Chapter 10 in Reeve (2009) discusses
the self: defining and creating
the self, relating the self to society, discovering and developing personal
potential, and managing or regulating the self.
Becoming a fair and pro-social person is generally thought of as part of the quest of defining and creating the self. However, a recent New York Times article reviewed a study published by Science that studied how large-scale institutions affected fairness. This article seems to show that fairness and pro-sociality may be more due to relating the self to society. The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/science/23tier.html?ref=science
The study used three different
experimental designs to determine the effect of large-scale institutions, such
as markets and major world religions have on fairness. These experiments
were then carried out in 15 diverse cultures across the world. The
presence of large-scale institutions was determined by the percentage of
calories that were purchased - the higher the percentage the higher the market
integration.
The study found that the greater the market integration in a community the more fair its citizens were. The participation in a world religion increased punishment for unfairness in a community. The authors argue that this is because in market society would not work if everyone were only out for himself or herself. For market integration to be successful the society must have underlying norms to be fair and trusting with people beyond each individual's social circle. They found that by having institutions like Wal-Mart our communities have actually become fairer. The researchers believe that our modern pro-sociality is not solely due to innate psychology but also due to the norms and institutions that have emerged over human history.
I found this to be a wonderful article. Not only does it address aspects of evolutionary psychology, but it also highlights the status of selfishness and moral education in our society. Questions are posed concerning how small family clans evolved into large cities of cooperative strangers and why we would even consider returning a wallet we found in the back of a taxi. In the past, these moral behaviors may have assisted in the survival of our genes by reciprocating kindness and punishing selfishness. Some psychologists believe that our past fairness tendencies have carried over into the present day leading us to help out others even if it works against us. There seems to be more to it than inherited instinctive behaviors, however, and the present research has identified two discernable factors. The first is one’s affiliation to a modern world religion. “Intersocietal competition may have favored those religious systems that galvanize pro-social behavior in broader communities, perhaps using both supernatural incentives (for example, hell) and recurrent rituals that intensify group solidarity,” say researchers at Science magazine. More significantly, people’s views on fairness were indicated as the strongest predictor of the community’s level of market integration. Norms that are fair and trusting across social spheres will provide enormous economic advantages and will contribute to the growth of the society as a whole.
To dovetail this article, Psychology Today recently published a piece on the psychology of selfishness called Is Greed Ever Good? The article touches on corporate greed and Bernie Madoff’s fifty-billion dollar Ponzi scheme, but it also clarifies that there is a fine line between selfishness and selflessness and that a perfect balance is necessary to live a life rich in pro-social behaviors. Emotional and spiritual healing requires a certain amount of selfishness in order to honor the true self and fulfill one’s destiny. Though the author poses some responses regarding this question, what do you believe to be the “right” way of being selfish?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200903/is-greed-ever-good-the-psychology-selfishness
This article was really interesting in the sense that living in a "civilized" society we often take for granted the social structures we are a part of day in and day out. People may have inherent traits that predispose them to help others, but this is likely combined with processes of socialization (religion, family, friends, media, etc.) that guide (or constrict) behaviors. I think it is important to note that the study based the construct "market integration" on the measure of "the percentage of purchased calories". Since people in industrialized societies purchase almost all their calories whereas people who live in remote locations or non-industrialized areas have to grow or hunt for their calories. What this could mean is that people who purchase more of their calories essentially have this basic need (food) met. They don't have to worry about whether there will be a drought that wipes out their crops or causes the animals to leave. Since this need is met, the motivational process of food gathering/hunting becomes significantly devalued. This opens the door for an emphasis on social interactions that work to maintain this food availability, which means working together. Also, because food is more available and availability makes it less necessary to conserve, there are likely to be more people around. More people necessitates effecient ways to live together. Since bringing people together without any rules guiding behavior would be chaotic, people develop rules that help prevent chaotic social interaction. This eventually leads to laws, religions, Wal-Marts, etc.
As for Wal-Mart, however, people are only perceiving fairness when they enjoy these low prices. Workers in factories in China that produce a lot of these products are hardly treated fairly, working long hours in what we would think of as unbearable conditions. Also, Wal-Mart employees are hardly treated "well", as they had to fight to get health insurance for full time workers (I think they have it now) and recently there is a gender discrimination law suit facing Wal-Mart that has been allowed into trial (I believe).