The Righteous Mind : : why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

Location & Checkout Length	Call Number	Checkout Length	Item Status
Downtown 2nd Floor 4-week checkout	201.615 Ha	4-week checkout	Due 05-19-2024

Where does morality come from? -- The intuitive dog and its rational tail -- Vote for me (here's why) -- Beyond weird morality -- Taste buds of the righteous mind -- The moral foundations of politics -- The conservative advantage -- Why are we so groupish? -- The hive switch -- Religion is a team sport, not a virus -- A yin and two yangs.
A groundbreaking investigation into the origins of morality, which turns out to be the basis for religion and politics. The book explains the American culture wars and refutes the "New Atheists."

REVIEWS & SUMMARIES

Library Journal Review
CHOICE Review
Booklist Review
Publishers Weekly Review
Summary / Annotation
Table of Contents
Fiction Profile
Excerpt
Author Notes

COMMUNITY REVIEWS

Seriously one-sided. If you read, be very discerning. submitted by Susan4Pax -prev. sueij- on September 20, 2017, 9:36pm I am appalled by this book. There are a myriad of things wrong with it, and many, many beautifully written reviews help outline them. I strongly encourage you to browse through them, because I will not be thorough enough or eloquent enough to do the political arguments justice here.

(Briefly, Haidt outlines 6 moral pillars, and states that liberals lean on 3, while conservatives use all six. But there are many, many deep flaws in his presentation of all, and especially the three that are predominantly utilized by conservatives. For example, Authority has been show in studies such as the Milgram experiment and the Stamford prison experiment to be easily abused, but he gives Authority the same value he gives Care. And the three pillars utilized more often by conservatives than by liberals or independents (Authority, Loyalty, Sanctity) are intrinsically provincial: different for every culture and individual. So creating rule of law based on these defines rules for the whole based on the preferences of only some. There's a serious judgement there that Haidt does not address. This is in comparison to the three that liberals focus on (Care, Liberty, Fairness), which intrinsically apply to the whole.)

On the plus side, I will say that the book is thought provoking, well-researched for the points Haidt wants to make (we'll get to that), uses metaphors well to express his ideas clearly, and is well written to draw readers in. He presents interesting ideas about the development of morality and how it is differently applied by different people. It fits, and explains a lot. If, or to the degree that he is right, it does give ideas about how people can find ways to talk to each other across what look like unbreachable chasms.

My first split with Haidt came early, right in chapter one. Haidt spends the first 10 pages of the entire book explaining that Piaget and Kohlberg were the psychologists who identified the framework of moral psychology and its development, and that they had "pretty much defined the field" by the time Haidt became interested (p. 11). There is an endnote here, which leads to p. 325, which stated the only reference I found to Carol Gilligan, a pioneering woman in the field (my words) who "argued that Kohlberg had neglected the 'ethic of care,' which she said was more common in women than men." This outright dismissal of women occurs in every possible way at every possible level throughout the remainder of this book. Gilligan (I know from my Master's level coursework) redefined psychology, demonstrating that girls and women develop differently than boys, who were (and still are) considered normative.

For a handful more examples, (1) when Haidt introduced the Liberty/Oppression foundation (one of his six pillars of morality), he states that it developed because our distant ancestors had to deal with bullying alpha males. Weapons evened things out, then language created the ability to unite in order to shame, ostracize, or kill anyone whose behavior threatened the group. But it was all about the alpha males (p. 170-71). (2) Haidt talks about people as mostly selfish (90% chimp) but sometimes groupish (10% bee). At one point he discusses the biology that can make people have a group-level adaptation for group-binding... he calls this the hive switch... and discusses oxytocin. It's a neurotransmitter primarily occurring in mammals that binds mothers to their offspring. But his cited research is about giving oxytocin to men to see if it made them care about other men more (p. 233-34). (3) When he talks about Hives At Work, he only uses a male-dominated business model. He is clearly talking about corporate for profit businesses (traditionally dominated by men), and not any of the industries where women have worked or thrived for decades (and function very differently) (p. 236-240).

(4) Chapter 9 is titled "Why Are We So Groupish?" and addresses the question of how humans came to care about the group, rather than only the self. From p. 189 to p. 217, Haidt argues based on cells and animals and males. On page 217, there is finally a note that states that a female reader on an early draft said to him, "I think it is important not to give readers the impression that groups competing necessarily meant groups being at war or fighting with one another. They were competing to be the most efficient at turning resources into offspring. Don't forget that women and children were also very important members of these groups." I honestly thought, "Finally! He's going to reinterpret the chapter acknowledging the role of women!" Instead, he said, "She's right," restated her paragraph for two sentences, went in another direction for three sentences, and then summed up the chapter with no mention of how female presence was different.

Haidt's perspective on race is just as one sided, though it shows up less often, yet is more blatantly appalling. On page 239, he says (and backs up with cited research endnotes) that people can feel more groupish at work when the institution works to "increase similarity, not diversity..... So don't call attention to racial and ethnic differences; make them less relevant by ramping up similarity and celebrating the group's shared values and common identity.... There's nothing special about race. You can make people care less about race by drowning race differences in a sea of similarities, shared goals, and mutual interdependencies."

Spoken like a privileged member of the dominant group. I don't doubt that there is research backing this up... but I sincerely doubt that it is research that would stand up to rigorous scrutiny for broad sampling across representative groups. No one whose skin tone has made their race the target of systemic political, economic, and judicial oppression in this country for the last 400 years is going to be lulled by his statement that "a great deal of research in social psychology shows that people are warmer and more trusting toward people who look like them, dress like them, talk like them, or even just share their first name or birthday" (p. 239).

At the end of the book, Haidt brings up race again, and talks about how and why liberals hurt people they are trying to help when they bring diversity into the mix. But here, again, he chooses examples that, while real, emphasize his affiliation with White liberals in the halls of power. He identifies with policy makers who act from without (p.308-09), rather than ground-up activists who work from within, helping neighborhoods and communities come up with their own solutions.

Everything about _The Righteous Mind_ reflects Haidt's White, advantaged, male perspective on the world. It is so thoroughly engrained that he seems unable to see it, even when it is pointed out by a colleague. It is the water he swims in; the air he breathes. It starts in the first 10 pages and lasts until the last five. Because of this, I find it impossible to evaluate the validity of anything in the middle.

Interesting and thought-provoking submitted by jbranski on June 19, 2018, 10:19pm This is a fascinating, well-researched book on moral psychology values.
As mentioned above, it has some weak and concerning arugments, and I wonder if Haidt took all his points to their logically conclusions (on race, for example).
I personally found the chapter on religion incredibly weak. Haidt is respectful throughout the book and clear about his atheism. But the religion chapter focuses almost entirely on the evolutionary advantages of religious beliefs. I think anyone with a strong faith who might read this chapter would conclude that Haidt is not considering the most important aspects of religion in his analysis. Disappointing, considering religion is mentioned in the book’s subtitle. The book’s strengths definitely lie in its analysis of politics and other groups, not religion.
Overall, I would recommend this book. At the very least, it offers a perspective on values and morality that I hadn’t considered before.