My notes for the talk on Moral Psychology

I had hoped to find time to write these up properly – but two moths later I haven’t!  So here it is, mis-spellings, poor grammar, and all!

Notes for a talk on Orthodoxy, Ritual and Moral Psychology

Warning: I use the words “conservative” and “liberal” throughout this talk. I am not talking about Republicans and Democrats. The liberal worldview focuses on things like helping and protecting others, making sure everyone gets their fair share, and asserting the rights of people to make their own choices. The conservative worldview accepts these (although it applies them differently) and adds strong in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and a desire for purity. If you think I am talking about politics, you will miss the point of my talk. The talk is on moral psychology and its implications for Orthodoxy. I will use some political examples, but only to demonstrate how certain psychological mechanisms work.

Introduction: Frustrations and Miscommunications

Why look at psychology of morals? Background.

A southern conservative in academia. Deeply religious (not just spiritual). Married young. Four kids. Intelligence officer. From Georgia. Mischaracterized. Misunderstood.

 Same kind of thing in New England – but even more so. Just about everyone here is liberal, not just academics. Assumptions about Christian, southern, home-schooling, gun-owning conservatives are almost uniformly negative.

Really comes into focus doing ecumenical work as a chaplain at URI and in the RI Council of Churches. They seemed incapable of finding good things to say about both political and religious conservatives. The closest they could come was a sort of condescending “you’ll grow out of that as you mature… our faith group did”. Even explicit framing didn’t help: a discussion about the need for charity in ideological and theological discourse was followed by a discussion of two anti-establishment groups, the Occupy and Tea Party movements. The usual praise was heaped on the former while nothing good (but much negative) could be said about the latter.

 The irony was that conservatives who move in such circles often have a much easier time finding charitable explanations for the opinions and behavior of their liberal colleagues. Here are some examples of the disconnect:

Gay Marriage

• Conservatives understand why liberals would see gay marriage as a civil rights issue; we disagree with the application, but value the motivation.

• Liberals do not just disagree with our stance on the issue, they do not value the motivation. “Tradition”, “authority”, and “purity” are moral principles for conservatives but not for liberals. They don’t just disagree with our application of these principles, they are antagonistic about the principles themselves.

The Social Gospel

• Conservatives understand the liberal focus on the “Social Gospel”, but see it as just one of many ministries the Church is called to.

• On the other hand, liberals are loath to accept the role of a set ritual, set fasting regulations, or the need to assert Tradition and Church authority.

The Ordination of Women Priests or Married Bishops

• Conservatives admit to the liberal moral assertion that this is not fair. Some will even agree that certain things would be easier or more efficient were the rules to be relaxed.

• But liberals are not willing to accept the merit of the conservative claim that the concerns of fairness are outweighed by the moral authority of historic precedence and the authority of Tradition, to include Canon Law.

Pussy Riot (similar to cases of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street)

• Liberals were supportive of the acts of these Russian hooligans because they oppose the oppression of the Russian state. The justify the use of the church because the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate supports this oppression.

• Even conservatives who oppose the Putin regime and the support the Russian Orthodox Church gives it are troubled by Pussy Riots actions. Concern for the issues these activists raised was outweighed by its social and spiritual blasphemy. Liberals acknowledge and regret the pain the actions caused worshippers, but do not seem to grant any extra weight to the particular space which was defiled or the to the rituals that were interrupted. 

Just to make sure you understand my point, this kind of miscommunication is different from “normal” political discourse. For example, when liberal and conservative Christians disagree about abortion, there is common ground about the moral issues involved (life, freedom, proportionality/fairness); the disagreement comes about the relative applicability of these principles. The liberal may agree that life is sacred, but weigh the life of the mother greater than that of an unborn child. The conservative may agree that a child is a great burden on a poor family, but assert that the possibility of other options (e.g. abstinence, birth control, marriage, adoption) make it less important than protecting the interests of a defenseless child. The problem I am addressing today is not that people disagree about how to apply moral rules, it is that some Christians fo not recognize the validity of moral rules that are prime motivators for others.

 A Restatement of the Problem

Orthodox Christians find themselves at an impasse when talking about important moral issues with heterodox liberal Christians. But it gets worse. This divide has worked its way into our own parishes (majority Orthodox support for abortion; almost majority support for gay marriage – and I bet that would now be solid support). Learning real charity and respect will help, but there is a real division that needs to be healed.

[And because we are concerned with Truth and adhering to it, there is another issue involved: are the liberals right in adhering to a smaller set of moral guidelines, or are conservatives right that in asserting the validity of a broader spectrum of morality. To put it another way, should conservatives just chill out a bit, or should liberals grow up and act more responsibly?]

Diagnosing the Problem I: Thinking, Fast and Slow

Diagnosing the problem correctly is critical as it will affect the treatment. Misdiagnoses are common. Before I share the most interesting diagnosis of the problem, let me share a couple other findings that will help us understand what is to come.

The first is the finding that most moral decisions and opinions are pre-cognitive. They are made using what Khaneman calls “the fast brain” (in Thinking, Fast and Slow; see also Gladwell’s summary of this line of research in Blink). The “slow brain” then uses all its fancy words after the opinion has been embraced to explain why it was the most righteous choice. It looks to the self as if the decision was made through deliberation, but that is just marketing. The choice was made before the brain came up for the reason why. 

Note that this is true for both liberals and conservatives. It’s not that one group is really thinking about things and the other isn’t, it’s that liberals and conservatives have developed different moral instincts that they have learned to dress up with wise words. Slowing down will help. Learning to sympathize with and talk openly with other people will, too. But it’s hard to get color blind people to really understand the value of colors they cannot see, no matter how open-minded they are. So this does not explain the disconnect, but it does give us a greater appreciation for the depth of the problem.

Diagnosing the Problem II: Framing

For the purpose of today’s discussion, framing means providing the ideational context for an issue. We “frame” an issue when we assign it to a particular moral category. Going back to the abortion debate, liberals tend to frame it as an issue of fairness or justice for the mother; conservatives tend to frame it as an issue of fairness or justice for the child. While much political dialogue takes the form of advocating one frame over another, we have to take into account the initiative of the “fast brain”: framing affects the choices it makes. And because it is reactive rather than deliberative, this means that much of the work of making moral choices is done before we even get involved!

This framing is not always, or perhaps even usually, overtly moral. It does not even need to be deliberate at all. In fact, it is often circumstantial. Is the person giving us the information likable? Part of our in-group? Handsome or beautiful? What were we thinking of or talking about before this issue came up? What did we have for dinner the night before? All of these things and many more can affect our first reaction to an idea or issue. And once our fast brain has come up with our opinion, researchers have proven that it takes a lot of extra information and effort to move us off of it. First impressions are so important, and they often have nothing to do with what you would think really matters!

Framing plays a huge role in our moral decision-making. It affects how both the slow and fast thinking parts of our brain come to conclusions. Moral discussions are often about the relative applicability of different frames. This helps us understand why liberals and conservatives disagree (they use different frames and apply the same ones differently), but that is only part of the story. We are still left with the problem that some moral frames that motivate conservatives do not resonate at all with liberals. To understand that, we need another diagnosis.

Diagnosing the Problem III: Moral Foundations Theory

I think Jonathan Haidt’s work (at least the descriptive part of it) does a good job describing why liberals and conservatives have such a hard time communicating. He and other researchers have found six moral principles that are present across time and place. The bottom line is that three are shared by everyone (although people will still disagree about their application/framing), but three are pretty much exclusive to conservatives. Here they are:

Universal Moral Dimensions

Care vs. Harm

Fairness/Proportionality vs. Cheating

Liberty/Freedom vs. Oppression

Conservative Moral Dimensions

Loyalty vs. Betrayal

Authority/Tradition/Respect vs. Subversion

Sanctity/Purity vs. Degradation 

The Implications for Orthodoxy

Use these to evaluate:

• The ontology and reality of the Sacraments (baptism, chrismation, repentance, communion, anointing, marriage, holy orders)

• The Ten Commandments (I am God, no other gods before me; vs. idolatry; vs. Lord’s name in vain; Sabbath day is holy; honor your father and mother; no killing; no adultery; no false witness; no coveting)

• The Church Commandments (Observe Holy Days; Attend Church on Sundays and Holy Days; Keep Fasts prescribed by the Church; Confess and Commune regularly; no parties during Fasts).

• The role of Scripture, Tradition, and Authority in discernment

 The Orthodox Way (orthopraxis) is demanding and all inclusive. To the extent it requires loyalty (to Christ/the Church) vs. universality; respect for authority (the Church, Tradition, ecclesiastical authorities) and a desire to work towards purity (confession, fasting, holiness, sanctification, theosis), liberals will have a hard time. This is not to let conservatives off easy: their willingness to misapply moral concepts and misinterpret liberal opinions is wrong and turns people away. They have to remember that liberal motivations are real, true, and useful. It does no good to act as though they are acting in bad faith.

So, given all this, what can we to help people grow towards a fuller faith?

The role of ritual in developing and informing a full spectrum morality.

 Further Reading/Exploration

• Morality Quiz/Test your Morals, Values, & Ethics. http://www.yourmorals.org

• Jonathan Haidt, “The The moral roots of liberals and conservatives”, TED talk. 2008. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/341

• Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. 2012.

• Daniel Khaneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. 2011.

• Noam Shpancer. “Framing: Your Most Important and Least Recognized Daily Mental Activity” at Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201012/framing-your-most-important-and-least-recognized-daily-mental-activity