205. Parochial altruism
Empirically, altruism has clearly been shown to exist,
in people and animals, especially certain primates. In particular the Bonobo
ape, as Frans de Waal has shown.[i] It appears to be present
naturally, instinctively.
De Waal makes the point that if altruism were against human
nature, had nothing to build on there, the task of morality to impose it would
be impossible.
In item 46 of this blog I considered the puzzle of how altruism could have survived evolution as an instinct, i.e. as ‘something in our genes’, next to an instinct for self-interest and survival. I offered an argument for the hypothesis that it could have survived only when accompanied with some protection of an altruistic group against invasion of opportunistic outsiders that derive advantage from preying on altruists and competing them away in evolutionary selection.
In other words, by hypothesis altruism is accompanied
by an instinctive discrimination of outsiders. Perhaps that explains current
xenophobia, in Europe, against non-western immigrants. I also suggested that by
cultural means altruism concerning members of the group one identifies with may
be extended, moulded, to include outsiders. Ethics may then build on a genetic
potential for empathy.
I did not offer empirical evidence, and here I proceed
to do so.
In a mountain of literature, in psychology and
sociology, the proposition is known as parochial
altruism, and it has been extensively confirmed empirically, but with an
important qualification.[ii] There is more weight on
in-group love and preferential treatment than on out-group hatred. This may
make raise some hope against xenophobia.
Not surprisingly, in-group preferential treatment is
stronger to the extent that collaboration is more important, reputation effects
are stronger, and inter-group competition is stronger. More surprisingly,
perhaps, it has also been found to be stronger for more other-oriented or
‘pro-social’ individuals. One might have expected that they would be more
benevolent towards outsiders, but that appears not to be the case. In other
words, a stronger other-orientation does not reduce but intensifies out-group
discrimination.
Carsten
de Dreu et al.[iii] investigated the effect of the ‘love’ or ‘cuddle’
hormone Oxytocin. Here also one might have expected it to reduce out-group
discrimination, but the opposite appears to be the case: it intensifies
in-group favouritism, between-group rivalry and discrimination.
In his studies of apes, de Waal also found empathy
within the group accompanied by distrust of any outsiders.
However, while Chimpanzees are indeed mistrustful and
aggressive to outsiders, Bonobos are not. Instead of war they make abundant
sexual love with outsiders, as they do within the group, thus avoiding tensions
and conflict between in-group and out-group.
De Waal also argues that humans have traits in common
with both Chimpanzees and Bonobos, related to our having a common ancestor to
them. Perhaps in our stance towards immigrants we should cultivate the Bonobo
in us. Perhaps culture could do that.
[i] Frans de Waal, The Bonobo and the atheist: In search of
humanism among the primates, 2013.
[ii] See e.g. Carsten K.W. de Dreu,
Daniel Balliet & Nir Halevy, Parochial cooperation in humans: Forms and
functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup conflict, Advances in Motivation Science, 1(2014), p. 1-47.
[iii] Carsten K.W. de Dreu, Lindred
L. Greer, Gerben A. van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi & Michael J.J. Handgraaf,
Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism, 2011,
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 108, p. 1262-1266.
No comments:
Post a Comment