Cohousing-L Mailing List: Moral Diversity [was Did your community celebrate last night?]

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Carol Agate wrote:

> As long as the Republican party espouses values so completely  
> antithetical to mine, I  am not looking for political diversity.

The website that was posted yesterday, "Ted, Ideas Worth Spreading,"  
gives some dimensions that could be helpful to at least understanding  
the differences that lead to acceptance or rejection of ideas.

We are born with a moral sense. Experience only modifies this basic  
structure. Our moral sense is malleable but arrives with a determined  
structure. We see this in children. They arrive as individuals.

This makes sense when you think about the distribution of liberal and  
conservative thought in America and between cultures. It's genetically  
based so is inherited, not wholly taught. (I can tell you I have a bi- 
racial adopted son who in all likelihood voted for John McCain. I'm  
afraid to ask.)

There are 5 foundations for moral decisions:

1. Harm/Care and 2. Fairness/reciprocity -- the Golden Rule

For most cultures and political persuasions, these two values are  
fairly balanced -- of equal importance in the 23, I think, cultures  
measured, and to liberals and conservatives.

The following three vary much more widely between liberals and  
conservatives and to a lesser degree between cultures.

Liberals value the following three dimensions much less than  
conservatives.

3. Ingroup/loyalty

To align one's self with a defined group, as distinct from other  
groups, is a conservative trait. Conservatives create tribes if they  
don't have them and "war" is understandable as a conflict between  
groups, even a necessary evil.

Liberals tend not to create or align with groups. The Democrats are  
all over the place and very hard to keep on message -- they don't even  
have an agreed upon message!

They value remaining free to make individual decisions. War is less  
comprehensible, not just because of violence (as measured in 1 & 2)  
but because there is no "we them."

In cohousing the displays of this might be the need to identify  
cohousing as a distinct movement or residential form that is unique  
and important. Not just because it is good, but because it creates an  
ingroup, a tribe, with which one can identify and know who is us and  
who is them. Others can be invited in, but there is a distinct "in"  
that also defines a "not in."

4. Authority/respect

Do we listen to authority or do we determine whether to listen,  
perhaps obey, or not? Do we make our own decisions or follow the  
dictates of a tradition.

Liberals tend to determine what they believe; conservatives, to adhere  
to a tradition, most often a religion since those are our most deeply  
developed traditions.

In cohousing, do we accept any authority or do we want all decisions  
to be 'full group' decisions. Is everything up for grabs all the time,  
by each individual, or do we have a way things are done? Do we demand  
full group consensus on all decisions? Or do we allow a  president or  
a board to determine community direction in the absence of a full  
group decision?

5. Purity/Sanctity

Do we concern ourselves with purity of self in mind and spirit, with  
sanctity, a reverence for traditions, or do we question or reject the  
reserving of spaces for "holy" behavior or feelings. Obviously,  
liberals tend to believe less in holy and more in pragmatic. One "just  
sits," not worships. One follows values but not rituals.

In cohousing is celebration of the founding day a time for ritual  
rejoicing and almost confessional "appreciations"? Or is it a time it  
share individual memories and reflect on new insights? To look at how  
have we changed or to go back and reinforce our original purpose for  
being?

===

Then all of these combine and overlap to produce what we believe  
should be done in our lives. And they can all be twisted in funny  
ways. The concern for pure food can become conservative when it used  
to create an in-group or is coupled with a reverent attitude. The food  
must be pure enough to be prayed over.

I can see now why sociocracy works so well as a governance and  
organizational method. They use of consensus is liberal and the  
hierarchy of decision-making is conservative.

The rejection of stem-cell research, abortion by choice, lesbian/gay  
marriage can be evidence of a need and respect for tradition, the  
known and the familiar. For the religious teachings that go back  
thousands of years. Why question the word of God?

But by understanding the moral dimension that each of these decisions  
brings out, perhaps they can be framed differently so more people can  
be comfortable with them.

In my opinion, that is what Barack Obama has done. In addition to his  
ability to frame issues so they are emotionally persuasive  in terms  
of #1 and #2, the Golden Rule.

The website is below. There is incredible stuff at this site. All  
about 18  minute talks by experts in a field -- on ALL topics from  
perfume to medicine to politics to emotional stability. Amazing site:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Sociocracy, a Deeper Democracy
http://www.sociocracy.info