Jonathan Haidt and Understanding First Nations Protesters

“In the current Canadian context, I think the protestors are justified in blocking railway tracks and highways to make their point.”

Introduction

In recent weeks Canadian politics has been dominated by the blockade of railways and highways by protestors opposed to a national gas pipeline, which is proposed to extend across Northern British Columbia. Members of the Wet’suwet’en First Nations claim that—while some indigenous groups and politicians consented to have the development take place on their land—many did not. They are joined by a variety of other activists and groups who protest either the subordination of First Nations’ sovereignty or the potential impact of the pipeline on the environment. Many have called these blockades illegal, insisting that while protesting is a constitutional right blockading rail tracks and roads is not. Some conservative commentators like Rex Murphy (the Abraham Simpson of Canada) have even gone further in describing the protestors as “zealots” and “radicals,” enmeshed in the “doomsday cult of global warming.” However, where figures like Murphy, whose educational background is in English and law and who has taken money from the oil industry, reach such hyperbolic conclusions about First Nations and environmental issues remains a mystery fit for Prospero. For its part, the Canadian government has expressed concern about using force to break up First Nations protests over how their own land is used, particularly given the country’s dark legacy of violent colonialism.

Order and Justice

One of the major psychological differences between conservatives and progressives, as discussed by Jonathan Haidt, is that the former tends to place greater emphasis on the importance of authority and in-group loyalty, while the latter prioritizes principles such as fairness and ameliorating suffering. Consequently, conservatives will be more likely to tolerate a degree of injustice if that is necessary to prevent a—perceived or real—slide into chaos and uncertainty, while progressives are willing to disrupt the status quo to correct what they consider—rightly or wrongly—an injustice. This, of course, in and of itself tells us nothing about which perspective is morally superior, though Haidt himself emphasizes that some balance is likely required. But the mere fact that someone is psychologically disposed to favoring the existing order or to rallying against unfairness doesn’t indicate they are correct. The order in question may be tyrannical, or the means used by radical activists could be cruel and counter-productive. Almost everything that matters about these issues outside providing an accurate psychological description depends on examining both the theoretical principles underpinning an action—and the context in which they’re applied.

In cases of civil disobedience, we see a clear conflict between these two inclinations. When conservatives look at these protestors and the disruption they cause, there is often a visceral and oppositional reaction. This is because the protest hits many buttons, which are currently taboo on the political right. Environmentalists protesting the oil industry? Check. First Nations and their defenders discussing the colonial heritage of Canada and undermining its grandeur? Check. Vacillation from Justin Trudeau, an often-despised figure who frequently presents himself as the global spokesman for “woke” culture? Check. But more foundational than any of these is a deep resentment that the protestors are breaking the law by blockading transportation and causing a disruption. For many conservatives, protest and political activism are to take place in an orderly manner. The alternative is the specter of disorder and lawlessness.