 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
200
A. «INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS» THEORY
1. For different reasons, most current approaches in psychology give sanction to the idea that self
seeking is not merely an inclination, but the essence of our nature.
5
2. Take, for example, the writers on «interpersonal relations.» Were you to plow through these
voluminous writings, you would leam that the model for human behavior is the penurious* merchant of
Adam Smith's England, whose singleminded aim was to get as much as he could and to give as little.
10 Harold H. Kelley and John W. Thibaut, leading authors in the field, tell us that we should always condition
our commitment to the welfare of others , and to values such as justice, upon the likely returns to ourselves.
«Being considerate of other persons' needs and helping them attain their goals», Kelley and Thibaut write,
15
«will often be found necessary in order to obtain the cooperation from them that the individual desires».
There's no reason beyond that for being considerate because values have no value apart from what they
produce in return. «The functionally optimal rules», they write, «are highly contingent.»
* penurious — stingy
20 3. The governing idea, in short, is that we should do unto 20 others as they have done unto us.
B. «SOCIAL LEARNING» THEORY
1.
The so-called «social learning» theorists like Albert Bandura write in a similar vein, arguing that all
25
we care about in a given situation is what's in it for ourselves. You are concerned about a suffering friend?
Trace all the wires back, he argues, and you will find that you really are concerned about what that friend's
suffering might imply for yourself — that he might treat you less kindly, for example. To the extent we do
30
act altruistically, it's for social approval: internal standards of conduct — such as not killing people — are
simply ways to ward off trouble with the authorities.
C. «LIBERAL» ACADEMIC THEORY
1.
Even the so-called «liberal» academics, who question both social learning theory and psychological
dogma in general — along with the individualism that flows from it can't seem to break away from the
premise that self interest must be the ground base of all human motivation. Eleanor Maccoby, for
40
example,rejects the view that infants become attached to their caretaker merely because that person relieves
their personal distresses such as hunger. So how does Maccoby explain this attachments? By positing the
parent as the «agent» who helps the infant master its environment. The child can't feel affection, in other
45
words, unless it receives something in return. Maccoby rejects one form ofself-centeredness only to
exchange it for another.
2.
Similarly, in Maccoby's view, acquiring social skills means mastering bargaining plays. As children
50
grow up they gain the skill «to tailor their actions for different audiences, depending on the nature of the
social self that they wish to project». Generosity becomes a way to cut the best deal. We learn to act
unselfishly by «weighing future gains against present ones.»
3.
Maccoby acknowledges that a good family life requires more. «When a sense of mutual sharing
55
exists», she writes, «bargaining or dominance of one member's objectives over another's becomes less
important». But she can offer nothing from the realm of psychology to help families move in that direction.
Because she keeps self-interest as the basic psychological building block in social relations, she has
60
nowhere to turn other than the contractual balancing of interest that she senses as missing the point.
4.
When students study psychology in college, views like these come across in their texts. Selfishness,
65
students learn, is what makes the world turn. «Doing something for other people is gratifying needs in
yourself, otherwise you wouldn't do it», said one of those interviewed who seems to have paid close
attention to his texts. «There is a part of me that needs to believe that altruism is alive and well, especially
70
in me», said another. «But there's also a cynicism — something like altruism can't exist».
II.
THEORIES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
A. FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS