He suggested that the desire to help people might be genetic. There is some science out there for this: in 2008, German researchers claimed to identify an "altruism gene" that makes some people more inclined than others to donate money. What do you think about this? And if it were true, would the genetic impulse necessarily be determining? Might a powerful cultural influence (for example, being raised in a family/church/school that emphasized helping others) be more significant than a gene?
He also suggested that a powerful motivator for people was "advancement." In his experience, this illustrates why capitalism works (even as he admits that it is currently "off its rails"), why some people put up with a bad boss in order to, one day, be the boss. Do you think this explains why some people navigate the unfair terrain of life better than others?
He is clearly a pragmatist in the Herb Sturz school. But in listening to his many stories, did you still hear idealism?
What would you ask him in a third hour of the Vera seminar?
13 comments:
I think that I would need to do some more research on the theory about the "alturism gene." I am more inclined to believe that the environment in which a person is raised plays a large role in how that individual copes with life.
It is also possible that a person may be motivated by different things and may therefore respond to the environment differently. In other words, what one person may put up with, someone else may not. However, the reason that an individual puts up with the same situation may be different. Some people may do it because they have no choice, while others may do it to achieve an end, and so forth.
First of all, I want to thank Dr. Stein for the opportunity of meeting Mr. Jeffrey Gural. I was astonished by all those wonderful things that he had been doing for children and teenagers in NYC.
Before answering the questions posted by Prof. Reitz, I would like to ask some questions that I had while Mr. Jeffrey Gural was talking during our class discussion.
Why don’t we have more people like Jeffrey Gural in our society? Do we only try to win the presidential elections and to get money and power? Why do not we have more charity, sympathy and understanding when they are so needed in our society?
I agree with Jamie that our family and genes play a huge role in the way we are. However, our parents give us the basic information; they give us our preparation and start in life. The rest of the track we have to run on our own. Environment and people that surround us can help us, make us better or worse, but we have to make our final decisions.
Here comes Mr. Gural’s idea about being remembered. Only when we get older we start thinking about who is going to remember us after death. We do not have those terrible thoughts when we are young. In order to be remembered by not only the members of our families, we have to start helping people early in our lives.
He did emphasize the idea of the desire to help people being genetic. I thought that this was quite interesting, and although some people may dismiss it right away, I like Jamie would like to do more research on this idea. I tend to, again, feel like Jamie in belief that the environment plays the most direct and critical role in shaping a person. For example, the reason that my mother is a nurse is because her brother was very ill growing up and she was inspired to help others after seeing what her brother and family endured. Likewise, I have grown up with my mother is a role model and she is constantly helping others. Perhaps this is where my sisters and I get our mentality to help others, or it could just be genetic.
In a third hour of Vera Seminar I would have asked Jeff a question about help. We discussed help for a full class and I would like to hear what he has to say about it. Jeff takes on a group of children and helps them achieve advancement in school, but in some of his stories it seems as though his help could have been more harmful than helpful to the specific individual. I would also ask him if he had an interesting in working with youth/children or education prior to meeting Jean.
Mr. Gural mentioning that he believes that he has the altruism gene took me by surprise. I am not sure where I stand on the gene theory. I know that some things are inherited, but I never thought of altruism as being one of them. Perhaps I also should do some research. But what struck me as even more surprising is that his gene for altruism allows him to feel more satisfaction from writing a check for inner city youth, than it does to purchase another property. But what if he did not have the funds to write the check, would that gene still be expressed? In my experience with doing volunteer work, I have found that the good feeling that you get from helping someone else is much stronger when there is no exchange of money involved. If helping meant that you would not get paid or not get recognized for making a donation, would you still be as willing to do good deeds? Which brings us back to our discussions from last semester, is any deed purely altruistic?
I enjoyed Mr. Gural’s stories, but as Katie mentioned, being able to provide immediate financial assistance can sometimes be counterproductive. When thinking about the dire situation the human race is in, I always feel as though there are two sides, the good and the bad. But hearing Mr. Gural’s opinion concerning certain political decisions, economic and race issues I was beginning to see that the lines were not so clear cut. I am so used to hearing people like Mayor Bloomberg who has billions of dollars attempting to justify firing teachers and closing down fire houses, but hearing Mr. Gural talk, I was able to see that the power of money has not completely clouded his vision. However, when he mentions things like “That girl is stuck on this reparations thing; that’s never going to happen!”, or “black people don’t like being dissed and this is why they are unable to respect the authority of a boss”, I begin to question his stance. When I asked about how we could attack structural issues such as female objectification in music videos, materialism, and the promotion of alcohol and prescription drugs, he responds that this is what democracy is all about. He also believes that capitalism is the most efficient way to run the economy. I just wonder if it is possible to believe in capitalism and be an advocate for low income troubled youth at the same time. Lenny, perhaps you can help me with this conundrum?
I do want to thank Mr. Gural for making time with us. He was not obligated and did not recieve any financial incentive, and to me this was enough to demonstrate his passion for social change.
Christina, You've offered a great set of comments and questions. I look forward to reading responses from the rest of the group on the issues/questions you raise.
Also, here's a link to the work and writings by anthropologist Jonathan Marks (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/main.html). On this site, you can find a link to a recent article he wrote: Marks, J. (2011) Off human nature. American Anthropologist, 112:513.
I think his comment on "human nature" can be extended to the notion of an "atruism" gene (or a "criminal" gene or any other such pronouncements). Marks writes, "But in an intellectual arena where facts are notoriously difficult to come by, one fact is certain: human nature is a politically contested
turf. Anyone who pronounces on it, while simultaneously arguing that their pronouncements are disconnected from society and politics, is not to be taken seriously."
How about we conceptualize Mr. Gural's invoking the so-called "altruism" gene as a descriptive metaphor for his worldview, generosity and moral sensibility rather than as a seriously considered, evidence-based statement?
Christina, I have to say that I agree (somewhat) with Gural's view on capitalism. Competition, as he mentioned, is quite often what leads to progress. And he does seem to understand that because of this it is also necessary to provide everyone with the same tools to compete (education being the greatest tool of them all). He recognizes that some people are given what can be seen as an 'unfair' advantage simply because of where they were born, and who they born to.
Interestingly enough, I enjoyed his comments about his employee who seemed to be "stuck on the reparations thing". Mostly because I think he wasn't in anyway trying to play down the importance of her empowerment, but trying to give us an example of the 'afro-centrist' ideas that can become prevalent in educated black communities. A lot of these ideas are stuck in the past, like reparations, and as important as the sentiments behind them are, a new approach is desperately needed.
Something I still have to consider is his answer as to why a lot of US education initiatives aren't working. They way he sees it, it's because more women are working now. What!? Is he for real?
So in a way (a very small way) I understand the lack of the home-carer being some sort of hinderance to a child's development, but I can't reconcile that women in the workplace lead to the downfall of the US educational system.
I would have asked him: if he indeed thought that the rise in female employment lead to the current state of education in the US, how would he explain the consensus amongst most developmental economists that educating women and/ or creating job opportunities for women is a key strategy in raising entire communities up from poverty? And further more, because certainly encouraging women to no longer pursue their career aspirations in quite frankly borderline misogynist, what would he propose to remedy the absence of the 'stay at home' parent?
Lenny, thank you for reminding me about the comment regarding stay at home moms and education. This was certainly one of the most shocking comments of the entire class. I am an active feminist and I resent the fact that women earning degrees, advancing their careers, and gaining independence from their partners would be seen as diminishing her children’s education. I do agree however that the lack of parental presence at home affects a child’s development. Some solutions might be that the other parent could spend some time at home developing their children’s life skills. Perhaps both parents could work less and have more time with their kids. But how will they pay the rent? Well, if all families had the same opportunities, if minimum wage were raised, if health care was affordable; this might be a start. The craziest idea of all would be to create schools that actually taught children instead of just being incompetent babysitters.
I just can’t come to terms with the capitalism model. It is unsustainable in the long term; capitalism requires owners of capital to continue making profit at almost any cost, even if it means lives will be lost and the planet will perish. Capitalism seems to me a temporary way for people who believe that they are more entitled than others to continue exploiting and advancing themselves. I have heard people say that capitalism proves survival of the fittest. But when resources are depleted, no one is educated, everyone is selfish, and pollution is inescapable, I want to see who will be the fittest then. Are these little green pieces of paper etible and I don’t know it? I am not a socialist or a communist, but I do know that capitalism is not the way.
I live in a place where children want to watch television all day instead of read. They want to play video games instead of going outside and playing sports. They would rather talk to friends on facebook than going to their home to visit. Kids would rather spend their money on a pair of shoes than take a trip to a place that they have never been. They would rather fist fight with someone who is different or disagrees with them than have a conversation. They would rather steal, sell drugs (this includes legally or illegally) to increase their profit than to use their talents to create a better world. Capitalism has taught them well!
I have to say Jeff's visit was a great honor. I was surprised about how much compassion and humanity he has for a rich man. It's probably a funny thing to read that I am saying he is "human", but I don't know any rich people personally and I must say, he really cares. I see individuals who are in power on TV and while TV may not give you a great r view of how a person really is, it's the closest I've been. I was in shock that he helped so many by providing and looking over them like a concerned parent. Just hearing him say he got the kid a great lawyer after knowing that the kid was guilty of charges, he did all he could to help him still. I believe he did this because in some way or another, he feels people deserve a chance.
The criminal justice system is terribly flawed in my opinion. Maybe some might agree or disagree with me, but thats my opinion. You do something bad and you get punished, no second chances, no turning back time, instead you get time (go to jail). But Jeff views things so differently, he looks at giving a chance as a time to fix yourself to be better, to show others you aren't a bad person, but a good one. We all make mistakes and we all fall at one point or another, but I feel Jeff shows a part of the criminal justice system that isn't around, chances.
While we cannot give everyone a chance for what they do, there are some I am sure we all believe deserve a second chance, once we look over the story and the intent. Which makes me think of Lenny's new internship opportunity, to look over case files and decide someone another's fate (exciting yet, a lot of pressure).
I truly enjoyed Jeff's visit and I am inspired even more at the work he is doing and continues to succeed at.
I think the idea that a gene influences our desire to help is plausible. I believe in this case we are inherently inclined to help one another but our experiences in life either strengthen that urge or weaken that urge. The individual’s strength and will determines which direction they will take.
I think most people have an urge to advance in some way. I think a society like the one in the United States further enhances the idea that one day “you could be the boss.” Possibly then a reason for putting up with a boss is because one day you hope to be the boss, another reason may be because the boss determines how many hours you’ll work or how peaceful your work day will be depending on how you treat the boss.
I believe I heard a great deal of idealism in Mr. Gural’s narrative. I looked up idealism in the dictionary, and it stated that idealism means a strong belief in something that may be impossible to achieve. So I definitely believe that Mr. Gural is an idealist when it comes to helping those less fortunate than himself, his many stories have shown that he tries time and again until his resources are used up to aid people to alter their lives for the better.
I do not think that genes determine ones compassion or will to give. In fact I think it’s an affront to humanity to whittle down all of our capacity as human beings to individual genes making us less responsible for the things we do. Having said that, I do believe that there is an art to navigating the world, and some people are just better at it than others. To have the ability to tolerate an awful boss is to shows great determination and will succeed. I do not think that success comes down to a science but I do believe it involves some pragmatism, determination, gut and some street smarts. But I do think that on some level Jeff Gural is an idealist and that this makes it a little difficult to see the structural nature of many of the problems that exists in the community as opposed to simply blaming it on black urban culture. But I am proud of his work, proud that there are people who care.
If I were to ask him another question, it would be… “what kept you out of trouble as a child?”
Chad Out!
Good question, Chad. Move over Piers Morgan!
Not that anyone needs a reason to quote George Eliot, but as I was writing a paper this morning I came across this quote that speaks, softly but powerfully, to so many of our seminar discussions. This is from Eliot's essay "Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft" (1855): "On one side we hear that woman's position can never be improved until women themselves are better; and, on the other, that women can never become better until their position is improved -- until the laws are made more just, and a wider field opened to feminine activity. But we constantly hear the same difficulty stated about the human race in general. There is a perpetual action and reaction between individuals and institutions; we must try and mend both by little and little -- the only way in which human things can be mended."
I have been deeply moved by the passion of this blog. The conversation is moving along so beautifully, I am not going to comment on any of the discussion threads that have appeared: Christina’s talk about the unintended consequences of charitable giving, Lenny’s discussion of the character of progress, the nature-nurture debate resurrected here (I have long ago realized that human behaviors are far too complex to be governed by genes alone or even primarily). Since, you guys are working through your ideas for the final paper, I want to talk about Jeff’s visit from the point of view of perspective taking, if that’s not too redundant.
It is an extraordinary exercise in perspective taking to deconstruct Jeff’s narrative. On the one hand, he gives us a compelling story about choosing to stay in the real world and contribute-not just money but a piece of himself-when he obviously does not have to do so. It’s a kind of soulful giving that inspires me. On the other hand, the narrative reminds us how privilege can blind one to their unfounded assumptions; this is the “privilege” of having few people dare to disagree with you. Fascinating to me is that our group is caught in the very bind that the blog comments call attention to: as we are hoping to be recipients of Mr. Gural’s largess, it behooves us-pragmatically but also unconsciously-to be more willing to tolerate the ambivalence we feel, hearing about all the good he does but seriously challenging (in our minds, at least) some of the comments he made regarding gender and race. The double bind makes us both less judgmental-which is good-but also perhaps less critical, which is not so good.
It would be great if we could pay attention to the process of being simultaneously inspired and put off, needy and independent, emotional and pragmatic. These paradoxes in us are a microcosm of the issues that are raised more broadly in the non-profit field, as agencies court donors, populations both need and resent services, providers behave altruistically and egoistically at the same time. As we negotiate this world, we want to recognize the complications and contradictions implicit in all the perspectives on the table, not reduce them to caricatures or binary positions.
Although I can imagine the existance of an altruism gene, I agree with Jamie's and Katie's skepticism and belief that giving has more to do with nurture rather than nature. However I believe it is more personal rather than how someone is brought up. My father is adamantly oppose to giving to the homeless or even to charity whereas I have my good days and bad ones. Most of the time regardless of the way I was brought up I will give what I can without a gene or regardless of the way I was raised.
As for Christina's comment about the coexistanxse of a capitalist outlook and a philanthropist habit I believe the two are frequently exibited by the same person. Every Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is a prime example of such a combination: they are highly successful captialists who channel their earnings in order to help those less well off (just about everybody).
In the other hand, the reasoning behind this can be selfless or selfish. They could be simply attempting to help others, to give back. Or they may simply be tryingto get a tax-relief, or even simply getting remembered through foundations and charities, as was discussed. Either way, in my opinion, if you are helping others than your intentions are irrelivant.
Post a Comment