But early morning (Occupy Boston, part 2)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: This is Part 2 of our guest post from  John Hess of UMass/Boston, reporting on Occupy Boston.]

Occupy Boston signs of freedom and the movement
Photo by Twp. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported license.

When you hear chants like “How do you solve the deficit? End the wars and tax the rich!” and “They got bailed out, we got sold out,” you are in the company of people with a very good understanding of the current situation–neatly summed up in the chant “We are the 99%!”

Where all this will lead, we don’t yet know.  But there seems to be a growing wave of discontent that first showed itself in Wisconsin. I read that demonstrations of support for Occupy Wall Street have occurred in over 100 cities and that mini-occupations like Occupy Boston are spreading, even to Europe.

What drives this movement is clear to me:  it’s common sense based on the obvious fact that most of us are not being treated fairly by this economy, this social system.  We work when we can get a job, but are not properly rewarded.

Reports show that real incomes for most Americans have dropped significantly since the recession officially ended.  Education (coupled with hard work) has been the traditional path to a better life for most Americans, yet educational costs are now staggering.

My university, UMass Boston, has seen state funding drop from some 77% of the budget in 1985 to around 26% this year.  The shortfall has been made up by heavily increased student fees, which are now over $9,000 of the approximately $12,000 it costs in-state students to attend our commuter school.  Why?  In large part because we will not tax the rich or the corporations. (I have been told that the head of GE pays less income tax than his personal assistant.  Even if he doesn’t, I’ll bet he doesn’t pay much.)

There is much cause for optimism.  A generation, no, a nation, seems finally to be waking up, even though it is but early morning and we are still rubbing the sleep from our eyes.  Maybe another slap of cold water will bring us fully awake to seize the new day that is dawning.

John Hess, Senior Lecturer in English and American Studies, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Conservative and liberal world views

George Lakoff's book Moral PoliticsOne of the theorists to be considered in greater detail in later posts is George Lakoff.

We introduce several of his main ideas here because they are relevant to how readers are likely to respond to this blog; specifically, Lakoff has provided a brilliant analysis of moral reasoning in liberals and conservatives.

In his book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff argues that liberals and conservatives hold different values.

Specifically, liberals value:

  • Empathetic behavior and promoting fairness
  • Helping those who cannot help themselves
  • Protecting those who cannot protect themselves
  • Promoting fulfillment in life
  • Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to help others.

By contrast, conservatives value:

  • A “strict father” morality (using punishment to establish respect for authority)
  • Self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance
  • The morality of reward and punishment
  • Protecting moral people from external evils
  • Upholding the established moral order.

Traditionally, liberals have been viewed as doves and conservatives as hawks; however, within both sectors there are pro-war and anti-war activists who differ primarily in their moral reasoning:

  • Pro-war conservatives often refer to the evilness and moral inferiority of the identified “enemy” and view protestors against war as unpatriotic.
  • Pro-war liberals are more likely to use the rhetoric of helping others.

In regard to this blog, it is the liberals who are more likely to be sympathetic to advocacy of peace activism. Would you agree? Why is this likely to be so?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology