Chris Anderson: So, Jon, this feels scary.
Kris Anderson: Dakle, Džone, ovo deluje zastrašujuće.
Jonathan Haidt: Yeah.
Džonatan Hajt: Da.
CA: It feels like the world is in a place that we haven't seen for a long time. People don't just disagree in the way that we're familiar with, on the left-right political divide. There are much deeper differences afoot. What on earth is going on, and how did we get here?
KA: Čini se kao da se svet nalazi u situaciji kakvu dugo nismo videli. Ljudi se međusobno ne slažu ne samo na načine koji su nam poznati, u pogledu političke podele na levicu i desnicu. Dešavaju se mnogo dublje razlike. Šta se, pobogu, dešava i kako smo dospeli ovde?
JH: This is different. There's a much more apocalyptic sort of feeling. Survey research by Pew Research shows that the degree to which we feel that the other side is not just -- we don't just dislike them; we strongly dislike them, and we think that they are a threat to the nation. Those numbers have been going up and up, and those are over 50 percent now on both sides. People are scared, because it feels like this is different than before; it's much more intense.
DžH: Ovo je drugačije. Postoji neka vrsta osećaja koja je mnogo više apokaliptična. Anketa koju je sproveo centar za istraživanje Pju pokazuje da je stepen u kome smatramo da druga strana nije samo - ne samo da nam se ne dopadaju, žestoko nam se ne dopadaju, i mislimo da predstavljaju opasnost za naciju. Ti brojevi su se sve više povećavali i sada su preko 50 posto na obe strane. Ljudi su uplašeni jer se čini da je drugačije nego pre; mnogo je intenzivnije.
Whenever I look at any sort of social puzzle, I always apply the three basic principles of moral psychology, and I think they'll help us here. So the first thing that you have to always keep in mind when you're thinking about politics is that we're tribal. We evolved for tribalism. One of the simplest and greatest insights into human social nature is the Bedouin proverb: "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me and my brother and cousins against the stranger." And that tribalism allowed us to create large societies and to come together in order to compete with others. That brought us out of the jungle and out of small groups, but it means that we have eternal conflict. The question you have to look at is: What aspects of our society are making that more bitter, and what are calming them down?
Kad god sagledavam bilo koju vrstu društvene zagonetke, uvek primenjujem tri osnovna principa moralne psihologije, i mislim da će nam oni ovde pomoći. Prva stvar koju uvek morate da imate na umu kada razmišljate o politici jeste da smo plemenske prirode. Razvili smo se za tribalizam. Jedan od najjednostavnijih i najboljih uvida u društvenu prirodu ljudi je beduinska izreka: „Ja protiv svog brata; ja i moj brat protiv našeg rođaka; ja, moj brat i rođaci protiv neznanca.“ To plemenstvo nam je omogućilo da stvorimo velika društva i da se udružimo da bismo se nadmetali sa drugima. To nas je izvelo iz džungle i iz malih grupa, ali to znači da imamo večni konflikt. Pitanje koje treba da posmatrate je koji aspekti našeg društva to zaoštravaju, a koji smiruju.
CA: That's a very dark proverb. You're saying that that's actually baked into most people's mental wiring at some level?
KA: To je vrlo mračna izreka. Hoćeš da kažeš da je to zapravo urezano u mentalnu strukturu većine ljudi u izvesnoj meri?
JH: Oh, absolutely. This is just a basic aspect of human social cognition. But we can also live together really peacefully, and we've invented all kinds of fun ways of, like, playing war. I mean, sports, politics -- these are all ways that we get to exercise this tribal nature without actually hurting anyone. We're also really good at trade and exploration and meeting new people. So you have to see our tribalism as something that goes up or down -- it's not like we're doomed to always be fighting each other, but we'll never have world peace.
DžH: O, apsolutno. To je osnovni aspekt ljudske društvene kognicije. No, takođe možemo živeti zajedno i zaista mirno, i osmislili smo razne zabavne načine kao da se igramo rata. Mislim, sport, politika - sve su to načini na koje možemo da izrazimo tu plemensku prirodu a da zapravo nikoga ne povredimo. Takođe smo zaista dobri u trgovini, istraživanju i upoznavanju novih ljudi. Tako da treba da vidite naš tribalizam kao nešto što ide nabolje ili nagore - ne može se reći da smo osuđeni da se uvek međusobno borimo, ali nikada nećemo imati mir u svetu.
CA: The size of that tribe can shrink or expand.
KA: Veličina tog plemena može da se smanjuje ili povećava.
JH: Right.
DžH: Baš tako.
CA: The size of what we consider "us" and what we consider "other" or "them" can change. And some people believed that process could continue indefinitely.
KA: Veličina onoga što smatramo „nama“ i onoga što smatramo „drugima“ ili „njima“ može se promeniti. Neki ljudi su smatrali da se taj proces može odvijati unedogled.
JH: That's right.
DžH: Tako je.
CA: And we were indeed expanding the sense of tribe for a while.
KA: A mi smo zaista uvećavali taj osećaj plemena neko vreme.
JH: So this is, I think, where we're getting at what's possibly the new left-right distinction. I mean, the left-right as we've all inherited it, comes out of the labor versus capital distinction, and the working class, and Marx. But I think what we're seeing now, increasingly, is a divide in all the Western democracies between the people who want to stop at nation, the people who are more parochial -- and I don't mean that in a bad way -- people who have much more of a sense of being rooted, they care about their town, their community and their nation. And then those who are anti-parochial and who -- whenever I get confused, I just think of the John Lennon song "Imagine." "Imagine there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for." And so these are the people who want more global governance, they don't like nation states, they don't like borders. You see this all over Europe as well. There's a great metaphor guy -- actually, his name is Shakespeare -- writing ten years ago in Britain. He had a metaphor: "Are we drawbridge-uppers or drawbridge-downers?" And Britain is divided 52-48 on that point. And America is divided on that point, too.
DžH: Ovo je, ja mislim, ono šta podrazumevamo pod mogućom novom razlikom između levice i desnice. Mislim, podela na levo i desno kakvu smo je svi mi nasledili proističe iz razlike rada naspram kapitala, radničke klase i Marksa. Međutim, mislim da sada sve više vidimo podelu u celokupnoj zapadnoj demokratiji između ljudi koji žele da se zaustave na naciji, ljudi koji su više parohijalni - a to ne mislim na loš način - ljudi koji imaju mnogo jači osećaj ukorenjenosti, stalo im je do svog grada, zajednice i nacije. Zatim su tu oni koji su antiparohijalni i koji - kad god se zbunim, samo pomislim na pesmu Džona Lenona „Zamisli“. „Zamisli da nema država, ničeg za šta treba ubiti ili umreti.“ Dakle, to su ljudi koji žele više globalnog upravljanja, koji ne vole nacionalne države i ne vole granice. To, takođe, vidite širom Evrope. Postoji jedan sjajan metaforični tip - zapravo, njegovo ime je Šekspir - koji je pisao u Britaniji pre deset godina. Imao je metaforu „Da li smo oni koji podižu pokretni most ili oni koji ga spuštaju?“ Britanija je podeljena 52:48 u vezi sa tom temom. Amerika je takođe podeljena u vezi sa time.
CA: And so, those of us who grew up with The Beatles and that sort of hippie philosophy of dreaming of a more connected world -- it felt so idealistic and "how could anyone think badly about that?" And what you're saying is that, actually, millions of people today feel that that isn't just silly; it's actually dangerous and wrong, and they're scared of it.
KA: Oni među nama koji su odrasli uz Bitlse i takvu vrstu filozofije hipika maštanja o povezanijem svetu - to se činilo tako idealističko i „kako neko može da pomisli loše o tome?“ A ti govoriš, zapravo, da milioni ljudi danas smatraju da je to ne samo blesavo, već je zapravo opasno i pogrešno, i plaše se toga.
JH: I think the big issue, especially in Europe but also here, is the issue of immigration. And I think this is where we have to look very carefully at the social science about diversity and immigration. Once something becomes politicized, once it becomes something that the left loves and the right -- then even the social scientists can't think straight about it. Now, diversity is good in a lot of ways. It clearly creates more innovation. The American economy has grown enormously from it. Diversity and immigration do a lot of good things. But what the globalists, I think, don't see, what they don't want to see, is that ethnic diversity cuts social capital and trust.
DžH: Mislim da je veliki problem, pogotovo u Evropi ali i ovde, pitanje imigracije. Mislim da ovde moramo da vrlo pažljivo pogledamo društvene nauke o raznolikosti i imigraciji. Kada nešto postane politizovano, kada postane nešto što levica voli, a desnica - onda čak ni društveni naučnici ne mogu ispravno da razmišljaju o tome. E, sad, raznolikost je dobra na mnogo načina. Jasno je da stvara više inovacija. Američka ekonomija se neverovatno razvila usled nje. Raznolikost i imigracija čine mnogo dobrih stvari. Međutim, ono što globalisti, po meni, ne vide - ono što ne žele da vide - je da etnička raznolikost narušava društveni kapital i poverenje.
There's a very important study by Robert Putnam, the author of "Bowling Alone," looking at social capital databases. And basically, the more people feel that they are the same, the more they trust each other, the more they can have a redistributionist welfare state. Scandinavian countries are so wonderful because they have this legacy of being small, homogenous countries. And that leads to a progressive welfare state, a set of progressive left-leaning values, which says, "Drawbridge down! The world is a great place. People in Syria are suffering -- we must welcome them in." And it's a beautiful thing. But if, and I was in Sweden this summer, if the discourse in Sweden is fairly politically correct and they can't talk about the downsides, you end up bringing a lot of people in. That's going to cut social capital, it makes it hard to have a welfare state and they might end up, as we have in America, with a racially divided, visibly racially divided, society. So this is all very uncomfortable to talk about. But I think this is the thing, especially in Europe and for us, too, we need to be looking at.
Postoji veoma važna studija Roberta Patnama, autora „Kuglanja sa samim sobom“, koja sagledava baze podataka društvenog kapitala. U suštini, što više ljudi smatra da su isti, više veruju jedni drugima, više mogu da imaju državu blagostanja preraspodeljenosti. Skandinavske zemlje su tako divne jer imaju tu tradiciju malih, homogenih država. To dovodi do napredne države blagostanja, skupa naprednih vrednosti usmerenih ulevo, koje kažu: „Spuštajte most! Svet je sjajno mesto. Ljudi u Siriji pate - moramo im pružiti dobrodošlicu.“ To je prelepo. Međutim, ako - a bio sam u Švedskoj letos - ako je diskurs u Švedskoj prilično politički korektan i ne mogu da pričaju o lošim stranama, na kraju dovedete mnogo ljudi. To će narušiti društveni kapital, to otežava održavanje države blagostanja i mogli bi da završe, kao što to imamo u Americi, sa rasno podeljenim, vidno rasno podeljenim društvom. O svemu ovome je vrlo neugodno govoriti. Ipak, mislim da je to, naročito u Evropi kao i za nas, ono što treba da sagledavamo.
CA: You're saying that people of reason, people who would consider themselves not racists, but moral, upstanding people, have a rationale that says humans are just too different; that we're in danger of overloading our sense of what humans are capable of, by mixing in people who are too different.
KA: Kažeš da razumni ljudi, ljudi koji sebe ne bi smatrali rasistima, već moralnim, uzornim ljudima, imaju obrazloženje koje tvrdi da su ljudi jednostavno previše različiti; da smo u opasnosti da preopteretimo naš osećaj za ono što su ljudi sposobni mešanjem ljudi koji su previše različiti.
JH: Yes, but I can make it much more palatable by saying it's not necessarily about race. It's about culture. There's wonderful work by a political scientist named Karen Stenner, who shows that when people have a sense that we are all united, we're all the same, there are many people who have a predisposition to authoritarianism. Those people aren't particularly racist when they feel as through there's not a threat to our social and moral order. But if you prime them experimentally by thinking we're coming apart, people are getting more different, then they get more racist, homophobic, they want to kick out the deviants. So it's in part that you get an authoritarian reaction. The left, following through the Lennonist line -- the John Lennon line -- does things that create an authoritarian reaction.
DžH: Da, ali mogu to da učinim prihvatljivijim time što ću reći da se ne mora nužno raditi o rasi. Radi se o kulturi. Postoji sjajno delo politikološkinje po imenu Karen Stener koja pokazuje da, kada ljudi imaju utisak da smo svi udruženi, da smo svi isti, postoji mnogo ljudi koji imaju predispoziciju ka autoritarizmu. Ti ljudi nisu osobito rasisti kada ne osećaju da postoji pretnja našem društvenom i moralnom poretku. Međutim, ako ih u eksperimentu navedete da pomisle da se razdvajamo, da ljudi postaju drugačiji, onda oni u većoj meri postaju rasistički, homofobno nastrojeni, žele da izbace devijantne. Stoga jednim delom dobijate autoritarnu reakciju. Levica, sledeći Lenonovski put - put Džona Lenona - čini stvari koje proizvode autoritarnu reakciju.
We're certainly seeing that in America with the alt-right. We saw it in Britain, we've seen it all over Europe. But the more positive part of that is that I think the localists, or the nationalists, are actually right -- that, if you emphasize our cultural similarity, then race doesn't actually matter very much. So an assimilationist approach to immigration removes a lot of these problems. And if you value having a generous welfare state, you've got to emphasize that we're all the same.
Zasigurno to vidimo u Americi sa alternativnom desnicom. To smo videli u Britaniji, videli smo to širom Evrope. Ipak, pozitivniji deo toga je to što smatram da su lokalisti, ili nacionalisti, zapravo u pravu - da, ako naglasite našu kulturološku sličnost, onda rasa zapravo nije mnogo bitna. Stoga asimilacioni pristup imigraciji otklanja mnogo ovih problema. A ako vrednujete posedovanje darežljive države blagostanja, morate naglasiti da smo svi mi isti.
CA: OK, so rising immigration and fears about that are one of the causes of the current divide. What are other causes?
KA: U redu, dakle, porast imigracije i strahovi u vezi sa tim su jedan od uzroka trenutne podeljenosti. Koji su drugi razlozi?
JH: The next principle of moral psychology is that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. You've probably heard the term "motivated reasoning" or "confirmation bias." There's some really interesting work on how our high intelligence and our verbal abilities might have evolved not to help us find out the truth, but to help us manipulate each other, defend our reputation ... We're really, really good at justifying ourselves. And when you bring group interests into account, so it's not just me, it's my team versus your team, whereas if you're evaluating evidence that your side is wrong, we just can't accept that. So this is why you can't win a political argument. If you're debating something, you can't persuade the person with reasons and evidence, because that's not the way reasoning works. So now, give us the internet, give us Google: "I heard that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Let me Google that -- oh my God! 10 million hits! Look, he was!"
DžH: Sledeći princip moralne psihologije je da je intuicija na prvom mestu, a strateško rezonovanje na drugom. Verovatno ste čuli za termin „motivisano rezonovanje“ ili „pristrasnost potvrđivanja“. Postoje veoma zanimljivi radovi o tome kako su naša visoka inteligencija i verbalne sposobnosti možda evoluirale ne da bi nam pomogle da otkrijemo istinu, već da bi nam pomogli da manipulišemo jedni drugima, da branimo svoju reputaciju... Zaista nam dobro ide opravdavanje samih sebe. A kada uzmete u obzir grupne interese, tako da nisam samo ja u pitanju, već je moj tim protiv tvog tima, a ako procenjuješ dokaze da tvoja strana greši, to prosto ne možemo da prihvatimo. Zbog toga ne možete pobediti u političkoj raspravi. Ako raspravljate o nečemu, ne možete ubediti osobu razlozima i dokazima, jer rezonovanje ne funkcioniše tako. Dajte nam sad internet, dajte nam Gugl: „Čuo sam da je Barak Obama rođen u Keniji. Daj da to izguglam. O, bože! Deset miliona pogodaka! Vidi, istina je!“
CA: So this has come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people. Social media has often been framed by techno-optimists as this great connecting force that would bring people together. And there have been some unexpected counter-effects to that.
KA: To je proizašlo kao neprijatno iznenađenje za mnoge. Društvene mreže su tehnološki optimisti često predstavljali kao veliku silu povezivanja koja će udružiti ljude. A došlo je do neočekivanih kontraefekata.
JH: That's right. That's why I'm very enamored of yin-yang views of human nature and left-right -- that each side is right about certain things, but then it goes blind to other things. And so the left generally believes that human nature is good: bring people together, knock down the walls and all will be well. The right -- social conservatives, not libertarians -- social conservatives generally believe people can be greedy and sexual and selfish, and we need regulation, and we need restrictions. So, yeah, if you knock down all the walls, allow people to communicate all over the world, you get a lot of porn and a lot of racism.
DžH: Tako je. Zato sam jako zaljubljen u stanovišta jin-jang o ljudskoj prirodi i levice-desnice - da je svaka strana u pravu u vezi sa određenim stvarima, ali zatim postaje slepa za druge stvari. Tako levica obično veruje da je ljudska priroda dobra - spojite ljude, srušite zidove i sve će biti u redu. Desnica - društveni konzervativci, ne libertarijanci - društveni konzervativci generalno veruju da ljudi mogu biti pohlepni, seksualni i sebični, da su nam potrebni propisi i ograničenja. Dakle, da, ako srušite sve zidove, dozvolite ljudima da komuniciraju širom sveta, dobijete mnogo pornografije i mnogo rasizma.
CA: So help us understand. These principles of human nature have been with us forever. What's changed that's deepened this feeling of division?
KA: Pomozi nam da razumemo. Ovi principi ljudske prirode su oduvek bili uz nas. Šta se promenilo što je produbilo ovaj osećaj podele?
JH: You have to see six to ten different threads all coming together. I'll just list a couple of them. So in America, one of the big -- actually, America and Europe -- one of the biggest ones is World War II. There's interesting research from Joe Henrich and others that says if your country was at war, especially when you were young, then we test you 30 years later in a commons dilemma or a prisoner's dilemma, you're more cooperative. Because of our tribal nature, if you're -- my parents were teenagers during World War II, and they would go out looking for scraps of aluminum to help the war effort. I mean, everybody pulled together. And so then these people go on, they rise up through business and government, they take leadership positions. They're really good at compromise and cooperation. They all retire by the '90s. So we're left with baby boomers by the end of the '90s. And their youth was spent fighting each other within each country, in 1968 and afterwards. The loss of the World War II generation, "The Greatest Generation," is huge. So that's one.
DžH: Morate da vidite kako se šest do deset niti povezuju. Navešću samo par njih. U Americi, jedna od velikih - zapravo, u Americi i Evropi - jedna od najvećih je Drugi svetski rat. Postoji zanimljivo istraživanje Džoa Henrika i ostalih koje kaže da, ako je tvoja zemlja bila u ratu, naročito kada si bio mlad, a onda te testiramo 30 godina kasnije kroz problem tragedije zajedničkih dobara ili dilemu zatvorenika, naklonjeniji si saradnji. Usled naše plemenske prirode, ako si - moji roditelji su bili tinejdžeri za vreme Drugog svetskog rata i išli bi da tragaju za komadićima aluminijuma da bi pomogli u ratnim nastojanjima. Mislim, svi su sarađivali. Tako, kada ovi ljudi nastave dalje, uzdignu se kroz posao i upravu i zauzimaju vodeće položaje. Veoma im dobro ide ostvarivanje kompromisa i saradnje. Svi se penzionišu do '90-ih godina. Tako nam ostaju predstavnici bejbi bum generacije na kraju '90-ih. A njihova mladost je prošla u međusobnim borbama unutar svake zemlje, 1968. godine i nakon toga. Gubitak generacije Drugog svetskog rata, „najveće generacije“, ogroman je. To je jedna stvar.
Another, in America, is the purification of the two parties. There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So America had a mid-20th century that was really bipartisan. But because of a variety of factors that started things moving, by the 90's, we had a purified liberal party and conservative party. So now, the people in either party really are different, and we really don't want our children to marry them, which, in the '60s, didn't matter very much. So, the purification of the parties. Third is the internet and, as I said, it's just the most amazing stimulant for post-hoc reasoning and demonization.
Druga stvar, u Americi je prečišćavanje dve stranke. Ranije su bili liberalni republikanci i konzervativne demokrate. U Americi je tako sredina 20. veka bila zapravo dvopartijska. Međutim, zbog mnoštva faktora koji su pokrenuli stvari, do '90-ih godina, imali smo pročišćenu liberalnu i konzervativnu stranku. Tako su sada ljudi u obe stranke zaista različiti i zaista ne želimo da se naša deca venčaju sa njima, što '60-ih godina nije bilo naročito važno. Dakle, pročišćavanje stranaka. Treći je internet i, kao što sam rekao, to je prosto najneverovatniji podsticaj za naknadno rezonovanje i demonizaciju.
CA: The tone of what's happening on the internet now is quite troubling. I just did a quick search on Twitter about the election and saw two tweets next to each other. One, against a picture of racist graffiti: "This is disgusting! Ugliness in this country, brought to us by #Trump." And then the next one is: "Crooked Hillary dedication page. Disgusting!" So this idea of "disgust" is troubling to me. Because you can have an argument or a disagreement about something, you can get angry at someone. Disgust, I've heard you say, takes things to a much deeper level.
KA: Ton onoga što se danas dešava na internetu prilično zabrinjava. Upravo sam na brzinu obavio pretragu na Tviteru o izborima i video dva tvita, jedan pored drugog. Jedan je pored slike rasističkog grafita: „Ovo je odvratno! Ružnoća u ovoj zemlji, priredio #Tramp.“ Sledeći je: „Prevarantska Hilarina strana za posvete. Odvratno!“ Ova ideja „odvratnosti“ me zabrinjava. Jer možete se raspravljati ili se ne slagati u vezi sa nečim i možete se naljutiti na nekoga. Gađenje, kako sam čuo od tebe, prenosi stvari na mnogo viši nivo.
JH: That's right. Disgust is different. Anger -- you know, I have kids. They fight 10 times a day, and they love each other 30 times a day. You just go back and forth: you get angry, you're not angry; you're angry, you're not angry. But disgust is different. Disgust paints the person as subhuman, monstrous, deformed, morally deformed. Disgust is like indelible ink. There's research from John Gottman on marital therapy. If you look at the faces -- if one of the couple shows disgust or contempt, that's a predictor that they're going to get divorced soon, whereas if they show anger, that doesn't predict anything, because if you deal with anger well, it actually is good.
DžH: Tako je. Gađenje je drugačije. Bes - znate, ja imam decu. Oni se svađaju deset puta dnevno i vole jedno drugog 30 puta dnevno. Samo idete tamo-amo: ljuti ste, niste ljuti; ljuti ste, niste ljuti. Međutim, gađenje je drugačije. Gađenje predstavlja drugu osobu kao nedovoljno ljudsku, monstruoznu, nakaznu, moralno nakaznu. Gađenje je poput neizbrisivog mastila. Postoji istraživanje Džona Gotmana o bračnoj terapiji. Ako pogledate lica - ako jedan par pokazuje gađenje ili prezir, to je pokazatelj da će se uskoro razvesti, dok ako pokazuju bes, to ništa ne previđa, jer ako dobro izlazite na kraj sa besom, on je zapravo dobar.
So this election is different. Donald Trump personally uses the word "disgust" a lot. He's very germ-sensitive, so disgust does matter a lot -- more for him, that's something unique to him -- but as we demonize each other more, and again, through the Manichaean worldview, the idea that the world is a battle between good and evil as this has been ramping up, we're more likely not just to say they're wrong or I don't like them, but we say they're evil, they're satanic, they're disgusting, they're revolting. And then we want nothing to do with them. And that's why I think we're seeing it, for example, on campus now. We're seeing more the urge to keep people off campus, silence them, keep them away. I'm afraid that this whole generation of young people, if their introduction to politics involves a lot of disgust, they're not going to want to be involved in politics as they get older.
Dakle, ovi izbori su drugačiji. Lično Donald Tramp dosta koristi reč „odvratno“. On je veoma osetljiv na mikrobe, tako da je gađenje zaista vrlo bitno - dodatno za njega, to je nešto što je osobeno za njega - ali kako više demonizujemo jedni druge, a opet, kroz manihejsko gledište, ideju da je svet bitka između dobra i zla dok se ovo pojačavalo, više smo skloni ne samo da kažemo da oni greše ili da nam se ne dopadaju, već kažemo da su zli, satanistički, gadni, odvratni. I onda ne želimo ništa sa njima. Zato mislim da to danas vidimo u studentskim domovima, na primer. Vidimo veću potrebu da se ljudi udalje iz domova, da se ućutkaju, drže podalje. Bojim se da će čitava ova generacija mladih, ako njihovo upoznavanje sa politikom obuhvata mnogo gađenja, neće hteti da se bave politikom kada postanu stariji.
CA: So how do we deal with that? Disgust. How do you defuse disgust?
KA: Pa kako da se izborimo sa tim? Gađenje. Kako da umanjite gađenje?
JH: You can't do it with reasons. I think ... I studied disgust for many years, and I think about emotions a lot. And I think that the opposite of disgust is actually love. Love is all about, like ... Disgust is closing off, borders. Love is about dissolving walls. So personal relationships, I think, are probably the most powerful means we have. You can be disgusted by a group of people, but then you meet a particular person and you genuinely discover that they're lovely. And then gradually that chips away or changes your category as well. The tragedy is, Americans used to be much more mixed up in the their towns by left-right or politics. And now that it's become this great moral divide, there's a lot of evidence that we're moving to be near people who are like us politically. It's harder to find somebody who's on the other side. So they're over there, they're far away. It's harder to get to know them.
DžH: To ne možete razumom. Ja mislim... Izučavao sam gađenje godinama i mnogo razmišljam o emocijama. Mislim da je suprotnost gađenju zapravo ljubav. Ljubav se odnosi na... Gađenje je zatvaranje granica. Ljubav predstavlja poništavanje zidova. Tako da su lični odnosi, po meni, verovatno najmoćnije sredstvo koje imamo. Možete biti zgađeni nad grupom ljudi, ali onda upoznate konkretnu osobu i istinski saznate da je divna. To zatim postepeno naruši ili promeni i vašu kategoriju. Tragedija je u tome što su Amerikanci nekada bili mnogo više pomešani u svojim gradovima u pogledu levice-desnice ili politike. A danas je to postala velika moralna podela; postoji mnogo dokaza da se selimo tako da budemo blizu ljudi koji su slični nama politički. Teže je naći nekog ko je na drugoj strani. Dakle, oni su tamo, daleko su. Teže je upoznati ih.
CA: What would you say to someone or say to Americans, people generally, about what we should understand about each other that might help us rethink for a minute this "disgust" instinct?
KA: Šta bi rekao nekome ili šta bi rekao Amerikancima, narodu uopšte, o tome šta treba da shvatimo jedni o drugima što bi nam moglo pomoći da na minut promislimo o ovom instinktu „gađenja“?
JH: Yes. A really important thing to keep in mind -- there's research by political scientist Alan Abramowitz, showing that American democracy is increasingly governed by what's called "negative partisanship." That means you think, OK there's a candidate, you like the candidate, you vote for the candidate. But with the rise of negative advertising and social media and all sorts of other trends, increasingly, the way elections are done is that each side tries to make the other side so horrible, so awful, that you'll vote for my guy by default.
DžH: Da. Veoma bitna stvar koju treba imati na umu - postoji istraživanje politikologa Alana Abramovica koje pokazuje da američkom demokratijom u sve većoj meri upravlja ono što se naziva „negativno pristalištvo“. To znači da ti misliš da, u redu, postoji kandidat, dopada ti se kandidat, glasaš za kandidata. Međutim, sa porastom negativnog reklamiranja, društvenih medija i raznoraznih novih trendova, izbori se sve više sprovode na taj način što svaka strana pokušava da učini drugu stranu toliko groznom, tako užasnom, da se podrazumeva da ćeš glasati za mog čoveka.
And so as we more and more vote against the other side and not for our side, you have to keep in mind that if people are on the left, they think, "Well, I used to think that Republicans were bad, but now Donald Trump proves it. And now every Republican, I can paint with all the things that I think about Trump." And that's not necessarily true. They're generally not very happy with their candidate.
Tako, dok sve više glasamo protiv druge strane a ne za svoju stranu, morate imati na umu da, ako su ljudi na levoj strani, oni misle: „Pa, pre sam mislio da su republikanci loši, ali sada to Donald Tramp dokazuje. I sada svakog republikanca mogu da predstavim svime onim što mislim o Trampu.“ A to nije nužno tačno. Oni generalno nisu baš zadovoljni svojim kandidatom.
This is the most negative partisanship election in American history. So you have to first separate your feelings about the candidate from your feelings about the people who are given a choice. And then you have to realize that, because we all live in a separate moral world -- the metaphor I use in the book is that we're all trapped in "The Matrix," or each moral community is a matrix, a consensual hallucination. And so if you're within the blue matrix, everything's completely compelling that the other side -- they're troglodytes, they're racists, they're the worst people in the world, and you have all the facts to back that up. But somebody in the next house from yours is living in a different moral matrix. They live in a different video game, and they see a completely different set of facts. And each one sees different threats to the country. And what I've found from being in the middle and trying to understand both sides is: both sides are right. There are a lot of threats to this country, and each side is constitutionally incapable of seeing them all.
Ovo su izbori sa najnegativnijim poborništvom u američkoj istoriji. Dakle, morate najpre da razdvojite svoja osećanja prema kandidatu od svojih osećanja prema ljudima kojima je dat izbor. A zatim treba da shvatite da, zato što svi mi živimo u zasebnom moralnom svetu - metafora koju koristim u knjizi je da smo svi zarobljeni u „matriksu“, ili da je svaka moralna zajednica matriks, konsenzualna halucinacija. Stoga, ako si u plavom matriksu, sve sasvim ubedljivo ukazuje da je druga strana - oni su pećinski ljudi, rasisti, najgori ljudi na svetu, i imaš sve činjenice koje to potvrđuju. Međutim, neko u kući do vas živi u drugačijem moralnom matriksu. On živi u drugačijoj video igrici i vidi potpuno drugačiji skup činjenica. I svako vidi drugačije pretnje za zemlju. Ono što sam otkrio ostajući u sredini i pokušavajući da razumem obe strane jeste da su obe strane u pravu. Postoji mnogo opasnosti po ovu zemlju i svaka strana prirodno nije u stanju da ih sve sagleda.
CA: So, are you saying that we almost need a new type of empathy? Empathy is traditionally framed as: "Oh, I feel your pain. I can put myself in your shoes." And we apply it to the poor, the needy, the suffering. We don't usually apply it to people who we feel as other, or we're disgusted by.
KA: Dakle, hoćeš da kažeš da nam je maltene potrebna nova vrsta empatije? Empatija se obično formuliše kao: „O, osećam tvoju bol. Mogu da se postavim na tvoje mesto.“ To primenjujemo na siromašnima, onima u nevolji, onima koji pate. Obično to ne primenjujemo na ljudima koje doživljavamo kao suprotstavljene ili koji nam se gade.
JH: No. That's right.
DžH: Ne. Tako je.
CA: What would it look like to build that type of empathy?
KA: Kako bi izgledalo izgraditi takvu vrstu empatije?
JH: Actually, I think ... Empathy is a very, very hot topic in psychology, and it's a very popular word on the left in particular. Empathy is a good thing, and empathy for the preferred classes of victims. So it's important to empathize with the groups that we on the left think are so important. That's easy to do, because you get points for that.
DžH: Zapravo, smatram... Empatija je vrlo aktuelna tema u psihologiji, a to je i vrlo popularna reč, naročito na levoj strani. Empatija je dobra stvar, i to empatija prema favorizovanim kategorijama žrtvi. Važno je saosećati sa grupama za koje mi sa leve strane mislimo da su vrlo bitne. To je lako jer dobijate poene za to.
But empathy really should get you points if you do it when it's hard to do. And, I think ... You know, we had a long 50-year period of dealing with our race problems and legal discrimination, and that was our top priority for a long time and it still is important. But I think this year, I'm hoping it will make people see that we have an existential threat on our hands. Our left-right divide, I believe, is by far the most important divide we face. We still have issues about race and gender and LGBT, but this is the urgent need of the next 50 years, and things aren't going to get better on their own. So we're going to need to do a lot of institutional reforms, and we could talk about that, but that's like a whole long, wonky conversation. But I think it starts with people realizing that this is a turning point. And yes, we need a new kind of empathy. We need to realize: this is what our country needs, and this is what you need if you don't want to -- Raise your hand if you want to spend the next four years as angry and worried as you've been for the last year -- raise your hand. So if you want to escape from this, read Buddha, read Jesus, read Marcus Aurelius. They have all kinds of great advice for how to drop the fear, reframe things, stop seeing other people as your enemy. There's a lot of guidance in ancient wisdom for this kind of empathy.
Međutim, empatijom bi zapravo trebalo da dobijate poene kada je to teško. I mislim... Znaš, imali smo dugi period od 50 godina suočavanja sa našim rasističkim problemima i pravnom diskriminacijom, što je dugo bio naš glavni prioritet i to je još uvek važno. Mislim da će ove godine - nadam se da će postići da ljudi uvide da se nosimo sa egzistencijalnom pretnjom. Naša podela na levo i desno, verujem, daleko je najvažnija podela sa kojom se suočavamo. Još imamo probleme vezane za rasu, rod i zajednicu LGBT, ali je ovo hitna potreba u narednih 50 godina, a stvari se neće poboljšati same od sebe. Biće nam potrebno da sprovedemo mnogo institucionalnih reformi i mogli bismo da govorimo o tome, ali to je čitav dugačak i nestabilan razgovor. Mislim da počinje tako što ljudi shvate da je ovo prekretnica. Da, potrebna nam je nova vrsta empatije. Treba da shvatimo da je ovo potrebno našoj zemlji, a ovo je vama potrebno ako ne želite da - Podignite ruku ako želite da provedete naredne četiri godine ljuti i zabrinuti kao što ste bili protekle godine - podignite ruku. Dakle, ako želite da pobegnete iz ovoga, čitajte Budu, Isusa, Marka Aurelija. Oni imaju raznorazne sjajne savete o tome kako napustiti strah, preformulisati stvari, prestati videti druge ljude kao svoje neprijatelje. U drevnoj mudrosti postoji mnogo smernica za ovu vrstu empatije.
CA: Here's my last question: Personally, what can people do to help heal?
KA: Evo mog poslednjeg pitanja. Šta ljudi mogu učiniti na ličnom nivou da bi pomogli u isceljenju?
JH: Yeah, it's very hard to just decide to overcome your deepest prejudices. And there's research showing that political prejudices are deeper and stronger than race prejudices in the country now. So I think you have to make an effort -- that's the main thing. Make an effort to actually meet somebody. Everybody has a cousin, a brother-in-law, somebody who's on the other side. So, after this election -- wait a week or two, because it's probably going to feel awful for one of you -- but wait a couple weeks, and then reach out and say you want to talk. And before you do it, read Dale Carnegie, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" --
DžH: Da, vrlo je teško prosto odlučiti da prevaziđete svoje najdublje predrasude. Postoji istraživanje koje pokazuje da su političke predrasude produbljenije i jače od rasnih predrasuda u zemlji danas. Mislim da morate da se potrudite - to je glavna stvar. Potruditi se da zaista upoznate nekoga. Svako ima rođaka, zeta, nekoga ko je na drugoj strani. Dakle, nakon ovih izbora - sačekajte nedelju ili dve, jer će verovatno biti grozno za jednog od vas - ali sačekajte par nedelja i zatim mu se obratite i kažite da hoćete da razgovarate. Pre nego što to uradite, pročitajte od Dejla Karnegija „Kako zadobiti prijatelje i uticati na ljude.“
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
I'm totally serious. You'll learn techniques if you start by acknowledging, if you start by saying, "You know, we don't agree on a lot, but one thing I really respect about you, Uncle Bob," or "... about you conservatives, is ... " And you can find something. If you start with some appreciation, it's like magic. This is one of the main things I've learned that I take into my human relationships. I still make lots of stupid mistakes, but I'm incredibly good at apologizing now, and at acknowledging what somebody was right about. And if you do that, then the conversation goes really well, and it's actually really fun.
Skroz sam ozbiljan. Naučićete tehnike ako počnete uz priznanje, tako što ćete reći: „Znaš, ne slažemo se oko mnogo toga, ali jedno veoma cenim kod tebe, čika Bob“, ili „kod vas konzervativaca, a to je...“ A možete naći nešto. Ako počnete sa malo uvažavanja, to deluje kao magija. Ovo je jedna od glavnih stvari koje sam naučio koju unosim u svoje odnose sa ljudima. I dalje činim mnogo glupih greški, ali sam sada neverovatno dobar u izvinjavanju i priznavanju nečega u vezi sa čim je neko bio u pravu. Ako to radite, onda razgovor protiče veoma dobro i zapravo je veoma zabavan.
CA: Jon, it's absolutely fascinating speaking with you. It really does feel like the ground that we're on is a ground populated by deep questions of morality and human nature. Your wisdom couldn't be more relevant. Thank you so much for sharing this time with us.
KA: Džone, apsolutno je fascinantno razgovarati sa tobom. Zaista se čini da je tlo na kome se nalazimo nastanjeno dubokim pitanjima o moralnosti i ljudskoj prirodi. Tvoja mudrost je od izuzetnog značaja. Mnogo ti hvala što si podelio ovo vreme sa nama.
JH: Thanks, Chris.
DžH: Hvala, Kris.
JH: Thanks, everyone.
DžH: Hvala svima.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)