Will shared sacrifice be possible in a you-or-me society?

The international news from other countries like Greece where such measures are currently being attempted, owing to similar accumulated debt and IMF pressures, is not encouraging. Will shared sacrifice of this magnitude actually be possible in Jamaica, given the us-versus-them, me-or-you mentality that has taken root in recent years?

In thinking about how this impending debt crisis might play out, what has worried me of late is the answers we got to several questions UWI's Centre for Leadership and Government asked in its 2010 and 2007 national surveys - which generally indicate that there is low willingness to trust or cooperate with other groups in society, and particularly with the political and economic authorities who would have to implement such measures. This, in combination with already-existing perceptions of unfair distribution of privilege and resources, could be a recipe for trouble if the required economic sacrifices are not shared equitably and their purposes explained clearly.

You-OR-me vs you-AND-me

To what extent are Jamaicans predisposed to view their relationships with other persons and groups in society from either a you-or-me mindset, or a you-and-me mindset? To operationalise these modes, a question was included in the 2010 USAID/LAPOP survey that asked the respondent to choose between 'you or me' and 'you and me' alternative social worlds in which 'we live'. As detailed in the figure on this page, the question asked, "Which of these two statements do you agree with the most?"

The first alternative was "We live in a you-AND-me world, where people can afford to help each other out a lot." Of those responding, a little over a third, 38 per cent, agreed with this. The second alternative was: "We live in a you-OR-me world, where it's everyone for himself or herself." Roughly two-thirds, 62 per cent, chose this one instead.

Now a bit more context as to what this pattern might imply about Jamaicans' willingness to sacrifice in hard times. Organisational psychologists, in studying the traits that influence cooperative behaviour within groups and societies, distinguish between zero-sum (you-or-me) and non-zero-sum (you-and-me) mindsets. In game theory, a zero-sum game is a competitive one in which there are distinct winners and losers, and in which one person/group's gain necessarily implies another's loss. In contrast, a non-zero sum (or positive sum) game is a more cooperative one, in which mutual satisfaction of the involved persons'/groups' needs is seen as both possible and desirable.

This distinction affects the way people frame their social, political, and economic transactions, how they solve problems, and how much they are willing to compromise with others in doing so. As described by researchers Fear & Denniss, people with you-OR-me-oriented world views "tend to have individualistic or competitive motives, interpret rationality according to what is right for the individual, and are more concerned with the effectiveness or utility of behaviour," whereas people who hold you-AND-me world views "tend to display cooperative or altruistic motives, to regard behaviour as rational if it is in the interests of the collective or group, and to be more concerned with the morality of behaviour".

Several decades of research on these two perceptual modes have shown that you-AND-me world view people are more likely to cooperate with each other for the common good when there are mutual sacrifices to be made. You-OR-me world view people, by contrast, usually attempt to harvest more resources for themselves from a common pool. Research further suggests that these world views are critical to the way people will behave during social dilemmas, and influence what they will see as appropriate solutions to problems in times of resource scarcity and sacrifice.

Unfortunately, this trend of only one-third of Jamaicans having a you-and-me mindset, as observed in the graph on this page, seems to also converge with other recent national findings that show only about 14 per cent of Jamaicans saying they trust other people generally (in 2006, 2007, 2008 surveys), and with even fewer, 9.7 per cent, saying they trust government officials (2010 survey). When considered alongside figures indicating low public confidence in the major political and economic institutions (see December 11 Gleaner article on 'Robotham's low party legitimacy'), these are not exactly indicators of robust 'social capital' on which to draw in a time of crisis.

Basing solutions on national strengths

Taken together, these trends do not look especially encouraging. However, some of the other results in these national surveys do point to the country's institutional and value strengths - qualities that could conceivably be tapped to get the country through the tough times, and provide a sense of unity and goodwill. Public policies, especially unpopular ones, that are compatible with the dominant social values of a culture are always more likely to succeed than policies that go against the grain of a people's habits of the heart.

So this is not just a matter of economics or efficient administration; it is a matter of what people will feel is right and just. What might look like a perfectly rational debt-crisis solution to an economist from his detached perspective could seem an outrageous betrayal of deeply held values to the common man.

Thus, if they are to succeed, proposed solutions to the debt crisis would need to be compatible with Jamaicans' sense of fairness and their value preferences. In the 2007 national survey of values, Jamaicans had ranked near the top such preferred social values as family security, equality ('equal opportunity for all'), honouring parents and elders, responsibility, and honesty. Ranked near the bottom of the value hierarchy were social power (control over others, dominance), authority, obedience, wealth, and self-discipline.

If debt-recovery solutions are to be built on existing national strengths and have credibility with the populace, there is the further problem that these surveys seem to suggest that party politicians and the private sector would be precisely the groups least likely to inspire confidence and a popular willingness to sacrifice for the common good.

As seen in the December 11 Gleaner column, only about 10 per cent of Jamaicans express strong confidence in the government, and 11 per cent have confidence in the private sector. Groups more likely to weave an effective web of confidence, and compliance, would be the churches (47 per cent), the universities and schools (50 and 52 per cent), and the family (58 per cent) - social institutions that embody stronger trust, and a sense of solidarity and community spirit.

But who exactly are the compassionate you-and-me bodhisattvas in Jamaica who would lead us out of this economic wilderness? Where are this era's Bustamantes and Manleys - civic-minded leaders with the requisite courage and restraint to put aside petty party bickering long enough to form a unity government for the greater good of the country?

Who has the transcendent goodwill to strike the necessary compromises with their opponents, and to yield some of their advantages in the process, so as to ensure the future well-being of their children? Where are the 'true statesmen' (and women) who will extend a helping hand to the universities, churches, and families in solving these problems - rather than simply scaling back their support - in the struggle to reconstruct an economically stable Jamaica?

Lawrence Alfred Powell is honorary research fellow at the Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the Social Sciences (COMPASS) at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and the former polling director for the Centre for Leadership and Governance at UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and lapowell.auckland@ymail.com.