Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

412 Chapter 23

important stimulus came from evolutionary biology and E. O. Wilson’s

mammoth Sociobiology (1975) relating altruism to kin selection. Aside from

its benign neglect in sociology, altruism has enjoyed multidisciplinary cov-

erage (and spirited controversies as well as supportive data) in various fields

such as psychology, neurobiology, biology, and theology (Post et al. 2002;

Gintis et al. 2003). The irony of sociologists’ tepid take of a field opened

up by Sorokin half a century ago is shown by the 2008 annual meeting of

the American Sociological Association not having in its Final Program a

single session on altruism (although the general meeting theme of “Worlds

at Work” could certainly have provided the occasion for research papers

relating altruism to work).

More in keeping with Sorokin’s ASA presidential exhortation of 1965

that our discipline should seek higher ground in new syntheses,

let us

consider how altruism takes on important new forms that were not part of

the original research of Sorokin’s research center, but which are promising

and relevant for a broader perspective on both globalization and altruism.

While my considerations are not a “synthesis,” they are intended to be

heuristic for expanding the sociological awareness of altruism in the con-

temporary world.

GLOBAL ALTRUISM: FROM THE GROUND UP

However fuzzy “globalization” suggests as a playing field of advanced

modernity (the latter, to be sure, itself a murky and ambiguous notion),

it has become a widely used multidisciplinary referent. A referent of what?

Of various processes that interlink materially and virtually all the regions

of the world, with a loose economic, political, cultural, and technological

integration of vaster scope than any previous state. The need for the social

sciences, particularly sociology and political science, to expand their hori-

zon beyond the nation-state as the traditional unit of analysis, has been co-

gently made (Albrow 1996). Even if the conceptualization and articulation

of the parameters of the new age lack consensus, it warrants viewing the

playing field for altruistic behavior as becoming globalized, beyond neigh-

borhoods, regions, or even national borders. I take “global” and its related

“globalization” to indicate the whole human world as the interactive unit

of analysis, and “global system” as an emergent or dynamic entity which in-

terrelates regions, albeit at different rhythms of change and development.

Sudden as well as chronic degradations in the physical and human envi-

ronments, conditions that debase the existence of those living at the edge,

forcible evictions from traditional habitats (due to demands of agribusi-

ness, foreign invaders, or from paramilitaries who are nominally subjects

of the same state), the repression and near-extinction of civil society in

Global Altruism 413

blatant violation of human rights—all are part of the same global age as

the one of mediated glamour, luxury, and opulence that global capitalism

has provided.

Much of the turmoil of the past two decades or so since “globalization”

has become recognized has both socioeconomic and sociopolitical dimen-

sions, making the global system not a simple “new world order” but one

highly complex and contested.

On the constructive side are new bases

of peaceful yet complex intraregional integration (such as the European

Union). On the negative side, an unanticipated upsurge in violent move-

ments of nationalism, fundamentalism, ethnic repression, and global acts

of terrorism, together with degrading and massive human trafficking.

It is in this broad frame, that Sorokin would have readily recognized as

an extrapolation from his studies of the late sensate age, that I will discuss

global forms of altruism. The need for ameliorative efforts to go beyond

the state or country level is imperative. Particularly as most of the states

with the greatest needs for altruistic behavior lack the competence, orga-

nizations, or even, in some instances, the desire to alleviate economic and

political misery, including blatant violations of human rights impacting

enormous numbers.

To borrow from Frantz Fanon, the global age puts a spotlight on a vast

new “wretched of the earth.” Though not providing a solution, “global

altruism” is a set of practices seeking to alleviate some of the negative

consequences of globalization on “the economic and political wretched of

the earth.” The practices, undertaken by different agents at different levels,

open a beam of light and an alternative model B to the market-based model

A of efficiency and “rational choice” which is at heart based on premises

(at the individual and state level) of egoism or self-interest.

Tacitly, global

altruism is a cognitive and normative orientation that gives primacy to

improving the condition of the most unfortunate members of the global

community. Its presupposition is that accepting the economic, political,

and cultural welfare of the global community depends, not accidentally but

intrinsically, upon the welfare of those marginalized by processes of glo-

balization. Globalization can be transformed by the voluntaristic actions

of forms of altruism, so that global altruism itself becomes an important

vector of globalization.

Ultimately, a common denominator in various

forms of global altruism is being conducive for its recipients to gain a sense

of active participation in their own improvement and development, and

not just being “a charity case.”

I begin at the micro level, “from the ground up” with three individuals,

then consider at the meso level two INGOs (international non-govern-

mental organizations), lastly at the macro level I will consider countries’

performance on altruism in terms of the Millennium Development Project

with which I started this chapter.

414 Chapter 23

GLOBAL ALTRUISM: THE MICRO LEVEL

Sorokin’s initial volume on altruism, Altruistic Love (1950) focuses on

two readily discernable and publicly recognized groups of altruists: “good

neighbors” and “saints,” the former recognized by their peer group, the lat-

ter recognized by Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches. Modi-

fying this to a globalized context beyond the borders of the nation-state,

I will discuss three levels of agents of altruism: individuals, organizations,

and states. There are different modes of peer group recognition, and some

organizations—such as religious ones—have normative principles of ser-

vice and giving to others that favor global altruistic activity. How extensive

this commitment is will vary so that there is not a one-to-one correlation

between “religious” and “secular” individuals and organizations, and their

level of altruistic commitment and activity.

At this micro level, the exemplars are three persons who have shown

sustained commitment to global altruism toward broad segments of the

human community, in particular to those living in misery, for the most

part homeless and without minimal state support and assistance. What

makes these individuals particularly appropriate for our discussion is that

each started and/or is associated with a humanitarian movement with a

global reach. Two of them have won international recognition for their

“good deeds” with a gold standard of international recognition: the Nobel

Peace Prize.

Mother Teresa (Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, 1910–1997) has become an

iconic figure of devotion to “the poorest of the poor.”

While her presence

is associated with Calcutta, she was also active at the international level

after establishing her own religious order, Missionaries of Charity. The ba-

sic mission was to provide love and care for those bypassed by their own

societal community,

and the global range of her organization—which

grew to over 600 missions in more than 100 countries—involved setting

up hospices and homes for victims of HIV/AIDS,

leprosy, and tubercu-

losis, not only in India, but in various other settings, including victims

of radiation in Chernobyl, of earthquakes in Armenia, and of starvation

in Ethiopia. She and the houses her order set up with volunteers did not

discriminate between political regimes, taking missions to Communist as

well as non-Communist countries during the Cold War period. Her basic

priority for her relief work was to carry it out among the “poorest of the

poor” in practically all the continents where relief work had urgent need in

instances of floods, epidemics, and man-made disasters.

Her exemplary life of dedication to others and her exhortation to bring

a modicum of comfort to the “poorest of the poor” (for example, in her

address to the United Nations in 1985) was recognized internationally by

both secular and religious organizations. Thus, in 1979 she was the re-

Global Altruism 415

cipient of the Nobel Peace Prize

and posthumously on October 19, 2003

(appropriately, World Mission Sunday), she was beatified in the Roman

Catholic Church, an important step to becoming a saint, with Pope John

Paul II himself pronouncing the homily.

Mother Teresa’s altruism and asceticism are beyond question, but her

commitment to the poor also drew some criticism in her strong and re-

peated stance against abortion, and some negative voices also questioned

her alleged baptisms of the dying. It is in this respect that she appears as an

activist, though her paramount activism lay in establishing missions bring-

ing succor to those powerless to get succor from established authorities.

No less saintly in his work for the poor than Mother Teresa, and in fact

considered a saint by many he impacted, was the Abbé Pierre (Henri An-

toine Grouès, 1912–2007), an activist priest on behalf of the homeless, in

France and abroad. In keeping with a certain tradition of noblesse oblige,

he renounced his wealthy inheritance to provide charities with his pos-

sessions. Although before and during World War II he already engaged in

numerous acts of altruism, including shielding Jews from Nazi persecution,

it was after the war that his activism took a vigorous upturn, both during a

brief political career in the French National Assembly and afterward.

Politics was a natural arena for a person like him given to challenging au-

thority and hierarchy. The rhetoric he used on behalf of the poor reflected

a French democratic socialist tradition that extends back to the progressive

clergy of the French Revolution, like the Abbé Grégoire and the “Red Priest”

Jacques Roux. Words and deed were shown initially in his public protest

against the eviction of impoverished tenants and the homeless who had

to sleep outdoors during freezing weather in 1954. His emotional appeal

for immediate relief was termed by the media as an “uprising of kindness”

(insurrection de la bonté) and the popular response, both in Paris and in

other parts of France, led to his organizing a new secular organization of

Emmaus communities (from Emmaus, the community in the Gospel of Luke,

where Jesus is shown hospitality after his resurrection by disciples who do

not initially recognize him). A cardinal principle of Emmaus has been to

take in anyone willing to work in the community at helping others, regard-

less of the person’s past—a social welfare organization the mirror image of

the equally fabled Foreign Legion. The Abbé Pierre’s endeavor for Emmaus

communities was, plainly stated, to restore the dignity of the homeless by

offering them to labor in a community setting.

The Abbé Pierre (and the Emmaus movement) undertook throughout

his strenuous career both humanitarian work administering aid and shelter

to the homeless and disfranchised—those who are “excluded.” Recognized

as “a saint” by his constituents, including squatters facing eviction and

vagrants earning their livelihood from trash cans and garbage,

he ranked

in public opinion polls as one of the most popular figures in France for

416 Chapter 23

many years. He championed various unpopular causes, from stout defense

of Italian left-wing activists to decolonization to vigorous upholding of Pal-

estinian rights. This led to his incurring the wrath of various organizations,

including the Church hierarchy.

The third individual as an agent of global altruism has had two careers,

the first a political one that ended in 1981, and a very active second career

that may be said to have started in 1982 and is still going strong as of this

writing. This is Jimmy Carter (1924–), who served one term as president of

the United States (1977–1981). While in office, Carter made the promo-

tion of human rights an important aspect of American foreign policy, and

his administration sought to broker a viable peace in the Middle East by

bringing together the Israeli prime minister (Menachem Begin) and the

Egyptian president (Anwar Sadat) to sign the epoch-making Camp David

Peace Accords.

If his presidency faltered due to an economic crisis of inflation and per-

haps politically more from the quagmire of the Iranian crisis, Jimmy Carter

since leaving office has made his mark on global altruism more than any

previous former president, perhaps more than any former head of state.

He has engaged in an almost frenetic pace of activity, organizing the Carter

Center in partnership with Emory University in Atlanta. The bipartisan

center engages in multiple programs involved in the control of diseases in

the United States and overseas (particularly infectious diseases in Africa),

in sending delegations of observers in contested elections in countries

with a weak civil society and lack of protection for minorities, in conflict

resolution where the distrust between contending forces necessitates a

third party viewed by the foes as disinterested. Carter himself and his staff

members have acted as observers in a variety of elections where their pres-

ence has preserved the autonomy of the electoral process.

Jimmy Carter’s

commitment to peace and humanitarian causes without seeking personal

remuneration earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992 (he turned over

the prize money to further the work of the Carter Center). This is perhaps

the ultimate accolade of the international community for a career in global

altruism—or in Carter’s case, a second public career.

“From the ground up” as a qualifier of the global altruists just discussed

applies not only to Mother Teresa tending to the poor in the streets and

back alleys of Calcutta, or the Abbé Pierre to the homeless in Paris and over-

seas, but equally to Jimmy Carter, who at age 84 was recently in southern

Sudan to personally evaluate progress on the elimination of the devastating

Guinea worm (Jack 2008). In addition to the multi-faceted work of his own

Carter Center, Carter has also brought the center in close working relation

with Habitat for Humanity, a not-for-profit “ecumenical Christian housing

ministry” that, since being founded the year Carter was elected president,

has built a quarter of a million homes in the United States and overseas.

Global Altruism 417

As in the case of the Emmaus movement, Habitat for Humanity depends on

volunteer labor and contributions, and requires new homeowners to con-

tribute their own labor (“sweat equity”) in the construction of their house

and that of others. Carter, himself a master craftsman, has and continues to

put in many hours a year in the construction of Habitat homes, “from the

ground up,” inside and outside the United States.

Before going to the next level, it might be pointed out that despite

the Nobel Peace Prize award, Carter—like the other two individuals dis-

cussed—has incurred criticisms for his activities, particularly in the present

decade for his opposition to the Iraq war, for meeting with third world

individuals who are considered as dangerous foes if not as “terrorists,” and

for his unequivocal opposition to a bellicose foreign policy.

As a person

who has used his impressive expert knowledge of influential figures and

factual materials to be at the forefront of activities seeking human develop-

ment, irrespective of personal aggrandizement or political acclaim at home,

Jimmy Carter well embodies being a “public global altruist.”

GLOBAL ALTRUISM: THE MESO LEVEL

There are many organizations which in part or in whole spend consider-

able time, energy, and resources on helping less fortunate individuals and

groups overseas. That, of course is not new, if we consider secular and

religious organizations undertaking charitable or humanitarian works over-

seas in the nineteenth century (such as the Anti-Slavery Society founded in

1823). One of the oldest organizations providing health care to victims of

diseases, disasters, and violence is the International Red Cross, the brain

child of a Swiss entrepreneur, Henri Dunant. He had witnessed the plight

of uncared for badly wounded soldiers on the battlefield of Solferino (July

12, 1859) during the Crimean War, and had the vision for a non-belliger-

ent organization to provide emergency humanitarian assistance to reduce

suffering and protect prisoners and the wounded. Enlisting the commit-

ment of other Swiss citizens, what became the International Committee of

the Red Cross (ICRC) was launched in 1863, and a hundred years later the

ICRC was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (as had been Dunant as the

first recipient of Nobel’s largesse in 1901).

The continuous activity of the ICRC and its country affiliates has expanded

since its beginning to provide more than battlefield emergency health treat-

ment, but also to protect prisoners of war and civilians from harsh treat-

ment such as torture: one of its early endeavors in this respect resulted in

the Geneva Convention. Basically, one might say the convention (which

has evolved into four treaties dealing with the wounded, non-combatants or

civilians, and prisoners of war), ratified by nearly 200 countries,

seeks to

418 Chapter 23

have “the others” viewed with compassion as fellow human beings in need

of assistance, not as commodities to be disposed of at will.

Many other organizations have sprung up in the past century whose

basic mission relates to actualizing global altruism, and as catalysts for

this, global warfare or its threat, violence, economic globalization, and

global warming and climate change have contributed to severe crises in the

human condition of advanced modernity (Collier 2007). Consciousness

of the interrelated set of concrete problems of the human condition has

greatly expanded since the nineteenth century, even more since the end of

World War II. Here one can cite as a global prise de conscience, under the

UN’s prompting, the coming together at the start of this decade of countries

committed to a collective effort within a 15-year time frame of eradicating

the worst obstacles to development. These range from eradicating extreme

poverty and hunger to promoting gender equality and global partnership

for sustained development. At the 2008 midpoint of the Millennium Proj-

ect, there has been progress in aid given to important areas of health (the

treatment of AIDS/HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis in particular) and public

education, but as table 23.1 shows, there is still a significant discrepancy

between aid needed and aid provided. Moreover, what the figures do not

show is how efficiently the donated aid is actually used for its intended

purpose, since duplication of services, corruption, and lack of medical and

trained personnel can reduce the impact of global altruism.

Nonetheless, there are non-governmental organizations (NGOs, or at

the international level, INGOs) that have trained personnel and have been

on the whole successful in carrying out their mission, despite a variety of

hazards such as warfare and severe conflicts, on the one hand, or, on the

other, by the lack of cooperation (if not outright hostility) by governments

where aid is intended (as was seen in May 2008 by the unwillingness of the

Myanmar government to allow U.S. military missions to fly in humanitar-

ian aid to regions devastated by Cyclone Nargis). For the sake of brevity,

I will discuss only two INGOs, but one could easily enlarge the list with

such important non-profit, non-sectarian non-governmental organizations

as the American Refugee Committee, the American Friends Service Com-

Table 23.1. Essential Services Current Annual Aid and Amount Required

$ Billion Current Needed Missing

Health and HIV and AIDS 14 50 36

Education 3 16 13

Water and sanitation 4 10 6

Total 21 76 55

Source: Credibility Crunch, Oxfam Briefing Paper, June 2008, p. 19.

Global Altruism 419

mittee, and International Oxfam. These are long-time altruists seeking to

promote human rights, assist refugees, and promote health and other con-

ditions “from the ground up.”

In the sphere of intervening globally on behalf of human rights and

against inhumane treatment of “prisoners of conscience” who are denied

“voice,” Amnesty International, begun by a British lawyer in 1961, has won

a recognized place in the international community. Dependent upon pri-

vate donations and volunteers, it gathers facts regarding country violations

of human rights, such as torture and “rendition” of prisoners, seeks to make

contacts with victims of abuses, and actively opposes the death penalty.

Although as an NGO it lacks the means of enforcing sanctions on country

violators, its annual report is an important document of global conscience

that plays no favorites. Thus, its current report is equally adamant for

China to live up to its human rights promises, for the United States to close

Guantanamo and secret detention centers, and for Russia to cease human

rights abuses in Chechnya. It provides an accessible “scorecard” of which

countries have signed on and which have not, and who has abided by the

basic 1948 International Human Rights Treaty and subsequent specific in-

ternational and regional treaties pertaining to human rights. It signals cur-

rent “flashpoints” that demand prompt action to forestall further human

misery—in such places as Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq, and Myanmar.

Amnesty International thus functions, as briefly indicated above, as a non-

governmental voice of global conscience, a voice for the otherwise voiceless.

Its presence is made necessary, at least until such times as when states will

have a greater conscience of their responsibilities to meeting rights of their

subjects or under their command, rights which the international community

recognizes and has codified for the past 60 years as human rights.

It was

the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 for its campaign against tor-

ture, which unfortunately is still a state instrument 30 years later.

Complementing the humanitarian activities of Amnesty International

are those engaged in by Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders

(MSF), started in 1971 by a group of post–May 1968 French “hippie doc-

tors.” They saw the need to provide emergency humanitarian assistance

to civilian victims in situations of violent ethnic conflicts, as in the case

of Biafra in Africa, and continue to do so in crisis and disaster situations

without waiting for a government invitation. The initial group of volunteer

health workers (doctors and nurses) has greatly expanded in multi-nation

missions that carry on in decentralized fashion various projects of various

time duration. It remains dependent on non-government donations and

on a volunteer workforce, often operating in extremely hazardous zones

where its workers have been killed and assassinated in the performance of

humanitarian assistance.

420 Chapter 23

In 2007 MSF had two-thirds of its projects taking place in Africa, one-fifth

in Asia, and the rest in Latin America and Europe; the main group of causes

that triggered intervention were violent armed conflict making victims of

civilians (43 percent), epidemics (such as cholera) and endemic diseases

(such as tuberculosis, measles, and malaria), social violence and health-

care exclusion, and natural disasters (floods, droughts, and others).

Their

humanitarian work includes promoting and doing research on common

diseases in third world areas that major pharmaceutical companies may

neglect (Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative), moving disaster victims

to sites where they can receive medical assistance, distributing ready-to-use

foods in districts of acute malnutrition, administering post-traumatic treat-

ment at disaster sites, and promoting awareness of sexual violence against

women and children. In fact, it is hard to think of an aspect of medical as-

sistance, or an area of the world where it is needed, that is not covered by

MSF (Bortolotti 2006).

Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders, like Amnesty Inter-

national, actualizes well a “Model B” of globalization activism. It vigor-

ously pursues global altruism, stepping into the gates of nature-made or

man-made hell to provide a variety of medical assistance and humanitarian

relief, with or without state support. The near “post-modern” quality of an

organization that defies state borders and established channels to promote

human betterment has de facto made it an attractive Model B for newer

organizations. Thus, for the administration of health to populations lacking

health care, Remote Area Medical (RAM), started by Amazon explorer Stan

Brock in 1985, complements MSF in a number of ways. RAM also depends

on a volunteer corps, of doctors, ophthalmologists, dentists, and even

veterinarians, who undertake missions to remote areas where there are no

health care facilities. Perhaps surprising is that most of their missions (or

“expeditions”) are to remote places in the United States, the majority being

in Appalachia (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee), where a three-day clinic at

a yearly visit is the only occasion for thousands of rural Americans to get a

modicum of medical, dental, and ocular attention.

A further case in point outside the public health sector is “Sociologists

without Borders”/Sociólogos sin Fronteras (SSF), founded in 2001, which,

like “public sociology,” seeks to promote in its domestic and overseas chap-

ters human rights, participatory democracy, equitable economies, peace,

and sustainable ecosystems.

Like Amnesty International, MSF is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize,

won in 1999 for “pioneering humanitarian work on several continents.”

And like Amnesty International and the individual altruists we have previ-

ously discussed, MSF has also received criticism for many of its initiatives

which go outside borders and conventional pathways of humanitarian

aid—sometimes because these pathways do not or no longer exist in crisis

situations.

Global Altruism 421

GLOBAL ALTRUISM: THE MACRO LEVEL

The most global actor in global altruism in terms of a comprehensive sweep

of the world’s countries and its bureaucratic complexity is undeniably the

United Nations, arising after the holocaust of World War II to maintain

international peace and security. In bare fashion we can note that, despite

many forces making for tensions within this large bureaucratic behemoth,

there are important core agreements that peace (and the curtailment of

interstate conflicts) and security are contingent on non-military factors.

Consequently, although the UN has had provision since 1948 for a “peace-

keeping” force that can provide military, policy, and observer personnel

in situations where violent conflicts can engulf civilian populations, it has

limited resources for direct military intervention in interstate or intrastate

conflict. And the resources are even more severely constrained if one of the

belligerents is a powerful country and the “other” is a region or a minority

ethnic nation, especially if the more powerful denies the UN peacekeeping

force the right to entry or to be an observer. Hence, the peacekeeping force

of the UN has tended to be an after-the-fact agent monitoring peace or

truce, after the violence has run most of its course.

A more efficacious arm of the United Nations has been the World Health

Organization (WHO), headquartered in Geneva with six regional offices.

WHO has taken a broad definition of health as “a state of complete physi-

cal, mental and social well-being,” and as an evolving aspect of its mis-

sion it is viewing and raising consciousness that public health is closely

related to multiple other factors. Thus in 2007 WHO sponsored the World

Health Day, which emphasized “international health security” needing

cross-border cooperation and collaboration to forestall emerging diseases,

humanitarian emergencies, and environmental degradation.

And since

1995 WHO publishes yearly reports assessing from its vast set of databanks

and networks emergent threats to public health security, a sort of “advance

warning system.” Presently WHO is giving major emphasis to women’s

health and to public health issues in Africa, the latter reflecting that for the

period September 2003–September 2006, 44 percent of verified events of

potential risk to international public health took place in that region.

Perhaps because public health has become recognized as a universally

desirable condition of globalization (for the free movement of goods and

people across borders and regions), perhaps because it is out of the public

limelight, WHO has not drawn the criticism for its global activism that

other agents previously discussed or that its parent the UN has.

The United Nations has promoted international public health as not

only desirable in itself but also as conducive and essential for economic

development of the world’s poorest countries. It is the latter theme we now

turn to, linking it to the start of this essay with the UN formulation in 2000

of Millennium Development Goals: ending poverty and hunger, universal