Publisher’s write-up:
‘Why can it sometimes feel as though half the
population is living in a different moral universe? Why do ideas such as
'fairness' and 'freedom' mean such different things to different people? Why is
it so hard to see things from another viewpoint? Why do we come to blows over
politics and religion? Jonathan THaidt reveals that we often find it hard to
get along because our minds are hardwired to be moralistic, judgemental and
self-righteous. He explores how morality evolved to enable us to form
communities, and how moral values are not just about justice and equality - for
some people authority, sanctity or loyalty matter more. Morality binds and
blinds, but, using his own research, Haidt proves it is possible to liberate
ourselves from the disputes that divide good people.’
The Righteous Mind is a book written by the
American psychologist Jonathan Haidt back in 2012, where the author tries to
explore why people have been driven to profoundly dislike each other over
political views.
The author splits the book into three parts –
the first part on intuitions and strategic reasoning, then in the next part
exploring how morality has more to it than harm and fairness and later on the binds
and blinds of morality. He starts by explaining several classic moral dilemmas
and goes on to explain how morality Is relative as he brings out his
experiences during his visit to Orissa (present day Odisha), a coastal state in
Eastern India. He shows how for the same question that was asked, Americans
reacted very differently to people from Odisha.
He then goes on to explain the oriigins of
conservative thoughts while identifying himself as a liberal. I understood early
on that his intended audience were American liberal to whom he explains that
the conservatives too believe that they are ‘righteous’ and it is just that the
two sides have different core values; and this difference does not necessarily
make the other side evil.
The only thing I appreciated about the book was
the author’s intention, to thell his ‘political side’ to reach out to the other
side. This was a noble intention in 2012 as politics in US had still not
entered the ‘post truth’ era. Having said that, every point he said about US
conservatives is no longer relevant in the Trump era.
This book suffered from excessive
simplification. I myself am of Indian origin (though with no connection to the
state of Odisha which was the author’s example), and the author visited one
state in a large country with diverse cultures, and drew sweeping conclusions based
on one sample. I could have understood if he said that in the specific place he
visited, people found certain behaviours acceptable, that was not acceptable in
his American milieu. Instead the language he used was “to Indians, this is
acceptable” even though there are several factors at play – be it level of
education or the socioeconomic status.
The generalisations do not end there – to him
there are only two sides in a political discussion – liberals and
conservatives. That is not true in most of the world, and not in the US either –
under his own classification, Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders would be classified
as people with the same political views; and primaries in the US would be
largely redundant. The category is too broad and the book maybe appealing to
those who are reading about politics for the first time, but for others, these
generalisations were would frustrating.
On trying to understand and engage with the
other side, I agree that there could be genuine discussion on tax policy, the
extent of the welfare state, the role of police, border control, etc. one
cannot be oblivious to the need for boundaries when it comes to racism and
bigotry. When Trump, on live TV claims that a certain group of immigrants were
eating the “pets of Americans”, which was a pure racist diatribe and when there
are ‘conservatives’ who defend that, there is no point understanding where they
are coming from – simply put, they are not righteous.
I got the impression that the author was speaking
from a high horse of tried to be the “enlightened centrist” (yes, I am using
this as a pejorative). He claims that there are extremes on both sides but whom
he calls as “radical left” in the US talk of health care for all, whereas the “extremes”
on the right talk of mass deportation, denaturlisation / remigration, religion-based
laws (such as on abortion) – the two so-called extremes are not the same.
I did some more research on the author himself
after having read the book and much as he claims to be a “centrist”, he seems to
have joined the right wing culture war bandwagon when it comes to transphobia,
being a member of an “anti-woke” board (whatever that term means) in the
University of Austin – which by no stretch of imagination is that of a centrist
or liberal, but a typical conservative in present day US. That also explains
why he was willing to extend such a long rope to conservatives.
To conclude, this book engaged in
over-simplication, and trying to understand the other side is a noble pursuit,
but not at the cost of condoning bigotry. Sometimes, doing “both sides” is not
the best option and there has to be bias in favour of the truth, especially in
the era that we are living in. The book and the author’s views are incompatible
for the the times we live in and I award it a three on ten.
Rating –
3/10
Have a
nice day
