Thoughts on altruism
Stephanie Ferrera
David Sloan Wilson has published a new book: Does Altruism Exist? Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others. I haven’t yet read it, but I did read H. Allen Orr’s review in New York Review of Books, March 19, 2015.
Orr begins: “Altruism may seem a good thing—unless you happen to be an evolutionary biologist. Then it may seem a mixture of a mystery and a curse. The reason isn’t hard to see. How could a ruthless process like Darwinian natural selection give rise to altruistic organisms, human or nonhuman, that act in ways that are costly to themselves and helpful to others? Darwin himself was aware of the difficulty and offered some tentative solutions, but it was during the twentieth century that altruism became the subject of nearly fetishistic attention among evolutionary biologists.”
Here are a few thoughts on this:
1) Altruism would be a “problem” if evolution by natural selection is mainly a struggle for existence between competing organisms. Could it become a “nonproblem” if natural selection is seen as operating on cooperative units of organisms?
2) Did altruism become a greater problem for 20c biologists than it was for Darwin? Darwin saw natural selection as operating at the group as well as individual level, which may have satisfied him as a “solution” to the “problem” of altruism.
3) With the emergence of the science of genetics, 20c evolutionary biologists had the challenge of integrating this new knowledge with Darwinian evolution. The “selfish gene”, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism became new ways of explaining altruism. Group selection, the idea that animals can function “for the good of the group” was proposed (Wynne-Edwards), but rejected and overridden by the idea of individual selection (Williams). Social behavior was interpreted as basically serving the interest of the individual. Group selection is being revived by DS Wilson, in collaboration with EO Wilson. Groups with more altruistic members will win in competition with groups of more selfish individuals.
4) These theories are based in cost/benefit thinking. They seem to have in common a need to find a return reward to the individual who sacrifices for the benefit of others. They “take the altruism out of altruism.” (Trivers)
What does Bowen say?
The word, altruism, does not appear in the index of FTCP. Bowen did not use the language of cost/benefit. In postulating the two counterbalancing forces, individuality and togetherness, as guiding the functioning of the emotional system, I think Bowen may have actually bypassed the whole question of altruism. Altruism would be a natural part of the attachments and responsiveness among members of the family or group, along with other feeling responses. Altruism would be expressed at the levels of automatic emotion, of feeling, of thinking. Altruistic behavior would be intrinsic to the emotional system, requiring no special explanation.
Added note: In May, the guest scientist at the Center for Family Consultation annual symposium was Dr. Jan Sapp, professor of biology at York U. in Toronto. His special study is on symbiosis in evolution, and the history of the science of symbiosis. He see Darwinian evolutionary theory as almost ignoring the first 3 ½ billion years of life on earth in which microbes were laying the foundation for the plant and animal world.
Dr. Sapp showed a great interest in Bowen theory, and I believe he has been invited to be the scientist at the 2016 Bowen Center fall symposium. I wrote a blog for the CFC website if you want to get a little taste of what he presented.
Dr. Bowen talked about symbiosis and used the term in describing the mother-child relationship. I wonder if he was thinking about those microbes as much or more than later evolved forms.
1) Stephanie, I enjoyed reading and mulling over your article here. I also had a chance to read your blurb on Jan Sapp. Lynn Margulis often spoke of him. She was also interested in Bowen theory. Unfortunately, she died too early to develop the connection further. 2) I think you make a good point about altruism being part of the automatic responsiveness within the emotional system. Once you see the family as a unit, there is no contradiction in altruism. 3) How do you see “selfishness” of the kind that is often present in lower levels of differentiation of self, showing a disregard for the well being of other family members, or the family as a whole, fitting into the idea of the family emotional process?
I see the selfishness as one side of the coin and selflessness as the other. Wouldn’t any individual be capable of both kinds of behavior? The more extreme levels of both would be seen in a lower functioning family especially at times of increasing anxiety. I go back to Mike Kerr’s point:
“When the intellectual system has the option to operate independently of the feeling system, it is possible for an individual to do for himself without being selfish and to do for others without being selfless. This becomes possible when behavior is based more on principle than on the obligatory pressure of the feeling system.”
(Family Evaluation, p. 335)
The struggle to find the balance is the stuff of much great literature.
I recommend the film: “Two days and one night” with Marion Cotilliard.
Not to be missed!
Dear Stephanie,
You have whetted my appetite to read more, including Dr. Sapp’s book and David Sloan Wilson’s new book. We are a highly social species and cannot survive alone at birth. We must develop within a social matrix. The delegation of the social welfare of the group to the marketplace distorts the human’s view of the human, as well as the human’s view of society’s functions.
I believe that Bowen is thinking of the entirety of the human’s phylogenetic past. I have found his definition of emotional system (FTCP, 423) to be extremely helpful, especially when I take the time to really ponder it.
Sincerely,
Pat
Hi Stephanie:
This really stimulated my thinking and I thank you for that. Last spring i went to a meeting here in Boston of evolutionary biologists. David S Wilson was there as well as Trivers and many others from the New England area who presented their research. My perception was that the vast majority of the group had moved away from the biological basis of evolution. I was surprised by the research presented except by Trivers. The experience got me thinking of how the group influences the individual. Again, this was my perception.
Yes, Bowen’s description of the balancing forces of togetherness and individuality in a system renders the ‘problem’ of competition vs. altruism a nonissue.
“Altruistic behavior would be intrinsic to the emotional system, requiring no special explanation.” I do think of the giving up of self for the other/group in the family as an instance of the altruism the evolutionary biologists try to explain. I also think it is consistent with the idea from Wilson and Wilson’s multilevel selection theory that groups whose members are altruistic may outcompete other groups and that might be the basis for the evolution of the emotional system at the basis of the family emotional system as an adaptive system.
Hi Stephanie, This is very interesting. I have been thinking a lot lately about what Bowen said about the importance of being a contributing member of a system or society. I’ve been thinking about what is responsible contribution, as opposed to over-functioning. It is interesting that the discussion didn’t involve the word altruism. I am interested in reading the works you cite.
Today is the final day of the June exchange. I have gained a lot and appreciate the good thinking I have received from each of you in your comments on my post.