After reading a few blog site entries (see the Defending the Republic series), I have actually wondered why individuals who do not appear to gain from social justice efforts support and endorse them. Why would a male push a program developed to deny his rights? Why do business embrace the ecological, social, and governance program when it potentially makes them less competitive through reduced requirements, higher expenses, and policies that prevent skill from reaching its highest state? As Jonathan Haidt composes in his book The Exemplary Mind, “Many political researchers utilized to presume that individuals vote selfishly, selecting the prospect or policy that will benefit them one of the most. But years of research on public opinion have resulted in the conclusion that self-interest is a weak predictor of policy choices.”
If the facility of the book, and particularly the quote above, is true, it shoots holes in the logical choice theory. Haidt posits people do not react so much reasonably regarding preserve social standing and connections. He composed,
Rather, individuals appreciate their groups, whether those be racial, local, spiritual, or political. The political scientist Don Kinder summarizes the findings like this: “In matters of popular opinion, residents appear to ask themselves not ‘What remains in it for me?’ but rather ‘What remains in it for my group?'”
While I do not want to throw the infant out with the bath water regarding reasonable stars, Haidt and Kinder seem to believe that groups bring more clout than self-interest. For individual group members, they might be right. But for the group leaders, I suspect they are wrong and work according to logical option theory. Their reasonable option is to control the group members for money and earnings.
This is maybe widespread in social justice; for example, see the case of the Black Lives Matter leader utilizing contributions to buy houses, or race-based supporters such as Al Sharpton who owe large quantities of back taxes and have actually made fortunes. But it is likewise present in other groups. Look at the televangelists, such as Jimmy Swaggart, who have used contributions to grow their individual wealth and power. I believe it may also hold for groups that advocate for illness and other special causes. Not a few people think cancer, diabetes, and other illness would be treated by now if the American Cancer Society and other groups did not make so much money off the disease.
We likewise see the very same thing in the federal government administration, where it is almost impossible to kill off federal government programs no matter whether the alleged issue in concern is dealt with or the program makes the problem even worse. These leaders are all reasonable stars, making choices that benefit them. Although what takes place to group members is frequently a various story.
We see the same with social influencers on social networks. Whether it be social justice stories, food, beverages, or toys, the influencers make their living by telling people what to do and what to purchase. They develop and propagate memes to form people’s attitudes and actions.
Now take a look at unions, particularly the various teachers’ unions. Are they making education much better? International scores argue they do not. America continues to move in global education rankings.
So why do the group members remain in the group? Some hold true believers, some like the recognition and power they receive from the group, and some are too scared to challenge the group leaders and their agenda. Look what occurs to college professors, even tenured ones, when they challenge the social justice program. They get fired.
And this occurs in corporations and in other places. It is practically like the Roman Catholic church and the Inquisition. Tomás de Torquemada is alive and well in these social justice groups. They all get something out of the arrangement, so they might have a degree of a rational option. But Haidt would say it is not a logical option per se but the rider working with the elephant. Haidt would say this is less a rational act by classic meanings and more of an act to validate the elephant’s hungers and instructions.
But the powerbrokers make logical choices. The logical option theory is not a lot wrong as maybe misapplied. So, what is in a name? Possibly we require to tie rationality to the situation and the individual to understand it.