As part of the 2011 Science & Democracy Lecture Series, NY Times columnist David Brooks delivered a lecture titled “Politics, the Brain, and Human Nature” at the Graduate School of Design on April 12, 2011. Panelists included HBS Professor Max H. Bazerman, HLS Professor David Kennedy, and Psychology Professor Steven Pinker. Brooks argues, as in his new book The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources Of Love, Character and Achievement, that rather than seeing reason and emotion as two ends of a seesaw, we should see emotion as the foundation of reason. He cites many scientific studies that suggest that the impressiveness of unconscious processes (from the significance of names to the significance of sweat) are largely undervalued.
Blogger Responses
What about Congress? — by Jenny Ye
Among many interesting anecdotes and questions that Brooks raised, the central one relating to American politics is this: why do the most socially attuned individuals [our hand-shaking, name-remembering politicians] make dehumanizing policies? Human nature, in Brooks’ view, is inherently rational and emotional, not one or the other. Yet after decades of reporting on Washington, he finds that our politicians abandon discussions of interpersonal dynamics (teacher-student, doctor-patient) for the (relatively) few things that are measurable and quantifiable. Solving big problems (poverty, education, governance) depends on seeing individuals as social animals.
These are not new ideas. “People have been observing people for a long time,” said Brooks. He hopes to trade Descartes for Hume and Smith, bringing back the sentiment driven, but not anti-rationalist perspective.
But for all that Brooks talked about the incredible social skills of politicians to woo constituents (Bill Clinton will make people feel welcomed; Mitt Romney will remember your first name after one introduction), I am surprised that Brooks didn’t explore the social dynamic within Congress. As I see it, the rational-emotional seesaw is one of convenience. In our polarized, two-party government, it is convenient to see society (especially the economy) in metrics. Republicans threatened shutting down the government last week because compromise on the national budget was not politically savvy. It’s politics not policy. Debates over healthcare, the budget, immigration, education [the list goes on] are as much driven by money and power as they are by emotion or reason. If the structure of our government is a seesaw of power, strategic decision-making will inherently be one as well.
How can “emotion [be] the foundation of reason” when emotion is the fundamental foundation for fundraising and campaigning? We hear time and time again that Congress isn’t what it used to be. How can we re-imagine a policy-making process that is radically different from one that is driven by money and uncompromising ideology?
Brooks argues “this is a world that is shallower than it needs to be,” and I agree. But the road to better policy involves much more than politicians suddenly seeing people as emotional rather than rational creatures. It involves a re-evaluation of the civility and structure of government itself.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.