I have described in previous postings the call for teachers
to deal with moral questions – to center student inquiries on dilemmas that pit
competing values against themselves – as a complex “ask.” In this vein, I want to further this
idea. Basing my thinking on the work of
Jonathan Haidt,[1]
there seems to be a dual mental operation going on: there is an inbred (natural) disposition to
be concerned with the fate of others while there is a socialized manner of
seeing relevant conditions through the cultural lenses in which an individual
is situated. It is generally accepted in
the field of psychology that we, as humans, have an inbred empathy “gene.” Rationalism simply sees this “gene” as the result of
simple calculations: we don’t hurt
others because we don’t want to be hurt in turn. Regardless, empathy disposes us to be able to
relate to others and eases the path toward cooperation, so essential to survival. But that does not exclude the effects of our
social environment. In a reported
research study, Haidt reports a fairly universal view that kicking a
defenseless dog is immoral, but whether or not a husband has the right to beat
a disobedient wife tends to be culturally defined. To be clear, I find both behaviors despicable,
but the examples show the complexities involved.
One such complexity is the dual character of the mind. As Haidt unequivocally states, “the mind is
divided into parts that sometimes conflict.”[2] We have popularly referred to this duality as
the conflict between heart and head.
That is, it has to do with the often recurring battle between reason and
emotion. Western thought has favored
reason over emotion – that the former is more important than the latter. Let’s look into this.
Haidt doesn’t mince words; he refers to this bias as the “rationalist
delusion.” This discussion is a bit
tricky. To begin, while our cultural
philosophic tradition bolsters reason, it does not override our cultural
proclivity to develop allegiances based on our emotions, our passions. We see this, for example, in terms of
religion or religious claims over morality.
Once adopted and ensconced within our emotional commitment, morality can
blind us to what is real. Our emotions
can and often do hinder our ability to objectively see what’s out there. When this happens, rational calculations can
be short-circuited. Such calculations
consist of weighing the relative rewards and costs (pains) that a choice
presents. So, as in the case in which one
is considering two options and one will probably result in overall greater
costs but offers a particular reward that is considered highly prized in the
short run, the temptation to go for the short term reward might be
overwhelming. In such a case, passion
rules, at least that is what we see happening more often than not. We admire those who can overcome such
temptations because it is rare. We call
it sacrifice; but only when such a choice is beneficial to others. A business partner who bypasses a tempting
offer that would be detrimental to his/her partners is such a case.
In our tradition, Plato called for the dominance of reason in
our calculations; David Hume pointed to the dominance of passion. I believe our calculations originate with
passion; even to be objective or reasonable presumes a passion to be so as is
the case of our hero who chooses long term benefits over short term rewards.
To pick up with our inheritance as opposed to our development,
whether there are some inherited configurations of biases and skills that
dispose us to see things in certain ways or develop certain talents, be they
intellectual, entrepreneurial, artistic, or athletic or whether we are born
with little or no predetermined proclivities, issues concerning our
responsibility to be accountable do not go away. As such, we need to exert energy at being as
responsible as possible for what we do.
This is the case regardless of how much our nature, as opposed to our
nurture, is involved.
Are we blank slates at birth totally open to any influences
or is there such a thing as human nature that limits or enhances certain
avenues of behaviors and feelings? This
line of questioning can be and is controversial. For example, are such proclivities influenced
by sex, race, nationality, or age? If
so, how do such natural factors affect behavior or the quality of behaviors –
how good we are or can become? Our
ignorance of such factors, whether they exist or not, leads to the conclusion
that no prejudicial attitudes toward a person’s ability should be held. Federalism insists on no such a priori test being administered under
its values of equality and constitutional integrity. But of course, not all of us are willing to
be so disposed.
Whatever your notion is concerning this question about the
extent of nature verses nurture, I would suggest humility. We know of occasions when extremism in this
type of thinking, of believing that inherited qualities determine the worth of
anyone, have led to very costly consequences.
Hitler’s belief in such thinking in the extreme, of course, was enormously
disastrous. In our own history, such
thinking led to slavery, along with the deplorable treatment of various
national and ethnic groups. Beyond
racism, there have been sexism, discrimination of the aged, and of alternative
sexual preferences among consenting adults.
Unfortunately, we can still detect remnants of such prejudicial
thinking in our national scene. The problem is that passion can easily be
engendered over relevant questions and affect our ability to see or understand
the truth. Irrespective of on which side
of the debate one falls, there is supportive evidence on both sides. This demands a level of dispassion so one can
see things as they are, but passionate for justice so that each can be
attributed his or her due.
We do know – despite what religious zealots might claim to
the contrary – that we are the product of an evolutionary process. We need to study the results of that process unencumbered
by unreasonable passion, but not to the point that we fail to see that even
such a desire reflects a passion for the truth.
Yes, our ability to seek truth will always be slanted, but our knowledge
of such a potential bias is the first step toward accounting for it. As stated above, all this is complex and, at
times, counter-intuitive. It is this
arena within the mind – our reason battling our passions – that teachers need to
be aware of and which presupposes appropriate training. Such training should be geared toward
instilling a passion for the truth and an objectivity in its pursuit. To be aware of any tendency away from these distinct
goals, either within themselves as educators or among their students, is an
essential quality of an effective educational setting.
No comments:
Post a Comment