Life is complex. The more black and white we try to make it, the further from reality we stray. The commentary by Andreas Kluth (“Individualism Makes Us Altruistic,” Monitor, June 30) provides a useful study.
He argues, in a sadly common “it’s either this (good) or that (bad)” false dichotomy, that collectivism inhibits altruism and individualism encourages it. In addition, he argues that Christianity promotes individualism over collectivism. (Is he implying the superiority of Westerners and Christians?)
We need a way to objectively analyze his argument to determine the truth. The most obvious flaw is in definitions. Individualism is the opposite of collectivism, but what is the opposite of altruism? Selfishness. Where are you going to find more selfishness, in collectivism (group comes first) or individualism (individual comes first)?
Consider how we celebrate the Greatest Generation. Why did we bestow this honor on them? Because of their selflessness in serving a greater good. They sacrificed individual freedom and comfort for the collective benefit of society and for people they never met. Where do you think they fall on the individualism vs. collectivism and altruism vs. selfishness spectrums?
What does it mean to be altruistic, though? It seems most people understand it to mean doing something good for others without expecting anything in return. However, I suggest there are different forms of altruism: ingroup and outgroup altruism and direct and indirect altruism.
Being altruistic to others in your group is common. Altruism towards outgroups is less so. The members of your church are happy to help you out when you’re in need, but how ready are they to offer the same help to immigrants or LGBTQ people?
This leads to direct and indirect altruism. We can help people directly (cooking a meal for someone sick) or indirectly (giving money to a church or nonprofit or paying taxes to fund a government agency). Is it better to be directly or indirectly altruistic or are they equal? If we’re only willing to make sure people see us directly helping people we deem are deserving, are we really being altruistic?
Let’s also look at individualism and collectivism. Aside from hermits, we all consider ourselves part of different groups through various aspects of our lives. Some of these groups are parts of larger groups and overlap other groups. Picture an intricate Venn diagram.
With some groups we have a stronger connection, such as through nationality, religion or political party, making them an integral part of our identity. Because we are the group and the group is us, we readily put the interests and needs of the group above our own. With national identity, we call that patriotism. It’s also collectivism.
These examples illustrate the complexities of individualism, collectivism and altruism:
Which U.S. political party makes the most noise about “individual rights and freedoms?” Which party has the least diversity and pushes the tightest restrictions on groups who aren’t like them? Which party recently censured members of their own party for insufficiently toeing the party line (hint: they’re also the only ones with a party-specific term for nonconformists, “RINO”)? In all three cases it’s the same party, so are they individualists or collectivists?
Which group is more individualistic in their thoughts and beliefs, atheists or Catholics? Or Baptists or Mormons? The basic premise of all religions, including Christianity, is a strong adherence to a prescribed set of beliefs and behaviors with little to no room for individualistic thought or expression outside those boundaries. This, of course, commonly leads to judgmentalism. How does judgmentalism impact altruism?
Considering the above, I think we can better evaluate Kluth’s claim. There are collectivists who are quite altruistic (at least to their ingroup) and individualists who clearly aren’t. Church members helping other church members is altruism in a collectivist setting – they’re helping because they’re in the same group. Even more so since most religions instruct believers to help other believers. Likewise, donating to a charity is a collectivist approach to altruism.
An individualistic act of altruism might be jumping into a river to save someone from drowning. But did that person do it because they have an individualistic perspective? In other words, would the collectivist be just as likely to save the person as the individualist? If so, then individualism did not make the person altruistic. There must be something more.
Kluth cited a study stating individualistic societies are more altruistic than collectivist societies. How do we quantify altruism? To honestly assess that, we need more information about how much ingroup vs. outgroup and direct vs. indirect altruism we find. Those distinctions matter. Which society is more altruistic, one that has a higher level of indirect, outgroup altruism or one with higher direct, ingroup altruism?
Since a society, by definition, is a group (realistically, a collection of groups), what do we mean by an “individualistic society?” When someone describes themself as an individualist, they don’t disavow all groups, only certain groups.
For example, when an anti-masker talks about their individual rights, they’re actually just adhering to the norms of their ingroup and opposing those of an outgroup. There’s nothing “individualistic” about it. They’re just following their pack. Are they being altruistic?
In fact, most individual rights laws allow people to ignore the well-being of others, like new laws in some states that allow drivers to run over protestors.
So, does individualism make us altruistic? The evidence doesn’t support that conclusion. Altruism is deeper and more complex than individualism vs. collectivism.
(Aaron Baker lives in Pembroke.)