#354: From Developmental Psychology To Political Development
................................
In college I was drawn to the developmental psychology theorists (Piaget, Kohlberg) who saw stages of mental/moral thinking exhibited in maturing children and adults. I was interested in what Kohlberg's theory might mean for society as a whole. That is, might there be a natural progression of steps that all humans follow as they mature; and if so, might that mean that, collectively, forms of government could also involve steps along a path as history unfolds?
My thesis was way too speculative, so it was probably a good thing I didn't follow through. Just for fun, though, here's the idea:
...............
First, Kohlberg's six moral steps that humans can take:
1. Obedience and punishment
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest
(What's in it for me?)
3. Interpersonal accord
(Being a good boy)
4. Social-order maintenance
(Law and order morality)
5. Social contract
(Everybody has equal rights)
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled, conscious decisions)
...........
Then, here's how I envision them, politically:
1. State of Nature - no government
(Dog eat dog)
2. Big Man Rules - Autocracy
(Trading loyalty for protection)
3. Tribalism - Aristocracy, Monarchy
(Identifying With A Privileged Group)
4. Ideology - Theocracy
(A set of laws, imposed)
5. Individual Rights - Representative Democracy
(A nation of equals, with equal rights under the law)
6. Principled Political Action - Direct Democracy
(Self-guided, but universal moral code)
.........
Each step along the way can be seen as superior, logically, to the one before. And although history certainly doesn't perfectly follow these levels, the important point is that, all things being equal, the next step is often easy to make. So:
From 1 to 2: In a state of nature the logical thing to do is to find a power strong enough to ward off disaster in exchange for loyalty.
From 2 to 3: A privileged group is stronger in numbers than is a single authority.
From 3 to 4: Deriving authority from an outside source beats the selfish will of powerful individuals
From 4 to 5: Unwavering obedience fails when compared to individual rights and equality
From 5 to 6: Principled decision making is always better than the unprincipled kind
..........
Accordingly, one could say that Afghanistan had been at level 3, with 4 (political Islam) providing a logical step up. Instead of the well-connected enjoying privilege, the teachings of the Koran would be used to level the playing field. Meanwhile, the idea of individual rights (level 5) doesn't make sense, because the privileged are in charge, and certain to exploit their position in a representative democracy, thus mocking the promise of equal rights. And then there's education. We in the West, thanks to good educations, think for ourselves. Without a basic education, this is difficult if not impossible.
The flip side to the attractiveness of level 4, in the form of Islamic dogma, is that it should eventually be seen as inferior to level 5's realization that there are varying perspectives on most matters, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is an easy step to make for cosmopolitan, educated, urban societies where different peoples are constantly mixing. If so, it may be a long while before this step is made in a relatively isolated region of the world like Afghanistan--though its exposure to the outside world over the past 20 years may be a factor.
Nevertheless, the idea that level 5 fits in a very poor country (where the incentive to exploit level 3's privilege is so great) is a hard case to make when an obvious intermediary step (politicized Islam) enters the picture. In this view, the American attempt to jump from level 3 to level 5 was doomed from the start.
........
We haven't mentioned level 6, except in passing. To clarify, the idea that principled decision making allows direct democracy is easier to grasp if you think about level 6 as being everyone making principled, judicious choices all the time, usually based on what society would say is the right thing to do. This allows figurative, if not literal, democracy of the direct kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment