In the very first chapter of “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt references the study “Does the Concept of the Person Vary Cross-Culturally?” conducted by Richard Shweder and Edmund Bourne, to highlight and provide evidence for the varying conceptions of different cultures and how that may influence their definition of “morality.” While the central theme of the study may not directly align with the idea of morality itself, it brings up cross-cultural variations regarding the idea of “self” and different world views that Haidt believes have an impact on whether or not a situation is deemed “right” or “wrong” in a particular society and how other societies react and decide to judge the discrepancies. Shweder and Bournes hypotheses and results serve
…show more content…
17 American subjects were gathered: five psychologists, six men from a college fraternity, and six nursery school teachers. From Orissa, 70 subjects were selected from a variety of castes in order to represent the existing cultural hierarchy and derive an accurate representation of the community as a whole. When asked to describe and characterize the personalities of various close acquaintances, Shweder noted significant differences in the manner in which the two groups formed their descriptions. He found that Oriyas tended to describe the person in a concrete manner and in a behavioral context, describing them in terms of a particular situation or associating them with a certain action. A few examples are: “When a quarrel arises, he cannot resist the temptation of saying a word.” or “Whomever becomes his friend, he remembers him forever.” Americans, on the other hand, had a tendency to create abstract generalizations of one’s personality, describing the nature of the overall behavior that person exhibits, such as: “She is …show more content…
He uses this study as a foreground to then explain how differences in these notions correspond to differences in how these contrasting cultures thought about morality, a study which is later cited. To compile his argument Shweder labels the Orissa culture as sociocentric and the American culture as egocentric. He concludes that people's worldviews do in fact have an influence on their cognitive functioning and that it is important to hold a relativist view, as differences in cross-cultural practices do not imply that either experiences deficiencies or lacks an understanding of one’s own practices and beliefs. By involving this study, Haidt is not only providing a stepping stone for a concluding point he is attempting to make about cross-cultural differences affecting views on morality, but by including the study he is also highlighting the idea of tolerance and equality of others’ practices. An underlying theme that is present throughout the book is placing reasoning behind the differences in moral views that are present throughout people of different cultures, religions, etc, as a medium to understand opposing ideas and the perspectives of those carrying them. In any situation of interaction, whether it be a
17 American subjects were gathered: five psychologists, six men from a college fraternity, and six nursery school teachers. From Orissa, 70 subjects were selected from a variety of castes in order to represent the existing cultural hierarchy and derive an accurate representation of the community as a whole. When asked to describe and characterize the personalities of various close acquaintances, Shweder noted significant differences in the manner in which the two groups formed their descriptions. He found that Oriyas tended to describe the person in a concrete manner and in a behavioral context, describing them in terms of a particular situation or associating them with a certain action. A few examples are: “When a quarrel arises, he cannot resist the temptation of saying a word.” or “Whomever becomes his friend, he remembers him forever.” Americans, on the other hand, had a tendency to create abstract generalizations of one’s personality, describing the nature of the overall behavior that person exhibits, such as: “She is …show more content…
He uses this study as a foreground to then explain how differences in these notions correspond to differences in how these contrasting cultures thought about morality, a study which is later cited. To compile his argument Shweder labels the Orissa culture as sociocentric and the American culture as egocentric. He concludes that people's worldviews do in fact have an influence on their cognitive functioning and that it is important to hold a relativist view, as differences in cross-cultural practices do not imply that either experiences deficiencies or lacks an understanding of one’s own practices and beliefs. By involving this study, Haidt is not only providing a stepping stone for a concluding point he is attempting to make about cross-cultural differences affecting views on morality, but by including the study he is also highlighting the idea of tolerance and equality of others’ practices. An underlying theme that is present throughout the book is placing reasoning behind the differences in moral views that are present throughout people of different cultures, religions, etc, as a medium to understand opposing ideas and the perspectives of those carrying them. In any situation of interaction, whether it be a