Marxism
And The New Synthesis
In Moral Psychology
By Thomas Riggins
06 July, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Jonathan
Haidt, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, has an important
article in the May 18, 2007 issue of Science ("The New Synthesis
in Moral Psychology." Since we live in a time of rampant amorality
(to say nothing of immorality) in government and civil society, I think
a review of this article will further advance a study of the role of
Marxist thinking in our times.
Haidt tells us that, contrary
to the view that human social behavior is basically the result of self
interested motives, recent scientific research reveals this is not the
case and that we have "social motivations beyond direct self-interest."
Thirty years ago the two
dominant psychological paradigms were ethical behaviorism and cognitive-developmental
theory [CDT]. In other words, ethical systems arrived at by reward and
punishment or by learning and understanding. E.O. Wilson, the article
says, thought these two paradigms would conflate and be subsumed under
sociobiology.
It didn't quite work out
that way as behaviorism faded away and CDT turned towards philosophy
and education rather than sociobiology. However, Wilson is given credit
for getting the "big picture right." This is because at the
present time, for the last fifteen years or so, scientists have been
combining CDT with research on the emotions and developing a new synthesis
based on evolution, CDT and neuroscience.
Three main principles are
being put forth, Haidt will recommend a fourth, which constitute this
new synthesis. I intend to go into each of these principles, following
Haidt's exposition, to determine what may be relevant as regards contemporary
Marxism.
The First Principle Haidt
labels "Intuitive Primacy (but Not Dictatorship)." What this
entails is the view that the human brain has, underlying its cognitive.
system an ancient "affective system" that was formed throughout
the eons of our evolutionary development.
So when faced with a situation
calling for action, the brain is first set in motion by the affective
system and this system pushes us into action, the cognitive system kicks
in later to justify and carry out the behavior stimulated by the affective
system. Freud would say the id stimulates the ego.
The reason this is not a
dictatorship is because of the super ego, or in modern terms, the cognitive
system can have a feed back influence on the affective system. This
means humans are not simply machines carrying out automatically genetically
instinctive behavior.
Evolutionary psychology mostly
holds, according to the author, that human morality rests on an inherited
emotional foundation (empathy, resentment at "non reciprocators",
attachment to relatives and allies, among others). This foundation was
laid down in the common ancestor from whom we and the chimp split to
go our separate ways around six million years ago.
On top of this affective
system, about 100,000 years ago, when modern humans developed, our species
evolved the ability to use language and, as a result, to develop conscious
moral reasoning abilities. It is, Haidt says, implausible that the neural
mechanisms that control human judgment and behavior were suddenly rewired
to hand control of the organism over to this new deliberative faculty."
But if one believes in "punctuated evolution"-- i.e., rapid
adaptation and change, it may not be so implausible as Haidt maintains.
In any case, Haidt bases
his thought on the "Social Intuitions Model." Simply put,
this divides a moral judgment into two parts. When Mencius sees a child
about to fall into a well, he automatically reaches out to catch him
(part one-- the affective reaction, the moral intuition, mother chimp
grabs baby about to fall). Then Mencius writes a book about the innate
goodness of humans and how this ethical truth can be used to elaborate
the philosophy of Confucius (part two-- moral reasoning "conscious
mental activity... to reach a moral judgment or decision", mother
chimp and baby go back to eating bananas).
These affective responses
push us towards an action "but do not absolutely force." Haidt
says there are three ways to foil the immediate affective response,
or at least retrospectively condemn or aprobate it. First, reasoning;
second, reframe the situation from "a new angle"; three, talk
to people and get their take on the action and reformulate your opinion.
This section is not too bad,
as long as it is confined to thinking that the preconditions for human
morality have evolutionary roots in our primate past.
At the present time there
is no data (outside the lab) as to which of these three methods is the
most used, if any. But we can ask; "What role is reasoning fit
to play."
This leads us to Principle
Two: (Moral) Thinking is for (Social) Doing. Unfortunately, this second
principle of the "new moral principle" runs off the track
of science and becomes a mere ideological prop for monopoly capitalism.
Reason seems only fit to play the role assigned to it by the Bush White
House.
Haidt says psychologists
used to view people as "intuitive scientists" trying to find
out what reality is like. But, it seems, in "the past 15 years"
we find that "many researchers" have turned to William James
and his pragmatic view that "thinking is for doing." For James,
thinking was not for finding the "truth" but for attaining
your "goal." This view, Haidt says, is that "moral reasoning
is like that of a lawyer or politician seeking whatever is useful, whether
or not it is true."
But, evolution allows us
to adapt to a real environment, I think, not an imagined one that would
be more useful than what is actually out there. Any species evolving
along the lines of James theory of "thinking is for doing"
would soon have become extinct. (Although with global warming and the
way we make our own reality, this might very well be the case with us
in the not too distant future-- extinction, I mean.)
Haidt tells us its always
useful to justify your actions and since all societies gossip there
are three life rules we have to learn: 1) "be careful what you
do" [this seems a bit trite]; 2) since what people think you did
is more important than what you did "you'd better be able to frame
your actions in a positive light."
This is not how moral "reasoning"
operates. This is how people who have no strong moral education and
are morally defective operate. The evidence Haidt gives is garnered
from people "when brain damage or surgery creates bizarre behaviors
or beliefs." Hardly the norm.
He concludes: "Moral
reasoning is often like the press secretary for a secretive administration--
constantly generating the most persuasive arguments it can muster for
policies whose true origins and goals are unknown." The trouble
is that sooner or later the truth does come out and you pay the price,
James and his pragmatist views notwithstanding. It should be noted as
well, that the "true origins and goals" of the policies are
known to the press secretary as by most of the press to whom he is lying.
True moral reasoning, in
the sense discussed under Principle One, which has as its goal modifying
behavior, has to be conducted along the lines of the scientist trying
to discover the real state of affairs, not just what may be useful in
the short run. Eventually reality will out.
The third life rule in the
gossip society (which all societies are said to be) is: "Be prepared
for other people's attempts to deceive and manipulate you." This
may be good advice for people living under capitalism but it is hardly
true for "all societies." There are many cooperative and trusting
societies, especially in the world of what are now called "indigenous
peoples" or in
preliterate cultures.
I just don't think it is
warranted to conclude, as Haidt does, the "new cognitive machinery"
of our species was shaped by a "reputation-obsessed community."
In fact it developed in small bands of people who lived in simple cooperative
communities until the time of the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic.
Only with the evolution of complex class societies did the gossipy reputation
obsessed world that we are now familiar with begin to develop. By then
our cognitive gear was fairly well developed, including our moral sense
and reasoning.
Morality based on empathy,
rejection of unfairness (exploitation), and human solidarity (at least
on the level of kith and kin) has been characteristic of our species
when not overlaid by class struggle and class interest. Marxism is,
as a matter of fact, a philosophy seeking to institute the original
universal human solidarity of pre-class times, but on a more productive
industrial level. I conclude that Principle Two needs revamping.
Lets look at Principle Three:
"Morality Binds and Builds." This is a very speculative section
concerning hypothetical "altruism" genes which may or may
not have evolved as a result of kin selection or actions towards non
kin which help kin to survive.
The problem is to explain
what appears to be cooperative behavior with strangers that won't be
met again and "sacrifice" for "large groups of nonkin".
I'm thinking, perhaps, of young soldiers who sacrifice themselves in
Iraq for the shareholders of large American oil companies or for the
careers of generals and politicians they will never meet or know.
Haidt says people writing
on evolutionary morality can't explain this "extraordinary"
behavior by the processes of kin selection and reciprocal atruism mentioned
above. Therefore, I'm afraid, ad hoc hypothesis have to be resorted
to and one such is called "indirect reciprocity" whereby your
reputation is bettered by cooperation and sacrifice for strangers [especially
if you tell everyone how great you are for doing so in case there are
no witnesses.]
This section is not very
well scientifically grounded. It is full of speculations about genes
"that may have evolved" and with analogies between the behavior
of humans and ants. I think the problem here is too much of a commitment
on the part of people involved with evolutionary morality to find a
genetic explanation for all the higher based behavior of humans and
their moral and cultural behavior. With a prior commitment to a biological
explanation, one is tempted to force the empirical evidence into the
Procrustean bed of theory or fudge the empirical evidence altogether.
This third principle is as problematic as the second.
Let us look now at Haidt's
Principle Four. "Morality is About More Than Harm and Fairness."
Haidt tells us that almost every "research program in moral psychology"
selects out two topics- harm and fairness. He thinks this is a particularly
Western concern with other cultures expressing other concerns, of which
there are basically five that all cultures deal with. They are 1)
fairness, 2) harm, 3) loyalty, 4) respect and obedience, and 5) bodily
and spiritual purity. Heidt says these are "five psychological
foundations, each with a separate evolutionary origin" on which
moral communities are built. He implies that these five areas have biological,
ie., genetic, roots. This all very like Mencius and his four shoots,
the Four Beginnings, that prove the innate nature of humanity is good.
Since the genetic origin
of these five "shoots" is highly dubious and rests on insufficient
data, when compared to historical and cultural explanations, it does
not seem to me that the "new synthesis in moral psychology"
will withstand a rigorous scientific testing procedure. Haidt himself
admits that "morality may be as much a product of cultural evolution
as genetic evolution," and I suspect, from evidence already on
hand from Marxist social analysis and well as non-Marxist philosophical
and anthropological investigations, that cultural evolution will be
found to explain the lion's share of the origin and development of human
morality.
Thomas Riggins
is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at
[email protected].
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.