"Enlightened Self-Interest": Different Contexts

A couple of weeks ago, a made a blog post Paul Collier’s book, The Bottom Billion, and how foreign aid requires both “compassion and enlightened-self interest.”  This is somewhat of a sequel to that post.

Well, as it turns out, enlightened self-interest is actually a term prevalent in philosophy and in psychology. In both these fields, the term is used to describe an action which helps others, but is also designed to benefit the self.

In philosophy, including political philosophy, the term is used to explain why we should allow the system of capitalism to work for itself.  Think Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” If everyone acted with enlightened self-interest in mind, proponents of enlightened self-interest argue that this ensures the health of a system that best serves everyone.

The problem with this line of argumentation is that it’s somewhat of an esoteric understanding of how a society or an economy should function.  If a government trusts people to act with enlightened self-interest, then that begs the question of what to do about those people who act with un-enlightened self-interest for their own personal exploits?

I came across one blogger, who made the interesting argument that it is a libertarian argument. As such, it is subject to the run of the mill critiques of libertarianism, which this blogger characterizes as: “How can the poor/environment/elderly survive without the government to protect it against the ravages of capitalism?"  Additionally, he points out that it is subject to the Tragedy of the Commons. and that it is a rhetorically weak argument as “you will usually get much farther by appealing to man's virtues than by excusing his vices.”

To design a large economic or political system based on enlightened self-interest certainly seems to have its problems, but for a specific policy, like foreign aid, I think it fares better.  In fact, it seems to be quite ideal. Aiding poor countries is, after all, in the long term economic interests of the entire world.  But if, in a purely capitalist sense, it was a good investment to give huge amounts of foreign aid as a percent of GDP, then the United States would have already done it. Simply put, it would cost money which politicians are unwilling to spend.

Therefore, donor countries need to design foreign aid in such a way that it is sufficiently "self-interested" to get enough votes to past, but "enlightened" in such a way that it is a good policy.

So in political philosophy, enlightened self-interest applies to a government – to a very large group.  To Collier, in the context of foreign aid, it applies to one specific policy.  In psychology, the term is applied even more specifically: to a couple or to an individual.  I'll save that for a future post.

Women & Islam: The Veil

It is with some degree of hesitation that I publically express my views about an issue as delicate as this. I know that I risk being profane to some and cowardly to others, yet I believe the veil worn by many Muslim women around the world is a topic worthy of discussion and it is germane to this blog’s theme of altruism and self-interest. 

I will be the first to admit that I have not studied this issue to any great extent.  I am not a Muslim； I am not a woman.  In light of these actualities, I welcome and encourage critiques, especially if you come from a background that is different from mine.  I’m willing to clarify my position, but I trust you will find it tactful.

Let us begin!

John L. Esposito’s What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam presents the verses from the Qur’an which are the basis of the hijab dress code.  According to him, one of the verses at the heart of this practice is:

“And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts.” (33:53, http://quran.com/33/53).

Esposito also points out that in recent years, scholars have called attention to the idea that these verses in Surah 33 do not apply to all women, but rather, only to the wives of Muhammad, while more conservative Muslim scholars have maintained that this verse should be binding to all women because women are a source of fitnah, or temptation, for men.

Two things to note here:

(1) “For their hearts” -- In a sense, this verse suggests an altruistic attempt to maintain the modesty of women.  This would be in line with the overarching message of Islam on women. Esposito states that “Islam raised the status of women by prohibiting female infanticide, abolishing women’s status as property, establishing women’s legal capacity . . . .” and the list goes on and on.

(2) “For your hearts” -- On the other hand, the notion of fintah suggests a deeply self-interested – selfish – attempt by men to compensate for the fact that many of them are too lazy or too unwilling to control their own sinful desires.

The movie Persepolis, which was adapted from the French graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi contains  one scene in which some male police officers in Iran (post-Revolution) yell at a woman for running down the street, saying that her butt movement is “obscene,” to which she retorts:

“Well then stop looking at my ass!”

(Si vous parlez français: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKw6CkkGtY)

To me, both these justifications for the hijab are problematic.  The first seems to suggest by its very nature of an ugly paternalism more than a legitimate altruistic concern for women.   The second is blatantly sexist because men are not subjected to a congruent standard of modesty in dress.  In short, the hijab is a tool promoted by men at the expense of women.

This is not to say that wearing the veil cannot be a beautiful and personal decision.  I once had a teacher who proudly and voluntarily wore it.  She told us on the first day of class: “I want people to see me for who I am and not for what I look like.”  I think the decision by some women to veil themselves voluntarily is, of course, entirely different from women who are mandated by law to, or coerced into, wearing it.

And finally, I think it is always important to remember this:

(Diagram from: http://peacepalacelibrary-weekly.blogspot.com/2010/07/islamic-veil-secularism-and-freedom-of.html, Cartoon from: http://qahiri.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bikini-vs-burqa/)

Paul Collier: The Bottom Billion & "Englightened Self-Interest"

Right now, I’m reading The Bottom Billion, by Paul Collier, a professor and former research director at the World Bank.  The book focuses on four “poverty traps” that countries have fallen into and ways for these countries to escape them.

To get a flavor for Collier’s arguments about the bottom billion, I recommend watching at least a few minutes of his TED Talk. Towards the beginning of it, he introduces a wise maxim for policymakers as well as for individuals: “What I’m going to offer you is a recipe – or combination – of the two forces that change the world for good, which is the alliance of compassion and enlightened self-interest.”

This raises the point that even aid – something we think of as altruistic – is partially self-interested.  Collier pointed to the Marshall Plan as an example of this.  (The Marshall Plan was certainly an act of compassion by the United States for Europe, but it also was designed to help the United States economy.)

Collier handles this seeming contradiction by inserting the idea of enlightened self-interest...  But what does that mean?

If self-interest can be enlightened, then it immediately follows that it was “dark” to begin with.  So then, can self-interest really be enlightened, or does it become something else?  It seems simply to suggest a kind of self-interest that doesn't harm anyone.

But why wouldn’t it be better if aid policy was far more altruistic than self-interested?  He argues that both compassion and enlightened self-interest serve valuable, distinct functions. Collier says we need “compassion to get ourselves started” but we need “enlightened self-interest to get ourselves serious” about dealing with poverty.

Even if the primary goal of aid is altruistic, it need not harm the donor.  Rather, striking a balance between true, selfless altruism and absolute greed is likely to produce the best results.

Museums & Their "Sordid Commercial Interests"

I recently discovered that there is an entire subculture of museum workers. An academic circle of writing, debating museum curators actually exists.  What’s less clear is whether or not they actually really have much of a following outside of their own little group.  Kinda weird...

But over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had an opportunity to look in on this world of museums in one of my classes.  I’d like to consider myself one of the curious, privileged few.  Or you can just call me a little obsessive; that works, too.

One eminent topic in “museum literature” is the idea of the business of museums.  In museums, or any private educational institution, for that matter, there is a conflict between trying to make money and trying to educate the public. 

Mary Miley Theobald in her book Museum Store Management writes (link) about the ethical problem of museum gift shops.  She writes, “If the shop’s only reason for being is money, then the museum is operating a gift shop rather than a museum store and it has little justification for existence.”

Aside from gift shops, museums raise revenue by charging for admission, so museums have a huge financial incentive get people in the door.  In order to accomplish this, curators may feel pressure to give the masses what they are looking for rather than creating the most accurate or educationally valuable exhibits.  But then again, as one classmate put it, isn’t an “EPCOT” understanding of the world better than nothing at all?

Other museum-oriented writers are a little more philosophical and focused on language, like Stephen Weil who writes (link) about metaphors we use to think about museums.  He argues that the temple, in its sacredness, describes the museum, and asks do we not imagine museum objects as being “in constant danger of pollution . . . by . . . the spiritual pollution of sordid commercial interests?”

Do the ends justify the means?  Without money, museums would not be able to stay open, and thus, they would be unable to fulfill their purpose of educating the public. But more fundamentally, do museum gift shops actually corrupt the very essence of the museum?  Do they really destroy its educational value? 

Several of these academics who write about museums tend to speak normatively, in imperatives. ("We must...")  I find that a lot of these arguments--Weil’s in particular--tend to come off as somewhat melodramatic.  

The museum is both a business and an educational institution.  It is a great example of self-interest and altruism functioning simultaneously.

(Image from: voices.suntimes.com.)

Mukesh Kapila

Originally, I had intended to finish up a blog post on foreign aid to Africa.  But I changed my mind earlier this evening after hearing a lecture at the Illinois Holocaust Museum given by Mukesh Kapila, who was the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan in 2003, as the genocide in Darfur was beginning to unfold.  One can only begin to imagine what that job would have been like.

Kapila was one of the first whistleblowers. He was among the first to plug in the GPS coordinates of attacked villages into computers and to realize the disturbing patterns.  When he went to the Sudanese government, he was given excuses.  When he went to the UN headquarters, he was met with silence.  So he went to the world.

During the question and answer period after the lecture, an audience member raised the topic of the Rwandan genocide. Kapila mentioned a grim incident in which altruistic intentions went horribly wrong:

Shortly after calls for the annihilation of Tutsis surfaced on Rwandan airwaves, 5,000 Tutsis, fearing for their lives, sought refuge within the walls of a UN compound.  The local UN peacekeeping force let the people in and agreed to protect them.  But about a week later, the UN in New York ordered the local peacekeepers to leave.  Within a few hours of the peacekeepers’ evacuation, a Hutu mob had macheted to death each and every one of the 5,000 Tutsis and then proceeded to bury them in a grave no larger than the room we were sitting in.

Kapila concluded this story by making the point that it would have been better if the UN had not allowed the Tutsis to enter the compound in the first place. Had these Tutsis been denied entrance, they would have fled to another country, to the wilderness, or to any variety of places, and perhaps some would have lived.

His message was one of honesty: if the UN was unwilling to act, the UN should have admitted that it was unwilling to act. The UN should have told the fleeing Tutsis: “This is regrettable, but you’re out of luck. There’s nothing we can do. Good bye.”  In effect, the UN’s half-baked altruism actually created a concentration camp – it concentrated a group of people which facilitated their efficient murder, en masse (albeit unintentionally).

Kapila raised one other point that I thought was relevant to this blog: the United States spends $300 million each year on a UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan that, more or less, does nothing. (For this, he told the audience that we were stupid Americans. Literally. He yelled at us.) He argued that this is actually harmful, because it allows us to say to the human rights advocates that we are doing something, while we are actually doing nothing.  So it seems that this $300 million is more self-interested than it is altruistic.

Another example of this, but one that he did not mention, is the 100 peacekeepers the U.S. has deployed to Central Africa to provide logistical support to African armed forces.  Invisible Children pushed for government action, and the intentions are certainly good on their part.  But one really has to wonder what 100 peacekeepers will do more: stop the LRA or discredit the arguments of human rights activists.

Overall, I thought the lecture was disturbing in many ways.  If we cannot manage to be altruistic in the face of genocide, who are we?