About me
I’m interested in how society deals with major problems such as climate change, sustainable development, human rights, poverty and income inequality. I am optimistic about human ingenuity, technological progress and the prevalence of reason and common values in the long run. But I am under no illusion about the scale of the challenges. I am realistic about human motivation (self-interest), the limitations of scientific knowledge and the imperfect political process. I expect the pace of change will never be satisfactory when judged in retrospect. However, I think society as a whole always makes progress in the long run – but only as the result of criticism, openness, passionate debate and political activism. There is absolutely no scope for complacency and it is everyone’s responsibility to educate themselves about the issues, the causes and the possible solutions. That is why I am writing this weblog.
July 6, 2008 at 11:17
Why is it realistic to see self-interest as the only human motivation worth considering with respect to the major problems of society?
Identity, faith, honour and compassion have all had a pretty big role (both positive and negative) to play in the course of human history, and it’s a mistake to only view these through the lens of self-interest. It can be done of course (you can argue that identity politics is about preservation of self-interest through “tribal” loyalties), but is it actually helpful to only use this lens and ignore others?
Modern policy debates are dominated by a market view of human interaction, and this is a problem – people actually behave differently depending on how you frame choices. If you ask people to respond as consumers, they will respond differently from if you ask them to engage as citizens.
If we only focus on self-interest, and ignore other motivations, we’re undermining the basis for significant social progress.
July 7, 2008 at 11:12
Thanks, Will.
I shouldn’t have used the term self-interest so loosely. You’re right, self-interest is far too broad/simple a concept to be useful in explaining human motivation, which is complex and determined by diverse social conditions (of which my understanding is limited) as well as basic human desires. I think you could reduce all human motivation to self-interest, but I accept that that does not help explain anything.
What I meant by self-interest above is the general tendency of most people to act in ways that they perceive will enrich their lives, whether that enrichment is a material gain, or enhanced emotional wellbeing, or the re-enforcement of a personal belief system. I agree this is not the way all people act and I don’t want to imply that this type of behaviour will always dominate human society.
I think it is really important to understand human tendencies and motivation when we are talking about bringing about change in society, especially action to protect the environment or to share resources more equitably. When people perceive that their interests are threatened they may behave in a way that appears negative, selfish and even irrational to others. Often such behaviour can be reduced to unnecessary fears or lack of information or simply fear of the unknown. Only by understanding and exposing what is behind the motivations of people can we change world-views, beliefs and ultimately behaviour. And I do think all behaviour is explainable, even when it is not justifiable or rational. Your example of the difference between citizen and consumer behaviour is a great example. I would like to find out more about the market view of human interaction and any other ‘lenses’ that shed light on behaviour. Any suggestions?