If you’re a fan of the old NBC series Friends, you may be familiar with this concept. In one particular episode, Joey defies Phoebe to undertake a completely selfless act, meaning she cannot receive any benefit from it, including personal happiness or achievement. The show’s writers then pursue Phoebe for the remainder of the half hour as she tries without success to not feel good about doing good deeds.
It’s a popular idea in the modern world that has been volleyed back and forth in every medium from yawn-inducing psychological analyses to fervor-inducing radio talk show segments, from sermons at the pulpit to humorous sitcoms. Extensive research has been done on this one idea, including a twenty-plus year study by Mark Snyder, University of Michigan professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Psychology. In 2006, UMN News posted an article about Professor Snyder called “Studies in Selfish Altruism".
There is in this bizarre, hypocritical age a stigma of sorts hovering over the idea of getting something out of helping others. If you are truly a Good Samaritan, then you should do “good” without reaping the psychological reward. Anyone else is just a pretender.
In a few weeks time I will be volunteering with my coworkers at a local food relief organization, part as a team building exercise for our group. Because of the circumstances by which I will be volunteering, it may be argued that this cannot be categorized as an act of altruism. After all, chances are great that I would not have volunteered with this agency had my company not sponsored the event, since the warehouse is across town and my time is intricately scheduled to accommodate the needs of my job and my family.
My question then is this: Is Altruism defined by the action, by the intent, or by the beneficiary? Should “selfish altruism” still be looked upon as a pretender to the throne of Selflessness? Is it hypocritical to help others when doing so rewards us? Or does the act of helping others outweigh any reciprocal benefits we may receive?
Whatever the answer, Professor Snyder documents an interesting trend found in his research: Those who do gain benefit from volunteering are always the same individuals who continue to volunteer.
It’s a popular idea in the modern world that has been volleyed back and forth in every medium from yawn-inducing psychological analyses to fervor-inducing radio talk show segments, from sermons at the pulpit to humorous sitcoms. Extensive research has been done on this one idea, including a twenty-plus year study by Mark Snyder, University of Michigan professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Psychology. In 2006, UMN News posted an article about Professor Snyder called “Studies in Selfish Altruism".
There is in this bizarre, hypocritical age a stigma of sorts hovering over the idea of getting something out of helping others. If you are truly a Good Samaritan, then you should do “good” without reaping the psychological reward. Anyone else is just a pretender.
In a few weeks time I will be volunteering with my coworkers at a local food relief organization, part as a team building exercise for our group. Because of the circumstances by which I will be volunteering, it may be argued that this cannot be categorized as an act of altruism. After all, chances are great that I would not have volunteered with this agency had my company not sponsored the event, since the warehouse is across town and my time is intricately scheduled to accommodate the needs of my job and my family.
My question then is this: Is Altruism defined by the action, by the intent, or by the beneficiary? Should “selfish altruism” still be looked upon as a pretender to the throne of Selflessness? Is it hypocritical to help others when doing so rewards us? Or does the act of helping others outweigh any reciprocal benefits we may receive?
Whatever the answer, Professor Snyder documents an interesting trend found in his research: Those who do gain benefit from volunteering are always the same individuals who continue to volunteer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment