A Moral Sense?

Another riveting (polarizing ?) piece by Pinker in the N.Y.T. magazine this week. (read it here, copy/paste, still haven't taken time to solve problem of linking from this blog:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

While undeniably fascinating, I have two criticisms to voice (at this precise moment, maybe more will come.)

The first is that it starts out with a bang but ends in a fizzle. Unlike his recent book “The Stuff of Thought”, it is pleasantly short, thus more digestible (another way to put that would be to admit I still haven’t reached the end of the book, though I’ve had it in my possession for over three months.) What is enticing in both endeavours is the method used to explore the workings of the human mind, the old “catalogue” system, whereby everything gets a category, a permanent slot from which information relating to it may be retrieved with ease and speed. Very convenient. The problem with the article however is, though he applies neat little labels to the various components listed, they don’t actually add up to much, do they? “…harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity” are the pillars upon which he would have us build a moral system independent of religion, and, truth be told, I was with him in spirit all the way. Who wouldn’t be? After all, the faithless and faithful alike would welcome any sort of system that would unite all mankind into observing rules to guarantee safety and well-being to all the world over, independent of local variants. But to my mind, the thread doesn’t lead us anywhere near so much as a hint of such a solution.

His final paragraph, the all important closing argument, feels less than satisfactory, never mind conclusive:

“Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.”

Uhm… Not.

Unfortunately, “Man” will just find newer, more clever ways of perpetuating same self-serving behaviour, and I’m quite sure that Mr Pinker’s research and thought experiments have already led him numerous times smack into that wall. We rationalize after the fact, and though his various arguments and illustrations do highlight the fact that we are as inclined to do “good” as we are to do the opposite, we rarely think things through on a conscious level before we act upon our numerous and contradictory urges.

My second caveat concerns the very basis from which he builds his essay, the “Moral Instinct” a.k.a. the moral “Sense”. While I’m rarely sceptical of the notorious major five (and open to some others, like proprioception, and anything else that is physically grounded) I have a hard time accepting the idea that there may exist anything remotely close to a category encompassing such a thing as morality. This so clearly smacks of the tail wagging the dog that I find it difficult not to resist.

A “Moral” sense? That’s as acceptable an idea as something like a healthy sense. We all have a variety of factors to consider to keep us on track for a long and healthful life, some related, many not. These factors cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be placed under a single umbrella, and to continue with the same comparison, we all know how observant we are of those rules, and this despite the sometimes immediate and painful consequences not abiding to them can bring.

The faithless under attack

An article in today's NYT put into words a feeling I imagine is shared by many an atheist beside me. In the article "Faith vs the faithless" the Op-ed columnist writes:

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds.

This confirms my impression of the direction the umwelt has taken. America is trying to make it uncomfortable for all of those who, like me, do not adhere to any form of religious dogma. He mentions how Romney, in his latest speech describes the faithful as being united in

a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics

which brings nothing to mind as the Nietzschean postulate about the weak claiming victimhood status, though their numbers clearly deny such a claim. 90% of all Americans adhere to one form of religious belief or another: wherein lies the threat?

From where I sir - and Romney's speech does warn about the faithlessness of Europe (why, pray tell? What horrible excesses should America be worrying about? A vibrant culture and economy, greater tolerance for differences that feed the vibrancy?) - it seems clear that what we should be worrying about is the way the U.S. is preparing to wage war against the "faithless". Will we soon be so reviled that we will no longer be allowed to set foot in the "land of the free"?

On Head Scarves

Here in France, the question of what a woman wears on her head (and sometimes I wonder if soon the facial hair worn by a man might not come under the same scrutiny) is no longer left up to the individual. I can't say whether a woman should or should not wear one, knowing that either way she is often not at liberty to decide. While on the one hand the govt. here forbids it in specific circumstances, there are others where she is obliged to wear her scarf by a male in her family. Should a woman not have the right to decide for herself?

The question is all the more puzzling when one takes into consideration the fact that many women now wear the hijaab out of choice. I have to say that for my part, I find the idea of not having to spend any time worrying about how my hair looks is very appealing. I often yearn to live in a society that didn't judge me on my looks - oh, but to wear a large black wrap that covered me head to foot while wearing pajamas underneath! Only that isn't at all what we're talking about, is it?

But more than cultural protest - or even a defiant expression of faith - the wearing of the scarf can be the manifestation of total male dominance, or - and this is the aspect I find intriguing - a means of defining oneself, a desperate way to assert one's identity.

Right now, I'm reading "SNOW" by the Nobel prize winning author Orhan Pamuk. the central "story" question of which revolves around head-scarf wearing girls who commit suicide, why they kill themselves: is it because they are forbidden to wear it in post Ataturk Turkey? Or do the other conditions in their lives provoke the desperate act? (I'm still reading, will I know when I reach the end?)

The thing is, I was told an anecdote recently about a young girl here, whose parents were staunchly secular in their way of life, who began wearing the hijaab of her own accord when she was about 14. In doing so she has brought a measure of ostracism upon herself, and is being treated for severe back-pain for which there is no evident cause. (I'm taking this - as her doctor does - as an expression of her inner suffering made physical.)

Discussing this with the doctor involved who suggested to her parents that to relieve the pain - as far as he was concerned, since it was to him a psychological problem - the best recourse was to take her to a therapist. But I'm not sure it can be "cured" so simply. In the current context, I wonder if the socio/cultural climate here is not what would need to be fixed instead.

At her age, the question of identity - not just who she is, but what group does she belong to - is the central question of her life. The doctor is convinced that by her choice of head wear, she is condemning herself to ostracism. But I wonder if such ostracism was not already in place. I am all too aware of the climate here, the attitude of the non-Muslim French towards those they consider to be immigrants, though they may have been here for several generations. The evidence of how the French ostracize their fellow citizens on the basis of their ethnic origins is everywhere. How can a young woman develop a modicum of self-respect except by distancing herself from those who would deem her unworthy of their respect - regardless of the scarf she wears. And what other choice does she have but assert her otherness in a way that allows her to become a part of something larger than herself, a group in which she can be included, and even be respected for wearing the scarf?

I imagine that as long as the portion of the French population who trace their origins to the Maghreb continue to be discriminated against, the wearing of the hijaab will be on the rise. From where I sit, it is a symbol of hope. The efforts to assimilate here have produced none of the intended - and much touted - effects. Rather than try to impose by rule of law that the scarf not be worn, maybe it's time to invest in trying to change the mindsets of those who continue to refuse them access to the very closed society that is mainstream France.

Exceptionally French Riots

Here we go with the riots again. French exceptionalism is going to allow the country to live its own Watts riots, which, considering the social climate here, are unavoidable.

Reading articles in the press both in France and in the U.S., there’s little mention of the ubiquity of racism here, except for Sarkozy’s response to the riots in 2005 of which this is now a re-enactment. Yet a major factor in the man’s election is that his response typified that of the average French man (person, really, but men speak their minds on the subject more readily than women, who tend to veil their views). Though I realise that racism is still rampant in the U.S., albeit cloaked under a blanched P.C. sheet, there are fewer qualms about expressing disdain here. Say what you will about how civilized the French are, they are filled with at least as much racism as resveratrol, and their resulting bile is probably as instrumental in their longevity as the much touted molecule found in red wine.

The result of this prejudice – beside having made for many a distasteful dinner topic – is that their are no jobs available to minorities (read Arabs and blacks) here. In an experiment designed to bring attention to the problem, C.V.s were sent out with or without names attached. With the ethnic sounding names, there was not a single call-back for an interview. (Interestingly enough the experiment was also done with visuals where results were similar for extremely unattractive and/or overweight people – not to mention the handicapped). Is it any wonder that social unrest is at an explosive level now?

What’s (not so) funny about the situation is that the guilty deny being racist. There’s no room for discussion because according to them, the problem just doesn’t exist. Never mind all the racial stereo-typifying, the slurs and the discrimination, for a majority of the French, it’s the unavoidable result of the nature of the people against whom discrimination is directed. I was too young during the events in the U.S., but I don’t see how change can be brought about here. The anti- discrimination laws already exist. It’s motivation that’s lacking, something that would bring about a change of mentality. I’ve heard my mother-in-law tell of her early years as an Italian immigrant here and how she suffered from prejudice. The hostility against the lowly Italian race has been purged for the most part now, but wouldn’t you know it, she and others like her are the most vociferous racists now. What new ethnic group could be invited here to displace the ones chosen to take the brunt now?

To be powerless in a world full of riches

Isn’t the powerlessness we all feel to a certain degree the same as what the « martyrs » for Islam feel, only in their minds – as well as in reality – the odds are stacked higher against them than they are for us? As I see it, there are 3 possible ways to go: Fight, Flight or “Learned Helplessness” (see Seligman et al.) (the latter leading to and/or being a major cause for depression, or even the definition thereof, and really, isn’t depression the condition of staying put and fighting with yourself to the point of exhaustion?)

The article in the NYT magazine (Where Boys Grow Up to Be Jihadis, Nov 25/07) mentions that the men discussed in the article all had reasons to feel despondent prior to their engagement with Jihad. Then they joined movements – groups of like-minded peers – for whom they became willing to give up their lives. In other words, they externalized their conflict, and opted to join a group (strength in numbers is due, at least in part, to the sense of invincibility belonging to a group confers) thanks to which they finally felt empowered; they stopped being victims and became actors in their lives.

“people prone to terrorism share a sequence of experiences, […]They feel a sense of moral outrage that is interpreted in a specific way (the war in Iraq, for example, is interpreted as a war on Islam); that outrage resonates with the person’s own experiences (Muslims in Germany or Britain who feel marginalized might identify with the suffering of Iraqis); and finally, that outrage is channelled into action.
This process, Sageman told me, is rarely a solitary one. He and a growing number of law-enforcement officials and analysts argue that group dynamics play a key role in radicalization. While ideology may inspire terrorists, they say, it takes intimate social forces to push people to action. Friends embolden one another to act in ways they might not on their own. This might be called the peer-pressure theory of terrorism. Experts in the field refer to it as the BOG, for bunch of guys (or GOG, for group of guys). “Terrorism is really a collective decision, not an individual one,” said Sageman, who coined the theory. “It’s about kinship and friendship.”

The point I’m trying to make is that there would probably be a lot less of this if the Western world owned up to using the developing world (or just about any market that can be exploited) as a well of riches with which to fill their coffers. We use their resources to produce our wealth at a fraction of what it would cost if we produced everything at home - mostly by paying horrendously low wages - and we develop markets there for our products in order to accumulate more wealth. We use whatever they have for our benefit, and we use all available means to convince them to buy products they don’t need when our own markets become saturated.

How would we feel if we had to watch someone else get rich at our expense, while that same someone made it impossible for us to attempt to ameliorate our own circumstance by denying us access to the means to do so?

My Good, your Bad?

Why do we feel the need to invoke exterior help to accomplish something we can (only) do ourselves? Why does faith necessarily come into it?

We are predicting creatures.

We don't just get an urge, and then lunge to satisfy it (unless we're standing right next to the refrigerator).We consider the various possibilities, evaluate them for possible benefits and costs, and once we've narrowed them down, we scheme to attain our goals. The problem we're immediately confronted with is that we can never plan for all eventualities. Not only are we not prescient, even if we were, we couldn't store all the ramifications on the hard-drives of our brains.

That's the scary part. Not knowing.

And we've got a multitude of ways of dealing with the unknown, the imponderables. The all-time most popular way is of course the invention of the all powerful, omniscient Being who oversees everything and guarantees that things will go according to whatever we consider to be the "good" rules governing the universe (which bear an uncanny resemblance to what we feel is good for ourselves.)

(I am not remotely qualified to expound on any of this. But who's to stop me? At the end are a couple of leads to explore if you feel so inclined.)

In a nutshell, we evolve, as human "systems" through interaction with our surroundings (environment, other people) and we "construct" our selves along with our external "reality" as we go along (which in turn affects reality, which affects us etc..). We do it with reference to what is necessary for the perpetuation of the system that we embody. Not necessarily or exclusively for our physical survival, but according to ever changing and shifting criteria from which we generate and update our sets of rules: I'll call that Me/Good as in what I feel is good for me, and Other/Bad as in "this isn't conducive to the purpose of perpetuating my self" (I have a theory that the more "evolved" we become, the more flexible we can be about the distinction between the two.)

Obviously we wish for all that is Me/Good to prevail, and try to maintain Other/Bad to a minimum and/or at an acceptable distance. But the world is mostly "other", beyond our control, outside our scope. That is what leads us to the next logical step: to posit a Being that is on our side, a just and benevolent father who will do for us what we can't. (and the Good that Being guarantees is - coincidentally - the same as Me/Good).

The problem is that there are as many different versions of Good as there are of Me, and I don't see - short of massive cloning of Me (me, really, because I like me the best) - how it can ever be otherwise? The most we can do is to find common ground, and that has its limits. Any effort to globally "unify" our conceptions of what is Good (from any perspective, scientific, religious or philosophical) is bound to fail. We are products of our cultures as much of our genes. There will always be diverging points of view, not to mention continuous change.

Better to develop more secure foundations upon which to anchor a greater sense of self-reliance instead of deferring to a Being to insure our Goods, the definition of which we can never agree upon and about which there will always be conflict. After all, isn't insecurity – the fear about what tomorrow will or will not bring - the real fuel behind all extremism? Isn't fundamentalism/literalism – the strict adherence to a set of rules and the rituals we perform to uphold them – akin to magical thinking as a way to ward off all that we fear might happen?


For more information re: the Me/Good - Bad/Other theory of auto-poïesis, and in terms of evolution/social interaction:
Auto-poïesis, see: Varela & Maturana, G.A. Kelly, G. Bateson, N. Luhmann
On constructivism, radical or otherwise, see E. von Glasserfeld, P. Watzlawick

Reconciliation

There's this interesting video on http://bloggingheads.tv/ where Philosopher Joshua Cohen and economist Glenn Loury discuss the essence of Christianity. The philosopher tackles the question from an ethical pov, and the economist, from the personal necessity aspect of religion. In one segment Loury refers to "A Raisin in the Sun" to highlight the fact that it is through belief in God that one finds the courage to confront adverse conditions. Of course.

Among the responses to the vlog, one person declared being against the idea of calling into question anyone's belief system, and I agree that there is absolutely no value in trying to invalidate anyone's faith. The problem as I see it is that to not believe in God is a belief system in itself. It takes determination to maintain such a stance in our day and age. And I think I am not alone in feeling that our freedom not to believe is increasingly threatened.

When you see all the democratic candidates falling over each other to prove how more devout than the others he or she is, it's hard not to fear for the future. Whatever happened, I wonder, to the separation between Church and State? Where I live now - in France - religion has long been a very private matter, because like taste, there is no accounting for it.

P.S. Off subject: if anyone is reading this and has the answer to why posting the links, by using the button that's meant to do it automatically, doesn't work? (I've tried with both Explorer and Mozilla to no avail)