powers and rituals, starting with their swearing in, and continuing through council meetings, all the rituals that surround a mayor's appearances, all those press conferences, ribbon cuttings, and meetings with community organizations where the officials act on a higher plane than everyone else.
Power doesn't corrupt just because it's power. It corrupts because of the way people who have power are treated by everybody else. An official who is the center of rituals, who is yesmanned to death, who is used to getting her way, who has special access to information and people, will reasonably come to feel that she is the queen bee in a hive of drones.
Intimacy, Trust, and Groupishness
Trust is the goal of local government ethics programs, that is, the public's trust that those who manage their community are using their positions to help the community as a whole rather than themselves and those with whom they have special relationships. But trust also plays an important role in forming the relationships that undermine public trust. Haidt describes how this works, at the biological level.
Oxytocin is a hormone and neurotransmitter that prepares females for motherhood, causing not only uterine contractions, but also the motivation to care for one's children. It also causes males to stick to their mates and protect their children. It is the glue that holds families together.
But the effect is generalized. When oxytocin is sprayed into a person's nostril, she becomes more trusting. And when people behave trustingly, they cause oxytocin levels to increase. Just a back rub from a stranger (or a round of golf with a lobbyist, perhaps?) will lead to the secretion of more oxytocin in one's brain.
When oxytocin is sprayed into a person's nostril during a game, the person will make less selfish decisions, that is, decisions that help the group one is in, but not any other group. It makes people altruists, but only within their group.
While individuals can be led to trust others through contact and act to further group interests, this does not apply to something as abstract as the public. Nor can the public trust its leaders the way they can trust a group or individuals. Except to the extent that elected officials go door to door during a campaign, thereby creating a level of intimacy with voters, this has to happen in another way, usually by appealing to the authority foundation. This puts a lot of pressure on reputation, with the frequent effect of turning government ethics into a battleground.
Continue with the next post on this book.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This pithy, paradoxical phrase refers to the fact that groups of people who put their groupishness ahead of their selfishness tend to do better. The rules that bind such effective groups are usually moral rules (think of an army's rules). But being blinded by groupishness can lead to ethical misconduct.
Haidt argues that it all started with "shared intentionality," something that distinguishes humans from the other apes. For example, one person pulls down a branch, the other picks the fruit, and there is an expectation that they will share the meal. This is not something that chimpanzees do. If the fruit picker were to take the fruit and run, this would be a simple case of ethical misconduct. It's theft, of course, but it's theft of something that was partially his. It's more going against expectations, putting one's self-interest ahead of the group (even if the group is only two in this simple example), than it is theft.
It's useful to look at a local government as a complex form of shared intentionality, with rules that ensure fairness and conduct that is in the interest of the group, which is the entire community. An official who grabs a contract and brings it home to his family is acting unfairly, going against expectations, and putting his family's interest ahead of the other families in the community. He can do this only because someone is holding the branch for him, putting him in the position to be able to grab the contract. Without the representatives of the rest of the community holding the branch, he may not have been in a position to profit from the contract, or at least not to the same extent.
The problem is that group morality, while fostering internal cohesion, suppressing internal aggression, and preventing free riding, also fosters external aggression, including aggression between subgroups. The effects of this, in the local government context, include the feeling of being an in-group with special rights (as opposed to the out-group, that is, the rest of the community) and partisan rancor.
Haidt also talks about Emile Durkheim's theory that people exist at two levels: as individuals and as part of their society, and that each has distinct "social sentiments." Individuals are bound to each other by such sentiments as honor, respect, affection, and fear. But they are bound to a social entity by different sentiments, especially by what Durkheim called "collective effervescence," that is, the passion and ecstasy generated by group rituals, such as religious rituals.
Government has group rituals, too, but those of local governments tend to have the greatest effect on government officials and employees. Ordinary people are placed on a pedestal, given titles and powers and rituals, starting with their swearing in, and continuing through council meetings, all the rituals that surround a mayor's appearances, all those press conferences, ribbon cuttings, and meetings with community organizations where the officials act on a higher plane than everyone else.
Power doesn't corrupt just because it's power. It corrupts because of the way people who have power are treated by everybody else. An official who is the center of rituals, who is yesmanned to death, who is used to getting her way, who has special access to information and people, will reasonably come to feel that she is the queen bee in a hive of drones.
Intimacy, Trust, and Groupishness
Trust is the goal of local government ethics programs, that is, the public's trust that those who manage their community are using their positions to help the community as a whole rather than themselves and those with whom they have special relationships. But trust also plays an important role in forming the relationships that undermine public trust. Haidt describes how this works, at the biological level.
Oxytocin is a hormone and neurotransmitter that prepares females for motherhood, causing not only uterine contractions, but also the motivation to care for one's children. It also causes males to stick to their mates and protect their children. It is the glue that holds families together.
But the effect is generalized. When oxytocin is sprayed into a person's nostril, she becomes more trusting. And when people behave trustingly, they cause oxytocin levels to increase. Just a back rub from a stranger (or a round of golf with a lobbyist, perhaps?) will lead to the secretion of more oxytocin in one's brain.
When oxytocin is sprayed into a person's nostril during a game, the person will make less selfish decisions, that is, decisions that help the group one is in, but not any other group. It makes people altruists, but only within their group.
While individuals can be led to trust others through contact and act to further group interests, this does not apply to something as abstract as the public. Nor can the public trust its leaders the way they can trust a group or individuals. Except to the extent that elected officials go door to door during a campaign, thereby creating a level of intimacy with voters, this has to happen in another way, usually by appealing to the authority foundation. This puts a lot of pressure on reputation, with the frequent effect of turning government ethics into a battleground.
Continue with the next post on this book.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
