APOP320
Morality & The Good Life

The Limits of Legitimate Regulation: Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ

“You can’t have the sacred without the other side of the coin, the profane. Sometimes it’s hard for me to tell the difference.”
Andres Serrano (Collings, 1991)

Should elective representatives regulate the limitations of artistic expression? Who gets to be the arbiter of taste and enforce principles and punishments concerning the autonomous freedom of creative pursuits?

These questions of moral judgment converge around Andres Serrano’s 1987 photograph Piss Christ, which depicts a crucifix submerged in urine. It has become a touchstone of both moral corruptions inside of government-funded artistic programs and the religious, creative freedoms on which the country was founded.

As abstract as our individual interpretations of attraction and repulsion may be, we can use Richard Shweder’s construct of moral concerns to help us navigate the issue’s different interpretations and identify some common ground (Crone, 2022). These constructs are autonomy, divinity, and community. We will take each in turn.

Moral concerns of autonomy are established to provide societal protections for the individual, and there is often no group more individualized than artists, who embrace liberal notions of legitimate regulation. They believe that people should be able to do as they please so long as they don’t cause harm to others. But who is being harmed here? Conservative elected officials have argued that Serrano’s work is clearly taboo, even though they share the same moral values as artists of freedom of expression, celebration of beauty, and belief in religious diversity. Representative Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) publicly tore up a reproduction of the work, calling it “a deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity” (Andrews, 2017). Serrano responds “I have been a Christian all my life. My work is not meant to be blasphemous nor offensive” (Andrews, 2017).

The material tradeoff which motivates the disagreement is the limits of which pursuits should be funded by taxpayer dollars. Liberals say Serrano’s work is worth it, and representative of a broader belief in national creative freedom, which is to be encouraged. Conservatives agree, but with the caveat that there are limits of taste and decency which must not transgress into disgust, sin, or perceptions of the profane.

When it comes to navigating these notions of purity, Shweder’s concern of divinity dictates that people shouldn’t do things which are unwholesome or disgusting. That we should seek to protect the soul and adhere to the natural order of things. Serrano uses the long-established symbology of the church but combines it with a material which elicits repulsion. He argues that the use of bodily fluid is no different than the ritual celebration of the body and blood of Christ. Conservatives argue that there is a delineation and hierarchy when it comes to the use of these fluids. Blood and tears are acceptable, but urine and feces are not. Both Serrano and elected Conservatives hold deep religious Christian faith, but where Serrano sees life in his photographs, Conservatives see transgression and a violation of social contract. Serrano seeks to reframe this disgust from taboo to tragic, in connecting it to the legacy of art history and the use of similar iconography over hundreds of years.

Fulfilling one’s obligations to further protection of the interests of one’s community establishes conditions for the respect of hierarchies, tradition, and authority. It describes notions of the obligations which arise from our membership of these social groups. Here the liberal artistic view is that such contributions further the important limits of autonomous expression, whereas Conservatives argue these limits are exactly in place for such protections. The social contract here is that artists have an obligation not to overstep an undisclosed measure of taste, which is a constantly moving target based on our perpetually changing norms.

Moral conflict in concerns of autonomy, divinity and community motivate disagreements over notions of harm, societal protection, and the extent to which we can trade actual investment and regulation against artistic expression. Liberals argue freedoms of artistic pursuit should inherently have few limits. Conservatives agree and hold mutual protected values of freedoms of the individual, religious expression, and appreciation of beauty, but with explicit reservation when it comes to personal preference. In particular, moral concerns of autonomy and divinity collide around notions of taste. The moral conflict concerns differing interpretation of artistic freedom, what’s acceptable, and the extent to which government itself should support this. As Serrano concludes, “I don’t like to be called a photographer, but I’ve been called worse things.” (Serrano, 2020).

Increasing Empathic Approach Motivation in Ukrainian Charitable Giving

“Prove you are with us.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Bays, 2022)

 As the Ukrainian crisis grinds on, millions have been displaced. Atrocities are emerging, violence is increasing, and suffering is growing. Empathic concern predicts charitable giving and the provision of help to strangers (Weisz & Cikara, 2021). However, ‘UNICEF: Children in Crossfire of Ukraine Crisis’ (Buechner, 2022) does not go far enough in motivating the necessary empathic prosocial behaviors required of us to charitably act upon the feelings of perspective taking, emotion sharing, and compassion surfaced when seeing images of Ukrainian suffering. I will argue this in two ways.

First, the article could engage explicit approach motivation tactics to foster increases in our own emotional resonance with the Ukrainian experience. And second, that the article can and should look for opportunities to increase the intensity of such compassionate responses by bringing the suffering closer to us and finding more positive experiences to articulate.

First, we can increase our positive empathic response to the article through the approach motivations of capitalization, affiliation, and desirability (Crone, 2022a). Engaging with the capitalized positive emotions of the relief of suffering serves clear hedonic benefit to us and increases our inclination towards prosocial behavior. Similarly, empathic affiliation brings us as empathizer and the refugees as empathizees closer together (Crone, 2022a). We don’t feel affiliation in the perspectives of UNICEF’s executives. Therefore, we have a greater opportunity to be drawn closer to those suffering through finding and feeding the good of those materially impacted, even in such awful circumstance. As such, the article is misaligned with our shared sense of who to empathize with. And because we miss this opportunity to draw the suffering closer to us, we also miss the opportunity to signal our inclination, desire, and capacity to help (Crone, 2022a).

Second, our resonance and dimensions of perspective taking, emotion sharing, and compassion are higher when empathizing with positive as opposed to negative experiences in others (Crone, 2022b). These can be challenging to find in images of stark suffering. But Buechner’s article leans on positive testimonials from UNICEF executives, and only minimally surfaces the voices of those impacted (Buechner, 2022). The only elements we see are marginalized negatively oriented captions. We have a hard time empathizing with large degrees of communal suffering, as our urge to act doesn’t scale with the amount of need and suffering, so we must leverage the pull of individual, identifiable victims who have the tendency to outweigh the motivational pull of the suffering of many (Crone, 2022c). But we must also do this in more positive ways. Buechner might greatly improve the capacity for empathic response by first surfacing individualized positive narratives of resilience and the overcoming of adversity, as facilitated by UNICEF’s work. Empathic readers need to feel the suffering of those on the ground, not hear from executives at the top.

Weisz and Cikara explore methods in which explicit separation of the order in which we exercise this experience sharing and perspective taking may drive more favorably charitable outcomes (Weisz & Chikara, 2021). If we apply their interactive model to Beuchner’s article, we may find that prioritizing narratives of identifiable shared experience, followed by perspective taking depictions of what UNICEF is doing, may increase the degree to which we can foster increased empathic concern in the reader, and more charitable outcomes. As such, the article would benefit from having these positive shared experiences earlier.

Conversely, as Paul Bloom points out, not all identifiable victims are created equal (Bloom, 2017). Our empathic response is partial, and driven by the images we see, not the outcomes we seek. Such responses over time can lead to “burnout as well as diminished engagement with individuals in distress” (Bloom, 2017). In feeling the suffering in more intense, but less frequent ways, we might also look for opportunities to put us directly into the refugees’ context, such as more immersive video.

In conclusion, Buechner’s UNICEF article can greatly improve its capacity to motivate empathic prosocial and charitable behavior by reframing the dynamics of who we’re hearing from and adjusting the article’s order to focus earlier on positive shared experience. In addition, it should seek out opportunities for approach motivations of capitalization, affiliation, and desirability. In doing so, it may increase the intensity of our malleable empathic responses through spotlighting individuals, using tactics to draw them closer to us, and most importantly, focusing on the opportunities to empathize with the positive emotions of those impacted.

Politics, Parents & Perspective: A Brexit Field Guide

“When I am asked why I have left England, I say that I am in Brexile.”
Cliff James, (James, 2019)

The 2016 Brexit referendum drew stark societal divisions across class, income, education, geography, political persuasion, and cultural ideology. It surfaced acute animosity within families along age and gender, where the partisan politics of leavers and remainers still fuels vicious cycles of aversion, bias and decreases in mental well-being on both sides (Crone, 2022a). I will argue that through tactics of overcoming avoidance and a moral reframing of the ethics of autonomy and community, Brits can begin to heal.

Avoidance exacerbates partisan animosity, increases political bias, and can even result in ideological migration (Crone, 2022a). To overcome avoidance, we need to signal to our counterparts that we are motivated to be receptive to their worldview and seek out the mutual agreement between us as leverage for positive conversations. We need to strip away the rhetoric of negation, state less things with definitive certainty, and not seek to justify our own position at the expense of acknowledging what the other person is saying (Crone, 2022b). In the case of Brexit, this starts with mutual acceptance of the outcome of the referendum itself, and constructively working together towards what comes next. To seek epistemic co-operation and draw upon each other’s unique knowledge to solve the problem of how to navigate the real economic, cultural, and emotional departures from the European Union (Crone, 2022b).

To do this we need to be curious and humble enough to accurately understand what our counterpart’s moral values of autonomy and community are and seek to reframe them (Leary, 2018). But we need to do this in ways which remain sensitive to our counterpart’s sense of identity (Crone, 2022c). We need to understand what differentiates us, while avoiding exaggeration or misunderstanding of those very differences. To find and feed where our ethical values align. We need to understand where our ethics of autonomy and community differ, even if we end up at the same avoidant conclusion (Crone, 2022b).

The ethic of autonomy looms large inside of Brexit. Those who voted leave sought to protect the historical sovereign rights of a proud island nation, as well as the ability to pursue their own economic ends free of oversight from those in Brussels whom they did not elect and do not represent them. Those who remained felt that the longer-term autonomy brought by the opportunities and benefits of remaining outweighed such independent impulses.

Similarly, the ethic of community caused leavers to argue that their duties and obligations to other European states was negatively disproportionate to their own needs. That they should not absorb the debts and practices of those with little empathy or understanding of what’s important to those in the United Kingdom. Community is also strong for those choosing to remain, where the entire premise of an economic and cultural union across nations brings its own rewards. The dissonance of autonomy and community between leavers and remainers is contentious even today.

If autonomy and community are important to both leavers and remainers, we can morally reframe both perspectives and facilitate a constructive conversation in three ways. First, we can reframe autonomy through the common ground of mutual economic gain. If remainers seek to do more business domestically, and leavers feel they have less opportunity to do business internationally, they should look for those opportunities to do business with each other. Secondly, no longer being a member of the European Union does not mean they are no longer members of their own communities. They may feel discord based on how they voted, but their communities are still here, and have survived the referendum. It’s true that the British no longer have an obligation to other European states, but that doesn’t mean they no longer have a moral obligation to each other. Lastly, they can morally reframe the conversation by highlighting mutual points of agreement. That they’re no longer leavers or remainers, they’re all British, irrespective of previously entrenched political persuasion.

In conclusion, if we’re motivated to be receptive towards constructive conversations where we negate less, highlight points of agreement, and acknowledge what the other person is saying, we hear each other. In doing so, we find the common ethical ground inside of autonomy and community to morally reframe each other’s perspectives, move past the rhetoric of leave and remain, nourish acknowledgement, and accept what differentiates us free of partisan exaggeration.

Causes, Conflict and Community: Motivating Positive Self-Transcendence

“An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior.”
Viktor Frankl (Frankel, 1946)

Self-transcendent causes are both source of meaning and conflict. The same quest for significance which motivates emotional, physical, or relational benefit similarly motivates violent extremism (Crone, 2022a). These self-transcendent pursuits form and harden through the values of those we value, the relationships and groups we choose, and the degree to which we fuse our own identities with such groups (Crone, 2022b).

To help us find constructive means for satisfying appetite for self-transcendent cause, I will first explain how they are a source of well-being through communal and group relationships. Then motivate an argument of how needs, narratives and networks result in self-transcendent pursuits becoming sources of conflict. Finally, I will offer several constructive means of satisfying the need for meaning by reframing group membership through modelling behavior, reducing uncertainty, and implementing vocational and familial programs.

Self-transcendent causes are nurtured and nourished by trust. Communal relationships model vulnerability, intimacy, and confidence inside of dyads, where wellbeing is fostered through feelings of belonging and relatedness through mutual contribution. More broadly, group memberships provide us with a valued sense of identity, significance and the well-being which comes from association with something bigger than ourselves (Crone, 2022c). Close relationships and group memberships can be sources of approbation, affiliation, and the energizing sense of pride which comes from recognizing our own and others’ success. They satisfy our need for meaning, form self-transcendent narratives, and provide the necessary network support for us to thrive (Crone, 2022b). These relationships give us life. Causes give that life meaning, which in turn is virtuously reciprocated back into energy and motivation.

However, these same dimensions of needs, narratives and networks are also motivating factors for sources of conflict. The individual motivations which satisfy one’s need for significance can also prompt resonance with destructive narratives prescribing a path to attaining such significance. Alignment with the communal relationships and group networks which provide the social context and support to reinforce and satisfy one’s needs and narratives, further solidifies such meaning within individuals (Crone, 2022a). We will take each dimension in turn.

The common thread which unites the diverse motivations for violent extremism is the satisfaction of one's need for personal significance. The need to feel that we matter and that one’s life has meaning. A loss of such significance can accelerate resonance with violent extremism (Crone, 2022a). If such behavior is subsequently directed towards political, ideological, religious, social, or economic goals, these narratives might satisfy, legitimize, and provide a path for fulfilling one’s individual needs. Narratives provide the sense-making, but also the roadmap for achieving personal significance. But these narratives don’t exist in a vacuum. They are strongly influenced by societal and cultural networks, where valuing that which those we value hold to be true, forms the moral guideposts for our own behaviors (Crone, 2022c). These networks broaden and build narrative. They reinforce it as a means towards achieving the needs we seek in pursuit of our individual well-being.

If we focus on the dimension of uncertainty, we can craft a productive path towards more positive outcomes (Hogg, 2014). Uncertainty reduction motivates the pursuit of sense-making and is a strong source of constructive meaning and well-being. Uncertainty can be unsettling and aversive, and we unsurprisingly seek the swiftest route towards its resolution. If we pursue the means to reduce the uncertainty of our perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors towards others, and support such initiatives through vocational and familial programs, we can actively de-escalate the risk of negative self-transcendent affiliation (Hogg, 2014). Programs involving voluntary participation in religious ceremonies, educational and vocational training, the facilitation of familial contact, the reframing of group relationships, and the deliberate supportive intervention of needs, narratives and networks which provide more constructive sources of meaning all provide evidence of both rehabilitation and extremism reduction within radicalized communities. They reframe one’s need for personal significance, expose the individual to broader perspectives and narratives, and model behavior from more positive and constructive networks. (Hogg, 2014).

The significance we seek in the pursuit of well-being and the good life can be both constructive and destructive. But through focusing on the needs, narratives, and networks we choose to align with, participate in, listen to, and surround ourselves with, we can reframe them to support more constructive, positive outcomes. We can actively augment and facilitate less conflict and suffering, reappraise the morally questionable, and most importantly, achieve the personal significance that’s so essential to our well-being.