Social Activism: C or D?

the socially active do not want to be exterminated.

hence acting on behalf of others is not the opposite of acting out of self-interest QED

Nature designed us to instinctively seek out pleasure, and avoid pain, yet pleasure is so often cerebral in nature, tempered by individual beliefs, so the concept is not at all clear cut.

When altruism is seen in this manner, I don't believe that any human action can ever be totally disconnected from self-interest.

and maugham's point is abt activists enjoying the act of activism, surely (which is true yeah, but NOT necessarily linked to altruism at all) (i believe the technical sociological term for this is "bleeding heart liberal do-gooders" heh)

Tricyclic and Somerset, if you see altruism in that manner, then by definition you're excluding the possibility of acting for any reason other than self-interest. Which is fine with me, but then the meaning of the original question changes.

So I'd like to differentiate between two types of helping - the "messianic" and "altruistic" kinds. The messianic kind is where you help some because it makes you feel like you're making a difference in the world so you rule. The altruistic kind is where all you want to do is make the world a better place - in other words, you don't care whether you did the good deed or someone else did, you're just happy it got done.

(I speak as a quasi-social activist though so I'm biased)

And to link this with your first point, there's nobody quite as dangerous as someone who *thinks* they're doing good, right?

Harping on about Maugham again, he was one of the first to recognise the resentment felt by the so-called "marginalised" towards the middle-class revisionists who sought to "improve" their lifestyles.

I don't consider myself an activist per se. I do, however, belong or contribute to a variety of groups, most notably Amnesty International, which I donate to monthly. I'd make a terrible representative or in-the-streets activist for that group or any group, I think -- I'd feel very uncomfortable, for reasons I can't fully spell out. So my support is seen by some as secondary, but I honor those who actually DO go out there and act, while I do my best to vote my conscience and belief at every election. Minor steps? To be sure. But still, I think it's something.

First, the human animal is a social animal. As a result, we are hard-wired for group interaction, with a special preference in favor of our blood relations. Kinship and geneology are nearly obsessions among most human groups. Blood, as they say, is thicker than water. Much thicker! It is an identifiable human instinct.

We are also a cultural animal, marvelously equipped to acquire ideas and to submit to them. Whether by accident or design, most cultures tend to create ideas that leverage our natural insticts, by mimicking them, enlisting them, or otherwise grafting themselves onto them. The natural impulse to favor family members is one such hook on which a culture may hang its own ideas.

One way to understand social activism is to understand that the hidden engine driving it is the natural feeling for family. This inborn impulse has been overlaid with the powerful (but 'unnatural') idea that people who are not your actual blood relations deserve equal (or nearly equal) consideration with those who are.

The cultural idea can take many shapes, all of which look different on their surface and have different effects, but which all share a strong resemblance in how they operate. Basically, all of them use simple substitution. Some group or other is substituted for (or piggy-backed onto) one's family. If the group is a tribe, you get tribalism. If it is one's fellow citizens, you get nationalism. If it a race, you get racism. And so on.

All social activists are operating under this observable "law", which can be every bit as powerful as self-interest. The result varies, but the mechanism is always the same.

I was assigned to a day centre for adults with mental health problems. This was bloody hard work; dozens of men and women mostly with schizophrenia and manic depression, caught in the 'revolving door syndrome' in and out and in of long term psychiatric care. The atmosphere was unlike anything I'd ever experienced. The madness seemed pervasive.

The man running the centre, himself a former patient, turned out to be having an affair with his no. 2 who ended up admitted to psychiatric hospital herself. They were assisted by individuals on a job-creation scheme, including an Irish-man who ran off to join a TM centre, and a fanatical revolutionary communist from some splinter party regularly AWOL 'on party business'.

I played a lot of cards, bit of snooker, organised activities, (don't think we ever actually made Xmas cards) made rounds of tea + coffee, but mostly listened and tried to offer what support I could. And what tales I heard. A surprisingly large proportion of the clients were of the Eastern European origin, Yugoslavs, Croatians and an elderly Latvian who'd lost his entire family to the Red Army post Ribbentrop-Molotov and fought the rest of WW2 with the Germans.

I don't think any experience I've had, before or since, has left as strong an impression. Perhaps it confirms the altruism-as- enlightened-self-interest theory but that work gave me far more than I ever put into it (and believe me that was a lot).

This is the kind of area where the moral judgement of an altruistic action should come in. Of course the standard line is that the moral value lies in the intention, not the outcome of an action - nevertheless I cannot help but thinking that if activists who want to make a difference actually fuck stuff up they should be held up to some degree of responsibility for not thinking it through.

But the human race isn't the only actor in the world. There's also Corporations, those old hungry ghosts, and a lot to be done just in that arena.

(i suspect we are talking slightly at cross-purposes)

I'm not a really strong anti-globalisation person myself but I think the one-dimensionality, stupidity and wrongness that is attributed to such people on ILX goes way overboard. Most of the protesters I have met are intelligent, have read a lot on the issue, can see the benefits of globalisaton but have very good (if not universally persuasive) arguments against *aspects* of it (eg. university students being anti-GATs makes absolute sense to me). Of course there are some one-dimensional dickheads (aka members of socialist alternative and such) too, but probably no more and possibly less than those involved in the anti-Vietnam rallies. A lot of time is spent by the reasonable people in trying to limit the influence of the dickheadish faction, but sadly lowest- common-denominator sloganeering is always the loudest voice in any political arena, not just the activist/radical ones.

There are all sorts of reasons for most behaviour, but I am suspicious of attempts to denigrate altruistic behaviour by arguments such as the suggestion that you feel better because of it, so therefore it isn't really altruistic. This is feeble. It is clear that we have desires and needs. We do not have to pay unusual attention to the world to recognise that, as far as we can tell and without getting into ludicrous Descartes arguments about the limits of knowledge, other people also have similar needs and desires, and that there are many of these that seem to be widespread or universal. There seems no clear reason why my benefit should take priority over that of others (although the fact that I am very often best placed to understand and fulfil my needs perhaps gives me good cause to pay extra attention to those). This seems to me a solid foundation for a reasonably altruistic ethos, without bringing in self-satisfaction.
― Martin Skidmore, Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:00 AM (9 years ago) Bookmark

Feeling fed up recently by the seeming insularity of certain others, though I'm sure I am insular to some extent too, of course. I'm not wanting to guilt trip other people for how they choose to do/see things, but it is hard to not want to do something in some small way rather than coast on apathy.

The hardest part of knowing if something is self-interested or "altruistic" is the difficulty with knowing your own motivations ... which requires a degree of self-awareness that takes a lot of time and work to develop (depending on how much gunk is up there in the mind).

I've done a lot of public interest work and still have this burning passion about human rights and all that good stuff. For me, what drives it is being aware that all these people are human beings, with thoughts, feelings, and consciousness ... and how rare and precious it is to actually exist in this world. Mix that up with the knowledge that we live in an interconnected world where our human systems can control the fates of others, and our own lives impact and affect others. To me that creates a feeling of responsibility to 1) try and contribute on the "systemic" level to make life more equitable and fair for people (which I'm realizing now growing up may be idealistic wishful thinking) and 2) in my own personal life to take care with how I conduct myself with others, and to respect them as individual, fully human creatures, and that my behavior and choices can impact them, and can even contribute to their lives, even a friendly conversation or a kind word.

So maybe it's "self-interest" to fulfill a personal responsibility in being socially active. But isn't that a very simplistic way of putting something that misses out on all nuances and complexities of human behavior? It seems like an argument that's designed to fulfill a global idea that human beings are primarily "self-interested" creatures, and thus nullify what it means to be socially active by saying it's justified in the same way as harming people for personal gain. "Well, it's all self-interest you see!"

Anyone know anything about this group?

http://www.alternet.org/activism/meet-erotic-eco-porn-activists-bonking-save-earth-video

From OP:

I just wish somebody would explain to me the psychology of somebody who acts out of anything besides self-interest.

Humans are social animals and we have an extremely difficult time surviving without a social structure, or without using tools or materials that we did not personally make, gather or grow. Without the knowledge of how to live in the world that was passed on to us through culture we'd all be like those rare children raised by wolves.

Therefore it is in our self-interest to have strong social relationships built on mutual aid and trust. It is not a coincidence that ostracism is one of the strongest social penalties extant, or that solitary confinement can lead to severe mental breakdowns. The minority who embrace criminal and anti-social behavior as a way of life are almost invariably people who've been socialized to believe that trust leads to pain or loss.

Social activism is just a logical extension of this process.

those benefits are still there, in the main, if you decide to grab he money and run and get away with it

I feel like grabbing the money and running quite a lot, but every time I've done something in that line the results have been piss-poor – although there's a caveat here which is that I've only ever stolen a Transformer when I was 7, and haven't got a long career behind me making millions as a con-artist (say)

not everyone's cut out for it kid, don't feel too bad. now grab a brush and start sweepin.

Self-interest is not a bad thing at the species level. At the individual level it is punishable by death.

I'd be surprised if you had tested your theory in any rigorous way, dmac.

i run a bit tbf

Something that FFF article made me think about, as a step toward answering the question this thread raises: doesn't the existence of 'political activists' imply that that's a special role, split off from society at large? Is it a lifestyle option and does that impact on its ability to succeed

I went to my first meeting with a congressperson today, a friend organized a group of about ten of us from the neighborhood to arrange a meeting with an agenda and everything. Our congresswoman is awesome and totally on our side so it was more of a "what can we do, how can we stay in touch" kind of thing.

It was interesting talking to all the other urban professional types at the meeting both the good and the bad -- on one hand we have this really sharp, organized group of people ready to roll up their sleeves and do something. On the other hand I feel like there is so much focus on social media, "messaging," advertisements, etc. because that's our world. After the meeting in a discussion with a few of them I was talking about really building up the local parties with people on the ground even in deep red areas and I felt like I got blank stares.

Oh wrong thread bumped, damnit, meant to do the Trump one.