His conclusion: we have a "hypertrophied sense of justice and an atrophied sense of humility and charity."
I won't advocate on the part of humility and charity (though they are nice), but I do agree with the professor that our society is a little too hooked on justice. Not the justice of getting the criminal and locking him up; the justice that there are "wrongs" that need to be "righted."
Now, justice has certainly played an important role in US history - the Declaration of Independence, ending slavery, the vote for women, the Civil Rights movement to name a few notable examples. But that may be part of the problem; when we look back on history many (if not most) of the our proud moments were about "righting wrongs." Those are the nicest memories. Oppression ended; goodness and enlightenment won out over corrupt power and darkness. Somehow those other great moments - when Hamilton brokered a deal with the South in order to create a national bank, or when FDR ushered in Social Security - may be regarded as good things, but they just don't pull at the heart-strings the same way.
The problem comes when those same heart-strings try to mold every disagreement into a battle between "right" and "wrong". It would be nice if right and wrong were as always as clear as "slavery v. no slavery," but unfortunately that's rarely the case. It's hard to imagine the annals of history glorifying the victory of "public option health care plans" or "a credit consumer protection agency"; important as those issues just may be, we're not talking "representation without taxation" here. And yet, we oh so much want to make the sides of the debate just that stark.
Of course, sneaky political operatives are in part to blame; they know how to agitate the masses and will whip up a good-evil battle when they can. But they only can do so because our brains let them.
"Justice" is not a uniquely American passion. Humans come equipped with a sense of justice from birth. Social psychologists love studies that show how people will often sacrifice personal gain when "justice" is involved. The most famous study, the "ultimatum game", pits two people who are charged with sharing $10. One, the "giver," is given the 10 bucks and told to make an offer to the other on how much they will share. The "receiver" can either accept the offer, in which case the two walk off with their portion of the $10, or can reject the offer, which not only kills the deal but means both walk away with nothing. If you thought people only cared about money, you'd think it wouldn't matter how much the "giver" offered, the "receiver" would be stupid not to happy to accept it. Some money is better than no money. But, remarkably, "receivers" almost never accept less than $3. It seems, when people are offered only $1 or $2 out of the $10 pot, they'd rather go with nothing than to let the "giver" get away with almost all the cash. This innate sense of fairness holds true when the ultimatum game is played on any continent in any culture.
Behaviorists, of course, have their theories why we're all natural Solomons. When we traveled in small groups it made sense not only for humans to "play fair" and cooperate, but to also have a way to make sure others were likewise not taking advantage of you; instinctively punishing the guy who tried to get away with the biggest piece of bison was a good way to insure he wouldn't do it again.
You've probably felt that instinct boil to the fore now and then. I can feel it brewing in a variety of situations: when the friend shows up 30 minutes late for a drink; when the French Parliament votes to ban burkas; when someone else doesn't give you credit for your contribution on a work project. It's all the same swirl of emotions that rides under the banner of "Wrong!"
In our day to day life, our sense of fairness may still help us out, but in politics it's possible it causes more problems than it solves. It's not just that having a heels-dug-in right-wrong attitude makes it hard for a nation to reach compromises on important issues. But, going back to those clever politicos, our penchant for righteousness is an easy way to rope us into sideline battles - Terry Schiavo, Ground-Zero Mosques - that distract us from the issues that matter.
Should we ditch "justice" then? Not entirely; it could still comes in handy in places like Iran, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. And maybe someday we'll need it again in full force in the US; in the meantime I think we'll be better off with putting "justice" to the side and concentrating on cooperation, mutual-respect and patience. Once our hands stop trembling, maybe we can even get something done.
No comments:
Post a Comment