One Person Makes a Difference
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2013 REA Annual Meeting, Nov 8-10 Sturla Sagberg, Queen Maud University College, Trondheim, Norway [email protected] ABSTRACT Major studies of altruistic actions show that the self-understanding of one person can make the difference between disaster and hope for those involved. This paper is a heuristic- hermeneutical discussion of the values of altruism in analyzing material from the terror attacks in Norway July 22, 2011. It tries to identify clues to how such values can be focused on, fostered and supported in religious education. The conclusion points towards the significance of a narrative approach to ethics and to spiritual formation in a wide sense as one important perspective of religious education. ONE PERSON MAKES A DIFFERENCE A STUDY IN ALTRUISM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION INTRODUCTION: On July 22, 2011, Oslo and Utøya Island in Norway became sites of terror, with 77 people killed by one man (Anders Behring Breivik) who claimed it to be a defense of Christian culture against a multi-culturalist society. The event and the responses to it have led to a self- searching process: How can a young person develop a value system that allows such an atrocity? Another question is also asked: What makes young people respond with hope and expressions of love instead of just call for retaliation? The now famous “love quote” by a young member of the Labour party: “If one man can show so much hate, just think how much love we all together can create”1 was followed by many similar reactions (Sagberg, 2014). Both the event and the responses tell stories that are usually associated with altruism, that is, attitudes and acting out of the interest of others even at the risk of one’ own well-being. Questions following the event and the response converge in two research questions: 1) Can theories of altruistic love contribute to understanding the positive responses to the terror event? 2) How can this understanding be used in religious and spiritual education? In this paper I present and discuss main points from two major studies of altruism and love (Monroe, 1996; Sorokin, 2002 (1954)) in an attempt to develop some heuristics for understanding responses of altruism or related attitudes. These heuristics are used hermeneutically in a discussion of two kinds of material. The first consists of a collection of 50 stories from survivors and helpers from the July 22 event (Aftenposten, 2012). The second 1 The authentic story about this “message of love” or “the love quote” can be found in the Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang (Kjærlighetsbudskapet sprer seg i alle kanaler, 2011). 1 consists of messages laid down in front of Oslo Cathedral right after the event. I have analyzed a sample of 379 texts and drawings made by children. More than half of the messages express attitudes of being at one with the victims and with people from all cultures. About 10% of the messages analyzed have explicit references to religious motifs as well (Sagberg, 2014). In this paper I use just one example from this material. HERMENEUTICS OF ALTRUISM “THE HEART OF ALTRUISM” AND “THE WAYS AND POWER OF LOVE” Kristen Renwick Monroe, American political scientist (born 1946), did a groundbreaking research on the phenomenon of altruism and its significance in political ethics, challenging the dominating view that human behavior is totally governed by individual self-interest (Monroe, 1996, p. 3). She interviewed people who 1) had rescued Jews during the second World War; 2) had shown other acts of heroism; 3) were philanthropists; 4) had achieved financial success while also helping others (entrepreneurs). These types served as archetypes of behavior on a continuum from self-interest on one end to pure altruism on the other end in a hermeneutical analysis of narratives. The results of her analysis were surprising in many ways. For the purpose of this paper the following are mentioned, related to five dimensions of a perspective on life: Cognitive frameworks: There was no significant difference between rational actors and altruists in terms of perceived values or ethical systems. Virtually all interviewees claimed values of truthfulness, honesty, family and of being good role models. Canonical expectations of ordinary behavior: Altruists thought they acted like any person would normally do, although they must have known that not everybody followed their example. World view: Altruists had other perceptions of themselves in relation to others than those on the other places on the continuum. Monroe expected altruists to act out of a sense of belonging to a community or motivated by religious faith, but rescuers and heroes were just as likely to be loners, and varied in terms of faith. The most specific difference from other persons was a view of the world in which all people are one, whether you know them or like them or not. The only reason to help was that these people needed help (Monroe, 1996, p. 199). This seemed to be the only common factor “that refused to go away under the most careful scrutiny”, she says (Monroe, 1996, p. 206). Empathy: The ability to see things in the perspective of others seemed to be of less significance in terms of motivation. It was not in question; rather, helping others happened spontaneously or out of a sense of necessity. View of self: Altruists were not just “good people” in the sense of self-image or virtue ethics. Altruists were furthermore found across social classes. For example, some prostitutes in Amsterdam proved to take high risks in helping people during the war. The first point may not be surprising - ethics in terms of perceived value systems or professed moral codes is less important than lived morality. It should, however, be a caveat in educational policy. The point is not to say that learning ethics is not important, but that the prime force behind ethical acts is not rational choice, but rather deep-seated predispositions in one’s identity (Monroe, 1996, p. 218). Such predispositions are nourished more by example and narratives than by learning ethical theory. This result finds support in major educational and ethical theories (Bruner, 1996; Løgstrup, 1987). 2 Monroe admits that religion certainly has significance for how altruists view other people and society, but that it not salient to altruistic acts more than to other acts. She identifies, however, one recurring trait in many stories across different family and group constellations: People who turn out to be heroes or rescuers as well as some philanthropists very often refer to one person from their childhood who meant a lot to them, most often a grandparent (Monroe, 1996, pp. 42, 43, 83, 85). One old and frail lady who rescued a girl from a rapist, at grave danger to herself, credits both God and her grandmother for her being able to see the need of all living things: “She [her grandmother] made me conscious that all things alive are worth saving, no matter what or what situation they were in” (Monroe, 1996, p. 83). The attitude that you just help when someone is in need also seems to have been present from an early age. Canons of morality are often unconscious. This has, of course, major significance for education. Normal behavior in the eyes of altruists is not what any person does, but what any person is expected to do. This view supports what Jerome Bruner calls a psycho-cultural approach to education (Bruner, 1996). It also supports the idea of a radical ethical demand that precedes any ethical reason (Løgstrup, 1991 (1956)). Empathy seems not to be a significant factor in altruism. Yet, others would say that altruists display a sense of empathy although their acts are not consciously motivated by it (Vetlesen, 1994). Are we looking for “good people” when we try to understand altruistic behavior? The notion of “good” has changed during history, along with the contents of virtues and virtue ethics. The changes follow changes in canonical expectations. The question of how love and goodness develops remains a major educational task, but may be hard to study systematically. The Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968), although disputed in sociology, has given it an important try in a life-long task to advocate the power of love in social science. Sorokin describes seven aspects of love: religious, ethical, ontological, physical, biological, psychological, and social. All expressions of love can, furthermore, vary in at least five dimensions: intensity, extensity, duration, purity, and adequacy of love’s subjective goal to its objective manifestations. Much of his study on love is done to show evidence of love as a greater power than evil (f. ex. Sorokin, 2002 (1954), p. 58). I find his five dimensions of love helpful to discuss values expressed verbally and in action in the material of this paper, while the seven aspects of love call for a broader discussion beyond my scope. Monroe also suggests implications of her work on the study of social theory. Her main point is that self-interest provides an inadequate basis for a theory of human behavior. The study of altruism teaches us to see the human face, individual people, explore the dignity and integrity of each person and understand “why we should do good rather than evil in this world” (Monroe, 1996, p. 238). There are important differences between the two studies. Sorokin ascribes to the “supraconscious” a supreme role not only in motivating altruistic love, but also in transforming the person who identifies with it. He describes this process of self-identification in terms that reveal his orthodox inspiration, talking about the “divinization” of mankind (Sorokin, 2002 (1954),, p.