Book Review: Outrage! by Kurt Gray
Thanks to Adam Grant for this recommendation ~ I picked this book up because of its subtitle: “Why We Fight about Morality and Politics, and How to Find Common Ground.” The idea of “Common” is of great interest to me, and I found great meaning in this book of the power of commonality.
His thesis is: We are living in a place and time that where we are safer and more moral than we have ever been, and it if for this reason that we are more outraged than ever before.
One of the missions of this book is:
…to help us see morality as more of a gradient than a clear line, and to recognize the complexity and trade-offs surrounding moral issues. And in this way, help us move away from anti-pluralism, and towards civil discourse, understanding and thriving. (pg. 30)
The author brings the reader through a demystifying of what human nature actually is; then through the moral mind, and then finally to how we bridge moral divides. What I really appreciated about this book is that not only do I have practices to deploy when entering into moral discussions, debates, and even conflict; but, I also have a firm grounding in WHY these practices work.
You would be interested in this book if you are:
(1) A leader in an organization that wants to ground themselves when dealing with highly politicized and emotional conversations with stakeholders
(2) Interested in the neuroscience and brain-based research of morality
(3) Striving to make sense of people who disagree with you
(4) Seeking practical strategies and a deep sense of why these strategies work
https://www.instagram.com/kurtjgray/reel/DCkR4GEPI08/
Culturally Current and Relevant Purpose:
The author is on a mission to end the polarization of culture, politics and opinion and restore civil discourse, because this is what is holding us back from our human potential. The common good (there is that word “common” again) is under threat from several sides, and no one is blameless. So how might an understanding of the mind help?
This book tries to transcend the idea of the culture war and provide a more nuanced understanding of the other side’s psychology. This sense of “moral understanding” can help us see the other side as decent people, which can defuse our collective hatred. (pg. 16)
The book begins by shining a light on mental models that we slide into when under duress from others.
(1) Destruction Narrative: “Rather than human beings trying to do their best, people on the other side seem like comic book villians who inexplicitly want to cause maximum harm… we believe that they want to destroy the world. (pg. 23)
(2) Protection Narrative: When people who feel like others want to destroy them, act in ways that they believe are to protect themselves, loved ones, society in general. But he’s found that if people are already writing a ‘destructive narrative’, they are likely to suspend the rules of democracy and act in unethical ways. (pg. 25)
These two narratives work together to lead both sides to act in destructive ways, eventhough the ends are the same: safety, thriving and community. (pg. 25)
The Mirage of Hatred
One of the foundations of this book is Pluralistic Ignorance. The belief of individuals that everyone is thinking in a certain way, when only the most visible and vocal due. For example, Not speaking up in class: A student might not raise their hand to ask for clarification during a lecture because they think everyone else understands; Drinking alcohol in college; Students might drink more alcohol than they want because they think their peers are drinking more; and, the well known Bystander effect: People in a crowd might not act because they assume someone else will.
But what is it that we hear from our news cycle, and on our social media feeds: the most vocal and visible. This is even more problematic when you consider bots and algorithms designed to amplify certain perspectives.
This is where Gray’s research and Social Scientists come to the rescue – we are more similar than we appear.
A comprehensive report… argues that 67 percent of Americans belong to the ‘exhausted majority’. These 221 million people do not want to fight or even think about politics… (pg. 26)
The few times that the word Outrage is mentioned in this book, are tied to cycles of news and social media: these “conflict entrepreneurs”. (pg. 28) Slate Magazine declared 2014 “The Year of Outrage” because of the social media vitriol. But when pressed, Slate magazine said “There was nothing special about 2014, because every year is the year of outrage.” (pg. 106)
But, the greatest threat to our democracy and our culture is the rise of anti-pluralism. (pg. 30)
Why We Need the Other Side
To put it plainly, we need the other side to help draw out the best of ourselves. But this takes work – a lot of work. The author cites the incredibly brave work of Daryl Davis, who is a Black activist that attends KKK rallies. Check out his TEDTalk HERE.
A large part of this book is dedicated to understanding ‘harm’: the harm we experience and the harm we inflict. Gray’s thesis here, is that by understanding harm more deeply, we can bridge divides across moral and political gaps, through understanding the harm our opposition feels.
My research suggests that a harm-based mind can explain all human moral judgement – but only if harm is correctly understood.When I say ‘harm’, what I really mean is the perception of interpersonal harm – mistreatment, not mere suffering. (pg. 142)
Harm happens on a continuum, and harm is perceived differently. Hence, road rage, and a host of other examples of people flying off the handle for fairly innocuous actions. Our harm-based mind perceives harm and the infliction of harm as immoral.
Once something is perceived as immoral, we will condemn it through our protection narrative, and thus polarization! In this part of the book, Gray uses his thesis to aptly explain the polarization on the political spectrum of vulnerable groups: Black Americans and Police; Trans rights and Family Values; and other dicotymies of Powerful and Othered groups. (pg. 130)
We all care about protecting the vulnerable from harm, but we disagree about which entities most need our protection. Even minor differences in [Assumptions of Vulnerability] can spark intense debates when people are forced to make trade-offs about whom to prioritize for protection. (pg. 193)
And so, our harm-based mind falls into a pattern, a heuristic of trying to figure out who is the victim and who is the villain. He calls this Typecasting. We determine who is suffering the most in our opinion and cast them as the victim, and the person causing the suffering as the villain. (pg. 205) Rarely can we see a villain as suffering; rarely, can we see the victim as a villain.
But sometimes, humans under attack as the villain, deploy the strategy of DARVO
But you can see how all of this turns on the notion of who is being harmed, and the narrative of harm.
Just as harm is the universal currency of moral judgement, feelings of victimhood are the universal driver of intergroup conflict. (pg. 243)
Where do we go from Here?
How do we bridge the moral divide? How do we see morality on a continuum and how might we see a deeper understanding of our own perceived harm, and how it influences the way we see others, and interact with others?
This is the part of the book that is so successful, because of all of the research, the experiments and findings Gray lays out in the first two sections. He starts with the facts:
Most people seem to think that the best route to building common ground is by emphasizing facts, rather than feelings of suffering. But most people are wrong. (pg. 245)
Facts help us be rational, but let’s face it, what do we think of facts when told from our opponents? Hence the proliferation of “fake news” and “untrue facts” etc… What we need, argues Gray, is stories of suffering.
Telling stories of harm, our harm, humanizes us to our opponents and visa versa. These stories that we tell must not be told with the intent to persuade. Rather, they must be told with the intent to be understood.
Across dozens of studies, we consistently find that sharing personal stories of harm is a powerful way to bridge moral and political divides…Because we humans have harm- and story-based minds, narratives of suffering are key to fostering respect across politics – an insight that can help real-world moral conflicts. (pg. 271)
Gray offers a strategy for having these types of story-exchanges with competing groups.
Tip 1: Connect: There is nothing more affirming nor powerful when sharing your perspective than being asked good questions
Tip 2: Invite: If you are inviting them to share their story, it signals your intention to learn.
Tip 3: Validate: acknowledging that tother person hold moral convictions that are different than yours, but are just as important to them, and as meaningful to their identity.
For many of us, there may not be anything earth shattering in this approach; however, because of all of the research, the deep examination of our harm-based mind, and morality, these tips are infused with a deeper meaning and a way to approach others.
I strongly recommend this book for educators, and leaders who find themselves under pressure to enter into the fray of political issues.