Were People More Altruistic in the Past? (4/4)
· Prof. Dr. Ömer DEMİR
Communities Cannot Form Without Aid; Lasting Solutions Cannot Be Created Without Reciprocal Help In relationships between individuals, addressing different needs at a lower cost is a crucial differentiating factor in the development of institutions. The rule is that the lower-cost option eventually replaces the other. In areas with dense rural life, 'staying overnight as a guest' is a good institu
Communities Cannot Form Without Aid; Lasting Solutions Cannot Be Created Without Reciprocal Help
In relationships between individuals, addressing different needs at a lower cost is a crucial differentiating factor in the development of institutions. The rule is that the lower-cost option eventually replaces the other. In areas with dense rural life, 'staying overnight as a guest' is a good institution developed to solve the problem of overnight accommodation at a low cost. In this context, it is very understandable that families had large guest rooms in their homes during periods when hotels or other accommodation facilities were scarce, or when families could not allocate sufficient budget for these external lodging services. Conversely, in a society where transportation has become easier and accessibility has increased, the obsolescence of guest rooms does not mean a decline in social welfare, nor does it mean that interpersonal relationships have been negatively affected. The continued prevalence of hosting overnight guests at home in rural areas is due to the fact that staying overnight at someone's home is still a clear need there. In this context, in large cities, instead of allocating large rooms that will remain idle in a corner of the house for the need to host overnight guests that arises in limited time, and thus are costly, using hotels or guesthouses seems to be a more rational problem-solving method. It is clear that the change in the method of meeting needs also leads to a change in the value judgments that guide people in meeting those needs. However, it should not be forgotten that the ultimate goal of value judgments is to ensure that individuals, as a community, live with fewer conflicts, less pain and sorrow, and as harmoniously and happily as possible for as many people as possible. Changes in institutional structures can lead to changes in the value judgments that make them function. For this reason, the high value judgment of hosting overnight guests at home cannot be considered separate from the function it serves. The decrease in the need to host overnight guests at home will naturally affect the value judgments associated with it.
Now, let's design two ideal models to crystallize an aid-centric perspective. On one hand, consider a situation where every individual is provided with the opportunity to work, and through their past, present, or future work, they meet all their lifelong needs within the framework of reciprocity, and thus do not have to ask for direct help from anyone in their life. On the other hand, let's consider a situation where some individuals, being more talented and capable in every aspect than others, provide direct help to those who are not, without expecting any return. The reason we call these two options ideal models is that in real life, no one spends their entire life at one of these two poles; everyone finds themselves somewhere between these two extremes at different periods of their lives, thus representing abstract positions rather than concrete situations.
Due to the differences in their genetic makeup, social inheritance, and the offerings of the geography they are born into, individuals vary greatly in their life skills. This differentiation, by creating opportunities in favor of some, also lays the groundwork for conflicts. Because as it differentiates their opportunities and quality of life, those who possess valuable things and those who do not do not look at each other in the same way.
On the other hand, this differentiation does not only bring conflict; differentiation is also the main reason for cooperation between individuals. The greatest function of social institutions is to increase cooperation between individuals and reduce conflicts. Human experience has shown that it is possible to create a productive environment where everyone creates benefits for each other and exchanges them, by means of division of labor and specialization, without short-term differences creating conflict. This environment often does not arise spontaneously. It requires institutional structures that will make it possible. In situations of sharp and significant inequality, the reconciling institution that will reduce tension and make coexistence possible is direct aid, where those who have transfer resources to those who do not. If there is no experience regarding how the benefit will arise now or in the future, and no institutional structures that make this experience lasting, the exchange of benefits between individuals will only be short-term.
Let's make these two ideal models a bit more concrete. In one, all individuals use their abilities most effectively to produce enough to meet their present and future needs, with no expectation of receiving direct, unconditional aid from anyone. In the other, let's say three-quarters of the population can produce and earn enough to take care of themselves, while one-quarter can only survive with the help of others. Which of these two would be more preferable? One has direct aid, the other does not. It is quite clear that everyone would want the first model. Because aid is at the core of human relationships, and the essential thing is that this aid is extended to indirect processes while preserving its nature of reciprocity. That is, it is not possible to establish a stable relationship where the recipient today, in return, can create a return either today, or tomorrow if not today, or the day after tomorrow, without any expectation.
The saying 'The giving hand is superior to the receiving hand' advises us to produce and not be dependent on others, and if possible, to support those who cannot produce for this or that reason. If we were to consider direct aid as absolute good, then conversely, we would need to have a recommendation similar to 'the receiving hand is at least as superior as the giving hand'.
Let's summarize the conclusions we have reached. First, mutual aid is the first step in socialization. Those who do not help each other cannot cooperate or divide labor, cannot establish a monetary economy, cannot create systems of deferred payment or pension systems. Because all these systems are based on the fundamental logic of helping each other with a time difference in return. This reciprocity in relationships is so widespread that a parent who does not take good care of their child would not even have the face to expect their children to take care of them. The fact that this mutual aid at the core of relationships takes direct and indirect forms does not negate its nature of mutual aid.
Second, aid is only possible with wealth. If wealth accumulates in the hands of a few, direct aid, meaning that those who have give from what they have to those who do not, without adhering to a regular rule, is a good option to reduce the tension this creates. This reduces protection costs for the giver while protecting the receiver from the risks of obtaining a share through conflict with those who have. It is beneficial for both parties. In this way, sharing-oriented tension decreases, and the preservation and continuity of wealth become easier.
Third, in transferring wealth to the future, it is a safer and lower-cost method to do so through individuals who have the capacity to produce in the future, rather than stocking excess needs (giving to them now and receiving back from them later). For this reason, giving what someone needs today and meeting future needs from their production is an indirect but very effective method of mutual aid.
Fourth, the fundamental expectation in all social systems that reduce tension between individuals is that individuals take care of their own affairs within the framework of reciprocity. The difference in the time when the return is expected (today, tomorrow, or in the hereafter) does not negate the nature of reciprocity of the action. Indeed, the calls for aid made frequently and intensely in religious advice are not in the form of unconditional aid. Aid given to be accepted as a good person also has a return; expecting the return from God in its purest form, rather than from the one who received the aid, contains a clear expectation of 'return'. To categorize aid given for the sake of God, with the condition that no one knows their name, into the group of activities without 'return' would be to deny them the value they deserve.
As human societies develop effective institutional structures that make mutual aid indirect but essentially enable individuals to meet each other's needs (education that imparts or develops skills, access to credit under favorable conditions, pension systems offering adequate provisions, unemployment funds that support during temporary job losses, primary healthcare institutions that provide treatment for unexpected illnesses, anonymous aid funds that support those unable to work due to chronic disabilities, etc.), the direct aid relationships between individuals are observed to decrease. This does not mean that the same human communities are in a worse situation compared to the past in terms of solving each other's problems, meeting each other's needs, in short, helping each other. On the contrary, it shows that each individual has the opportunity to meet their needs within the framework of reciprocity.
In conclusion, the fact that people used to provide more direct aid is related to the level of development of the social systems they lived in compared to today's systems. While it is true that the need for direct aid from individual to individual decreases as institutional structures that enable individuals to meet their needs within the framework of reciprocity develop, this does not mean that aid has decreased in terms of individuals in that society making efforts to create benefits for each other; rather, it means that aid has become indirect and more invisible.