I find myself repeatedly contemplating the potentially vast predictive power of Terror Management Theory in light of this cold blast of mortality salience related to COVID-19. This is the biggest flare-up of mortality salience since 9/11 and much of the resulting frenzied societal dysfunction was foreseeable, including the fact that so many modern-day tribes are so vigorously circling their wagons.
COVID-19 is a such terrible thing to grapple with. Many of the people we care about are going to be hurt, physically and economically. We are particularly taunted by COVID's invisibility because, as a species, we rely so heavily on brain systems related to vision. That said, we human animals are now living in a huge sphere-shaped petri dish. It's difficult to imagine the huge number of dissertations and research papers that will result from this upheaval. My speculative hope is that as a result of this pandemic we will learn something critically important about how to get along with each other. Whatever we learn, we need to learn it both in our hearts and our minds. We so desperately need some sort of reboot down here on Planet Earth.
I've closely followed the writings of Jonathan Haidt. His conclusions are closely tied to scientific findings. He crosscuts the current American political divide. He is hopeful that we will find our way as a country.
Haidt laments the state of contemporary American politics, believing that on both the right and the left we’re seeing populism that responds to real problems but in illiberal ways. “On the right,” he said, “the populism there is really explicitly xenophobic and often explicitly racist … I think we see strands of populism on the right that are authoritarian, that I would say are incompatible with a tolerant, pluralistic, open democracy.”
Looking in the other direction, Haidt says, “we’ve messed up the word liberal and we’ve used it to just mean ‘left.’ I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal, in the John Stuart Mill sense. I believe in a society that is structured to give individuals the maximum freedom to construct lives that they want to live. We use a minimum of constraint, we value openness, creativity, individual rights. We try hard to maximize religious liberty, economic liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom of speech. That’s my ideal of a society, and that’s why I call myself a liberal.”
But on the left, Haidt said, “there’s been a movement that has made something else sacred, that has not focused on liberty, but that is focused instead on oppression and victimhood and victimization. And once you get into a framework of seeing your fellow citizens as good versus evil based on their group, it’s kind of a mirror image of the authoritarian populism on the right. Any movement that is assigning moral value to people just by looking at them is a movement I want no part of.”
Haidt went on: “I think this is a very important point for us to all keep in mind, that left and right in this country are not necessarily liberal and conservative anymore. On the left, it’s really clear that there are elements that many of us consider to be very illiberal; and on the right, it’s hard to see how Trump and many of his supporters are conservatives who have any link whatsoever to Edmund Burke. It’s very hard for me to see that. You know, I would love to live in a country with true liberals and true conservatives that engage with each other. That, I think, is a very productive disagreement. But it’s the illiberalism on each side that is making our politics so ugly, I believe.”
The key quote from the passage above: "Any movement that is assigning moral value to people just by looking at them is a movement I want no part of.” This is a modern version of MLK's classic advice that is scorned by many modern day "liberals": "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Why has this beautiful sentiment become so difficult today?
I'm tempted to close my eyes, flip through a dictionary and put my finger on a random word. That single word will be my next Facebook post. I suspect that this single word, no matter what it is, will be enough to trigger a political argument between vocal representatives of the two prominent political teams hurling factually spurious darts and arrows at each other, neither of these teams stopping to consider whypeople on the other side say those "disagreeable" things. Neither of them will want to take the time to put forth any effort to put the other side's best foot forward before responding. Neither of them will feel compelled to treat members of the other "team" like the human beings they are. Many of them will feel reluctance to ever say the following three magic words, "I don't know." The participants will be oblivious to the fact that many of their own self-evident "truths" are rickety, distorted within the comfy social warmth of their team's moral/political matrix.
I often feel like I'm trapped in the Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street," where all it took was a few random flickering lights to cause suspicions to ignite, leading neighbors to hate each other and physically attack each other. This episode of Twilight Zone, like so many other excellent episodes, was written by Rod Serling, who ended the show by reading this passage:
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices...to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill...and suspicion can destroy...and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own – for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.
Fast forward to a 2016 TED talk featuring moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, who stated:
We're really, really good at justifying ourselves. And when you bring group interests into account, so it's not just me, it's my team versus your team, whereas if you're evaluating evidence that your side is wrong, we just can't accept that.So this is why you can't win a political argument. If you're debating something, you can't persuade the person with reasons and evidence, because that's not the way reasoning works.
Why do so many of us treat opportunity to communicate online with each other like a vicious game when our country's existence is at stake?
On July 17, 1996, I was walking through downtown St. Louis when a reporter from a local TV newscast approached me. Her cameraman aimed his camera straight at me. In a loud voice, she asked, “What is your reaction to the fact that terrorists have shot down a TWA passenger plane over Long Island?”
My response to her: “How do we know that terrorists were involved? What is the evidence of that?”
Instead of answering me, the reporter and the cameraman walked away from me and started walking up to another person nearby. As we now know, no terrorists were involved. A short circuit caused fuel vapor in the center fuel tank to explode.
The news media is the only profession mentioned in the Constitution. When news media is done well, it is the lifeblood of democracy as well as our prime method for shedding light on government ineptitude and wrongdoing. Done badly, however, it amounts to what I have often termed “conflict pornography,” attempts to stir up anger through any means in order to sell commercials.
That TWA incident was my front row seat to seeing hack journalism in action. That “news” station knew that it would be financially valuable theater to provoke me blurt out some form of bigotry toward people from the Middle East, even if my outburst weren’t based on accurate information. Financial incentives and bigotry are two of the many ways for warping conversations, for making the exchange of words worse than useless. Today’s news is often distorted beyond recognition by the prominent ideologies of the day. Today’s “news” consumers can reliably choose the kinds of “facts” they want to hear by choosing particular news outlets.
Those of us who are conscientious consumers of the news media are in a difficult spot. Every news report comes from a point of view, but it’s often difficult to figure out what point of view is driving that news report. Whenever we consume a “news” report uncritically, it is the news equivalent of chomping down junk food. The more we do either of these things the less healthy we are.
I have studied journalism for years, including attending multiple conventions sponsored by a non-profit organization called Free Press. I have seen in detail that our news media is hit and miss, giving us some valuable news by heroic reporters, but also publishing shlock. How can most of us tell the difference? Many people set dangerous default when sizing up the industry, declaring that all news is fake news, which is a terrible position to take, though I can understand the frustration. Fuel on this fire is the fact that there are now four times as many PR specialists as news reporters (see the 4-minute video where I interviewed John Nichols of The Nation on this point. Things have gotten dramatically worse since this interview). Truly, how can a consumer of “news” know what to believe? It is difficult to know where to start.
One problem is the most people insist on getting free quality news. That’s weird, because we expect to pay for most other important things. We never go into the grocery store expecting free food, for instance. I’d suggest that each of us think about paying for those news sources you consider thoughtful and accurate. Many of the best sources are facing financially precarious times and they need you. It’s never fun to pay the money, of course, but it feels great in the long run to know that you are a partner to quality journalism. I currently support about ten magazines and newspapers.
Another thing on my wish list is that the news media needs to report much more often on the accuracy of the news media. We need a lot more information, based on careful analysis, about what factual claims made by the various news outlets are accurate. We need more news about the news. I know this sounds like a big task, but I have studied many ways to approach this. Journalism schools could be at the forefront of this movement. In this time of COVID-19, the stakes, including who lives and who dies, could not be higher.
This talk by George Lakoff has got to be one of the most ambitious 40-minute talks I’ve ever watched. Lakoff is a linguist who has spent his life studying language, but not merely language. He has also drilled down into the brain using neuroscience, connecting our use of language to such things as neural binding and mirror neurons. He has also looked upward from conceptual metaphors to point out their personal and cultural ramifications.
Metaphors begin taking root in three-year old children based on physical activities. As adults, we employ these metaphors ever-so-easily in order to understand complex social phenomena such as romantic relationships, art, teaching and politics. Whenever we employ these metaphors (and we are always doing this) we are thinking with our bodies. Further, without these metaphors we would have an impoverished understanding of essentially everything that is important to us. If you don’t want to invest in the entire 40-minute talk, I would urge you to go to the 24-minute mark to hear Lakoff’s story how the explosion of research on conceptual metaphors began with a tearful graduate student’s comment, “I’ve got a metaphor problem with my boyfriend.” After hearing this story and watching the short audience participation segment where Lakoff connects up romantic love with the physical act of traveling, the field of conceptual metaphor will likely become vivid and compelling for you. Conceptual metaphors are invisible to most of us, but once you see how they work, you will see them everywhere. You might even feel that you have new superpowers for seeing how people talk, think and attempt to persuade each other.
Lakoff is probably best known for his work on metaphors (with philosopher Mark Johnson), beginning (but by no means ending) with the book, “Metaphors We Live By.” I’ve written on the importance of metaphors in many other places, including here, here and here. Conceptual metaphors are critical to my own profession, the legal profession. I’ve published my own analysis on the critical connection between metaphors and the legal doctrine of stare decisis here: "The Exaggerated Importance of Stare Decisis."
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
9/11 and much of the resulting frenzied societal dysfunction was foreseeable, including the fact that so many modern-day tribes are so vigorously circling their wagons.
