| |
Contributions from
the Column
Books and Media
The making of Global Finance
HIPC Debt Relief - Myths and Reality
Humankind and sustainable solidarity
Security sector reform
Poverty and human rights abuses
03/2005 |
|
Solidarity: sober assessment
Johannes Müller, Michael Reder (Eds.):
Der Mensch vor der Herausforderung nachhaltiger Solidarität
(Humankind and the challenge of sustainable solidarity).
Stuttgart, Kohlhammer 2003, 189 pages,
¤ 29.00, ISBN 3-17-018135-1
Sustainable development requires life’s opportunities to be equally distributed, embracing all countries and all generations. This concept expects people to take responsibility for others who are distant from themselves, either from a geographical or a temporal point of view. Does human nature make people capable of such “macrosolidarity”? And can politics put processes in place which support this solidarity? This publication documents an interdisciplinary symposium of the Rottendorf Foundation at the Jesuit College of Philosophy in Munich. It takes up the sociobiological, sociopsychological and ethical questions of sustainable solidarity.
The discourse opens with a sobering examination of forms of altruistic behaviour from a sociobiological point of view. According to anthropologist Volker Sommer, closer scrutiny reveals that acting for the welfare of others usually proves in some way to be of advantage to the giver. True altruism is rare. It weakens genetic fitness and is punished in the evolutionary selection process. It does make more sense to look for versions of altruism which promise a reward than to appeal to selflessness.
Reward can also be found in the increase of self-esteem which comes when acting in accordance with personal social standards. Prosocial behaviour is a complex phenomenon, for which social psychology has to date lacked a conclusive theoretical model, as Bernhard Grom explains. The prognosis for macrosolidarity is further complicated by the lack of empirical findings on development solidarity and environmental solidarity so far. However, the “moral standards” of the individual, the joy of being involved and an awareness of social inequalities appear to be crucial for solidarity in the development field. On the other hand, assuming responsibility is motivated by the approval of a person’s social environment. What still needs to be clarified is whether sanctions from the state can provide the incentive needed for ecological responsibility to develop.
Does humankind find itself in the “mesocosmos trap” entering the 21st century? Are we overtaxed cognitively and socially by taking over responsibility, because a genetic structure of “unlimited altruism” has not yet evolved? The bioethicist Eve-Marie Engels examines from a scientific point of view the evolutionary assumption of “gradual benevolence” towards members of the same species. She concludes that the cognitive and psychological plasticity of human beings, as products of biogenetic as well as linguistic and imitative (memetic/ cultural) information systems, contradicts the idea of being caught in the “mesocosmos trap”. In this plasticity lies the prospect of macrosolidarity, but it must first be wrested from the clutches of human inclinations.
Social ethicist Markus Vogt is sceptical, saying that the political elite can only be responsible for this to a limited degree. To expect politicians to shoulder responsibility for global problems is to fail to recognise their limited capability of control. His analysis of the ethical perspectives of “sustainable development” confirms the need for considerable debate on the question of sustainable standards. This debate cannot be delegated to politicians, but must be the responsibility of civil society within a culture of participation.
This book is recommended to those who are seeking a stimulating introduction to the sociopsychological, sociobiological and ethical implications of a practice of sustainable solidarity. The book is well edited and provided with an index of names. Its discursive layout – the four articles are linked by an introduction by Müller and documentation of the following discussion between the participants – reflects the controversial status of the debate and supports a down-to-earth assessment of the capability of education and politics to promote sustainable solidarity.
Monika Treber
|
