I found the article interesting. With the complex subject Haidt's taking on his analysis is doomed to be imperfect, and incomplete but he has some interesting things to say.
I think his formulation of different values works well as a way to describe much of the disagreement about "gay marriage".
But on some other issues, I think his discription of and assignment (to liberals or conservatives) of "fairness/reciprocity" and "authority/respect" is simplistic or for some people even flat our wrong.
For example look at the small government conservative view on low taxes. That's hardly an issue of supporting social hierarchy (or purity/sanctity, or for may "in group loyalty"). But for many it fits with "Fairness/reciprocity" (seeing high taxes as unfair, and limiting of people rights. Or harm/care (seeing high taxes as harmful, looking both at the direct harm they do to those they are levied against, but particularly the indirect harm, which would have much more widespread effects).
Other ideas that could apply are autonomy (from Shweder's breakdown of values), or efficiency (which neither one sets as a value, and perhaps with good reason, since often both sides of any issue sees their solution as more efficient, and since you have to have some sort of aim in the first place to determine if your actions efficiently meet that end)
And I can see liberal issues that draw support from the ideas of authority/respect or purity/sanctity. For example some forms of environmentalist views are very strong on the last one. As for in-group loyalty, you see that in every important political group (or almost every sort of group).
For example comparing fascists with communists. Fascists may have nationalist in-group loyalty, while communists may have class in-group loyalty. Less extreme more nuanced views wouldn't break down so cleanly buy some level of in-group loyalty to some group is nearly universal. |
