Is Greed a pathology?
September 24, 2011 - 6:50pm
I'm posting it here because I think this subject belongs under philosophy and history as much as psychology and society. Which gives a hint as to what I'm thinking now.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I don't know about pathology, but I think it's terminal.
So the question is fairy straightforward, even if the questions it arises from and leads to aren't. One is whether greed is indeed a natural or even constructive response, as the neo-right succesfully foisted on most of the unsuspecting public, way back in greedy eighties and nasty nineties. I'm beginning to question that again, even though I'm far from ideaistic anymore about my fellow humans motives in some situations. (all motives are situational, which doesn't necessarily explain away the Behaviour they sometimes arouse) I have no strong opinions about this either way, as I don't see it as cruci9al necessarily for progressive thought and I just can't reach any conclusive insights when it comes to others states of mind. Not anymore. For better or worse I'm a product of the 60s and 70s and a ceetain subculture, and materialism never meant much to me, beyond the ability to live in dignity, live Period, and even enjoy a few creature comforts and diversions, without losing everything I too may invest in. I don't assume everyone feels the same anymore, for better or worse, but I do question whether it's truly a universal human trait or simply somthing else our barbarous society, as it has evolved, has promulgated and enforced on otyher, perpetuating the Appearance of it being 'natural' . OTOH I can't disiss entirely thats its rooted in certain animalian instincts evolved under more natural and impossible to avoid pressures and attractions.
What do others here think? (and please be abit open to any more conservative opinions expressed here, as its not so much a matter of immediate conflict or personal differences)
I don't know about pathology, but I think it's terminal.
Definitely terminal if left unchecked any further. I do find alot of what I see as pathological now, given that it's now apparently overiding even our survival as a species. and we're no longer talking over the distant horizon. I've even heard some rightwingers musing about our inevitable demise outloud recently, rather than admit their 'market' theories migt be mistaken or they themselves be 'coerced' into paying a little more. (rightwingers, not necessarily conservatives) Could it be an expression now of something even more lethal than traditionaly assumed? Even by the left?
I'll just leave this awhile for anyone else who has an opinion or thought.
Is greed a disease?
Well, disease(s) harm both individual and society.
So, absolutely greed is a disease/pathology.
Yes and no,
It all part of Human nature.
In an hard evolutionist point of view Greed is an instinctual survival Mechanism that make us stock as many resources as possible.
At the same time it also an reproductive instinct, a race to the top for mating.
this theories doesn't put aside psychological disorder that can exacerbate trouble like schizophrenia.
Some also believe there is a link with greed and psychopathy because some similar behaviour (except for killing people) of greedy people and psychopath.
Its not part of "human nature"... even acknowledging as a philosphical pragmatist that there are some things that effectively amount to a human nature. [Many, if not most, of which something similar other animals have, especially mammals.]
Second level: among different societies there are characteristics that are pervasive enough to that [and other] societies, to for all intents and purposes be a 'human nature' [to those people].
Acquisitiveness is common in all human societies, even when it is not the norm. But in a number of human societies greed is rare- on a level with mental illness, in that it does happen to some individuals... But that is it.
But it goes without saying that none of us are immersed in societies where greed is that rare.
There is a huge difference in degrees to which greed exists. It is much more looked down on in many if not most first nations people: has to be masked, and/or gets you ostracised, etc. [But that is VERY complicated.]
The degree of greed's acceptability/unacceptability even differs vastly among families and extended families in the same society. Even the suspicion of greed, the appearance of what might be greed, will get you in trouble in my family, which does not outwardly appear unusual.
Around the globe, greed is way too normal. And capitalism doesnt help and feeds it / feeds off of it. But greed WAY precedes even primitive forms of capitalism. Greed is effectively one of the foundations on which the greatest of our ancient civilizations was built.
The fact it is endemic, and central even, for so far back, is I guess is a big part of why it can appear to be "human nature"... or at least close to it.
The word 'pathology' naturaly brings to mind the [ancient] Greeks... from whom we get the word.
And come to think of it, Greed could have been one of the gods.
[except it was endemic to the lot of them]
The Compassionate Instinct
Clearly, compassion played an important role in evolution. Kant was wrong and Polanyi was right. We are more than self-interest. Their version of homo economicus is an abomination of man. We are so much more than just one dimensional prisoners of our own greed.
Neoliberal ideology of the last 35 years has represented the emancipation of self-interest and greed. Capitalists have consumed world resources like no other time in history in order to get rich like no rich people have been so enriched before.
The economy was never so central to peoples lives throughout history as it has since start of the 1980s or so. Three decades three recessions later, greed as a driver of economic fortunes clearly isn't working for most of humanity with a billion chronically hungry people, and 80 percent of chronically hungry nations exporting food to "the market". For most of human history we were hunters and gatherers and lived by cooperative alliances with one another as well as animals and nature. Dogs were our best friends for a long time in warding off predators. And our best friends have few basic rights today as are non-existent for one in four mammals threatened with extinction. We are the only species to have managed to threaten every living thing on earth including ourselves. And yet our rotten leaders driven by greed and personal gain continue to lead us down the path of self destruction.
Any economic system that rewards one human characteristic above all others is not only unscientific, it's an abomination and should be thrown on the capitalist scrap heaps of time. Capitalism and greed are not only destroying the environment all life depends on, it cripples the human thought and creating emotional and mental illness for very many people. Capitalism is a colossal failure for humanity and will lead to destruction. Capitalism may have looked good in 1920s and 1990s North America, but it is evil hiding in the light today. If banishing greed to our subconscious leads to evil manifest in some kind of human dual nature, then we should not unleash it altogether by neoliberal ideology but contain it and make it no more desirable or successful than any other human behaviour. We have to find a better and more scientific way of living. Because I know with certainty that greed does not define me. I am capable of so much more that being a slave to the seven deadly sins. We are real people with real needs and desires, aspirations and capable of having great respect for one another and the world we live in. It's why millions of us don't go out and vote for the bullshit stinking up the halls of power for so long.
To the degree that for all intents and purposes we can call greed part of 'human nature'- at least the societies most humans live in, and just about forever have....
Then compassion and sharing are also part of human nature. And like Fidel, I would have to say even more so.
And what would be if not such essential paradoxes?
And I see people in my community volunteering because they want to help others. And some of them surely can't afford to be volunteering their time and money the way they do. They don't seem to care that donating their time will reap no market rewards for themselves. So in my view, those people are really going against the grain within a system that increasingly removes any incentive to prop it up with our donations of personal time and effort. I think Polanyi was right when he wrote that our relationships are far more important to us than money or material wealth. If people do strive to be wealthy, then it is more than likely a means to strengthening social ties and personal status more than benefiting by whatever it is being hoarded, whether money, gold, real estate etc.
Money can't buy true love or good health, and I think some superrich families have been far too wealthy for too long and want taxing. It might create incentive for some billionaire Canadian families to go out and earn their next first million dollars by a means other than running illegal booze across the border, or as in the Irving family's case, to earn their first mil' more honestly than thieving logs on the St John River.
greed is natural in the sense of if there's no food around you want to get as much as you can to survive. But sharing food in times of need is also quite common.
i think the basic concept of greed is innate, we all put our survival first. But for different people the level is different like other emotions or instincts.
and of course when you have massive propaganda telling you to be greedy or you're not good, people's desire to be "part of the group" has the tendency to be even more greedy. i'm sure there's tons of factors.
Anyhow, m pardons for neglecting to get back to this thread earlier. Been busy the last couple months. I pretty much agree with what others are getting at here. I do believe, looking even at animals for example, that greed is a natural instinct -at least at the bare root of it. We only feel our own hungry belly not others. But I also agree that we have other more altruistic instincts too. Theres no other explanation for how much people can and do sacrifice for others. Seeing those we identify suffer affects us deeply too and unlike Darwinists I don't believe thats just a matter of genetic inheritance, anymore than I believe genetics and envirobnment are the only factors in our common evolution. We do have choices -or rather we can Make them, within the limits we're facing. Some more than others. Mostly I suspect greed becomes pathological beyond point, where all instinctual and socially constructed 'needs' are met, and reflect more how wer'e raised, the subcultures we enter and the ideologies we believe. Unlike the rest of us rich folks aren't likley to understand how much we are dependent upon one another, how much work and planning is usually required to attain financial security, or how limitred choices can for those threatened by unemplyment say, or the kind of consequences we can face. Thats something they just couldn't understand on any deep level. I also suspect the excessively materialistic and self centred lifestyle some lead do leave them rather empty inside, especially if everything is TOO easy, and their constnt need for 'more' nolonger reflects any utility or function except ego gratification. Or feeding an addiction. After a certain point wealth becomes more about power than anything. Not over themselves our their circumstance but over others they can't admit they depend on. THat too me is pathological.
From my own cultural standpoint, greed reflects activities and attitudes that each of us must learn to regulate, through both social conditioning and/or developing a personal awareness of its harm. When we're very young we may not be able to think critically about it. But as we age we become more aware of the harms it can create. I think a certain level of greed has become a part of our social conditioning and acceptance. The disposability of our relationships with things, and our right to accumulate may be expressions of that social acceptance. My own perception is that greed can certainly develop as a pathological expression, but it is more a symptom than as an illness of its own. So, I agree greed is leanred and think of it as a sociological conditioning with many expressions.
From my own cultural standpoint, greed reflects activities and attitudes that each of us must learn to regulate, through both social conditioning and/or developing a personal awareness of its harm. When we're very young we may not be able to think critically about it. But as we age we become more aware of the harms it can create. I think a certain level of greed has become a part of our social conditioning and acceptance. The disposability of our relationships with things, and our right to accumulate may be expressions of that social acceptance. My own perception is that greed can certainly develop as a pathological expression, but it is more a symptom than as an illness of its own. So, I agree greed is leanred and think of it as a sociological conditioning with many expressions.
Oh hey Sknguy, good to see your still here! Not many of us old guys left. I doubt we're far apart on this, but I'm kind of interested what youre getting at exactly in the parts I boldfaced. Looks to me they're related thoughts on property rights often assumed universal, but not sure. (not looking to argue the fine points, just curious)
The DSM-IV doesn't call it greed but it does describe the traits that I think mean greed very well.
Antisocial Personality Disorder
The symptoms of antisocial personality disorder include a longstanding pattern (after the age of 15) of disregard for the rights of others. There is a failure to conform to society's norms and expectations that often results in numerous arrests or legal involvement as well as a history of deceitfulness where the individual attempts to con people or use trickery for personal profit. Impulsiveness if often present, including angry outbursts, failure to consider consequences of behaviors, irritability, and/or physical assaults.
Some argue that a major component of this disorder is the reduced ability to feel empathy for other people. This inability to see the hurts, concerns, and other feelings of people often results in a disregard for these aspects of human interaction. Finally, irresponsible behavior often accompanies this disorder as well as a lack of remorse for wrongdoings.
...The disposability of our relationships with things, and our right to accumulate may be expressions of that social acceptance. My own perception is that greed can certainly develop as a pathological expression, but it is more a symptom than as an illness of its own....
Oh hey Sknguy, good to see your still here! Not many of us old guys left. I doubt we're far apart on this, but I'm kind of interested what youre getting at exactly in the parts I boldfaced. Looks to me they're related thoughts on property rights often assumed universal, but not sure. (not looking to argue the fine points, just curious)
Northern Shovler quoted a description of a disorder that's related, in a way, to what I was trying to get at. I just wanted to suggest that greed was a manifestation of other pathologies or social conditionings. Whether it's your emoitons not allowing you to "say when", or whether is's not understanding the point of asking yourself the question in the first place. Greed's an expression of other emotional problems.
In relation to the first bolded quote, I was wanting to suggest that there are things for which society becomes desensitized to as time gones by, such as what I perceive as the lack of value/importance we place on things. As a society, we move on from one social condition to the next, and that's evolution and fair enough. But concerning to me are our habits of disposability and consumerism and how they've become social patterns that teach us the norms about our relationships with the things we use. You know.... I'd probably ask if disposability, consumerism or wealth accumulation were social pathologies, or are they just new social norms.
Greed is the manifestation of what I call the Centre of the Universe Syndrome. It is the mindset that allows one to only see things from the narrow focus of whats in it for ME. Emotionally it is something that healthy and adjusted human beings are supposed to mature out of. Humans are "hard wired" for empathy. Look at any disaster site and you see people looking after each other. Now in a crowd of survivors of an earthquake 99% of the people will be trying to help each other. The other 1% or so who are trying to profit are the "greedy" ones and I would say they do suffer from a pathology.
Anyhow, back to more serious subjects.
...The disposability of our relationships with things, and our right to accumulate may be expressions of that social acceptance. My own perception is that greed can certainly develop as a pathological expression, but it is more a symptom than as an illness of its own....
Oh hey Sknguy, good to see your still here! Not many of us old guys left. I doubt we're far apart on this, but I'm kind of interested what youre getting at exactly in the parts I boldfaced. Looks to me they're related thoughts on property rights often assumed universal, but not sure. (not looking to argue the fine points, just curious)
Northern Shovler quoted a description of a disorder that's related, in a way, to what I was trying to get at. I just wanted to suggest that greed was a manifestation of other pathologies or social conditionings. Whether it's your emoitons not allowing you to "say when", or whether is's not understanding the point of asking yourself the question in the first place. Greed's an expression of other emotional problems.
In relation to the first bolded quote, I was wanting to suggest that there are things for which society becomes desensitized to as time gones by, such as what I perceive as the lack of value/importance we place on things. As a society, we move on from one social condition to the next, and that's evolution and fair enough. But concerning to me are our habits of disposability and consumerism and how they've become social patterns that teach us the norms about our relationships with the things we use. You know.... I'd probably ask if disposability, consumerism or wealth accumulation were social pathologies, or are they just new social norms.
Thanks for the feedback. I suspect the concept-value of 'disposibility' of whatever we possess or purchase has fairly deep roots in 'western' culture (and to some extent in some others) but only became 'socially responible' with the rise of the so-called 'Protestant work ethic' and emeshed in broader social ecomy with the rise of industrial surplus (for some) plus the ability to buy some of it back -not entirely a bad thing there. The loss of the natural ability to say 'when' is particularly apt in our corprate economy. Alot of ideologues insist on comparing it to simple natural im-pulses towards hunger or protection of personal territory but neglect to mention that corporations are legal (of socially sanctioned) abstractions that can never be satisfied and know no natural limits or end. (Of course, most European peasants and merchants already had a deeply ingrained lust for property and status well before the industrial revolution, which easily overrode any conflicting 'Christian' virtues)
I'm posting it here because I think this subject belongs under philosophy and history as much as psychology and society.
If we deal with this as philosophy, then we`re stuck with something like this:
Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike and each believes his own.
So, I suggest we go with psychology and social science generally. In this regard, here`s something from today`s Toronto Star:
Why the 1% are never satisfied
In a recent Empathica Inc. consumer survey, participants revealed that no matter how much money people are paid, they won't think they are wealthy until they earn a little bit more.
This certainly doesn`t mean that people can`t act contrary to what they believe, but perhaps they need help to do so, eh!