Fairness - Why Do We Care So Much?
(Editor’s note: This week, we’re introducing a new columnist whose articles you will see from time to time in the South Reporter. Dr. Raymond Barranco is a sociology professor in Mississippi whose writing focuses on public life, compassion, fairness, and how people think across differences.)
One of my favorite things about living in Mississippi is the lack of traffic. Sure, certain intersections get backed up and the Interstate (for those of you lucky enough to live near one) occasionally experiences traffic jams, but we don’t have big-city traffic here. Which is why my head wants to explode every time I visit family back in south Louisiana.
The worst is when three lanes become two and everyone has to merge.
I’m a get-over-early kind of guy because I don’t want to be a jerk. But plenty of other people don’t feel the same way. They ride that third lane as far as they can before merging. If you’ve ever been stuck in that situation, you’ve probably muttered something like, “Hey, that’s not fair.”
But why do we react that way?
Traffic engineers tell us that zipper merging is actually one of the most efficient ways to move vehicles through a bottleneck. If our primary concern was reducing traffic and getting home as quickly as possible, we should love zipper merging. Yet many of us don’t.
Why? Because we’re not just evaluating efficiency. We’re evaluating fairness. Those of us who merge early feel like we followed the rules. We were polite. We waited our turn. When someone drives past a long line of cars and merges at the last second, it can feel like they’re benefiting from our patience. Now, am I really writing an entire column about zipper merging? Yes – and no. As the title suggests, this column is really about fairness. What makes zipper merging interesting is that reasonable people can look at the exact same situation and come away with completely different conclusions. The driver who merged early thinks, “I followed the rules.” The driver who stayed in the lane thinks, “I’m following the instructions on the road signs.” The traffic engineer thinks, “You’re both missing the point. I’m trying to move cars through the bottleneck.” All three are looking at the same situation. They’re simply using different standards. And that’s true of much more than traffic. It shows up in politics, healthcare, education, criminal justice, marriage, work, and countless other parts of life. Nearly everyone cares about fairness. The problem is that we don’t always mean the same thing when we use the word.
Some people define fairness as equal treatment. Others define it as equal opportunity. Some focus on outcomes. Others focus on following the rules. Some ask whether a decision benefits the greatest number of people. Others ask whether it is right regardless of the outcome.
So, is zipper merging fair?
I honestly don’t know – and that’s actually the point. The question “is this fair?” is incomplete on its own. The real question is “fair according to which standard?” Equal treatment? Equal opportunity? Following the rules? Producing the best outcome for the most people? Different standards, applied to the same situation, can produce completely different answers.
I suspect this is the source of many of our disagreements. We often assume people are arguing about facts, evidence, or outcomes when they are actually operating from different understandings of fairness. Until we identify which standard someone is using, we’re not really having the same argument – we’re just talking past each other.
So the next time you’re sitting in traffic, irritated at the driver who rode the lane to the bumper before merging, notice what’s actually happening. You’re probably not angry about losing thirty seconds. You’re angry because your theory of fairness just got violated – and you didn’t even know you had one.
Dr. Raymond Barranco is a sociology professor in Mississippi whose writing focuses on public life, compassion, fairness, and how people think across differences. He can be reached at rbarranco@soc.msstate.edu.