-->
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Jonathan Haidt
Pantheon Books, NY (2012)
419 pages
You hear it everywhere now, in those
discussions at the water cooler at work, in the line at the coffee
shop, on the news, at dinner, at parties: “I don't understand how
everything has gotten so vicious in politics." "Why can't they ever
agree with us on anything?" "Why do they have to be so nasty?”
“There
should be some way to have a civil conversation and get agreement
somehow.” “Can't we just get along?”
Yet, in those same conversations, we
hear “they were
the ones who screwed things up, [people, that is, belonging to the
party that's not ours] and we're just trying to fix it.” “Why
can't those idiots
[those that aren't me and mine] understand why what we believe is so
crucial?” “Aren't they
listening to anything the other side says?” “What are they
using for brains?” “They
are morally bankrupt” “They
are all just [insert insulting name here] trying to get what they
want.” “We are
the ones trying to make things work.”
What is there in our psychology that
makes us so sure, regardless of which side we are on, that we are
absolutely right and the “other side” is wrong, and that we
should never compromise? What is going on between our ears?
That is the question that Jonathan
Haidt attempts to answer in his book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good
People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” Haidt is a professor
of psychology at the University of Virginia and a visiting professor of
business ethics at New York University's Stern School of Business.”
He was recently (2008) thrust into the limelight with a talk given
for Creative Commons' TED program, which has been widely quoted
around the internet.
I was very interested in doing this
review because of the title of the book, but when I looked up the
author and found the talk, I was completely fascinated by how it was
parsed by both the left and the right. Each side took offense to something he said, rallying to
defend their position and claiming he was dumping on their
preferences. Or they took something he said that reflected badly on
their party and insisted he was supporting the other side. In fact,
he was attempting to find a way to understand why we choose to pick
sides, and defend them so vigorously, in the first place. This was
very interesting, and I definitely wanted to hear more.