A WILL TO BARGAIN

In this blog's last posting, I described a metaphor that is useful in conceptualizing the nature of morality. By using the metaphor of wealth and its associated idea of bookkeeping, I utilized George Lakoff's¹ observation that people use these concepts in order to give the non-tangible idea of morality some substance. Central to this metaphor is the notion of credits and debits to account for the natural mental tendency in which we think of morality as a means of tracking how we and others interact with each other. So, for example, if person A does person B a good turn, A acquires a credit toward B and B a debit toward A. The disposition of either A or B is to act in the future in such a way so as to balance the account between them. What Lakoff does not discuss is how universal this tendency is. As for American society, I can vouch from personal experience that this cognitive psychologist's account rings true. I hate to think of all the debits I have accumulated in my years of social interactions.

Let me extend this metaphor a bit further. What are the calculations people make in their fundamental commitment to their national community? How strong is that commitment? Do we make a string of calculations as we make decisions to participate in the social activities of community life or do we have a general commitment of such a fundamental nature that our decision to participate barely becomes conscious to us? That is, do we hold a commitment to our social world that elicits our loyalty or, at least, our compliance to the prevailing social norms and laws? Think of the challenge: life presents many obstacles to us in our ability to achieve our aims and goals. Do we have the sort of commitment that overcomes those short term inconveniences and lack of resources that stand in the way of getting the things that we want? For some, the inconveniences and/or lack of resources are more than mere obstacles, and can be of such magnitude that their lives become a constant state of serious frustration. In such cases, what can serve as a source that spurs sufficient loyalty or, at least, compliance with what is? William A. Galston² gives us an analytical account of this calculation.

Why does anyone bargain? The parties so engaged are motivated by the desire to acquire something that otherwise he or she cannot acquire, at least not legally. If we apply this metaphor to a community, either local or national, we extend our willingness to “play ball” within the confines of the prevailing social expectations which can be expressed by that society's norms and laws. By viewing this decision as our part of a deal with all other citizens, what is our payoff? The payoff, according to Galston's analysis, is our enjoyment of the common good. Here is how Galston describes the deal:

The common good requires a balance between the benefits and burdens of social cooperation such that all (or nearly all) citizens believe that the contribution they are called on to make leaves them with a net surplus. If they cease to believe that, they will try to lighten these burdens, either by evading some taxation or, in extreme cases, by leaving the community through exit (for individuals) or secession (for groups).³

This extension of the wealth metaphor, I believe, provides a useful language for civics teachers to deal with the federalist value, equality.

To further illustrate where this idea originates, let me pass on an experiment that Galston describes. I will alter his description a bit to make a point. Let us say that you and I are in a room and a third person comes in and pulls out a dollar – no, let's make it one hundred dollars. And I, who happen to need the money, am awfully interested in what the person has to say – so are you. He says to me, here; you and your friend can keep the money if you both agree to the amounts you (that's I) feel each of you will keep. There is one proviso. You both have to agree to the divided amounts that you (I) propose. I divide the money $90 for me – as I said, I really need the money – and $10 for you. You balk and disagree. You say that's not fair. I say, well $10 is better than nothing; you'd better take it. You say, you (I) can stuff it. No deal is made and we both leave empty-handed. The actual experiment had only a dollar at stake, but the general result was usually the same when the “divider” offered the other too little. There were in these cases behaviors that reflected a concern for equality. The lesson being that if one is treated in such an unequal way – as being offered too little of a resource – a person will refuse to participate. Apparently, a person will cease participating in social interactions if his or her dignity or integrity is given too little concern.

In real life, it is amazing how much people will put up with in order to go along with expectations, but there are limits, and rebellions or withdrawals do take place. What the actual conditions that spur these attempts at changing the norms and laws or of just deciding to “play” elsewhere are is worth studying. But what is also worth studying, as many have, are those social forces that help and, in most cases guarantee, ongoing allegiance to keep the system in place.

Writers have pointed out certain institutions that assist in maintaining these bonds between us. Religion, language, common ancestors, cultural beliefs, and the like are all binding social elements. Abraham Lincoln mentioned the “mystic chords of memory” in attempting to stave off an impending civil war. What seems central to the bargain is a common enough sense of what the common good is. Constitutionally, Galston points out the function of the Preamble to provide, albeit general and vague, a list of elements that constitutes what we as a nation believe to be the common good. Good enough, but do we need more meat on that bone in order to sustain what we are willing to sacrifice in order to maintain our individual willingness to go along, if not participate in an active way to sustain the union? We seem to be constantly confronted with such divisive positions in our political discourse that, I believe, raises the question: are we tempting some to exit or some groups to secede?

The most recent bit of political discourse that at least on the surface concerns me is the discourse over gun rights or gun safety – even the language is in contention. Associated with this debate have been stated concerns over whether our government is preparing to rip up the Constitution and institute an authoritarian or totalitarian regime. If so, we obviously all need to be armed. This is extreme language and it is not dissuaded by high ranking officials who count on these extremists' votes to get elected. Probably nothing will come of this type of language and we can chalk it up to high-strung partisanship. Surely, such extremity in our political debates has been flung around before; look at the animosity President Franklin Roosevelt engendered when in 1940, word got out that he was running for a third term.⁴

What needs to be reflected upon is our own individual standards by which we measure our tolerance for policy we don't like. The language of the grand bargain, represented by our constitution, is a good way to engage in that reflection and to formulate our evaluations of our own standards and those of others. Civics classrooms are a good and safe place to begin those reflections and evaluations.

1Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

2Galston, W. A. (2013). The common good: Theoretical content, practical utility. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), Spring, pp. 9-14.

3Ibid., p. 11.

4See Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1963). Franklin D. Roosevelt and the new deal: 1932-1940. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.