A R T I C L E

.45Creative Altruism: The Prospects for aCommon Humanity in the Age ofGlobalization

Jay Weinstein Eastern Michigan UniversityUSA

Journal of Futures Studies, August 2004, 9(1): 45 - 58

For better or worse, humanity is now becoming aunitary whole in an important and unprecedented way.Many names have been given to this process; andbecause names create realities, it matters very muchwhich one we use. Some, beginning with the sociolo-gist Harold Innes and his student Marshall McLuhan, seeit as a movement toward a global village. Architect andfuturist Buckminster Fuller referred to the SpaceshipEarth. Now current in many quarters is the term global-ization. Some, with good reason, speak of capitalistimperialism. Others say modernization, Westernization,

Postmodernization, or internationalization. SociologistGeorge Ritzer has influenced many with his evocativeterm, McDonaldization.

For the purposes of this discussion, we have cho-sen an alternative formulation, one that might help usto avoid some of the unwanted connotations that "glob-alization" and the other terms carry. This is the processof coming to species consciousness. The phrase charac-terizes an evolutionary movement toward a state inwhich every member of the species Homo sapiens isaware that – beyond all secular differences – a common

Abstract

This essay examines some of the ways in which applied sociology can contribute to the repertoire ofresponses that are available to those seeking to maximize the social benefits and minimize the social costs asso-ciated with the phenomenon commonly referred to as "globalization." Based on the later work of Pitirim A.Sorokin – founder and first Chair of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, we propose to revitalizethe concept of creative altruism and to promote its widespread adoption as a tool of planned socioculturalchange. In the course of this discussion, we focus on the relationship between altruism and "coming to speciesconsciousness," as understood by classical philosophers and the earliest sociologists, by Sorokin himself, and bycontemporary researchers – especially Kristin Renwick Monroe. We conclude that the ideal of one world atpeace can be achieved – and, indeed must be achieved when the alternatives are considered – through the con-scientious application of altruistic thought and practice.

Journal of Futures Studies

46

humanity exists and demands to be treated asone.

Highlights in the History of the Idea

The idea of species consciousness hasbeen expressed in many different cultures andhistorical eras. One of its most powerful state-ments is found in the Ethics, written in 1677 bythe Dutch-born philosopher Baruch (Benedictde) Spinoza. According to Spinoza, underlyingall of the diversity that characterizes the variousnations and ethnicities of the world, there is afundamental "harmony." He believed that thisharmony could be understood if we think clear-ly about the nature of humanity, and that itwould be realized if and when people act rea-sonably toward one another. "Nothing can be inmore harmony with the nature of any giventhing than other individuals of the samespecies," Spinoza wrote. "Therefore for man inthe preservation of his being and the enjoymentof the rational life there is nothing more usefulthan his fellow-man who is led by reason"(Ethics Part IV, Appendix: proposition IX).

The Possibility of Species Consciousness

Spinoza and those who embrace his view-point believe that a species consciousness ispossible; in fact, they assume that it is inherentin human nature. They also realize, however,that it is not automatic. For there are manyforces arrayed against it, including habit, super-stition, and prevailing public opinion, that mustbe overcome before we can understand our-selves "under the form of eternity."1 This is animportant point to remember as we considerthe possible outcomes of the rapid socioculturalchanges now underway. That is, if we are goingto achieve species consciousness, somethingmust be done: a program must be created andimplemented to bring it about.

Spinoza chose to emphasize a programthat involved a turn toward what he called "rea-son." This concept suggests that if one thinksabout the human condition in a clear and order-ly way it becomes apparent that every individual

person is part of a larger, effective whole. Toparaphrase the words of the poet John Donne:No one is an island. No one stands alone.

Unfortunately, from a contemporary stand-point, "reason" is an outmoded term that nowcan mean just about anything one chooses. Forexample, it can be argued that it is reasonablefor a person or group to commit genocide, pro-vided that the deed is planned clearly and sys-tematically (logically).2 Today, the program thatwill help us realize our common humanity mustgive directives that are far more specific than"be rational," even if we do understand whatSpinoza really meant in his arguments againstirrational philosophies and theologies.3

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant(who lived during the era of the American andFrench Revolutions) was not the first writer toattempt to improve upon Spinoza's program,but he is certainly among the best rememberedand most widely read. Kant believed that thereexist certain moral standards - rules of right andwrong – that allow people to understand them-selves "under the form of eternity." These rulesare absolute, or "categorical," in that they arevalid everywhere and always. In addition, suchrules are expressed in the form of a command,as an "imperative," because one cannot avoidacting in the way(s) they stipulate and still beconsidered an ethical person. In his Foundationfor the Metaphysic of Morals (1838[1961]: 581-82), Kant notes that an

[I]mperative is Categorical [when] it concerns notthe matter of action, or its intended result, but itsform and the principle of which it is itself a result;and what is essentially good in it consists in themental disposition, let the consequence be what itmay. This imperative may be called that ofMorality.In recognizing the importance of eternal,

moral rules in the movement toward a speciesconsciousness, Kant goes beyond the assertionthat "reason" is all that is required to understandand achieve a common humanity. For onething, because our actions must be rule gov-erned, the movement is viewed as normativeand thus requires learning. It may be true thatthe potential to understand ourselves as partsof a physical and spiritual whole is inborn, or at

Creative Altruism

47

least intuitive, and that even the youngest chil-dren can grasp the idea. However, by the timemost people reach maturity, they have eitherforgotten or have "unlearned" it - or, it is possi-ble, they never understood it at all.

In any case, Kant implied, people need tolearn, and to learn how to act in accord with,the categorical imperatives. This normativeaspect also allows for the possibility that peoplecan think and behave in a manner that appears"rational" and at the same time act immorally:for example, when orderly, clear thinking never-theless goes against or ignores a key impera-tive. Finally, when the importance of impera-tives is considered, it is obvious that the possi-bility of achieving species consciousness is justthat, a possibility, not something that isinevitable. In brief, reason is necessary, but itmust be guided by the "rules of the game."

Enter AltruismSo, we might ask, did Kant have any partic-

ular moral imperative(s) in mind when he con-nected them to the quest for a commonhumanity? The answer is "yes," he had a veryimportant one in mind. In fact, in keeping withhis view that such moral norms are universaland eternal, he drew upon what we now knowto be a cultural universal: a norm that is part ofthe morality of every human society ever stud-ied.4 Because it is so common, it has beenexpressed in many different ways. Most peoplein the English speaking world know it as theGolden Rule: "do unto other others as youwould have others do unto you." Kant put it thisway (as translated from the original German):"Act only on that maxim whereby you can at thesame time will that it should become a universallaw." In other words, see to it that anything thatyou might do could and should be done byeveryone else in the world.5

Because of Kant's influence in academic cir-cles, his ideas - including his categorical impera-tive - were studied carefully by his contempo-raries; and they have continued to influencesocial thinkers to this day. Two of his contem-poraries in France, Henri Saint-Simon (the older)and August Comte (the younger), worked ondeveloping moral philosophy in what is now a

familiar direction. For in Revolutionary France,Kant's work along with other sources, especiallythe writings of Adam Smith and his students(known collectively as the "Scottish moralist"philosophers), became the foundation for a newfield that Comte called sociology.

Saint-Simon and Comte investigated manyimportant topics, such as the possibility ofstudying human relationships according to thescientific method (another idea that can betraced to Kant). Often overlooked among theirinnovations, however, is their interest in thekind of behavior specified in the Golden Rule,Kant's imperative, and in similar moral norms.From a sociological perspective, such behavioris prosocial – for the collective good. This canbe contrasted with behavior that is selfish -- forthe good of the self. Comte coined the termswhereby we still refer to these contrastingmodes of action: altruism and egoism. UsingComte's word, then, the Golden Rule and thecategorical imperative counsel altruism. Thusthe essential connection was made betweenaltruism, on one hand, and the movementtoward species consciousness, on the other, aconnection of which the French founders ofsociology were well aware.

Comte considered altruism and egoism to be twodistinct motives within the individual. He did notdeny the existence of self-serving motives, even forhelping; the impulse to seek self-benefit and self-gratification he called egoism. But Comte believedthat some social behavior was an expression of anunselfish desire to "live for others." It was this sec-ond type of motivation to benefit others that hecalled altruism (Comte 1851/1875; quoted inBatson 1991: 5).

Summary of the History of the IdeaThe concept of a common humanity with

a consciousness of itself is very old and widelydiscussed. In fact, for many centuries inWestern and Eastern philosophy the idea wasbelieved to be self evident to anyone who couldreason properly. Ultimately, such beliefs weredismissed as too vague and/or ambiguous.However, in several instances, such as inImmanuel Kant's writings on morality, philoso-phers attempted to make the quest for a com-mon humanity more specific. In the early 19th

Journal of Futures Studies

48

century, Kant in particular proposed in hismoral imperative a certain kind of thought andaction that would be an effective means toachieve the goal of species consciousness. Atabout the same time, Auguste Comte, founderof the discipline of sociology, coined the termto refer to such thought and action that is usedto this day: altruism. In this way, the linksbetween a common humanity, species con-sciousness, reason, moral imperatives, andaltruism were forged.

In Karl Marx's revolutionary program tocreate a common humanity, one finds the keyprinciple of a group in-itself. This indicates thatgroup-consciousness, including in this contextspecies-consciousness, is the product of com-mon life conditions plus a shared understandingby members of the group (species) that theyhave common interests - that the wellbeing ofeach depends on the wellbeing of all. Also nec-essary is a common "other" against which thegroup (species) can identify itself. In the case ofthe human species, in particular, this other isnature, with which humanity as a whole canand must cooperate in order to survive andprosper. Because, it appears, the achievementof species consciousness is neither automaticnor inevitable, the need for a program to guidethe quest is once more apparent. In the follow-ing section, we discuss such a program.

Applied Sociology and the Quest fora Common Humanity

Thus far, we have discussed some aspectsof species consciousness and the related con-cept of a common humanity. Our explorationhas also briefly touched on several related ideas,including Kant's imperative, Comte's altruism,and Marx's theories of social change. This hashelped to lay the foundation for addressing fourkey questions that do (or ought to) concernpeople today. These are:

1. What is the alternative to species con-sciousness, and what would the conse-quences be if people did not pursue it?

2. Is altruism real or is it just a dream ofphilosophers?

3. What is the relationship between altru-ism and the quest for a commonhumanity?

4. Assuming that such a quest is possibleand desirable, what needs to be done?

First we consider the first three questionstogether, then we continue with a few addition-al thoughts on each as we attempt to answerthe fourth question.

The AlternativesShort of an enormous and unforeseen

catastrophe, there appears to be nothing thatcan stop the increasing connectedness occur-ring between and among people in all parts ofthe world. Promoted by powerful technologiesand institutions such as the Internet, satellitetelevision, radio, and telephones, the spread ofEnglish as a common world language, commoncurrencies such as the Euro and the dollar, andthe growth, consolidation, and ever-expandingreach of multinational corporations, McLuhan'sglobal village is, or is on the verge of becoming,a reality. Yet, if "village" is the proper metaphor,it is hardly a village at peace.

The social, economic, and political inequal-ities that exist between and within the village's"neighborhoods" range from substantial toenormous and from enormous to (there is noother way to put it) obscene. Some residentsown two or more cars that cost tens of thou-sands of dollars each, whereas others cannoteven afford an ox cart. Many political and reli-gious "leaders" of the village are benefitingmightily, some as never before, by preachinghatred and intolerance of one's neighbors. God'sname is routinely invoked to justify all mannerof murder and mayhem. In some neighbor-hoods, residents are on the verge of starvation,while in others food is thrown away by the ton.

The emerging political system of the vil-lage is highly undemocratic. It is, rather, anautocracy in which those individuals, groups,and geographic regions currently wielding themost power have shaped the system in a waythat will keep them in power well into the fore-seeable future. Free markets and sovereign con-sumers do not characterize the village's emerg-ing economy, as its defenders would like us to

Creative Altruism

49

believe. Nor is the economy the socialistic sys-tem – once embraced by capitalism's critics,which operates according to the principle of"from each according to his abilities and to eachaccording to his needs." Instead, it has thus farproved to be simply a more extended and morecoordinated version of the system of hugemonopolistic corporations that first emerged inthe early twentieth century.6 As the global vil-lage has taken shape, these corporations haveachieved unparalleled political influence. It hasalso become increasingly clear that they areindifferent to the goods and services they actu-ally produce. For their main business is to maxi-mize profits by underpaying and, when desir-able, laying-off workers and by cajoling, tricking,or forcing consumers to buy more and morethings that are less and less important.

The glamorous and seemingly unstop-pable spread of the Internet, cell phones, thedollar, and corporate economics has a another,often unpleasant, side that residents of themore affluent neighborhoods tend to overlook.Along the same channels that bring innovationssuch as satellite TV to the far corners of the vil-lage, great fear and anxiety flow about the lossof traditional, local beliefs and practices.

In response to such fears, the less privi-leged residents seek solace in what they believeto be the past (even if it is a largely mythicalpast). Old languages, art, and music are revivedfrom the brink of extinction; and ethnic powerand "cleansing" movements arise to challengethe cultural homogenization overtaking the vil-lage. Religious fundamentalism is embraced inincreasing numbers by adherents of the village'smajor faiths: Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism,Islam, and in smaller sects and denominationsas well, in response to the forces of seculariza-tion. Nationalism, and its frequent companionmilitarism, experiences a significant revival in anattempt to counter the reach of multinationalinstitutions. These are not aberrations or myste-rious contradictions. Rather, the current growthand popularity of such movements, and thepotential of social conflict that they entail, are asmuch a part of the global village as e-mail orMTV. As Benjamin Barber notes in his widelyread work on this phenomenon, "the two axial

principles of our age – tribalism and globalism –clash at every point except one: they may bothbe threatening to democracy."7

In the absence of species consciousness,there is no reason to believe that current trendswill cease or even slow down. To the contrary, aglobal village that is not a village for-itself isbound to be a village in continual conflict andstrife: autocratic politics, monopolistic econom-ics, exploitation, religious intolerance, inter-eth-nic violence, and militarism. Of course, theseare hardly new problems. But they are seriousand dangerous in a new way when they occurin humanity's one and only village, with noother place to go and no one other than our-selves to whom we can turn for help. That iswhy the need for all people to see themselvesas one has never been more urgent.

Summary of the Research Literature Research in the several fields leaves many

unanswered questions about the reality ofspecies consciousness and altruism.8 The ambi-guity is, in part, the result of differences amongdisciplinary perspectives from which the prob-lem is viewed. Some studies focus on motiva-tion, others do not even see motives as neces-sary; some studies are concerned with thebehavior of individuals, whereas others look tothe group level; etc. Another factor that cannotbe ignored is an ideological tendency to dismissapparently altruistic acts as mere manifestationsof selfishness. Those who take this positiontend to credit themselves as "realists." Yet, onreflection, it seems obvious that no facts or logi-cal arguments will persuade such people thataltruism can sometimes be realistic. Thus, theyactually have little to contribute to seriousresearch on the subject. (see, especially,Monroe, Barton, and Klingermann 1990)

Despite the disciplinary and ideologicalobstacles yet to be overcome, it is obvious thatthe phenomenon of altruism is currently ofinterest to a wide range of scholars in manyfields. Moreover, as our knowledge about altru-ism, egoism, and their sources and conse-quences increases, it becomes increasingly clearthat our behavior toward others is intimatelyconnected to our self-preservation - as individu-

Journal of Futures Studies

50

als, as groups, and as a species. Sociologists andothers are still far from solving all of the riddlesthat are associated with altruism, but a signifi-cant movement among those interested in it istaking shape around the connection betweenpro-social behavior and perceptions of a com-mon humanity. This connection is especiallyimportant in the work of one of the leaders ofthis movement, political psychologist KristenMonroe.

Monroe has provided a significant contri-bution to the literature on altruism. In TheHeart of Altruism: Perceptions of a CommonHumanity, she defines altruism as "behaviorintended to benefit another, even when thisrisks possible sacrifice to the welfare of theactor." (Monroe 1996: 6) Monroe examines thepossible influences that encourage altruism andhighlights the importance of separating this dis-cussion from a rational choice perspective. As astaunch advocate of the plausibility of altruismas part of human nature, Monroe succinctlyargues against the limitations provided byrational choice theorists. (As noted above, thekey to their argument is that egoism is normalbehavior, even in the performance of apparentlyother-directed acts.)

Monroe's work is based on an in-depthstudy of individuals whose behavior can beplaced along a continuum from altruistic to ego-istic and which includes several points inbetween. As in the work of Fogelman (1994)and Oliner and Oliner (1988), Monroe arguesthat the most altruistic individuals are rescuersof Jews during the Holocaust. In addition to therescuers, along the continuum from more-to-less altruistic are heroes, philanthropists, andentrepreneurs. For Monroe, entrepreneurs dis-play the least altruistic behavior. Using thesecategories, she contrasts research findings withtheoretical assumptions based on both rationalchoice and altruistic theories. Her conclusion isthat rational choice theories cannot account forthe behavior of altruists.

Monroe originally believed that the rootsof altruism might be traced to factors such asparental modeling, education, and religion; buther findings did not support this. Rather, shediscovered that what sets the more altruistic

subjects apart from the others is a shared gen-eral perspective, a "cognitive orientation." Sheconcluded that the perspective itself, and notthe specific factors, consistently accounted foraltruism.

For Monroe, the altruistic perspective isbest understood in philosophical and psycho-logical terms, although she uses principles fromother social sciences as well. In fact, the per-spective is quite complex and consists of severalcomponents: cognition and cognitive process-es, expectations, worldviews, empathy, andviews of self. Following is a brief description ofeach of these components.

� Cognition is the process by which indi-viduals make sense of the world. Itconsists of being aware of somethingand making a judgment about it. It alsoaccounts for cultural norms. It allowsone to interpret how altruists see them-selves, as members of a group or as indi-viduals.

� Expectations imply what the altruistexpects will occur under certain circum-stances. These include opinions, beliefs,and stereotypes of what helping means.

� Worldviews consist of people's ideasabout the world and themselves, forexample, how they think about them-selves as individuals and as members ofgroups.

� Empathy is the result of a cognitive andaffective response toward someoneelse's feelings.

� Finally, views of self are related to one'sidentity perception and whether or notit is consistent with behavior.

Based on these components, the mostaltruistic subjects – especially the rescuers –consistently saw themselves as members of ashared humanity. They thought of themselvesas ordinary people who had not done anythingpraiseworthy by saving other people's lives.They exhibited a universalistic worldview, inwhich being part of the human community wasmore important than being part of a just worldor believing in the inherent goodness of people.They understood what is meant to be in need,and therefore felt that they had no choice intheir actions.

Monroe's concept of common humanity

Creative Altruism

51

reinforces the findings of other research onaltruism. For instance, Sorokin noted how his"good neighbors" had a similar attitude towardthe whole world and humanity. Similarly, Olinerand Oliner (1988:84) referred to a kind of cogni-tion or inclusiveness as "a predisposition toregard all people (universally) as equals and toapply similar standards of right and wrong tothem without regard to social status or ethnici-ty." Fogelman, too, discussed the importance of"awareness" or the process of transformationthat a bystander goes through before becominga rescuer. Such awareness signifies that othersare in need and that all should be treated equal-ly. In a broader sense, Monroe's research drawson Kant's categorical imperative, Comte's altru-ism, and Marx's theories of social change, as dis-cussed above.

Monroe's concept at first proved difficultto test empirically. For each of her key compo-nents includes several intricate, multi-leveledvariables. However, her more recent research(Monroe 2001) suggests further ways to analyzethe altruistic perspective, in the context of res-cue behavior and other uncalculated, sponta-neous acts. Although this is highly analyticalwork, rooted in psychological, linguistic, andpsychoanalytic theories, it does provide a clear-er understanding of the interconnectionsamong altruism, morality, and our sense ofselves. In particular, she has discovered that"morality is driven not by ratiocination or reli-gion but by identity and perceptions of self inrelation to others." (Monroe 2001:491) That is,the human need for consistency and self-esteem, and our desire to be treated by othersas we treat them, result in a "universal entitle-ment." This is an entitlement to extend univer-sal rights to others (compare with Kant's cate-gorical imperative); and, according to Monroe,it is what drives people to be moral actors.

Elements of the ProgramIf it is both desirable and possible for peo-

ple, everywhere, to become more altruistic,then the next step is to advance the programmeant to achieve this goal, the program begunby Spinoza, Kant, Comte, and Marx. We havenoted how researchers in several disciplines are

interested in the phenomenon of altruism.However, the field that has the potential tomake one of the most important contributionsto the practical aspects of this research isapplied sociology. There are two main reasonsfor this. First, the field, although labeled "sociol-ogy," is highly interdisciplinary and thus includesinsights and principles from psychology, socialphilosophy, biology, anthropology, and politicalscience.9 Second, sociology was founded byComte and his contemporaries as an appliedfield and with the explicit mission of promotingaltruistic thought, behavior, and institutions.

Many "mainstream" sociologists have, ofcourse, taken the field in different directions.Yet, the original interest in altruism and relatedphenomena has been kept alive, at least at themargins of the discipline and especially amongthose involved in sociological practice. So, wemay ask, is there in applied sociology a programthat links the research of Oliner and Oliner,Fogelman, Monroe, and the others with moralimperatives, altruism, species consciousness,and the human prospect? Our answer to thisquestion is a cautious "yes." Although a com-plete and perfect program has yet to be creat-ed, applied sociology today is well on its way todeveloping a commonly accepted set of ethicaldimensions and/or moral imperatives that fea-ture altruism.10 In fact, a framework for this taskhas already been established.

The framework to which we refer was firstproposed by the sociologist, Pitirim A. Sorokin(1880-1968), whose work was mentioned earlier.Sorokin was the first Chair of the Department ofSociology at Harvard University, and he servedas President of the American SociologicalAssociation in 1964. Among the key conceptsintroduced by him are sensate and ideationalculture types, creative altruism, and integralism.Since Sorokin's death, several studies have sup-plemented his approach, some with explicit ref-erence to him but, because his contributionswere generally ignored, most lacking such cita-tions.11 Among the works that do cite him arethose of Kristen Monroe, especially in relationto her discovery of the important cognitive ori-entation, perception of a common humanity.

Journal of Futures Studies

52

Creative Altruism: A SummaryWe focus here on Sorokin's work at the

Research Center in Creative Altruism at HarvardUniversity to examine his concept of creativealtruism and to indicate how it can be used byapplied sociologists today. Also relevant areSorokin's contributions as viewed by his biogra-pher, Barry V. Johnston. Johnston has statedthat, by the end of his long and productivecareer, Sorokin had arrived at an integrated the-ory of social action and reform. (Johnston 1995:127-28)

[Sorokin's paradigm] frames a universe of dis-course, produces an ontological and epistemologi-cal consensus on the nature of social reality andknowledge; sets malleable boundaries for doingsociology; and emphasizes the application ofknowledge to practical problems of existence.(Johnston 1998: 17)Guided by these principles, applied sociol-

ogists are currently in a position to influencethe movement toward a species consciousnessby practicing what Sorokin preached. That is,the study of creative altruism and the method-ologies to put it into practice are key steps indeveloping a program for our global village thatworks. (Weinstein 2000a: 6)

Following the founding of the ResearchCenter for Creative Altruism at HarvardUniversity in the late 1940s, Sorokin exploredthe principles of a social science based on anintegral philosophy and a new applied science,which he called amitology. (see Sorokin 1954a;b) His integral philosophy, or integralism, is pre-sented as the solution to problems associatedwith the most recent stage of a long historicalcycle. This cycle is comprised of three alternat-ing types of cultures: the sensate, the dominanttype in the contemporary Western world; theideational, characterized by spirituality andaltruism; and the idealistic, a transitional stagethat occurs between the other two. These aredescribed and illustrated extensively in his com-prehensive four-volume study, Social andCultural Dynamics. (Sorokin 1962; also seeJohnston 1995: 143-49) Sorokin believed thatthe present stage, which he further defined ascynical or late sensate, is on the verge ofdecline and that a new, idealistic stage might be

emerging (if it could be helped along). According to Sorokin, each type of culture

is characterized by a particular way of knowingabout reality. The sensate stage is characterizedby the core belief that truth is based on thesenses alone. This is opposed to both the truthof reason and a supersensory truth, which per-meate the idealistic and ideational types of cul-tures. By the rule of "logico-meaningful" affinity,whereby specific cultural traits reflect the mas-ter values, the sensate stage is dominated bymaterialism, greed, and egoism.

With the help of philanthropist Eli Lilly andothers, Sorokin founded the Center to combatthe exclusive role played by sensate beliefs andpractices in contemporary society. In theirplace, he sought to promote behavior based onaltruistic values and integralism, which com-bines all three ways of knowing reality. (the sen-sory, the rational, and the super-rational) Thiscombination is the hallmark of idealistic culture.To Sorokin, the time had come to do some-thing about transforming society through theapplication of integralism, to act in a reconstruc-tive way. (Johnston 1995: 127, 128, 240)

As Johnston (1995: 204) observes, howev-er, "the research of the Center failed to start asignificant mass movement or to institutionalizethe study of altruism in the social sciences." Thesociological community showed little interest inaltruism, integralism, or the reconstruction ofsociety. In fact Sorokin's work, especially theearlier volumes of Dynamics, was criticized asmetaphysical. Johnston (1995: 174) suggests thereason for this negative reaction:

Sorokin's methods simply will not sustain his argu-ments with the precision he desires...what he hasproduced in Dynamics and the works that followis a broad and valuable philosophy of history. It isa start, not a science...As Johnston also points out, the critics

failed to see that in the fourth volume ofDynamics Sorokin had arrived at integralism, atheory of social reform. It appears that by thenthe intellectual community was no longer inter-ested. Nevertheless, many sociologists nowbelieve that the time has come to continue thework that began with Sorokin's explorations.Clearly, given the nature of today's social prob-

Creative Altruism

53

lems and the challenges of the global village, itmight be wise at least to consider what Sorokincalled "positive types of social phenomena." For,as he argued, too much of social science hasfocused on negative types:

A scientific study of positive types of social phe-nomena is a necessary antidote to that of negativetypes of our cultural, social and personal world.The moral effect alone fully justifies a furtherinvestigation of persons and groups of good willand good deeds.(Sorokin 1950: 87)

Amitological PrinciplesThe activist part of Sorokin's program was

the development of amitology, the appliedaspect of integralism. Sorokin defines amitologyin Forms and Ways (1951) as: "The applied sci-ence or art of developing friendship, mutual aidand love in individual and intergroup relations."If the goals of amitology are to be achieved,Sorokin noted, not only is it necessary to inves-tigate altruistic phenomena, but altruistic actsmust be practiced by ordinary people involvedin common social settings. Sorokin wrote inAltruistic Love (Sorokin 1950: 10), referring tothe altruistic activities of "good-neighbors":

Great altruists alone cannot supply even the veryminimum of love and mutual help necessary forany surviving society...it is furnished by thousandsand millions of our plain "good-neighbors." Eachgiving a modest contribution of love, in their totali-ty they produce an enormous amount of "loveenergy". Without this moral foundation of thedeeds of the "good-neighbors" no society can besatisfactory.At the Center, Sorokin produced his major

works on altruism, from which we can drawsome of his definitions.12 In Reconstruction(Sorokin 1948), he defines altruism as

the action that produces and maintains the physi-cal and/or psychological good of others. It isformed by love and empathy, and in its extremeform may require the free sacrifice of self foranother.In Altruistic Love (Sorokin 1950), he charac-

terizes "good neighbors" along these lines:A quest for sympathy, understanding, and encour-agement – the desire to find a co-sympathizer ineither despair or loneliness – is just as strong inhuman beings as the need for food or clothing.These comments obviously point to the

importance of altruistic phenomena. However,if such ideas are to aid in our quest for a globalvillage at peace, we must first teach and learnabout their underlying values and positiveeffects. Our schools and colleges must developand offer courses that focus on the teachings ofaltruism. Then, on this informed basis, wemight try to modify our culture and social insti-tutions by acting through the concerted actionsof individuals united as groups.

Degrees of Altruism in the Work ofSorokin and Monroe

We have reviewed some of the literatureon altruism principally to stress the importanceof learning and teaching about it, and the waysin which we might approach practicing it in thereal world. Of course, many people are alreadyaltruistically inclined; but the philosophy andtechniques of altruism are rarely if ever part ofour formal education. Even more serious is thefact that most people, even those who studysociology, have not had the opportunity toreflect on the phenomenon. One gets theimpression that when people hear about altru-ism, they either disregard it as unimportant, orthey believe that it is unattainable.13

Taken as a whole, Sorokin, Monroe, andthe research literature on the subject, in gener-al, strongly indicate that various degrees of altru-ism exist; and much human behavior can beexplored along the diverse range encompassedby the concept and phenomenon. This, in turn,suggests the need to invent more effective tech-niques for ennobling human beings, and,through these perfected techniques andincreased knowledge, it will become possible todevelop appropriate strategies for plannedsocial change (Sorokin 1948: 234). Finally, inorder for our techniques and plans to be trulyeffective, we must show not only that they areimportant to pursue, but also that they work.Although we have seen that much research andrelated work remain to be done, consideringthe centrality of the concept of altruism in thesocial science tradition and the current state ofaffairs in the world, it seems well worth theeffort.

The observation that there are degrees of

Journal of Futures Studies

54

altruistic behavior – that might be measuredalong a continuum – is tied to a contrastbetween the "rational" actors of classical eco-nomic theory and altruists. Monroe has pointedout that rational choice theories, which equateseemingly altruistic behavior with acts pursuedsolely for extrinsic rewards, cannot account foraltruism. Not all normal human behavior con-sists of the pursuit of individual self-interest.You will recall that, based on her research, thefactor that best explains altruism is a cognitiveorientation, one that is not considered in ration-al choice or related theories: the perception of acommon humanity.

While there are clear cognitive influences on altru-ism, the influence does not take the form tradition-ally suggested in the literature. Instead, the rele-vant cognitive component centered more on altru-ist's world views and canonical expectations aboutwhat constitutes normal behavior and on theirperceptions of a shared humanity (Monroe 1996:197, our emphasis).Monroe's ideas about what it means to

perceive a shared or common humanity shouldsound a familiar note by now. A worldview is"important to the extent to which it provides asense of connectedness to others ... a percep-tion of self at one with all mankind ... a differentway of seeing things."

It is not any mystical blending of the self withanother; rather it is a very simple but deeply feltrecognition that we all share certain characteris-tics and are entitled to certain rights, merely byvirtue of our common humanity. It constitutes apowerful statement about what it means to be acommon humanity (Monroe 1996: 206).In directly addressing the question of

degrees of altruism, Monroe (1996:7) observesthat "the world is not divided into altruists andnon-altruists." Rather, pure self-interestedbehavior and pure altruism are the two poles ofher continuum, and normal behavior generallyoccurs at some point between them. Somepeople "engage in quasi-altruistic behavior, inother words, without being altruists." And, inher analysis, quasi-altruistic behavior is normalbehavior that exhibits some but not all of thedefining characteristics of altruism. Based on aseries of intense, in-depth interviews with sever-al ordinary people and "good-neighbors," she

delineated three broad categories of quasi-altru-istic motivation: (1) spontaneity, (2) lack ofchoice, and (3) the constancy and universality ofthe altruistic bond (Monroe 1996: 234).

Similarly, Sorokin (1950: 39) found that"...the majority of 'good-neighbors' have a simi-lar attitude toward the whole world andhumanity."

They are not notable altruists; but all in all theyare seemingly above the average in their altruisticactivities and "good-neighborliness." Most of themdo not look heroic in their good deeds. Their altru-ism is plain and fairly ordinary. It is however,real...their plain good deeds make the moral foun-dation of any society (Sorokin 1950: 7-10).These findings bear on recent and future

research in sociology and other fields. Forexample, we might narrow our focus to thestudy of particular degrees of altruism (from"pure" egoism to "pure" altruism) and variousbehavioral patterns (spontaneity, lack of choice,constancy, and universality) along Monroe'scontinuum. Also, we might concentrate on spe-cific social contexts. Thus, on the high end ofthe scale of Monroe's altruism, we might studyauthentic heroes. Or, on the low end, we mayprefer to focus on the type of persons who weare more likely to encounter in day-to-day inter-actions.

Conclusion: Altruism and the GlobalVillage

Popular culture and perspectives likerational choice theory would have us believethat altruism as something dangerous, impossi-ble or, at best, of little practical value. Yet, a con-siderable amount of research in several fieldshas demonstrated that it is real and that it hasan important role to play in human relations. Infact, the theories of Sorokin, Monroe, and oth-ers have suggested that altruism can mitigate ifnot solve many of the social problems encoun-tered today, including such controversial issuesas religious and ethnic intolerance, family crisis,health care, and homelessness. More than acentury after Comte's death and decades afterSorokin's, the study of altruism is now begin-ning to make inroads into our educational sys-

Creative Altruism

55

tem, while people everywhere are beginning totake altruism seriously as a behavioral option to"rational selfishness."

Sociology in general and applied sociologyin particular has a major role to play in thesechanges. For there is obviously a close connec-tion between prosocial behavior and the beliefthat all humans have common needs and inter-ests. Moreover, the existence of a commonhumanity is a core belief among sociologists.Indeed the sociological enterprise is premisedon the view that as a species humanity is essen-tially one, but that socialization and other socio-cultural forces create profound differencesamong us. Those who teach sociology havenothing to teach if it isn't this: Whereas thereare degrees of altruism, the idea of "degrees" ofhumanity, from less to more, higher to lower,etc. has no scientific basis.

In this light, all of us, experts and layper-sons alike, would benefit substantially from fur-ther study of Monroe's observation that per-spective promotes altruism. The perceptionthat a common humanity exists and the type ofthinking related to this perception can lead toaltruistic behavior. This is an especially impor-tant task because intolerance, homelessness,and many other of today's social problems arecaused or intensified by egocentric, self-inter-ested behavior and the perception of somepeople that others are less than human. Manyproblems can be solved if we follow Kant's cate-gorical imperative. We know that people in situ-ations of conflict often do forget that we are allhuman. They tend to deal with others in termsof stereotypes or as enemies. The failure to rec-ognize our common humanity does stand inthe way of effective resolution of a large propor-tion of the problems faced in today's society.

The mission to insert into our practicalwork the imperative that others are no lesshuman than ourselves is both timely and poten-tially effective. And it may be an important steptoward improving human relations before itreally is too late. Of course, as is true of otherwell-intended programs, this is much easier saidthan done. In this case, there are several obsta-cles to putting these sound - but not especiallynovel - ideas into practice. One is the tenacity of

egoistical models in the social sciences and inculture generally, and the consequent failure togrant altruism a serious role in human affairs.Strong opposition to altruism exists in beliefssuch as those outlined above. That is, in ourtype of culture altruism is understood to bedeviant behavior.

"Good neighbors" and saints are deviants whorise above the level of moral conduct demandedby the official law. Their actions are "superlegal."Some of these superlegal actions do not conflictwith the official law; others result in conflictbetween the good-neighbors and saints on the onehand, and the official law and government on theother (Sorokin 1950: 208).Sorokin believed that the more altruistic a

person is, the more likely he or she is to comein conflict with society's prevailing norms. Healso thought that altruistic people are more like-ly to come in conflict with others who, for onereason or another, feel uncomfortable aboutaltruistic behavior. Thus, learning about altru-ism also entails trying to understand why altru-ism is viewed as a threat.

Can there be a pure and lofty altruism, not gener-ating collision and conflict...tentatively, the answeris that there is such a way, but that it requiresamong other conditions, an extension of our "in-group" feelings to all humanity; and this extensionmust be real, manifested not only in our speechreactions but in our entire behavior...Jesus rightlysaid that he brought not only peace but also thesword. So does any unselfish person or deed!(Sorokin 1950: 83-84)As we gain a better understanding of why

some people are more altruistic than othersand what shapes altruistic acts may take, stereo-types will cease to limit our ability to resolvemany of today's problems such as sexism or eth-nic conflict. Learning about "good neighbors" asdeviants may reveal much about the moral val-ues and ethical boundaries of ordinary people.By insisting that we are all human beings, allpart of one world, we may be able to be moreeffective actors. We would then be prepared tomeet the challenges of this late sensate era and,at last, to realize the promise sensed by the firstsociological students of altruism, especiallyComte. That is, the promise of what Sorokin(1948: 225) called "the ennoblement of humanpersonality."

Journal of Futures Studies

56

The practice of kindness and love is one of the besttherapies for many mental disorders; for the elimi-nation of sorrow, loneliness and unhappiness; forthe mitigation of hatred and other antisocial ten-dencies, and, above all, for the ennoblement ofhuman personality, for release in man of his cre-ative forces, and for the attainment of union withGod and peace with oneself, others, and the uni-verse.

CorrespondenceWeinst@aol.com

Notes1. Spinoza's idea of species consciousness is

also expressed in his argument that the phys-ical unity of humanity is reflected in its uni-tary mind, "under the form of eternity." "Themind does not conceive anything under theform of eternity, except in so far as it con-ceives its own body under the form of eterni-ty." (Ethics, Part V, proposition XXIX)

2. The sociologists Max Weber and KarlMannheim, among others, attempted to res-cue the related concept of "rationality" by dis-tinguishing between (1) acts (or thoughts)that are rational in relation to a specific taskand (2) those that are rational in relation to awidely accepted system of values. In thisway, the clear and orderly pursuit of geno-cide might be considered rational in the firstsense but irrational in the second, becausegenocide is widely viewed as immoral. It hasnow become clear that the situation is morecomplex than that, and that there are manylevels of rationality. For example, the grouppursuing what some would label "genocide"might believe that it is protecting itself froman imminent and evil threat. Thus, in relationto that group's value system, so-called geno-cide is actually self-preservation and a ration-al means to achieve peace and security. Therest of the world might believe that it is irra-tional, but that just increases the complexityof our judgments.

3. Spinoza was hardly the first philosopher toargue that the unitary nature of humanity isobvious to anyone who thinks clearly aboutthe matter. Socrates, the founder of Westernphilosophy, defined "ignorance" as the inabil-ity to conceive of (and act toward) others as

one does of (toward) oneself (see Ozinga1999, especially p. xvi).

4. The question of what constitutes cultural uni-versals and, if they exist, what they are is oneof the most hotly debated issues in social sci-ence. For background on this debate, seeBrown (1991).

5. Thomas Hill (1993) has developed an explicittheoretical linkage between Kant's work andcontemporary approaches to altruism.

6. One of the more recent and most completestudies of the emergence of corporatepower is Derber (2000).

7. Several sociologists and other observers havewritten about the dialectic of globalization,in which cosmopolitan innovations and localreactions to them are viewed as parts of awhole. The basic premise is that modernitydoes not replace tradition; instead it dis-places tradition. In this way, rather than dis-appearing, traditional values and practicesmove over, so to speak, to make room formodern ways. As a result of such coexistencethere is bound to be conflict: action/reaction.An early statement of this view is inWeinstein and McNulty (1980). Also seeWeinstein (1997: Chapter 14). BenjaminBarber (1995) has popularized this perspec-tive in his contrast between "Jihad versusMcWorld."

8. Key works in this surprisingly vast (and grow-ing) body of research literature on altruisminclude Hoffman (1981), Oliner and Oliner(1988), Fogelman (1994), Piliavin and Chang1990), Hutchinson (1993), Staub (1991), andSober and Wilson (1999).

9. As is true of other practice-oriented fields, themain purpose of applied sociology is not toadvance the knowledge base of the disci-pline (although this often happens). Rather, itis to solve practical problems for clients. Butpractical problems (for example, how to bet-ter organize a state-wide childcare program)are just problems and do not come withlabels such as "sociological," or "political."Thus, it is generally necessary for the appliedsociologist to draw on knowledge fromother fields, within a broad sociologicalframework.

10. To many academic social scientists thismight seem a rather strange, if not unap-pealing, project. For it assumes that we canand should agree about the kinds of social

Creative Altruism

57

relations we would like to create or avoid inthe global village. On reflection, however,these concerns make us uncomfortableonly when viewed from a largely outmoded"value free" perspective in which such parti-sanship is to be avoided - not sought out.For today's sociological practitioner, thesearch for the right and the wrong ways toconduct human affairs is no more unusualthan the physician's attempt to definehealth and illness.

11. Among the works of special relevance toour discussion are: Hutchinson (1993),Macaulay (1970), Midlarsky and Kahana(1994), Oliner and Oliner (1988), Paul,Miller, and Paul (1993), Penner (1995),Piliavin and Charng (1990), Rushton (1980),Wildavsky, (1993), and Wispé (1978).

12. August Comte, who coined the term "altru-ism" in the 1850s, believed that some socialbehavior was an expression of an "unselfishdesire to live for others." (Batson 1991)

13. We have noted that "altruism and appositeconcepts have been viewed as 'soft' andmarginal to the main thrust of social scien-tific research." (Weinstein 2000b)

ReferencesBarber, Benjamin R. 1995. Jihad Vs McWorld.

New York: Times Books.Batson, C. Daniel. 1991. The Altruism Question:

Toward a Social Psychological Answer.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence ErlbaumAssociates.

Brown, Donald. 1991. Human Universals.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Comte, I. Auguste. [1851] 1875. System ofPositive Philosophy (Vol. 1) London:Longmans, Green & Co.

Derber, Charles. 2000. Corporation Nation:How Corporations are Taking Over OurLives and What We Can Do About It.New York: St. Martins Griffin

Fogelman, Eva. 1994. Conscience and Courage.New York: Anchor Books.

Hill, Thomas E., Jr. 1993. "Beneficence and Self-Love: A Kantian Perspective." In EllenFrankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and JeffreyPaul, Eds. Altruism. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hoffman, Martin L. 1977. "Personality and SocialDevelopment." Annual Review of Sociology

28 (29): 5-321.Hutchinson, Elizabeth, ed. 1993. Social Service

Review 67, 3. Special Issue: Altruism.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Johnston, Barry V. 1995. Pitirim A. Sorokin: AnIntellectual Biography. Lawrence Kansas:University Press of Kansas.

_____. 1998. "Pitirim A. Sorokin and SociologicalTheory for the Twenty-First Century."Michigan Sociological Review 12 (Fall): 1-23.

Kant, Immanuel. 1838 [1961]. "Foundation forthe Metaphysic of Morals." In W.Kaufman, Ed., Philosophical Classics:Bacon to Kant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Macaulay, Jacqueline. 1970. Altruism andHelping Behavior: Social PsychologicalStudies of Some Antecedants andConsequences. New York: AcademicPress.

Midlarsky, Elizabeth and Eva Kahana. 1994.Altruism in Later Life. Thousand OaksCA: Sage Publications.

Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 1996. The Heart ofAltruism: Perceptions of a CommonHumanity. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

_____. 2001. "Morality and a Sense of Self: TheImportance of Identity and Categorizationfor Moral Action." American Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol.45, No.3: 491 -507.

Monroe, Kristen Renwick, M.C. Barton, and U.Klingermann(Eds). 1990. "Altruism andthe Theory of Rational Action: Rescuersof Jews in Nazi Europe." Ethics (October):103-22.

Oliner, Samuel P., and Pearl M. Oliner. 1988.The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers ofJews in Nazi Europe. New York: FreePress.

Ozinga, James R. 1999. Altruism. Westport,Conn.: Praeger.

Paul, Ellen Frankel, Fred D. Miller Jr., and JeffreyPaul (eds). 1993. Altruism. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Penner, Paul S. 1995. Altruistic Behavior: AnInquiry into Motivation. Amsterdam andAtlanta: Ropi B. V.

Piliavin, Jane Allyn and Hong-Wen Chang. 1990."Altruism: A Review of Recent Theoryand Research." In W. Richard Scott andJudith Blake, eds., Annual Review of

Journal of Futures Studies

58

Sociology 16: 27-65.Rushton, J. Philippe. 1980. Altruism, Socialization,

and Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Sober, Elliott and David S. Wilson. 1998. UntoOthers: The Evolution and Psychology ofUnselfish Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1941. Crisis of Our Age. NewYork: Dutton.

_____. 1948. The Reconstruction of Humanity.Boston: Beacon Press.

_____. 1950. Altruistic Love: A Study ofAmerican "Good Neighbors" andChristian Saints. Boston: Beacon Press.

_____. 1954a. Forms and Techniques ofAltruistic and Spiritual Growth: ASymposium. Boston: Beacon Press.

_____. 1954b. The Ways and Power of Love.Boston: Beacon Press.

_____. 1962 [1937-41]. Social and CulturalDynamics. Vol.4. New York: BedminsterPress.

Spinoza, Baruch (Benedict de). 1677. Ethics.Translated from the Latin by R.H.M.Elwes (1883). MTSU Philosophy Web-Works Hypertext Edition © 1997.

Staub, Ervin. 1991. "Altruistic and MoralMotivations for Helping and TheirTranslation into Action." PsychologicalInquiry 2 (2):150-53.

Weinstein, Jay. 1997. Social and CulturalChange: Social Science for a DynamicWorld. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

_____. 2000a (April). "Creative Altruism: AClassical Theoretical Framework forContemporary Applied Sociology."Presented at 2000 meeting of the NorthCentral Sociological Association.Pittsburgh, PA.

_____. 2000b. "Creative Altruism: RestoringSorokin's Applied Sociology." Journal ofApplied Sociology 17 (1): 86-117.

Weinstein, Jay and Michael McNulty. 1980. "TheInterpenetration of Traditional andModern Structures: A Spatial Perspective,"Studies in Comparative InternationalDevelopment XV, 2 (Summer): 36-48.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1993. "On the SocialConstruction of Distinction: Risk, Rape,Public Goods, and Altruism." In MichaelHechter, Lynn Nadel, and Richard E.Michod, eds., The Origin of Values. New

York: de Gruyter.Wispé, Lauren (ed). 1978. Altruism, Sympathy,

and Helping: Psychological andSociological Principles. New York:Academic Press.