Scott Cawelti

Here's my Courier column published Sunday, St. Patrick's Day.  Haidt's book is an extention and followup of his most excellent Happiness Hypothesis, which I read awhile back and commented upon too.  Haidt combines his academic research with a personal perspective that makes difficult material accessible.  I recommend both books highly--The Happiness Hypothesis (2006)  and The Righteous Mind (2012) 
3-17-13

Until I read Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” (2012) last week, I was convinced that the current Republican Party needs to go dodo.   Extinct.  And good riddance.

Haidt’s new book turned me around.  He’s a psychologist who studies morality, and has traveled the world examining why people believe and behave as they do.

He writes clearly and convincingly that no complex society can function well with just one mindset—only liberals or only conservatives.  We must have both.

 I can’t recommend  “The Righteous Mind” highly enough, especially these days when we’re mired in a swamp of animosity, each side wishing the other would disappear.    

Haidt asserts that full power for one political party would be a worse catastrophe than extinction of a rival party. I’m now convinced of this, even more so if/when Republicans begin acting like an adult, responsible group.  That is, when they return to their mainstream.   

Too many Republicans and their media mouthpieces behave these days like spoiled children who won’t play unless they get their way. Worse, they make stuff up to bolster their case, behaving like fools or liars.  

Not all, but a persistent few—and they know who they are.  And they seem to be in charge.  Woe be to Republicans who disagree with them.     

Still, there’s hope.  If the GOP rejects its extremist factions and recognizes that they do in fact risk oblivion, they may yet rebound.  We should all hope that they do. 

Here’s why.  

According to Haidt, one’s outlook on what’s wrong and right grows out of six foundation values:  care, justice, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.  We know actions and ideas are wrong when they create indifference to suffering, foster injustices, remove freedoms, betray one’s friends or family, violate legitimate authority, and undermine the sanctity of a beloved or worshipped icon or institution.   

Liberals are especially sensitive to caring and justice values, while conservatives lean toward the liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations.   

Haidt believes that each party helps balance any movement that would overemphasize one set of values over another.   Too much caring leads to overprotectiveness, a nanny state where people are made and kept dependent on Big Government.   Too little caring leads to for-profits running everything, and to hell with social and environmental responsibility.

 Too much emphasis on justice leads to constant bickering over what’s fair to everyone all the time, stopping a culture in its tracks, but too little leads to tyranny.

None of us wants to live in either a Big Brother or Tough Luck country.  Balance between liberal and conservative worldviews makes the most sense, and always has.  Haidt quotes John Stuart Mill, writing in 1859: “A party of order or stability, and a party of progress and reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.” 

No starry-eyed idealist, Haidt recognizes that rancor reigns nowadays, not to mention an inability to solve basic political problems such as the debt. 

Several solutions to this dilemma emerge from his book, but one seems quite possible:  politicians need to hang out with their rivals much more.  This is no trivial matter.  You can’t carp and belittle people when you know their families, share their grief, empathize with their struggles.  

Obama’s lunches with Republicans might be a step in that direction, as would politicians living in Washington instead of returning on weekends to their home bubbles where everyone agrees.   

 All leaving and no socializing make for a dull and contentious congress.

As Haidt puts it, “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.”  

Haidt’s “Righteous Mind” offers powerful insights from both research and experience.  He favors giving each side credit and credence for seeking the long-run good of us all. 

What a refreshing idea.   What an important book.      

3-14-13 

The more things change. . .  I'm amazed at the number of pieces I've written over the years that could have been written yesterday, literally.  Yet I wrote it nearly 23 years ago, in April, 1990 for the Courier.  

Actually, according to the point I made here, we've gone backwards--away from the methods used to teach music, drama, and sports, and more into standardized testing. 

Well, at least we still have music, drama, and sports--those truly engaging immersive "extracurricular" activities that change students' lives. 


4-18-90

With all the talk about American schools not doing the job, we might keep in mind that our schools really do succeed — strikingly, in fact — in at least three areas.

Alas, not academics: math, science, history, geography. Nor in teaching critical thinking, nor in reading or writing skills. At these sub­jects, American students remain woe­fully, shamefully inadequate by world standards. Though there are many exceptions, American schools still have miles to go. Drop-out rates prove this.

So in which areas can American schools compete worldwide? Ask high school kids what they like best about school. Then look at which areas they work nights and weekends on, often putting in far more time than required. The three areas they love happen to be the same three areas in which they work like demons: drama, music and athletics. Surprised? I didn’t think so.

American students work gladly and freely to put on plays, musicals and to play in team sports. My guess is that American high school actors, musi­cians and athletes would stand tall against any other country’s actors, musicians and athletes. In fact, I have no doubt about this.

So here’s an idea. Why not apply how schools teach drama, music and athletics to all subjects? Why not make academic classes as exciting and mem­orable as plays, concerts and football games? If we can create quality in those areas, why not apply it to all of school?

Now I can hear all the naysayers: “Extracurricular activities just happen to be fun. Math and geography can’t possibly be fun. They’re not the same at all.”

Others will groan: “Students aren’t motivated unless they’re talent­ed.” And from the administrators: “We have to make sure OM students do well on standardized tests!”

Wrong, all wrong, says William Glasser. He’s written a book, just out, called “The Quality School,’ and he details how American schools could focus on quality in all subjects, not just drama, music and athletics.

Now get this: Glasser draws from the ideas of Edwarf Deming, who reputedly taught the Japanese (just after World War II) how to manager workers so they would create high quality products.

Deming was an American who understood certain managerial strate­gies which found fertile soil in Japan. Japan then had two things going for it first, motivation — it was do or literal­ly die, and second, respect for educa­tion. In Japan, teachers are treated like minor deities, as they should be here.

Deming’s ideas aren’t all that com­plicated, and could easily work to turn American schools around, according to Glasser.

First, Glasser would challenge stu­dents with work that really mattered. Right now, American students aren’t challenged. To them, school isn’t hard, it’s boring. Ask them if you don’t believe me.

This is because American schools are generally managed according to a “boss-management” system, wherein the workers and supervisors (students and teachers) are told what to do by the bosses (administrators).

This system inevitably results in adversaries — students against teach­ers, and teachers against administra­tors. These administrators believe it’s their job to impose high educational standards on reluctant teachers and lazy students.

And what are those high educational standards? What do most administra­tors desire for their schools? It’s simple enough: high scores on standardized tests, and no discipline problems. Whether any real learning occurs isn’t really addressed.

So teachers feel pressure to help stu­dents do well on standardized tests, and students understand (all too well) that it’s all a meaningless game designed to help their teachers and administrators look good. That’s Glasser’s essential point.

The solution, taken from Edward Deming’s approach, is to change how we manage teachers and students. Instead of boss-management, we implement (in Glasser’s words) leader- management.

All coercion is removed and replaced by consensus and coopera­tion. Students and teachers discuss exactly what makes for quality in their assignments, and how they can reach it. Teams of students work together to create quality assignments under the guidance of teachers.

Changes like these could actually turn American education around in a relatively short time.

Let's get started.