One Person Makes a Difference

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. 481). Monroe mentions religious teaching as one of many factors that can trigger or activate mechanisms of altruism, but not explain its genesis (Monroe, 1996,

3 p. 214). Again, there are links to other studies in ethics.2 Leaving aside the more extensive philosophical discussion I focus on the fact that both Monroe and Sorokin have developed heuristics of love and altruism that can be developed and applied hermeneutically.

HEURISTICS FOR THE STUDY OF ALTRUISTIC LOVE Considering Monroe’s five dimensions I find it useful to connect cognitive frameworks with world view. Professed value systems may not be decisive for acting altruistically, but connected to the perceptions of self in relation to others a person’s value system comes to the surface. The American theologian Ian Markham, discussing Christian ethics in a “cultural mode”, prefers the concept of “world perspective” to “world view”. This describes a readiness for acting that is not a result of conscious decision, but is discovered or revealed in attitudes and decisions we make (Markham, 1994, p. 20). I follow his lead. I find the concept of canonical expectations very important hermeneutically. Altruists do what they expect anyone should normally do, while their actions often are breaking some canons of normal behavior. Jerome Bruner has shown convincingly how people make sense of their experiences with stories, making the narrative a key to understanding reality. Narratives arise when a canon of ordinary behavior is broken and a new canon of expected behavior comes into being (Bruner, 1996, p. 139). Stories from altruists are, therefore, of immense significance for understanding the formation of virtues and values, and the meaning of education. The notion of empathy will not be central to the study of altruistic love, but may play a role in some cases. The concept of “good” in terms of virtue ethics plays a minor role in Monroe’s study, or is left open to interpretation, but is important in Sorokin’s thinking. He describes “techniques of altruistic transformation” (Sorokin, 2002 (1954), several chapters) in terms usually associated with virtue ethics. He also points to spiritual disciplines of prayer, mediation and the like, in many religious traditions.

STORIES FROM JULY 22 AND CHILDREN’S MESSAGES The material from the event of July 22 and what followed is extensive and complex. The 50 stories mentioned are important because of their authenticity as witness stories and some reflection one year after the event, told to reporters in interviews. In all their variety they show some recurring elements of significance to the issue of altruism. Almost all interviewees carry with them memories of young people helping each other. One story is told by a woman of 34 (Anne-Berit) who was on the island as a representative of Norwegian People’s Aid: “I run out, towards the pump house. Someone shouts for help. I find a girl, severely wounded, shot five times, wounded in the jaw and in the chest. We are six or seven who hide in some high grass. The girl says that she can see in my eyes that she will die. There is chaos in the group. I can see that the girl will not survive on the cold and wet ground.

2 “Because the demand is radical, its significance for the actual choice of the individual is hidden. Because the demand has content, it is related to social norms, about which one can talk philosophically. ... [I]n our culture there has been a preaching that has formulated the radical ethical demand and brought it to our mind.” (Løgstrup, 1966, p. 151, my translation)

We put her on top of me. The group is asked to press on the wounds with their bodies, something that calms everybody down.” This girl survived. Almost all survivors can identify people who have been of help to them both to survive and to come back to ordinary life. One of them (Lars, 20) says: “All who rescued us in boats from Utvika are heroes. They risked their lives for us.” Lars describes the support from the local people as outstanding. But one name remains with him: “I am so grateful that I found Christoffer [another boy]. He risked his life watching out for us all and making good decisions for us following him.” All interviewees say that they want to live ordinary lives, not being thought of as helpers or victims. What is perceived as ordinary, involves for most of them changed value priorities. New canonical expectations are discovered, while their experience of just doing what is ordinary and expected has not changed. In terms of world perspective these stories emphasize the importance of individuals who act spontaneously when they perceive the need of others. Why some people seemed more ready to act than others, is impossible to know, but some factors may be found. In the case of Anne- Berit, she was trained in first aid, but her act went far beyond her training. We know very little about Christoffer and all the rescuers who came with their boats, but one of them (Jørn) says: “I did what I felt was right in the situation. It would have been much worse to stay on land.” All stories about helpers seem to indicate that their behavior was an integrated part of their personalities, indicating a history of moral formation. Recurring motifs in the material points towards the significance of virtue ethics as well as ontological-phenomenological ethics – ethical demand arising in the immediate encounter with people in need (Løgstrup, 1991 (1956)). There must be some elements of moral formation in Norwegian society that should be explored and not taken for granted, as there are other elements as well marked by ethnocentricity and pure self-interest.3 The memory material offered by children after July 22 is full of expressed love to victims, family, the country and even to the terrorist’s family. One might say that it is easy to express love in such messages, and that it is naïve to regard these children’s texts as significant. I do not agree, using just one example from the material (©National Archives of Norway). The drawing of these 77 hearts by a 9 year old girl has the text: “I do not understand that this could happen. I am sorry for those who died. We must remember that all people have equal worth.” In the act of drawing 77 hearts she identifies strongly with the victims. She protests against the violation of a basic moral view of being human, seeing the event not in isolation but as an attack on humanity in each human being. From her position this is about as much as she can do in terms of altruism. It is an expression of ethical and ontological love: “Love is basically not an emotional but an ontological power; it is the essence of life itself,” according to Paul Tillich (in Sorokin p. 7). The great amount of

3 Geir Lippestad, defense attorney of the terrorist, received thousands of e-mails from people all over the world who actually support the world view of Breivik (Lippestad, 2013).

5 love messages in the memory material may be interpreted in the same direction. Most of them do not say much about emotions (besides sorrow), but a lot about identification and protest. Expressions of love, verbally and symbolically, have less intensity than acts of helpers and rescuers, but may display a high degree of extensity. Many of them show a world perspective that extends far beyond group identification of even national identification. How does this material relate to the criterion of adequacy? One of the survivors from Utøya, Fred Ove (17), says that he does not think much about the terrorist. “When people use very ugly words about him, I say: Why use so much energy on him when you have friends and family you can love? Use your energy there instead”(Aftenposten, 2012). That is an expression with high adequacy, less reflected extensity and intensity, but certainly a high degree of duration. Fred Ove’s attitude has many parallels in the material. The example of Anne-Berit shows an extreme degree of intensity and adequacy. She also shows duration in keeping in touch with the girl she saved and wanting to continue as a helper during camps. Her act may also be seen as high in purity – and we are then not talking about her emotions, but of her motivation.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS • Responses to the events of July 22 have shown that altruism is a living force in many people’s morality, including that of children, calling for more focus in research and education. • A narrative approach to ethics and to the study of world views stimulates moral formation of a deeper kind than what can be learnt in ethical theory. One person’s view of self and others can make a difference between lifegiving hope and destruction. • Religious traditions are not decisive factors in altruistic love, but have an effect of triggering altruistic values in a culture. • The evidence of altruism calls for spiritual education in a wide sense, and for an orientation of religious education that goes beyond the confines of faith communities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aftenposten. (2012). Slik rammet 22. juli, from http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/22juli/ Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press. Kjærlighetsbudskapet sprer seg i alle kanaler. (2011). Verdens Gang. Retrieved from http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080708 Lippestad, G. (2013). Det vi kan stå for. Oslo: Aschehoug. Løgstrup, K. E. (1966). Kunst og Etik. København: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag A.S. Løgstrup, K. E. (1987). Solidaritet og kærlighed og andre essays. København: Gyldendal. Løgstrup, K. E. (1991 (1956)). Den etiske fordring. København: Gyldendal. Markham, I. (1994). Plurality and Christian Ethics. Cambridge.

Monroe, K. R. (1996). The Heart of Altruism. Perceptions of a Common Humanity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Sagberg, S. (2014). The power of altruistic values. A study of children’s responses to the terror attacks in Oslo and on Utøya July 22, 2011 and issues of education. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 35(1 (forthcoming)). Sorokin, P. A. (2002 (1954)). The Ways and Power of Love. Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundations Press. Vetlesen, A. J. (1994). Perception, Empathy, and Judgment. An Inquiry into the Preconditions of Moral Performance. University Park, Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania State University Press.