Marilynne Robinson is best known as a novelist for Gilead, Housekeeping, and Home. Her most recent book, Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self, takes a stab at something different – but not something new – the question of the Human Mind and the importance of experience. This is something of a science and religion book, an attempt to probe the weakness of secular materialism through consideration of the marvel of the human mind.
Chapter 2, The Strange History of Altrusim, begins with an observation and a question:
The great breach that separates the modern Western world from its dominant traditions of religion and metaphysics is the prestige of opinion that throws into question the scale of the reality in which the mind participates. Does it open on ultimate truth, at least partially or in momentary glimpses, or is it an extravagance of nature, brilliantly complex yet created and radically constrained by its biology and cultural influence? (p. 31)
The chapter wanders – as does much of the book. But there is a coherent theme. Mind and experience opens onto a reality that transcends the merely biological, ruled by the laws of chemistry and physics. Altruism is one of the conundrums of a merely material world. The urge for altruism must be tied to some evolutionary advantage and thus all altruism is truly instinctual self-interest (if “self” is the chemical composition of strands of DNA – the “self”-ish gene.) This leads to an interesting question to consider.
Why do we value altruism and justice? What is the root ground in a pursuit of justice?
In this chapter Robinson makes the following observation:
Justice worth the name tends to exact advantage from anyone who might otherwise enjoy the benefits of relative power. This is a cost which most would be ashamed to notice, and for which they might feel they were fully compensated in the assurance that equity is an active principle. But parascience excludes such subjective considerations. (44)
Think about it – this is an interesting point … justice is related to altruism but requires structure and society, it goes beyond individual charity and voluntary self-sacrifice. In any society, any group there is always a push-pull. A push for rational self advantage, and a pull from deeper altruistic ideals of justice.
Any justice worth the name takes – (steals?) – from those with power and gives to those who are weak and powerless.
Robinson’s discussion in this chapter is thought-provoking. It gets into memes and eugenics and sociobiology and evolution. The issue though is not the science of evolution – the issue is the justification and rationalization of altruism and the pursuit of justice, the metaphysical meaning. The concept of justice is a puzzle for evolutionary theory – the urge for justice undoubtedly exists, common to many societies and peoples. Altruism and pursuit of justice can be rationalized as a consequence of hardware or software.
Many will suggest that the urge for justice and the common good is an instinctual urge built into our biology for the preservation of the species, we have no free will and act as a group as we must. There is an “altruism gene” – an oversimplification but the urge is genetic, it is part of our hardware.
Others will suggest that justice is not biological but cultural, transmitted through the influence of environment because societies thrive with a cohesive culture of common good – it is selected for at a societal level. The urge for justice is not part of our hardware – it is part of our software. This is how we are programmed. Still we have no free will.
We operate against our immediate self advantage as individuals for the longer term survival of the group.
Modernist thinking will not allow a deeper reason for our pursuit of justice – something that goes beyond mindless selection for survival. That word is used advisedly … selection for survival is presumed to be mindless, mechanistic. There is a consequence arising from the absence of mind in modern thinking – and this is the principle of insignificance. We are insignificant in the universe, except of course to ourselves. Robinson observes:
In one important particular, however, there seems to have been an authentic modern schism whose consequences are persistent and profound. Our conception of the significance of humankind in and for the universe has shrunk to the point that the very idea we ever imagined we might be significant on this scale now seems preposterous. These assumptions about what we are and are not preclude not only religion but also the whole enterprise of metaphysical thought. That the debate about the nature of the mind has tended to center on religion is a distraction which has nevertheless exerted a profound influence on the more central issue. While it may not have been true necessarily, it has been true in fact that the renunciation of religion in the name of reason and progress has been strongly associated with a curtailment of the assumed capacities of the mind. (p. 75)
Put bluntly modernist thought removes the capacity of the mind from the picture and assigns altruism and justice significance only so far as they further the mechanistic survival of self-organized states of matter.
Now I have a problem – the mindlessness of the universe runs counter to our deep-felt conviction. I see no reason to accept it as true. But in what way does religious thinking in general, orthodox Christianity in particular, present a better alternative? Christians don’t seem to be any less blatantly self centered and interested in self-preservation than other groups. Advantage for self reigns supreme – me, my kin, my people. Power, wealth, and prosperity; these manifest the pleasure and blessing of God. We can rationalize anything. I don’t want this to turn into a political discussion – how we should best pursue justice. Michael Kruse puts forth a strong case for regulated capitalism as a good – even best – route for pursuit of justice. I would rather ask a more fundamental question.
Should justice and pursuit of justice be a central issue in Christian thinking?
Are the concepts of kingdom of God and a just society related? Why or why not?
If you wish to contact me you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net
posted June 15, 2010 at 9:59 am
I do believe that the kingdom of God and a just society are related. I think where many might differ is in terms of strategy and tactics. But there is also a problem of what we mean by justice.
In “Elements of Justice” David Schmidtz uses the analogy of a global map. You can use a Mercator map where that helps with seeing the proximity of land masses to each other but distorts actual land mass size. You can put a map on a sphere but that makes distance measurement more of a challenge. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on map projection. The map you use often depends on the question you bring.
The same can be said of justice questions. Schmidtz writes:
?1. What are children due? They are due what they need.
2. What are citizens due? They are due equal treatment, that is, equality before the law.
3. What are partners due? They are due reciprocity.
4. What are contestants due? They are due fair acknowledgments of demonstrated merit.
5. What are employees due? They are due what they have earned.
6. Families at the twentieth percentile ? What are they due? ? They are due a chance to live in a society whose rising tide of prosperity does not leave whole classes behind. Their children deserve a chance to grow up in an open society, where humble origins are no great barrier to developing their full potential.?(18-19)
Also think of the story Scot raised a couple of weeks ago. A giver gives $1,000 to two recipients. Recipient is given the $10,000 and told he has the sole prerogative over how to divide the money. But the second recipient can negate the whole transaction. If the recipient #1 keeps $990 and gives $10, in cultures across the globe, wide majorities of people report they would negate the transaction. Yet recipient #2 would come out $10 ahead if he approved the transaction and no harm has come to him by the other recipient keeping $990. So is this evidence of some legitimate justice concern or is this innate human greed?
The notion of equality of economic outcomes has come to dominate Christian ethics when it come to thinking about the economy, yet that is not a concern of the biblical authors. This notion of justice comes from Marxian economics. So what does constitute true justice? I think that is the challenge. And whatever it is, we are to be pursuing it.
posted June 15, 2010 at 11:20 am
“Christians don’t seem to be any less blatantly self centered and interested in self-preservation than other groups. Advantage for self reigns supreme”
I think you answered your own question, RJS. Religion substitutes managed methodology and group-think for the hard, perennial, personal work of dying daily. I would suggest that justice shaped by voluntary sacrifice is very different than justice defined by power, especially religious power.
posted June 15, 2010 at 11:29 am
Michael,
The example of greed and sense of justice in the rational division of the $1000 is an interesting one.
I was in a conversation with some professors a while ago where this question was discussed as an instance of the irrational behavior of the human brain. The “rational” choice is to take what the decision maker gives so that both, at some level come out ahead.
We, however, have an innate sense of fairness as well – life is supposed to be fair. We view the desire to keep the lion’s share as greed.
I guess the question of justice comes down at some point to the difference between fairness and greed.
posted June 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Well, it’s irrational if you limit it to one interaction. But if you expect to have a lot of interactions with a lot of different people and you get a reputation for accepting ‘insultingly unfair’ offers, then you’ll tend to get a lot of them in the future. Especially if you live in a small community where everyone knows everyone else (as we did for oh, about 100,000 years at least).
Why can’t this be yet another example of short-term sacrifice to help ensure long-term benefit?
posted June 15, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Really? I’d say it simply prevents power from being exercised in unfair ways…
posted June 15, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Ray #5
But “fair” by what definition?
posted June 15, 2010 at 3:51 pm
MWK – Well, generally, by the sense of fairness that seems to be inborn among most humans. At least as a starting point – this gets elaborated upon and developed by experience and training. Similarly, we have instinctive talents for (Earth-based) physics, and for languages, but these need to be exercised and developed by experience and training.
And for difficult cases, we’ve worked on formal systems to deal with them. Like how we have to pull out the calculator on many physics problems, or consult with a dictionary or grammary for language issues, or refer to a legal system for adjudicating questions of fairness.
posted June 15, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Ray #4 – yes, iterations make a big difference.
One of the most puzzling parts of the justice equation is where there are some birds that will put their own eggs into the nest of another bird and that second bird will raise their young. I believe the cuckoo is one such bird. How can this possibly be explained through a natural process that does not include compassion or altruism? And those are just birds!
Yes, I think Christianity and the pursuit of justice have to be related. One of my current hypotheses is that religion in today?s world is exclusively about relationship. It is interesting that justice is also exclusively relational in that without an other there is no sense of justice. Also, to the extent that you could call Justice an emotion (isn?t it?), it is also inherently a relational emotion (or is it a state of mind, or a sense (whatever that means)).
I put the kingdom and a just society explicitly together. One part of the kingdom is that it would satisfy justice. I am not saying that it would execute justice, but that somehow it would satisfy justice in that, perhaps, the execution of justice would not be required any longer. So in that sense perhaps our sense of justice is anti-kingdom?
Dave
posted June 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Sorry, DRT, cuckoos are a case of parasitism, not altruism. They trick other birds into raising their own young. And as the newly hatched cuckoos grow, they kill their nestmates so they get all the food. For a human analogue, Google Dr. Ben Ramaley…
posted June 15, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Ray, to be sure you are right. But I was not referring to the cuckoos as being altruistic in some sense, it was their host….I know I was not clear…
Dr. Ben Ramaley, wow did he have some b…..
Actually, he is a pretty good example of how the survival instinct of the male can play out. Getting those genes out there is a powerful impulse.
Dave
captcha situation grizzled (I see BR at work now…)
posted June 16, 2010 at 7:23 am
Ray,
Parasitism, symbiosis, aggression, all of these are understandable. We can even rationalize why we would evolve to have a sense of fairness and justice – if those who have such have a survival advantage in the form of society or family. After all social animals like ants survive as a group not as individuals.
The issues of altruism and justice, cultural, biological, and religious, are interesting and perplexing. One of the complaints about religion is that is fosters a sense of meaning that leads to “altruistic” aggression and even terrorism. The same can be said for a deep seated Patriotism. Individuals act with disregard for self for some ‘greater good’.
I think that the gospel undercuts all of these urges for aggressive group good and turns the focus to a kingdom of God with emphasis on justice (but not “rights”).
But is such altruism or pursuit of justice simply “being played for a sucker”?
posted June 16, 2010 at 8:58 am
When it comes to these kind of complicated issues, few things are “simply” anything. Religion has ‘worked’ in some sense for a long time. (Of course, I think for the wrong reasons, like geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, but still.)
Religious altruism can certainly lead to “being played for a sucker” – I think the Catholic emphasis on ‘forgiveness’ had a disastrous contributing effect in the priestly abuse scandal – but doesn’t have to. Seems like more a risk factor than an unalloyed cause.
posted June 16, 2010 at 11:51 am
RJS#3 “The “rational” choice is to take what the decision maker gives so that both, at some level come out ahead.”
Except that the decision maker comes out *way* ahead of the chump who gets only $10. And then the decision maker uses his vast economic advantage to oppress the $10 guy and keep all the descendants of $10 guy at a disadvantage.
Given that inevitability, I’d negate the transaction and keep myself equal with the other guy.