Mohandas K. Gandhi, 1940's. Photographer unknown; photo in public domain in India. (from WikiMedia Commons)
As discussed in our previous post, moral disengagement refers to the ways in which people rationalize about and frame inhumane acts. Mechanisms of disengagement allow us to tolerate–and even view as moral–such acts as invasion and torture.
Our topic today is moral engagement, in contrast to disengagement. As described by psychologist Albert Bandura, moral engagement involves a different kind of reasoning about harmful behaviors, as well as resisting any compliance with such behaviors.
Moral engagement requires moral courage–that is, a commitment to behaving morally in regards to others despite social pressures to participate in or passively comply with policies and actions that are hurtful to others.
Being morally engaged requires:
- Accepting responsibility for one’s own behavior
- Being sympathetic and empathetic
- Acknowledging the negative effects on others of inhumane behavior
- Recognizing that the “enemy”–whoever the enemy of the day might be–is a human being who shares a common humanity with oneself.
In Bandura’s view, one of the chief pathways to moral engagement is empathy, along with a sense of moral obligation to treat others humanely. A commitment to living by the Golden Rule is an example of such a moral obligation.
Trying to live a morally engaged life is a constant challenge. Can you think of examples when you or others you know have found it difficult to live by those principles, but have persevered? What kinds of circumstances help or interfere with living a morally engaged life?
In our next two posts, we consider the moral disengagement mechanism of euphemistic language, and its moral engagement counterpart, accurate descriptive language (telling it like it is).
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology
When I read about moral disengagement, I kept thinking of my father, wondering how he justified his treatment of his children, his incestuous behavior with his daughters, his brutality toward his son. The son and one of the daughters were scarred for life
Life is not fair, we are all specks of sand on a beach but if each of us would pick just one thing in the world around us to try to fix, it would change the world. It would give each of us a point & I know I am ever & always trying to figure out what my point is.
Thank you for your comment, Gold Dust Twin. You are right on target with your connection between child abuse and moral disengagement. It is likely that child abusers use many of the moral disengagement mechanisms. We know that incestuous fathers often use psuedo moral justifications for their behavior-claiming, for example that they want to help prepare their daughters for later intimacy with a husband. Moreover, it is certainly likely that they minimize the consequences of their behavior. Some incestuous fathers even displace responsibility for their behavior onto their victims, calling them sluts and accusing them of being flirts, temptresses, etc.
Thank you for your courage in sharing your story.
Margo, your suggestion that everyone pick just one thing in the world around us to try to fix is a great one. I believe you are absolutely right that it would change the world. I think people have known that principle for a long time; isn’t it likely that such a belief underlies the idea of New Year’s resolutions? The trick is to act upon the belief and not get discouraged by the cynics.
I think you might enjoy this link, it’s related to this article. It features Palestinians walking in the footsteps of Ghandi, practicing non-violent protest for change:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/30/opinion/1247468533917/waiting-for-gandhi.html?ref=nicholasdkristof
Sibling rivalry was a constant during my childhood. When I heard of the Golden Rule, I turned it on its head. Okay, Sis, you just gave me a shove. You must be doing what you would be done by, so here’s a bigger shove right back. I thought my Topsy-Turvy Rule was brilliant. Clearly, I was no budding Mother Theresa, but when I grew up, she was my hero, and I discovered my sister was my best friend.
Pingback: Recognizing Human Rights Day | Engaging Peace
Pingback: Exonerating or pardoning the victim (Moral engagement, part 9) | Engaging Peace
Pingback: Martin Luther King, Jr., champion of peace | Engaging Peace
Pingback: Jared Loughner in the “mecca for prejudice” | Engaging Peace
This is a good counter to Moral Disengagement. The next step would be to consider ways of propagating this good behavior. Aristotle would postulate that, in order to become moral, one must be temperate and practice acting morally. Grussendorf has research that would support this notion, as well as emphasize the importance of education about moral disengagement mechanisms; education that relies on experience. One of his supported methods of this is termed “psychological inoculation.”
In his article, titled “Resisting Moral Disengagment in Supoort of War,” he discussed two mediums in which psychological inoculation had been shown to work: peer pressure to smoke cigarettes and it has been shown to influence political opinions and behaviors. These arguments come from other research, but he speculates that this method may generalize to the influence of public opinion toward violence and war, through allowing the public to resist the government’s presentation of morally disengaging tactics.
I tend to support this notion. I think education can be a huge factor in the change of violent acts and the propagation of peace or avoidance of war. Although, Grussendorf’s research was inconclusive, I think there are a few things that could be tweaked to produce more decisive results. Education of legitimate statistics to the general public has been shown to put a stopper on alcohol abuse amongst teenagers, why wouldn’t this attempt work (through the education of negative outcomes of war), as well? At the very least, any attempt toward peace cannot be considered negative.
Pingback: To combat moral disgrace (Engaging Bradley Manning, Part 2) | Engaging Peace