What We Truly Want
Everything suggests that we do not.
The fact is that most people see themselves as good persons who would never intentionally hurt anyone else.
The human need to view oneself as good is well-documented in research. While the exact reason for this need is unknown, psychology researcher Claude Steele has shown it is incredibly strong. When we do something questionable, our entire identity is threatened, and we spend enormous energy confirming that we are good after all.
Psychology researcher Albert Bandura has described the mental techniques we use to be able to act without moral constraint while keeping our image of being good intact. A common technique is to believe we are just doing our job and to place the moral responsibility for our actions elsewhere.
This is nothing new.
Humanity's self-image as good is as old as our habit of using science to prove unequal structures. Humans have always held onto a self-image of being good and selfless while maintaining structures built on egoism.
In ancient times, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle argued that a just state relied on selfless citizens who prioritized the common good over their own desires. Both philosophers saw themselves as models of such good and selfless citizens. The goal was a flourishing society where people could enjoy the good life. Since both thinkers saw hierarchy as a reflection of an individual's inner ability—and thus their value—they saw no contradiction in the fact that their good lives were built on slavery.
With the advent of evolutionary theory, it became more common for thinkers to describe humans as fundamentally selfish and to use this natural egoism as an argument for a social order built on self-interest. However, the drive to see oneself as fundamentally good seems so strong that it made little difference. Even those who, since the time of Darwin or Hobbes, defend the status quo by referring to natural selfishness find arguments that ultimately lead back to the idea that both humans and the order we created are good.
Ultimately, our self-image has not changed much since antiquity. We see ourselves as good and just, and to the extent that we notice any injustices, we do not believe they are caused by us. Not even those with real power believe that societal injustices are their fault, as they truly feel they are doing their best.
This may be an example of Albert Bandura's techniques of moral disengagement. But the fact is that current social structures make this kind of moral disengagement natural:
—Society is organized like a machine where everyone functions as a small cog with no influence over the whole.
—Social inequality is the result of rigid, deep-rooted structures that are interdependent and controlled by many different cogs without a complete overview of the whole.
Such change requires cooperation, commitment, an enormous effort, and above all, a willingness to give up unfair advantages. Almost only those personally affected by the injustice are motivated enough to gather what is needed for real reform. For the rest of us it is easier to assume the responsibility for changing the system lies elsewhere and continue doing our best within our own limited area.
In reality, we only have three logical positions to choose from:
1. We can hold onto our self-image as good and just and demand that society be restructured to make the abuse of power more difficult.
2. We can admit we are too lazy to do anything about unfair structures even though we should.
3. We can admit we are selfish and do not want to change the structures because we benefit from them.
The truth is that the closer we are to decision-making power, the more impossible it would be for us to decide. We would get stuck in thought patterns telling us that life is too complex for structures to change just like that, however much we want a fair world. Or in thought patterns telling us that a certain amount of inequality is natural and does not mean the less privileged are doing poorly.
This is not true. Plenty of researchers have already developed working solutions and could collaborate on a global plan to implement them—if world leaders simply agreed to follow it. Even more researchers have clearly shown that the global consequences of our current social structure are catastrophic.
But as long as our thoughts are locked by destructive thought structures, we are not able to assist the researchers who truly want change. Instead, we promote researchers saying what is more comfortable to hear—for example, that it is enough to do your best within current structures—and believe they are right.
And as long as it seems logical to us that one can act out of self-interest in a way that affects others and still be a good person, the small injustices we think can be tolerated by a normally selfish person at an individual scale will continue to lead to unacceptable gaps and disasters on a global level without us understanding how it happens.
Anyone who feels certain the civilization we built during the last percent of our time on Earth is too complex to change, and anyone who argues that a certain amount of egoism and inequality is natural, should try following this method to break down their own hidden thought structures—if only to confirm they still think the same way once they have done it.
Comments
Post a Comment