The crisis is mostly about the failures of rationality[+], although the backdrop (increasing voter distaste for income inequality) also puts questions over the amorality.

[+] Technically of course, part of the crisis is not that people did not behave rationally, more that "rational maximisation" without reference to rules and timeframes just doesn't produce the results the propagandists say it does. (Mostly because in fact their model contain buried rules and timeframes that they tend to prefer to deny.)

If you want a full general theory you have to go to the behavioural psychologists/economists who are doing experiments on this and developing some ideas.

Instinctively:

Humans are, it seems, in the main, moderately good, when not asked to resist too much temptation. There are some who are psychologically tuned to breaking rules for various reasons. (Some of these, those who do so for their own gain, or for sadistic power pleasures tend to be known as psychopaths.)

As such, systems of regulation should be constructed so as to avoid putting people under too much temptation where possible (relying on the honour of the individual breaks down over time because sooner or later a bad/weaker individual gets the role.)

There also need to be mechanisms to identify "psychopaths" and limit the damage they can do.

Most of all though, what the current crisis reminds us of is that there is always a tradeoff between "perfect efficiency" and the "robustness" of a system.

The propagandists encouraged us to dismantle the supports and slack in the system, to "make it more efficient" so that more money could be extracted from it. This of course made the system more frail. It's really time we started valuing the robustness of critical[+] systems more.

[+] Critical usually means "really important to our way of life" but what the collapse of isolated parts of a byzantine financial system that doesn't appear to touch normal life reminds us is that critical also means "systems that in their failure can drag our way of life down with them."

But what is a realistic view of human behaviour, on which reconstruction could take place?

  Clare Graves

If you want to answer this question in more than a brief questionable form, let me know.  It would take a diary series here at ET.  I should have the time because I have temporarily suspended (ala McCain!) my Embryonic Police State series ... didn't realize how DEPRESSING it would be.  Like a diary series on first hand accounts of serious traffic accidents. UGH!

Get back to me on this one; could be interesting.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

For example

this.  

Last time I looked, Sorensen's own site, which would go into more detail, was down.  

The point being that--even though we conceive of no way to move from a post-conquest world to a pre-conquest one--pre-conquest peoples are happier, friendlier, and more peaceable than we are, and being every bit as human as we would claim to be:  This has to be factored into any abstract concept of human behavior.  

Our own circumstances are less fortunate, and reflect our persuasive environment of greed and violence.  But, what of that?  Any useful theory for us has to deal with possibilities for mitigating our situation, not claims for human perfectability/imperfectability which are inherently bogus and a distraction.  

The 18th century philosophers may have actually been aware of wider possibilities than we are, as the cultures of native peoples on three continents had not yet been wiped out.  

We now base our understanding of human psychology mainly on male college students.  Which is just pathetic.  

Also, you might want to consider how hierarchical systems--such as ours--inherently favor the advancement of psychopaths to positions of power, thus promulgating behaviors of lying, corruption, and violence throughout the whole system.  

The Fates are kind.

Like feminism, socialism, capitalism, and most other isms, the basic internal contradiction is that these definitions are supposed to be completely define relationship dynamics. So if you're a Worker you have a certain set of qualities, by definition. If you're an Owner you have a different set of qualities.

Absolutes like these are unhelpful, if not downright stupid. What's missing is a personal context.

Specific actions and relationships - usually power relationships based on dominance and submission hierarchies - are the problem. The labels are a misdirection. They're too crude to be useful as a description of real social relations, except in a very caricatured and superficial way.

So in practice what happens is that the Grand Narrative disguises and legitimises everyday acts of social violence in Marxism, Capitalism, Christianity, Islam, Nationalism, and the rest.

I suspect almost all Grand Narratives exist to do this, and it's very difficult to see morality in terms of specific and personal human relationships between individuals when there's a Grand Narrative available to tell you what to feel.

There's a subset of Grand Narratives which focus on personal relationship in a more positive way, but they're rare and not usually very popular - certainly not politically.

Possibly also relevant is the Karpman Drama Triangle - which is a good a map of how political Grand Narratives seem to play out as any.