Purity and Sanctity

So, let us start with what I would consider the least problematic of the values Haidt recommends, the concept of the sacred.  After all, that is the whole point of Alexandra Pelosi's videos – that people tend to vote, not for their economic interests, but for what they hold sacred.  On the one hand, I agree.  We need to show greater respect for the things that people hold in reverence.  But doing so is nonetheless fraught with difficulties.

In some ways, our discourse would be improved if we could recognize that people’s concept of sanctity extends beyond church, and if we could recognize it as a legitimate subject for public discourse. Not to do so leads to Robert Altemeyer's maddening obtuseness – his inability to understand that some people can value promoting Christianity over majority rule, minority rights or parental authority because he does not see promoting Christianity as a legitimate value. 

Haidt’s comments on abortion agree with what most liberals believe.  Opponents of abortion frame their opposition in terms of harm prevention, but he believes it is largely a matter of purity and of karmic justice (women who engage in sex outside of marriage should suffer the consequences).  To liberals, this is the pounce moment – see, this isn’t about avoiding harm at all, it is just about (sexual) purity.  The implication is that such concerns are illegitimate.  Haidt’s reply is, sure it’s about (sexual) purity.  Why shouldn’t that be legitimate?  Much the same goes for gay marriage.  Gay marriage doesn’t harm anyone, infringe on anyone’s liberty, or cause any recognizable injustice.  So what is wrong with it? Wouldn’t it be much easier if an opponent could answer that gay marriage tampers with a sacred institution or violates their sense of the sacred and have those accepted as a legitimate answer?  Consider how things look from the perspective of someone who places high value on reverence for the sacred.  What is most important to you is not only excluded from reputable public discourse, but automatically regarded as an illegitimate subject and no better than a cover for simple bigotry.  Is it any wonder you would be angry?

At the same time, admitting reverence for the sacred into public discourse poses some serious problems.  For one thing, it just doesn’t lend itself to debate in the same way that the other moral foundations do.  The whole meaning of holding something sacred is that there is not really a rational foundation for it; it just is.  That makes any sort of public debate on the subject difficult.  Indeed, it can easily be taken as a debate stopper – it’s sacred to me, end of subject, you will just have to respect it.  It is easy to see how this could turn into an alarming sense of entitlement – simply define something important to you as sacred and beyond discussion and you are automatically entitled to win.

For another thing, people tend to regard sacredness as something absolute and take offense at the idea that sacredness might be relative.  But it really is relative.  For instance, different people hold different things sacred.  And worse, to many people, respect for what I hold sacred requires disrespect for what is sacred to you.  This is the attitude of “my god and beat up your god” and lies behind the hysteria over any display of Islam in America.  Furthermore, although sacredness is supposed to be timeless, in fact it changes over time.  Sunday blue laws, prohibition, and restrictions on divorce were all seen as essential to defend the sacred in the past, but all have fallen by the way over time.  Haidt makes the same point about gay marriage – although people fear it as tampering with a sacred institution, in fact the institution of marriage has changed a lot over time and will no doubt change more in the future.  But suggesting such a thing frightens many people and simply means moral decay.  And some things are more sacred than others.   That (I suspect) may go a long way towards explaining why protecting one’s folkways is so important to most people.  Folkways are sacred, not in the sense that church is sacred; sacred in some lesser way, but somewhat sacred nonetheless.  And it suggests why culture wars can be so intractable – if everything is sacred to some degree, change can be very hard, even when necessary.

And then there is the question of how the sacred fits in with other values.  What do you do if many people’s sense of purity means denying access to birth control to unmarried women, but denying such access increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and causes considerable social harm?  What if respect for the sacred for one person means requires saying prayers in school, but to another person being forced to join in such prayers is an infringement on liberty?  What if one person’s sense of the sacred requires saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but to another person, the Pledge is a form of idolatry? What if one person’s sense of the sacred forbids teaching evolution, but fidelity to scientific accuracy requires it?  If you admit the sacred into public discourse, how do you weigh it against other competing values?  How do you balance rival concepts of the sacred?  And how do you urge respect for sacred values you neither share nor understand without sounding condescending?

I don’t have the answers, but I am confident that the answer is not (as Haidt suggests) to try to portray liberal concerns as sacred, too.  What people want is not a general sense that you understand the concept of the sacred.  They want to know that you hold the same things sacred that they do.  Holding the wrong things sacred just proves that worship false gods and opens up yet another front in the culture war. 

So what do I suggest?  I would say start by building on what we already have.  In fact, there are concepts that liberals hold sacred that are generally accepted as sacred in American discourse.  Freedom of religion is one.  Freedom of speech is another.  Racial equality is another.  Reverence for the Constitution is shared by liberals and conservatives, even if it is not held in the same way.  So emphasize respect for people’s religion, whether you share it or not.  (The whole business about requiring church affiliated employers to provide free birth control hasn’t helped here).  Encourage serious study of the Constitution.  Allow schools to teach Bible classes as an elective so long as they stick to the text and refrain from interpretation.  (Confession:  At least part of the reason I make these recommendations is that I think actually reading these sacred documents will make them somewhat more down-to-earth and approachable).

Second, can we please move away from some of the ACLU’s more absurd and senseless positions?  It may make perfect sense to you that a nativity scene in a public park is a grave threat to the separation of church and state while an identical scene in a private yard or in front of a church is freedom that must be defended at all costs.  It may make perfect sense to you that whether such a scene is in Hobby Lobby or an airport is of huge importance.  But guess what?  To most people these distinctions make no sense at all.  They just mean that the ACLU is trying to drive the sacred from the public sphere, and it offends people.  My advice is: learn to deal with some public display of religion.  It is not a shameful thing like pornography.  The question should be whether there is coercion involved.  Can we please drop the view of the libertarians that any tax is a form of coercion and must be treated as unmitigated tyranny?  Teacher-led prayers in school are coercive because they put pressure on a captive audience.  But merely seeing religious symbols on display, even on public property or funded with taxpayer dollars, is not. 

And start acknowledging the sacred as a legitimate topic of public discourse.  Acknowledge that we were wrong to dismiss people’s most heart-felt concerns as irrational or bigoted.  Yes, this can lead to the difficulties discussed above.  Somehow, concern for the sacred is going to have to be put on a level with other concerns, not as something to be left out as entirely illegitimate, but neither as something above discussion that can be imposed on others despite their wishes.  Finding the right balance will be extremely difficult.  But Haidt is right.  Anger and polarization will never end so long as people’s deepest concerns are denied any sort of hearing.