The Destruction of Reciprocity

by: Natasha Chart

Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 19:00


Homo sapiens, that means us, is what's known as an ultrasocial species. That means we're so cooperative that groups of hundreds, even thousands of us, can distribute tasks, share rewards, have common goals and tolerate each other's proximity in abundance. We're the only ultrasocial species whose groups operate more on reciprocity than kin relationships.

If we were the creatures Ayn Rand's disciples think we are, we would live like bears, who have no civilization to speak of, no language in which to speak of it, and never will.

Which is why the current incarnations of plutocracy, patriarchy and all other 'screw you, I've got mine' politics are, in the deepest sense, antisocial. They're anti-civilization. What betrays the reciprocity of the social compact betrays the most useful trait of our species, the one arguably most responsible for our success. The people who hold these views are free riders, parasites, if you will, on the public good of basic human nature.

The fact that love, friendship, neighborliness and simple courtesy have survived the free riders' defections only proves how strong these impulses are. If government holds that corporations are people but pregnant women aren't, when theft is celebrated and work is punished, when debt trumps humanity, when the economic contracts that really matter are intentionally too complex to understand, let alone follow, these are direct attacks on most of the people, most of the time.

Our greatest good is the presence and well-being of other humans. Maybe in a spiritual sense, but definitely in a hardwired, biological sense. Consider that a person in jail can literally go mad from a lack of contact in solitary confinement, in ways that prisoners in contact with inmates or guards who are torturing them will not.

Humans just need each other.

Not only isn't there anything wrong with that, it's the only basis for policy that can stand the test of time. Just in case anyone still gives as much of a damn about building civilizations as blowing them up.

Natasha Chart :: The Destruction of Reciprocity

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Destruction of Reciprocity | 22 comments
Power and money don't make (0.00 / 0)
people that way either. It seems that more and more people are just selfish and only care about themselves. We live in a greedy world and stepping on other people to get what you want seems to be ok. It's almost expected esp in politics.

Extraordinary progressive star in the making
Well put (4.00 / 3)
and a timely reminder. Thanks.

Montani semper liberi
Empathy = humanity (4.00 / 4)
Empathy is the most successful method of communication available to the human species. It is the glue that makes the social order possible. You are correct to call the current concentration of power antisocial. It is also dangerous to the species, because it places critically important decisions in the hands of too few people. That in turn places all of us at risk of war, famine and, ultimately, extinction.

The people who currently run the country and the companies that control them really are parasites and free riders. They are without empathy, or they would not do the things they do.

It's good to hear someone like you say so.  

Dead on. (0.00 / 0)
"And every one of them words rang true
and glowed like burnin' coal"

                                                    Dylan

If I may reply to myself, (0.00 / 0)
It also appears that there is a branching off in our species between those that have a visceral commitment to the social pact and those that seem to behave based on an innate sense of self interest and exploitation, with no guilt, commonly known as sociopaths. I know that in reality its not black or white, never was, but these two poles seem to be more and more divergent.

Who is going to win? An will guillotine's be involved?

[ Parent ]
So how to turn that into a strategy... (4.00 / 1)
Can we show what we have given to big corporations with specifics and create a narrative "what did they give back?" And use that to create leverage for populist progressivism.

Reciprocity is a massively important, almost compelling human instinct to the point that long-held relationships can be severely affected by someone's lack of it.

Making it seem that taxpayers give to corporations without receiving anything in return could be VERY effective if framed and messaged well.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

Parades and Rain (4.00 / 1)
I am going to play the dissent here.  Well actually I do dissent.  I like the goal being pursued in the writing of this  post, but I think some of this stuff in this post is false.

1.  The first link, about how reciprocity is hardwired.  What is true is that reciprocity increases species fitness.  What is also true is that it is therefore selected for naturally.  So far we have a nice evolutionary story.  The problem with this is the 'hardwired' part.  It suggests that there is some neurophysiological fact about us that explains the relevant behavior (reciprocal behavior).  And evolution just does not say this.  This is an instance of a very common mistaken inference.  'The theory of evolution predicts the natural selection of X.  Evolution is a biological theory.  Therefore the mechanism that underlies X must be some strictly biological fact.'  That gets people to thinking that certain behavior is hardwired.  Then people tend to make the leap from 'hardwired' to 'immutable'.  And this series of inferences are all bad.  Natural selection works at the level of phenotypes.  In this case the phenotype is the disposition towards reciprocal behavior.  Evolution does not provide us with predictions about what explains the phenotype.  One easy way to see this is that Darwin's theory of evolution was, until Mendel's discovery of genetics, completely unable to explain how it was that useful traits were passed on.  Evolution does not predict that because a trait leads to greater group fitness that there is some genetic explanation for it.  The explanation could very well be cultural.  Evolution is silent on this issue.  So reciprocity is not necessarily hardwired.  Evolution is neutral between that explanation of reciprocal behavior and an explanation which says that behavior has to be taught.  The basic reason why is that features of culture can lead to more people surviving to childbearing/rearing age and so can be selected for just as much as a genetic mutation can.  Bathing is a good example of this.

This probably seems like nitpicking.  It isn't for two reasons.  One, when you treat a trait as hardwired rather than culturally acquired it can lead to people thinking the trait need not be taught.  And I think it is vital we teach and foster reciprocal behavior to the young folk.

Two, this inference from 'evolutionarily selected for' to 'hardwired' is used a lot in evolutionary sociobiology.  Evolutionary sociobiology, in addition to being very scientifically suspect, is usually deployed by conservatives to argue that certain kinds of behavior, like greedy behavior, are immutable aspects of human nature that cannot be gotten rid of by collective action.  We are told to live with it.  In more extreme circles similar arguments are made about rape.  These claims are, in addition to being scientifically groundless, pernicious in the extreme, and I think it is useful to fight the inference everywhere it appears, whether it is for a pleasant conclusion or not.

2.  The claim that plutocracy and patriarchy are anti-civilization.  This is just false.  These have been features of civilized societies from day one.  They are not universal by any means.  There have been civilized matriarchal societies (Minoan civilization comes to mind.  I know there are others, but I am full of cake and it is bad for my memory).  But there is no sense in which these forces are incompatible with civilization.  What they are incompatible with is justice, and unfortunately civilization and justice do not progress together, at least not necessarily.

Again it sounds like nitpicking, but I think our targets should be clear.  Republicans aren't uncivilized, at least not all of them.  They like civilization.  They are unjust.  They don't like people to be treated as they deserve to be treated, because doing that makes it harder for them to control other people.  It makes it harder for them to live a comfortable easy life in which other people do the work.

3.  On the face of it this post is internally inconsistent.  You say that reciprocity is hardwired into us, and that anti-reciprocal forces are also anti-civilization forces.  But then you also say that reciprocity is being destroyed.  How could that happen if reciprocal behavior is hardwired?  It would be like trying to destroy the urge to have sex.  And it certainly doesn't look like civilization is going anywhere.  These inconsistencies can be easily gotten rid of.  Reciprocal behavior is good because it tends towards justice and flourishing human lives.  Forces which work against it tend towards injustice and suffering.  Nice, easy, plausible and internally consistent.

Like I said I appreciate the point of posts like this.  And so I am not arguing with the overall picture.  I am nitpicking to an extent, but my heart is in the right place.  Tiny mistakes that are mostly inconseqeuntial to the overall picture are just the kind of mistakes that right wing trolls like to point and laugh at.  Let me assure you I am not laughing.  In fact I feel like a little bit of a prick for writing this.  But I felt it was necessary anyway.

Reciprocity is hardwired. (4.00 / 1)
Ever hear of "mirror neurons?"

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
But I think you are dealing with too simplistic a notion of reciprocity if you think the behaviors that mirror neurons help explain constitute reciprocity.  My understanding of mirror neurons (which is a layman's understanding, let me admit) is that they are involved in imitation and the learning of things like language (and that other people have intentional states).  

But that is not what reciprocity is.  Reciprocity is not copying, nor is it understanding what other people are trying to do in their behavior.  You can reciprocate someone's good will in a variety of ways that need not look anything like what the person did to show you good will.  So if my colleague helps me get an article published, I can reciprocate that by helping him find a nice apartment in town.  Mirror neurons are not going to be involved in that kind of action I take it.

Now what is certain is that without the abilities that mirror neurons give you (if they exist, which I have heard is controversial, but since I wouldn't be able to adequately evaluate the arguments on either side I am not going to commit myself to their actually being controversial) reciprocity wouldn't be possible.  But there is a huge gap between reciprocity having a basis in our physiology, since presumably all behavior has a basis in our physiology in this sense, and it being hardwired.

[ Parent ]
Forgot the qualifier (0.00 / 0)
I am not actually arguing that reciprocity is not hardwired.  All I meant to argue is that the fact that reciprocity has undoubtedly helped increase group fitness doesn't give any evidence that it is hardwired.  Maybe it turns out that mirror neurons are involved in reciprocity.  But that is a different argument than the evolutionary argument.
[ Parent ]
You're Right, You Don't Know Enough About Mirror Neurons (0.00 / 0)
But I must say that I, too, have a deep antipathy to the widespread use of the term "hardwired," so I can certainly sympathize.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
From wikipedia: (0.00 / 0)
Stephanie Preston and Frans de Waal,[34] Jean Decety,[35][36] and Vittorio Gallese[37][38] have independently argued that the mirror neuron system is involved in empathy. A large number of experiments using functional MRI, electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography have shown that certain brain regions (in particular the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and inferior frontal cortex) are active when a person experiences an emotion (disgust, happiness, pain, etc.) and when he or she sees another person experiencing an emotion.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45] However, these brain regions are not quite the same as the ones which mirror hand actions, and mirror neurons for emotional states or empathy have not yet been described in monkeys. More recently, Christian Keysers at the Social Brain Lab and colleagues have shown that people who are more empathic according to self-report questionnaires have stronger activations both in the mirror system for hand actions[46] and the mirror system for emotions[44], providing more direct support for the idea that the mirror system is linked to empathy.

In social species those who share, and reciprocate, thrive, while those who don't are shunned, even exiled. Repeat for millienia and it's not surprising the brains of social species are going to have features, like mirror neurons, that solitary species do not.

It doesn't mean we're immune to atavism. Defective individuals, devoid of empathy, are still born among us. The problem Natasha is describing is what happens when those defective individuals are put into positions of power.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Its possible we are talking past one another (0.00 / 0)
Maybe by 'hardwired' you mean something different than I mean.  I take expressions like 'X is a hardwired disposition' to mean something like that the disposition is one we have independent of learning or other cultural influences.  Something like Chomsky's view of basic grammatical knowledge.  Which language we speak is of course determined by the culture in which we live and the education we receive, but that we have a grasp of fundamental grammatical rules is something we have since birth.  There is literally a brain module that gives us that basic grammatical knowledge.

Now if this is what you mean by 'hardwired' then the quote from wikipedia that you entered clearly does not provide evidence that reciprocality is hardwired.  It provides evidence that reciprocal action is correlated with neural states, but everyone who isn't a dualist about the mind thinks that.  The fact that certain neurons light up when you do X does not mean that the ability or tendency to do X is a nativist tendency in the way that Chomskian grammatical knowledge is (or would be if Chomsky is right).  To repeat, anyone who thinks that the mind is identical to the brain, or that mental events are identical to neural events is going to be able to accept the information in the quote above.  But just thinking that the mind is the brain, or that mental events are identical to neural events does not commit you to any particular disposition being hardwired in the sense that I just outlined.  A way to see this is that even though the ability to speak English is not hardwired (we would not be able to do it without having been raised in an English speaking environment or by explicitly learning it) there is going to be some region of the brain that consistently lights up when we speak English.  As long as dualism is false that is.

The fact that the quote from wikipedia obviously does not support the hardwired hypothesis makes me think that we are probably just using this word in different ways.  Perhaps Natasha is using it the way you are.  If so then I apologize for saying that she was wrong.  I am pretty certain that the page she linked to was using the term my way, and also just mistaken about what evolutionary theory implies about the nature of the disposition to reciprocality.   But terms like 'hardwired' aren't particularly scientific or rigidly defined so there is always this room for misunderstanding.  As long as people aren't drawing the inference that the disposition to reciprocal behavior doesn't need to be taught, or at least to be heavily reinforced by education, I am fine.

P.S. you seem to be assuming that empathy=reciprocality.  After all reciprocality is not mentioned in the quote you posted and empathy is.  But empathy is a disposition to feel certain ways in response to someone else's situation, while reciprocality is a disposition to act in certain ways in response to someone's behavior towards you.  They are certainly related in that empathetic emotional reactions seem like they cause reciprocation, but I take it that they aren't the same thing, and that the neural realizers for one are not necessarily the neural realizers for the other.

[ Parent ]
If We Go Extinct As A Species Because Of Plutocracy & Patriarchy... (0.00 / 0)
then will you admit that they are anti-civilization?

You make a good point, logically.  But Natasha is taking a big-picture empirical viewpoint, which I'd rather not see tested to its logical endpoint, thank you very much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Probably not as I will be dead. (0.00 / 0)
But seriously, what kind of question is this?  

I say that there is no evidence that plutocracy and patriarchy tend towards the destruction of civilization, and in response you ask 'When it does destroy civilization will you admit that it destroys civilization?'  Do you mean when there is evidence that it does what Natasha says I will admit that there is evidence?  Sure.  Of course saying 'When' rather than 'if' just sort of begs the question against my position, assuming that it is clearly false.

I was surprised by the paucity of this response, because you are a smart person, so I wondered whether the same thing might be going on here that I think might be going on with my disagreement with Sadie Baker, that we are talking past each other.

In particular I wonder whether you all are working with a more normatively loaded conception of civilization than I am.  So let me say what I think goes into to something being a civilization.  Civlizations, I take it, are social groups in which large numbers of people are organized towards common goals, regulate their behavior in accordance with commonly accepted rules, are self-conscious of themselves in way that involves record keeping (whether this happens using writing or oral traditions is not particularly relevant I would think), characterized by urbanization and specialization of labor, and things of this nature.

On the conception of civilization I am using there are some clear threats to civilization.  Nuclear holocaust, Global Warming, foreign policy of major world powers being predicated on Christian millienialism, and things like this.   I think it is pretty clear that patriarchy and plutocracy do not threaten civilization as I, and I think a lot of other people, conceive of it.  After all civilization has spread and thrived in contexts heavily characterized by patriarchy and plutocracy.  It is so clear that patriarchy and plutocracy don't threaten civilization so considered that I suspect you having in mind something else.

Maybe you meant 'civilization' in way that builds progressive values into the concept.  Maybe you think equity and fairness are part of civilization, so that a social order characterized by a complete lack of these values wouldn't count as civilized.  So I would count Orwell's 1984  as a civilization, just a horrifyingly unjust one.  Maybe you wouldn't count it as civilized at all.  If this is the source of the disagreement then it isn't much of a disagreement.  I have already admitted that patriarchy and plutocracy lead to deep injustice and suffering.

The other thing I have in mind is that you think there is some clear connection between plutocracy and patriarchy and the kinds of things I mentioned (nuclear holocaust, global warming and the like).  I think this is less than clear.  Further I think arguing against plutocracy and patriarchy by linking them to apocalyptic scenarios misses the central moral point.  Patriarchy and plutocracy are wrong in themselves.  Maybe they cause terrible calamities and maybe they don't.  But whether or not they do, the actions necessary for the maintenance of these forms of exploitation are in themselves immoral.  There is no need to engage in empirically unsupported conjecture to show that they are wrong.  The apocalyptic claims that you make Paul (in fairness Natasha hasn't made a claim anywhere near as bold as the one you are making) just open up a new area of weakness.  Conservatives can then point to all sorts of historical examples where you have stable civilized (in my sense) patriarchal plutocratic societies.  The case from the beginning should be that telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is wrong, because it violates their rights and involves not treating them like people.  Whether or not this will lead to extinction or anarchy, it is wrong.

In other words more John Rawls, less Mad Max

[ Parent ]
wish there was an edit option (0.00 / 0)
there are typographical errors that affect the meaning of the sentences significantly.  most importantly I do not mean to attribute the view to you that I actually do attribute to you in the last paragraph.  I just meant to say that this was one thing you might be thinking.
[ Parent ]
definitions differ (0.00 / 0)
I will posit that the term "civilization" probably has different interpretations depending if the narrater is a beneficiary of oppressive authoritarian policy or a victim.

Considering that these systems have many more victims, and given the empathy inherant in all progressives, my vote is that to be considered civilized, government must include justice for all.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
Hardwired (0.00 / 0)
There are exceptions in every population, I'd hope one presumes that when speaking broadly, as opposed to writing a more technical paper, that this is taken for granted. To say, in general terms, that the cells of the body are pre-programmed to die either after a certain amount of time, or cell divisions, or on being exposed to certain chemical signals, is not invalidated by pointing out that cancer cells don't behave like this. Yes, it makes the point imprecise, but there are times when calling up every special case hinders rather than helps a discussion.

As to hardwiring, yes, it's a very imprecise term. But there's evidence that children understand the concept of fairness and cheating when they're pre-verbal. Most people have floods of positive chemical rewards course through our bodies when we see people helping each other, when we help others, or when we bond with a partner. Everywhere in the world, we live together in groups larger than families, organized around some sort of reciprocity. We rarely just wander into the woods  or off on the plains to live utterly alone--that would be deeply bizarre behavior in any society. We near universally fear exile, one of the oldest punishments we have.

Indeed, some of the most obvious standouts among the developmentally atypical are those along the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum. Evidence is that they're more limited in both mirroring and the chemical rewards that come with the usual socialization experiences. With more limited ability to copy, and less ability to have what they should copy biochemically reinforced as a positive, they often flounder socially even when very bright. For this reason alone, I'd agree that positive sociality needs to be explicitly taught rather than left to happenstance, but that autistic spectrum people are usually so identifiable even when socialized with everyone else, and biologically distinct in what would seem to be minor ways, it seems silly to me to say that this is all environmental or cultural.  

Such overwhelming tendencies, with billions of examples, is that an accident? No one goes insane because they aren't allowed non-consensual sex, that's blithering. But a lack of social contact can literally kill, or permanently damage the development of young children, it can unrecoverably shatter the mind of an adult.

That doesn't mean we're all little fuzzy balls of sunshine radiating love in all directions. It's just as true to say that we also still have very primitive, tribalist conceptions of 'us vs them' that allow us to be terribly cruel to each other.

There's evidence that high empathy is what allows some sociopaths to better predict how to take advantage of others, but they still have a seemingly innate capacity to understand the rules of the reciprocity they're violating. Enough to know that there's a breaking point past which even the strong tendency to trust, maintain relationships and try to get along with each other won't hold and they'll make an actual enemy.

True, societies have been organized along oligarchic and patriarchal lines for a long time, but they are also always carefully balanced along a knife edge of revolt. The aristocrat has to offer protection, the patriarch sustenance, in sufficient proportion to compensate for the unfairness of restricting the freedoms of their social partners, and the reason it works, I'd argue, is  because the sociality of human nature is a huge counterweight to having people just walk away like most other kinds of animals would. It operates within a social context to say, 'I'm stealing something from you and I can force you to put up with it because you have nowhere else to go,' but it also violates the spirit of the biochemical joy that forms the basis of that bond.

To make people choose between going against their natures and putting up with unfairness is anti-social, imo. It stifles the development of those bonds, distorts them. And as Rosenberg notes, such behavior is destroying our civilization, as it has destroyed many others in the past.

[ Parent ]
Confirmation (0.00 / 0)
I am getting more and more certain that 'hardwired' means something different for you and people like Sadie Barker than it does for me.  Or at least that we are intending to express different claims in using the word.  For instance when you ask whether all the biological facts you cite could just be an accident, I immediately thought to myself, of course not.  Or at least that is so unlikely it is not really worth considering.  But again whether or not it is accidental has nothing to do with whether it is hardwired, as I understand it.  Those facts just go towards showing that when we act a certain way, it is because of the kinds of processes that biologists study.  It rules out, or nearly rules out all sorts of old supernatural accounts of what goes on when we think and act, but I don't accept those accounts anyway (except when it comes to consciousness).  I am not a supernaturalist about this stuff.  When we act our actions have biological causes which involve certain neurons firing and not others, and streams of certain hormones and not others.  I accept that at root psychological explanation and social explanation is biological.  But since 'having a biological cause' and 'being a genetic predisposition' are completely independent properties, we are just talking past each other.  I can see now why someone would use a term like 'hardwired' to mean the former and not the latter.

What is more interesting is the stuff about reciprocality being necessary for civilization.  You give the example of aristocrats and other such powerful people having to give back a bit to effectively get away with all the thieving and oppressing they do.  And I would agree, but find it deeply odd to call this reciprocation.  It strikes me a lot more like bribery.  I don't think they do this out of empathy or the appreciation of the unfairness of what they are doing.  They do it because they realize that at the end of the day a   million hungry people beat a thousand armed thugs.

Now does this way of dealing with people, giving them only enough so that they don't rebel, pervert the natural relationship between people?  Sure.  I don't think that is the most morally relevant point to make (it seems like the suffering of the oppressed and not the lack of their good relationship with the oppressors is the most morally salient feature of such situations), but it is undoubtedly true.  Will this perversion of good healthy interpersonal relationships lead to the extinction of humanity?  Certainly  not.  But then again that was Paul's claim not yours.

You say that these anti-social behaviors are destroying our civilization.  And here we have more certainty that earlier I was talking past you.  You mean by 'civilization' something like 'culture' or 'way of life' or something like that I take it.  If that is what you mean then of course it makes sense to say that anti-social behavior is destroying our civilization.   But it would be destroying the existing civilization and that civilization would be replaced by another, just as previous civilizations have been destroyed and replaced.  You aren't claiming what I thought you were claiming, which is that human society on a level above hunter-gathering was going to be destroyed.  But American, or Western civilization would be.  

And I have to confess in my more reflective moments, I am not sure whether our civilization deserves to survive.  I am quite certain its survival is not good for the rest of the people in the world.

Anyway I hope I understand you better now.

[ Parent ]
"Like I said I appreciate the point of posts like this. And so I am not arguing with the overall picture. " (0.00 / 0)
If it's all wrong, why don't you argue against it?
[ Parent ]
Because it isn't all wrong (0.00 / 0)
Most of it is just not put in a way that makes immediate sense to me.  The only part I am sure is all wrong is inessential to the main point and is actually only asserted in a linked article.
[ Parent ]
Beautifully Said, Natasha (4.00 / 1)
Your description of the situation is very compelling. While I suspect PTMs nitpicks have their points, as rhetoric it absolutely is true that politicians who are for the masses probably are more humane, more creative, and do far more good for more people than politicians and judges who are in it for themselves and for narrow economic interests such as corporations. Appealing to our better angels, as you have, really is the only way out because that appeal provides direction for positive action and results. You've hit on a very powerful way to draw lines in this debate.

Oddly enough, walking to the store yesterday with my 13-year old daughter who is on the edge of adulthood, she asked one of those questions whose answers lead directly to adulthood: why do we need money? why can't we just trust each other, provide for ourselves and for each other without the bother of money? Her question made me extremely happy: she begins from a positive view of what is possible in this world.

The world can be a very shitty place and so it is important to cheer on people like you, Natasha, who manage to come up with such a humane and constructive way to look at the world. Thank you for that.

The Destruction of Reciprocity | 22 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox