An excursion into altruism; some stories of self-interest and self-sacrifice.

An excursion into altruism; some stories of self-interest and self-sacrifice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The Devil is often far better company than the Godly, isn’t he? All the same, our obsession with virtue won’t go away. Self-interest is so limiting. So is expediency” (LeCarré 91 p. 246).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we know folks who hurt themselves unwittingly --who would change course for sure if only they knew what we know-- we've also come across others who embrace risk and sacrifice in order to help others at their own expense.

A friend was canvassing union members in West Virginia before the '04 elections. A young white guy appeared at one door, a mechanic. He told my friend he was going to vote for Bush. I don't know much, he said, but freedom is important to me, and George Bush is willing to go to Iraq for freedom. This man admitted Bush would hurt him on jobs and health care issues, but, he said, I'm not just looking out for myself.

The canvasser met many folks who had their own idealistic stories. There is an incredible yearning, she saw, for taking part in some cause larger than oneself. She concluded that there is a deep vein of altruism which the left has not effectively tapped into.

Others make similar observations. Although the trade unions were built by people invested in ideas on the scale of the kinship of all workers, many of us attribute their long decline in part to the narrowing focus of old-time business unionism. Community groups face similar limitations, but religious-based political action, left and right, endures across the years and a broad range of issues. So lately we've seen groups like the National Organizers Alliance holding workshops on spirituality, while every so often The Nation, that left-wing staple, runs a story exhorting us all to get back to religion. Barack Obama scolds: "Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting 'preachy' may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems" (Time 10-23-06), though it’s hard to see what moral underpinnings sustain the self-righteous, self-satisfied, self-indulgence of the leaders of Obama’s own church. My fellows cough up billions of dollars to save hurricanes and tsunamis. Even the Pentagon has discovered that soldiers fight for idealistic reasons as well as for their mates in the platoon. These insights seem to call into question the idea that self-interest is our main motivation, and the bread-and-butter focus to many of our campaigns. But the contradictions are more apparent than real.

In fact, the left appeals to idealism all the time. When was the last time you went to a rally where speakers did not invoke Jesus and the flag? We use these ready-made symbols to represent a set of shared understandings and purposes; a short-hand for reinforcing the we-ness of the occasion. As always, the problem is, when we appeal to status quo ideals we hobble our ability to come up with understandings and actions that will challenge that status quo. Sometimes our ritualists try to recast these symbols in more democratic terms, but that's hard to do on the occasions we use them. Some groups and churches do a more thorough job, focussing our attention over time on the big meaning of liberation.

For the rest, while we often depend on churches to mobilize their members for political action, many times we hope that through that engagement the new activists will actually develop understandings beyond their salvationist religions. My guess is that in these cases and for most folks, the prior religious convictions persist far longer than any new learning acquired through political action under the banners of church and patriotism. I've read often enough of activists who, after years of butting their heads against Halliburton's walls of lies and violence, instead of just saying, "Phew! I'm wiped. I need a break!" explain their exhaustion as a sudden appreciation for the spiritual side of life.

In one way it's not surprising we should tend to shy away from Big Picture discussions. Organizers know that it takes time to build up a consensus on a new set of values and sometimes, in the press of so many other demands, they don't get around to it. Worse, it's very risky; a coalition fighting school closings or pornographers might very well founder if turned to, say, regulating "free" markets or halting the Endless War. The most effective organizations have long-term internal education programs to tackle the toughest issues such as racism, but it's very delicate and high-stakes work.

Very often we can't ever know if the rank and file in our organizations will freak out if we mention gay people or gun control or war control, because the staff and leadership freak out for them first *: "The members will never go for this," we're told, and the explanation (accomplished by winks & nods rather than embarrassingly direct statements) is that most other people, though of course we love 'm a lot, are not tolerant, sophisticated, or idealistic enough to achieve our own politically enlightened state. This is true sometimes even of those who work hard to get their own institutions officially on record against racism, sexism, etc.; rather than using the effort as a way to mobilize members, they'd rather the rank-and-file not notice what they're doing, lest the members raise hell about it. It's a real obstacle to grassroots democracy. And then, when we've confined ourselves to talking wages and Not in My Back Yard, our constituents respond, I'm not just looking out for myself.

So it seems the question is, how can we get back to the idealism that apparently motivates us as activists? Some pose this as a question of idealism versus selfishness, but in many ways that's a false opposition. As foolish as it is to suppose folks only care about immediate material gain, it would be equally mistaken to see our most generous impulses and yearnings to be qualitatively different or somehow on a different plane from the bread-and-butter concerns. In fact, virtuous action is a normal part of human behavior.

First, it's just not accurate to see a contradiction between helping ourselves and helping the community; we are the community. There's a lot of research confirming how common it is for humans and other animals to help each other. Second, the value of what we call idealistic behavior does not exist in a vacuum; it depends entirely on what the goals are. Third, some of what we call idealism is really no more than making a virtue of necessity, as when soldiers help their teammates under fire.

It’s true, some people resolutely refuse to calculate gain, and like to say they are “led” to this or that course of action by a Higher Power. But refusing to acknowledge how they benefit doesn't mean they don't. I’m sure Pres. Halliburton didn't whip out his calculator every time he bombed another city, just to tot up his profits. He was just being his usual spiritual and caring self, like the rest of us.


• Investing in our communities. Helping others is a value we try hard to instill in our children and our neighbors, and of course the bedrock of primate society. It's no coincidence that the greatest part of the help we give is to our immediate associates-- that is, those who most affect the quality of our lives. (Notice the contrast with the bizarre gospel of rich people: we will be better off if we give them our money. I read that this cult is well established in some universities, and enraptured professors congregate regularly to worship. The rich themselves, of course, understand exactly who benefits.)

Back in the days before Home Federal and First Tennessee, helping each other was our ancestors' best form of savings account. In those days a hunter would share his catch because he couldn't eat it all himself, it might be weeks before he was lucky again, and he'd have to depend on his neighbors' generosity. The professors call it social capital, and, as I say, it's the foundation of society. Even such a paragon of middle-class lumpishness as Sinclair's George Babbitt had his Zenith Athletic Club, where the good ol boys could get together and scheme in perfect fraternity. Heck, even animals have this kind of "reciprocal altruism," whether it's workers and queens in an ant colony or the bees pollinating the flowers feeding the bees. But if what we mean by "altruism" is taking action and expending resources in ways that do not benefit ourselves at all, then clearly helping our neighbors does not fit.

I read that about 500 years before Christ there was a radical religious shift in China, India, and the Middle East. The local cults and old clan deities began to give way to national or universalist religions. This was revolutionary because it extended the scope of cooperation to much larger groups-- a big benefit for us and for what we now call the World Religions. To promote this shift of loyalties, however, Buddha had to abandon his family, while the Jewish god told Abraham to kill his own son. The Emperor demanded of his Chinese subjects, Who’s your daddy now? So it’s curious how intently the current fundamentalisms have worked to re-establish the clan and tribe allegiances.

It may be that these narrower identities more effectively satisfy our possibly biological need to belong to some group, even if it’s just Hitler Youth or the local street gang. We have to admit, a lot of what passes for longing to serve A Cause Greater Than Ourselves is really little more than a self-serving desire to fit in.


• Competition and cooperation in game theory. Game theory is a way to examine how we interact and influence each other's decision s. It illustrates how "rational self-interest" can lead to very poor outcomes for all concerned, but suggests a bias toward cooperation over time. In this kind of study, researchers set up computer games to simulate how people might act given certain choices and information, assuming that we always look to benefit ourselves.

The classic simulation is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Here two guys commit a crime and get arrested. The cops drag each into a separate room and say, "Here's the deal. If you testify against your partner, we'll let you go and put him in jail. But if he testifies against you first, you're the one who's going to jail. You better make up your mind quick." In some versions, the first to make the deal gets a lesser sentence.

The thing is, the cops have no other evidence. If both guys keep their mouths shut, they'll both go free. But the cops have got them in separate rooms. Neither can know for sure what the other will do. Facing the chance that the other guy will squeal, it's in each prisoner's best interest to squeal first. So, acting selfishly, each prisoner races to betray the other; and at least one goes to jail.

Some social scientists were disturbed that the most rational decision for each player delivers the worst, not the best, outcome. They fear this means society tends toward a natural state of Baghdad: seemingly endless violence. That's because their notion of rationality requires an impossible universe of individuals acting alone.

If the game involves different players each time, so that neither player needs to worry about retaliation, it makes sense for each to betray the other. But what if Player A and B get into trouble again and again? Then they'd be smart to work out their plan in advance, so that neither talks, and both go free. Otherwise, they are both at risk from each other. Maybe I can win this round, but next time the other guy is going to come after me. So cooperation is the best bet for us both. And that's what happens when you add successive rounds to the computer games. The players realize that continued selfishness raises the risks to them both, whereas both will benefit if they cooperate. There are different ways to weight the rewards and penalties, but when the rewards of cooperation are greater, the players learn how to cooperate.

That's like in real life, where we trust others more if we've known them longer. Last time I had a plumbing problem, instead of dialing the first number in the Yellow Pages, I called up the guy I'd had fix my pipes before. Since he'd done good work before, I figured he would do a good job again. But he wasn't available, so I asked my neighbor who she knew. She was able to give me good information about another plumber. On the other hand, if I'd had a bad experience with someone, I wouldn't call them back. That's the power of reputation based on several transactions over time.

The other real-life aspect to cooperation is that there are a lot of projects in which cooperation brings bigger benefits, not just in total, but also to each party. Take our way-back ancestors. An individual might be able to get buy eating roots and grubs and maybe a monkey once in a while. But it'd be virtually impossible for a single hunter to bring down big game like a buffalo or a mammoth. Groups learned to do it, though, with much more food for everyone. Likewise with child care; pretty hard to babysit and find food at the same time, but if you can leave your kid with someone else for a few hours or days . . . . Irrigation ditches, specialized tools, war, art, all these require cooperation among many people. A lot of what we call altruism is this behavior we've learned because it helps us.

In the computer games, it turns out that the strategies that win most often are some variation on the "tit-for-tat" approach. Here, in the first round Player A acts cooperatively; that is, she does not cheat the other player, and assumes Player B will cooperate as well. If Player B acts selfishly, though, Player A retaliates in the next round. But if at some point Player B starts cooperating, then Player A goes back to cooperating (Heylighen 1992).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us? If we are not for others, who are we?"
--Rabbi Hillel (Segrest 243)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Another study with real people turned up an interesting finding. In this game, Player A got to decide how to split $100 between himself and Player B. The only restriction is that Player B accept the deal. If Player B doesn't agree with the split, neither one gets the money. Naturally, Player A wants to keep most of the money for himself. And you'd think that Player B would go along with almost any split; after all, even if the split were 99 to 1, Player B would be $1 richer than if he didn't accept the deal at all. But that's not the case. Most people playing this game would not accept a deal that was too far off 50-50, even when it meant that they lost money. It seems that there's a fairness expectation we bring to every transaction, and we're willing to punish an unfair person even if it costs us more than we gain (Sapolski, Surowiecki).

In these simulations, I note, the players can choose to opt out. In the course of our lives, we rarely have such choice. Many times the whole array of ruling institutions constrains us to accept a few cents on the dollar for the value of our labor, or consumer prices set far higher than actual production costs; air and water poisoned for others’ profits; and lives of violence to ensure others’ safety and amusement.

The point is, though, there’s nothing in our nature that requires us to rob and murder our neighbors. I don't know how many thousand transactions we enter into with other people over the course of a lifetime. But that's plenty of time to learn that cooperation (usually) pays and cheating (usually) pays less. I'm guessing that we generalize that knowledge and apply it even in many situations where at first glance it would seem smarter to cheat.

Let's say you're on the road, far from home. You need to buy something at a store you'll never visit again. This would be a perfect opportunity for you or the sales clerk to cheat each other, but that doesn't often happen. Even though you and this other person might not ever see each other again, you both have been trained by many dealings with the people you do know. To me, that would explain why most folks are honest in most circumstances. The exception would be vendors who specialize in cheating strangers, say the sole mechanic on a particularly bad stretch of highway.

I think of it this way: for me, the best possible world would be one in which I could cheat but everyone else were cooperative. I'd live like a king off the wealth, order and happiness that my neighbors create. Too bad for me, there is no such selfish Paradise. Too many cheaters and the whole cooperative system breaks down. So, very reluctantly, I have to settle for second best: to enjoy a small part of the world's bounty while contributing my share to it, and challenging cheaters. It's not too bad; I can get enough to eat, use my brain, love people; I just can't be king.

So why do we not see this drift toward cooperation work on the scale of, say, Hezbollah and Israel? First of all, there are many people in all communities working for peace, at great risk. But we can't say they must succeed. When we are trained that there is no safety outside our groups, then we might actually value war as a unifying force. Perhaps hatred is not the biggest motive for us to murder randomly-chosen Muslims so much as our desperate desire for, at last, United We Stand.

Most important of all, I scarcely need to add, is the self-interest of the killer elite. They may be perfectly amiable in person-- bad poets, good tippers, vegetarians. But they owe their positions to conflict, and no matter how much their own people suffer, they'll kill as long as it keeps them in power. Halliburton, meet Osama. Osama, meet Halliburton. The fluttering eyelashes, the flirtatious smile, the coy glance over the shoulder, leather & shades, black boots of the death squads, bombs in the marketplace, sidewalks slick with blood mutilate scream O O O O! They need each other, these rough lovers. Each is impotent without the other.

The killers don’t always succeed. We see neighborhoods and countries where the gangsters have created such chaos they can’t even stay in power themselves. They’ve bred their own ever more vicious competitors; the Hobbesian nightmare of endless war of all against all. And for every delightfully dead gangster a thousand folks who love life lose it.

* You've heard of Halliburton's new policy, Preemtive Strikes Against Terrorism? This is the liberal answer: Preemptive Strikes Against Tough Topics.