Jonathan Haidt - 5 Moral Values Behind Political Choice
It's a nifty video. Watch it.
A couple of things I gathered: 'The for or against disease' How to interpret/apply this in political (social, intellectual) life? I think it's the idea of compromise. Though even that feels like i've compromised on the meaning of the phrase.
See, I agree that we should try and understand our opponents and examine our biases and all that jazz, but it seems to me that conservative 'traits' are such that they are inherently against that sort of thinking. Libruls, atleast to me, are at the very least not entirely against listening to their opponents and questioning their biases and so on; they have 'traits' that actually encourage those things. The very 'traits' that mark conservatism (order, stability, deference, respect) seem to work against conservatives in questioning their biases, listening to their opponents and so on.
This is kinda sorta what I meant when I tried to figure out a method of distinguishing between geuninely trying to reach mutual understanding ('communicative action' or some variant, in the Habermasian jargon) versus communication in order to push a view or obtain some goal ('strategic action' in the Habermas, or 'dogmatic thinking' to borrow a term from Sam).
It seems that, within this no doubt simplified structure, liberals are much more likely than conservatives in aiming for and obtaining communicative action.
1 comment:
Yes. Getting out of "for or against" thinking: ironically, Haidt compares this to taking the red pill, as opposed to the blue one. Morpheus is pretty fucking righteous. It seems that you're either for or against for or against thinking. Binary moral choice about binary moral choices.
Push harder against the Matrix reference for more delicious rewards. Haidt talks about change and revolution as liberal values. Liberals will take the red pill. They go so far as to spontaneously applaud it! So it seems like a moot point: you can only preach to the converted on the question of dialogue without prejudice and openmindedness.
One further Matrix-related point. Taking the red pill was, in fact, a la the Architect's explications, only a futile act of rebellion, designed to ensure machine control and the stability of the Matrix itself. So, uh. Good luck with yr communicative action? (Is this the general leftist critique of Habbermas?)
And, since it's apparently my term (12,000 google results!): 'Dogmatic thinking' seems to be too broad a term to use in this situation. Liberals are just as 'dogmatic' or 'strategic'. Need to be to achieve change.
Post a Comment