Overcoming Tall Poppy Syndrome in New Zealand Using Moral Foundations Theory and Christian Humility

Introduction

When I was ten years old, I signed up for a talent quest at my school. I was excited. I entered three times—I would play the piano, violin, and do a song and dance. Those were my talents. When it came to the talent quest night, I found out there were just sixteen entries, three of which were mine. In a school of 600 students, predominantly of European descent, I wondered why more people hadn’t entered. I was new to this school and one of the youngest; was there something I didn’t know? I watched as the 200-strong audience cheered and jested at the first contestants. Suddenly I didn’t want to participate anymore. But I followed through on my performances, giving them my best shot despite my embarrassment and the chuckling from the audience. After that talent quest, I didn’t have many friends. My peers all knew what I could do and therefore assumed they knew me before they had talked to me. ‘No one likes a show-off’, I would hear them say. I would work hard in private but never liked to be recognised publicly in class or assembly otherwise the chattering would start again. Sadly, this is a typical high-school experience in dominant New Zealand culture.

What I did not know going into that talent quest is that many New Zealanders do not like to see success on display, even if it is the result of honest hard work. ¹ This phenomenon is called Tall Poppy Syndrome. ² The ‘tall poppy’ is a high achiever who stands tall above the crowd, and Tall Poppy Syndrome refers to the propensity to ‘cut-down’ these tall poppies, usually through degrading comments. ³ While some definitions of Tall Poppy Syndrome require the tall poppy to be a celebrity with an inflated ego, I consider the tall poppy to be synonymous with a high achiever, so they may or may not be in the public eye and may or may not be boastful or unpleasant. ⁴

Tall Poppy Syndrome affects people in many areas in New Zealand, perhaps the most public of which is sports. New Zealanders like their sports and certainly like to criticise those athletes in the public arena. Scott Pierce et al. surveyed twenty high-performance athletes in New Zealand and found that most of them had experienced Tall Poppy Syndrome through verbal taunts from peers and opponents, or public doubt of ability and inaccurate, degrading public information. ⁵ High school sport seemed particularly susceptible for Tall Poppy Syndrome where athletes ‘perceived a pressure to merge in rather than excel’ or it would cost them their friends or social status. ⁶

The choice between achieving one's potential and obtaining intimacy with peers is known as the ‘forced-choice dilemma’, and seems to be a consequence of Tall Poppy Syndrome. ⁷ In a cohort of high-achieving New Zealand school students, Louise Tapper found that students were uncomfortable with being publicly recognised for their achievements and tended to brush off compliments, preferring to level themselves with their peers. ⁸ Appearing smart could result in being socially disliked and ostracised, so students pulled back in their achievements or avoided talking about their success. Similarly, Jodyanne Kirkwood surveyed New Zealand entrepreneurs and found that most tended to conceal their wealth or business ownership to ‘keep from gaining attention’, a coping strategy to avoid Tall Poppy Syndrome. ⁹ Some entrepreneurs intentionally restricted the progress of their business to keep away from the public eye. Since the church represents dominant culture, it is reasonable to expect that Tall Poppy Syndrome and the forced-choice dilemma also exists in the church, although no studies on this specific topic could be identified.

The problem with the forced-choice dilemma is that both choices—achieving one's potential and intimacy with peers—are necessary for human flourishing. The word ‘flourish’ originates from the Old French word, floriss, which means the lengthened stem of a flower. ¹⁰ A flourishing flower grows tall, achieving its potential. Thus, here I define a flourishing human person as one who is able to realise their full potential, which requires both a healthy sense of self and a stable social network. A healthy sense of self incorporates four aspects, according to Western developmental psychologists: physical, mental, social, and a sense of uniqueness. ¹¹ The expression of one's full potential will depend on their circumstances; a flourishing person makes the most of who they are and what they have access to, such as physical ability, opportunities, and resources. ¹²

A person who is the victim of Tall Poppy Syndrome is not flourishing. She may engage in self-deprecation to remain within group norms, in which case her sense of self is being questioned and therefore she is not flourishing. She may curb her academic achievements so as not to draw attention to herself, in which case she is not realising her full potential and therefore is not flourishing. She may conceal her success for fear of being socially ostracised, in which case she does not have a stable relationship with her peers and therefore is not flourishing. In order for tall poppies in New Zealand to flourish, Tall Poppy Syndrome needs to be addressed. However, first we need to understand why Tall Poppy Syndrome exists. The next section aims to answer that question by using the framework of Moral Foundations Theory to understand dominant New Zealand culture.

Part I: Understanding Tall Poppy Syndrome with Moral Foundations Theory

In the early 2000s, Jonathan Haidt and his team proposed Moral Foundations Theory, a set of moral foundations that they believed all humans possessed, irrespective of culture. ¹³ Previously, moral psychologists had considered morality as composed of a single principle, such as justice, rights, or respect for individuals and their autonomy. ¹⁴ While these may be how the moral mind ought to work, some psychologists started to find them inadequate to describe how the mind actually works. Richard Shweder's moral theory of three ethics—autonomy, community, and divinity—was the first pluralistic moral theory. ¹⁵ Haidt and his team used Shweder's model to analyse interview data, and consequently proposed five universal moral foundations, later to become six.

The six moral foundations of Moral Foundation Theory are: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. ¹⁶ Each foundation is considered to be an evolutionary adaptation to a long-standing threat or opportunity. For instance, the adaptive challenge for the care/harm foundation is to protect and care for children, a physical response that was originally triggered by suffering, distress, or neediness expressed by a child. The care/harm foundation now may also be triggered by the suffering of cartoon characters, cute soft toys, or animals. Although Haidt proposes that everyone possesses all moral foundations, one's social environment, such as cultural context and parenting experiences, means some foundations could be more active than others. For instance, cultures can shrink or expand what triggers the moral foundation, and even within a culture there may be competing ways to link a behaviour to a moral foundation. Spanking a child could be interpreted as cruel, thus triggering the oppression module, or bring into question proper enforcement of rules, thus triggering the authority module. Hence, the same set of moral foundations can yield different moral ‘matrices’ depending on one's social environment and conditioning. ¹⁷

Moral Foundations Theory has been shown to be an effective description of morality around the world, including in New Zealand. ¹⁸ Critics of Moral Foundations Theory typically oppose how it construes ideological differences or its reductive nature; however it remains a useful descriptive framework for moral preferences in New Zealand, and thus this theory is useful for understanding Tall Poppy Syndrome. ¹⁹

Although Tall Poppy Syndrome presents as a social phenomenon, moral psychologists identify that often the social order is a moral order. Indeed, it seems like Tall Poppy Syndrome may be a product of New Zealand's preoccupation with fairness and thus Haidt's fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression foundations seem particularly relevant for understanding the social order of New Zealand. ²⁰ These two moral foundations will be the focus of the rest of this section.

Liberty/oppression was added as the sixth moral foundation when Haidt and his team realised that there were two major kinds of fairness: proportionality and equality. ²¹ Proportionality means people are rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, irrespective of whether the outcome is equal. This, ‘you reap what you sow’ value, is based on Trivers’ theory of reciprocal altruism and is typically the protestant and politically conservative position. ²² On the other hand, equality means resources and opportunities are divided equally, or available equally, to every person, irrespective of whether they ‘deserve’ it or not. The political left typically prioritise equality; however Haidt found that the desire for equality seems to be based on a hatred of oppression, rather than a love for equality. In Moral Foundations Theory, the fairness/cheating foundation measures fairness as proportionality, and the liberty/oppression foundation measures fairness as equality.

Both definitions of fairness exist in New Zealand, and are most obviously observed in politics. For example, in the 1980s, politician Robert Muldoon proposed a welfare programme that promised 80 per cent of the median wage for every New Zealander over 59, ‘a fair go for the ordinary bloke’ (fairness as equality). ²³ Opposing politician, Roger Douglas, said Muldoon's policy would make the country broke (and it did), and instead proposed that pensions should be private and public spending supplement it where necessary (fairness as proportionality). ²⁴

David Fischer identifies fairness as an important value of the British settlers in the early 1800s, many of whom felt they were victims of social injustice, inequity, and deep unfairness in Britain. ²⁵ They had visions of a better world, founded on ideas of fairness and justice. ²⁶ Jock Philips specifies that New Zealand's culture was purposely set up as egalitarian and ‘classless’ (fairness as equality) in contrast with the Britain many of the settlers had come from. ²⁷ Consequently, a dominant thread in the country's colonial history has been the belief that urban, industrial, and class models of social organisation are irrelevant to New Zealand's unique situation. ²⁸ Indeed it seems that dominant New Zealand culture has prioritised fairness as equality rather than fairness as proportionality.

An egalitarian society can be defined as one that believes ‘people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities’. ²⁹ In many ways New Zealand has lived up to its egalitarian ideal. It was the first country in the world to give women the vote (in 1894), had high levels of property ownership, universal education (from 1877), and was considered a worldwide leader in democracy. ³⁰ In 1938 New Zealand passed its ‘cradle to grave’ welfare system, in 1944 schooling until age 15 was made free and compulsory, and in 1954 New Zealand had the third highest standard of living in the world. Political theorist Leslie Lipson identifies that New Zealanders will go to the extreme length of sacrificing freedom in order to achieve equality. ³¹ Yet there were some obvious areas of inequality during this period, notably the mistreatment of the indigenous Māori people. ³²

From the 1970s, it became obvious that the egalitarian ideal was a façade. ³³ There was a decrease in living standards, a rise in unemployment and budget deficit, and a drop in the world economy rankings. Helen Clark, New Zealand's Prime Minister from 1999 to 2008, explained New Zealand's fall on a failure to innovate and renew its economy and institutions. ³⁴ The media started focusing on an ‘underclass’ to debunk egalitarianism as a myth. Fairness still seems to be the goal for New Zealand, but it now looks like a focus on equity, which assigns resources based on the most need. Those that start disadvantaged receive the most help in order to enable everyone to achieve the same outcome. For example, the New Zealand government recently introduced the ‘Equity Index’ to appropriately assign government money to schools. The Equity Index is proportional to the number of disadvantaged students at the school. ³⁵ Equity is still a type of fairness but focuses on fair outcomes rather than sharing resources equally or proportionally.

Thus, New Zealand's relationship with fairness is complex and multifaceted. Yet it is obvious that the settlers’ ideals of a fair and equal society have shaped the country's social and political culture. I suggest that Tall Poppy Syndrome is a social product of the moral foundation of fairness, based on the characteristics of those who want to cut down the tall poppy, as analysed in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, some people view tall poppies as a threat. Norman Feather suggests that low self-worth and low competence are psychological indicators for wanting to cut down tall poppies. ³⁶ Social Comparison Theory then predicts that when this individual compares themselves to someone who has greater ability than them (an upward comparison), it makes them feel worse about themselves and therefore feel threatened. ³⁷ Another group of people that can feel threatened by tall poppies are fellow high achievers. ³⁸ Perhaps their dominance in a sport or the classroom is being challenged so they want to take out the competition. In both cases, the individual may be particularly sensitive to the threat of oppression, which Moral Foundations Theory identifies as a reason for prioritising equality. If the threat is realised, these individuals may become oppressed (i.e., in worth and status). The way to reverse the threat is to cut down the tall poppy.

The threat may not be personal, but rather to a vulnerable population. Moral Foundations Theory identifies the liberty/oppression foundation with the advocation for the rights of vulnerable groups. ³⁹ This is consistent with New Zealand's focus on equity which advocates for the most vulnerable. ⁴⁰ If tall poppies are high achievers because they have been given opportunities that others haven’t had, or access to tutelage that others haven’t been able to afford, then this could be perceived as a threat to the vulnerable. Again, the way to reverse the threat is to cut down the tall poppy.

Secondly, tall poppies seem to represent those who don’t conform. Conformity is usually associated with collectivist societies, which is not the dominant society in New Zealand. However, a desire for equality required the early settlers to New Zealand to ‘repress their feelings, be modest, and conform to the new way of doing things’. ⁴¹ Those who ‘boasted’ or were a ‘show-off’ could have been perceived to not be conforming, and consequently exerting authority. In a large study of New Zealanders, Matthew Marques et al. found that those who question authority and push against conventionalism are more likely to favour the fall of the tall poppy. ⁴² Moral foundation theory explains that the liberty foundation operates in tension with the authority foundation, that is, equality pushes against hierarchy. So, it follows that those who desired equality disliked those who were non-conformists and perceived to be exerting authority. Cutting down the tall poppy achieves a levelling of the playing field so that everyone is equal at a mediocre level. ⁴³ Interestingly, people favour cutting tall poppies back to an average baseline rather than seeing them fall further. ⁴⁴

Finally, Feather's extensive research on Tall Poppy Syndrome in Australia reveals that the fall of the tall poppy is more favoured if the tall poppy is perceived to be undeserving of their high status. ⁴⁵ The fairness/cheating moral foundation (fairness as proportionality) is based on the desire to protect communities from cheaters, slackers, and free riders, and may be the moral foundation that is active here. If tall poppies are seen to have had a ‘freeride’ to their success and thus do not deserve it, then they deserve to be shown their place by being cut down.

To conclude this section, Tall Poppy Syndrome can be understood, at least in part, from New Zealand's dominant culture value of fairness. Fairness can be understood as proportionality, equality, or equity. Moral Foundations Theory explains that prioritising equality often correlates with being psychologically sensitive to the threat of oppression and non-conformists, and prioritising fairness as proportionality means a desire for people to be deserving of their status or achievements. Thus, when a high achiever appears threatening, authoritarian, or undeserving, they are cut down to the same, mediocre level as everybody else. This is Tall Poppy Syndrome. However, there is hope. Haidt notes that multiple moral matrices can be built from the same moral foundations, which is how cultures around the world can look so different even though the same moral foundations are at work. In the next section, we suggest that the virtue of Christian humility is one such moral matrix that could facilitate the flourishing of high achievers and still retain the value of fairness.

Part II: Humility as a Remedy for Tall Poppy Syndrome

New Zealanders consider themselves humble people. The largest longitudinal study in New Zealand backs up this common colloquial claim with its measure of humility as a healthy self-esteem and a low level of entitlement. ⁴⁶ New Zealand has avoided the current narcissism epidemic, the study argues. But what does humility actually mean? Anecdotally, being a humble New Zealander means downplaying your own accomplishments, not blowing your own trumpet, or checking your ego (by eating ‘humble pie’). ⁴⁷ Yet these sayings seem to focus on what humility is not, namely pridefulness, boastfulness, and egotism. Humility is quite broad, and there seem to be two main views. I will call these a ‘healthy’ humility and ‘self-denigrating’ humility.

The self-denigrating form of humility says that the humble person has a low self-esteem, disregards their own interests, is hesitant to take risks, and has relatively low aspirations. ⁴⁸ This is the form of humility that Tall Poppy Syndrome seems to promote. Tapper found that high-school students put themselves down or hid their achievements in response to being teased because it was seen as the ‘modest and humble thing to do’. ⁴⁹ Self-denigration has also been a common Christian view of humility, often grounded in the doctrine of sin. If people believe that ‘their actions are immoral, their motivations are twisted, and they themselves are just plain bad’, then they tend to self-denigrate—they put themselves down and don’t assert themselves. ⁵⁰

The person who is self-denigrating is not flourishing; she is not achieving her potential (hesitant to take risks and has low aspirations) and doesn’t have a secure sense of self (low self-esteem and disregard for own interests). Self-denigration is also problematic theologically because it assumes that the limited, finite nature of humans is a sin. Kelly Kapic argues that human finitude is part of the intended creator-creature distinction and therefore not a sin. ⁵¹ Furthermore, devaluing oneself is to undermine the value one has as an image-bearer of God. ⁵² Hence, we need a better definition of humility.

I propose Michael Austin's Christian humility as a ‘healthy’ humility. Austin proposes that there are two parts to Christian humility, based on Philippians 2:1-11 and 1 Peter 5:5-6: (i) a proper self-assessment and (ii) a self-lowering other-centredness. ⁵³ A proper self-assessment means an accurate assessment of our own abilities, value, and worth. A self-lowering other-centredness means looking out for the interests of others over one's own. ⁵⁴ Other-centredness is contrasted with the self-centredness of the prideful person. Such a definition of humility does not come naturally to human persons. It is considered a ‘Christian’ humility because it requires cooperation with the Spirit to shift our thinking beyond our self-centred sinful nature (Rom. 12:2), and thus is only available to Christ-followers who submit to the Spirit's work in them. Thus, this section is a call to the church to embody healthy humility.

Key to understanding both aspects of Austin's humility is the relationship between creator and creature that is found in the doctrine of creation. ⁵⁵ God created the world and everything in it, including human persons, and all of creation is dependent on its creator. Jesus told his disciples to become humble like little children (Matt. 18:1-5) because children were dependent on others due to their low status in society. So too, our humility comes out of being dependent on our creator.

These two parts of Christian humility parallel the two parts of human flourishing that we defined earlier. A proper self-assessment is necessary for a healthy sense of self, and an other-centredness is an outward focus that is necessary for a stable social network. The humble person is therefore a flourishing person. Jesus exemplifies being this humble, flourishing person. He is secure in his identity such that he was able to stand firm in his Messianic mission, despite the ridiculing of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (e.g., Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:13-17) and being sent to die on a cross (e.g., Matt. 27:27-31). Jesus lived as a servant to others, healing many and crossing social boundaries to be present to all (e.g., Matt. 15:30-31).

Austin further specifies several modules of humility: five cognitive modules (C1–C5), two emotional modules (E1–E2), and four active modules (A1–A4). Here I use several of his modules to respond to the three main attitudes fuelling Tall Poppy Syndrome that were discussed in the previous section, in order to illustrate how humility could allow a preference of fairness to promote flourishing in tall poppies rather than inhibit flourishing.

Firstly, tall poppies are perceived as a threat to the person with low self-esteem, the fellow tall poppy, and to vulnerable populations. Moral Foundations Theory helps us understand that people with a strong equity foundation are sensitive to the threat of oppression and react by cutting down the tall poppy. However, the humble person does not see tall poppies as a threat and thus does not need to cut them down for the following reasons.

Austin specifies that the humble person ‘possesses self-knowledge with respect to his virtues, vices, and imitations, both personal and qua human person’ (module C1). ⁵⁶ The humble person knows herself well, including her creaturely limits. The ‘depth and accuracy of her self-appraisal’ means that the humble person neither overestimates herself (which would lead to pride) nor underestimates herself (self-denigration). ⁵⁷ Thus, in contrast to the low self-worth and low competence that characterised those who viewed tall poppies as a threat, the humble person is secure in herself.

Relatedly, the humble person ‘is properly concerned with how others perceive her’ (module C5). ⁵⁸ A proper concern is a limited concern for perceptions which moves her away from loving God and others well, such as concern for her reputation. ⁵⁹ In contrast, the prideful person is overly concerned with their reputation which motivates them to create and maintain a good reputation. ⁶⁰ The humble person is able to have proper concern because of her accurate self-assessment; her self-assessment does not require and is not influenced by other people's achievements or opinions. Any comparisons to tall poppies, even if she is a fellow tall poppy, are not threatening to herself because she does not need to protect her self-image. ⁶¹ She will therefore feel less pressure to devalue the achievements of others and instead can freely celebrate and encourage tall poppies to flourish.

If the tall poppy is also a humble person, then one can trust that she will not be a threat to vulnerable populations, because the humble person believes she ought to and has a ‘prima facie preference for the satisfaction of the interests of others over the satisfaction of his own interests’ (modules C3 and E1). ⁶² Both one's own interests and those of others are important, but the humble follower of Christ is to prefer the satisfaction of others’ interests. Furthermore, the humble person will be ‘disposed to engage in self-sacrificial actions for the good of others’ (module A2). ⁶³ Just as Jesus engaged in self-sacrificial actions (such as enduring ridicule, persecution, violent abuse, and execution) out of love for people, the humble person will also aim to engage in self-sacrificial actions for the good of others. Therefore, the humble person will be looking out for, and not be a threat to, the vulnerable person.

Secondly, tall poppies can be perceived to be non-conformists and exert authority over conformists. Moral Foundations Theory explains that a desire for equality is correlated with a disdain for authority because a hierarchical, authoritarian structure generally means that everyone does not have equal resources or outcomes. However, Austin specifies that the humble person ‘will not conceive of human beings in a hierarchical manner’ (module C4). ⁶⁴ Christian humility disempowers displays of authority such that they are no longer a problem. The doctrine of creation suggests that there is a hierarchy, but it is between God as creator and us as human creatures. Between humans, there is equality: we are all dependent upon God, and thus equal before him. Thus, the humble person has a freedom from concern about one's place and the place of others within the human hierarchy. ⁶⁵

Thirdly, tall poppies can be perceived to be undeserving of their talents or high achievements. Moral Foundations Theory explains that the person who values fairness desires to protect communities from cheaters, slackers, and free riders, and thus is sensitive to people being deserving of their status. However, the humble person sees everyone as undeserving of their talents and abilities since they are gifts from God.

Austin specifies that the humble person ‘gives God appropriate credit for her salvation, talents, abilities, and accomplishments’ (module C2). ⁶⁶ As human persons, we do not give ourselves the capacities, talents, or virtues we possess—these are gifts from God; but we do play a role in developing and expressing them in partnership with and dependence upon God and others. ⁶⁷ The humble person avoids the extremes of taking too much credit for her accomplishments and positive qualities (as the prideful person would) or taking too little credit (like the self-denigrating person). Furthermore, the humble person recognises that others’ accomplishments are also gifts from God. Thus, any comparison of achievements or qualities must come back to acknowledging God for the gifts that he has chosen to give us.

Whether a tall poppy deserves their high achievements or talents is also influenced by perceptions of their pride or arrogance. However, if the tall poppy is a humble person, then we can trust that they are not being prideful. The humble person ‘will not be disposed to seek either honour or social status’ (module A3). ⁶⁸ This does not exclude the person from engaging in activities that may earn her honour or social status, but specifies that those are not the purpose for which she pursues excellence. This module suggests that the humble person can be excellent, assertive, and confident, without being prideful. When we believe that excellence and humility can co-exist, then Tall Poppy Syndrome will no longer be relevant.

The benefits of a culture of humility are clear. It is one where high achievers are celebrated and their flourishing promoted. It is one where excellence is expressed without pride, and self-denigration is not necessary. It is one without reasons to cut people ‘down to size’. This culture also enables the flourishing of everyone else in the community; the high achiever can share their talents and help others to achieve excellence, and those who may have cut down tall poppies are able to flourish in the absence of envy. Since this humility is modelled on Christ and made possible through submission to the Spirit's work, this is a call to the church of New Zealand to cultivate communities of humility that model communal flourishing within and beyond the church context. Exactly how individuals and Christian communities transform into humble communities will be the topic of future research.

Conclusion

Tall Poppy Syndrome is a social phenomenon in New Zealand that cuts down high achievers and inhibits their flourishing. Moral Foundations Theory highlights that many of the reasons motivating people to cut down tall poppies can be explained by dominant New Zealand culture's preoccupation with fairness. Fairness can be understood as proportionality, equality, or equity, all of which are present in dominant New Zealand culture. However, valuing fairness doesn’t need to result in Tall Poppy Syndrome. Austin's Christian definition of humility disarms all of the reasons why people cut down tall poppies and their psychological explanations. The humble person is secure in herself and appropriately dependent on God; she is not concerned with other's perceptions of her achievements; she looks out for the good of others; she recognises her and others’ accomplishments and talents as a gift from God; and she does not seek honour as a prideful pursuit. Humble people are free to celebrate others’ success and excellence and free to reach their own potential. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks summarises, ‘Humility is the self turned outward … Humility is not thinking you are small. It is thinking that other people have greatness within them’. ⁶⁹ Unlike Tall Poppy Syndrome, a culture of humility promotes flourishing for all people. The church, through the work of the Spirit, could embody this humility and eliminate Tall Poppy Syndrome from its communities. As a place where tall poppies can freely flourish, the church could then be an exemplar to the rest of New Zealand. When humility and excellence can co-exist, then Tall Poppy Syndrome will no longer exist.