BENEVOLENCE

It is often said there are two types of people – those who do things for others, and those who do things for themselves. The divide between the selfish and the selfless, the battle between the two stances, has been a major influence in history. But can such a divide be so easily made? Or, as in most things, is the truth more complicated than that.

THE CAD

Certainly stereotypes exist in terms of men. On the one hand we have the selfish cad, always thinking of himself. On the other hand, we have the proverbial nice chap. If we have women right, we know which they prefer – the cad. And it is the cad who usually gets on in life. Politicians are useless unless they have that nasty, selfish streak. Business would crumble without the hard decisions of the ruthless businessman.
Even in fiction, the nasty characters are the most interesting. It seems that without a high degree of selfishness, we would live in a very different, less advanced world.

OH, TO BE CHARITABLE

This said, the nice chap, and the benevolence he brings, has its importance, too. But not necessarily in the way we automatically think. For instance, it is the benevolent behind our charities. Indeed, we live in a world awash with charities for this, charities for that, suggesting that we are the most charitable people on Earth.
But a question: If society was itself benevolent at its roots, would we need charities at all? Or would benevolence be an immediate gift of society? This is an interesting point.
In the past, society looked after all its problems as a matter of course. There were no charities in such a world, suggesting that benevolence in society declines in line with the number of charities a society creates. In effect, charities only appear when society has failed to be benevolent in itself.

PHILANTHROPY

Sometimes people are thought of as benevolent when really they are not. Clearly, they are seen to help people, but when looked at closely, it is only a particular group they help – only the people they like. As for the others in society, we often find such people have a high degree of contempt.
Alternatively, we can identify times in the past when benevolence seemed to be a creed. Victorian society was thought of as benevolent, with rich philanthropists spending fortunes on everything from charities to hospitals. But when we look at the overriding ethos of the times, another factor rises.

THE VICTORIANS

Victorian society was the creation of free thinkers reengineering society in the 19th century. With the decline of mainstream religion and aristocracy, a movement of non- conformism began, creating religions such as Methodism.
At the same time a Bill of Rights guaranteed the slow shift of power to the House of Commons, law courts increasingly saw the rise of the jury, and non-conformist entrepreneurs and innovators forged the Industrial Revolution.
There is a single thread to all these innovations in that they constituted the rise of the middleclass, and the capitalism they brought with them. Moving into every area of power, the middleclass forged a quiet revolution. To guarantee success, they needed a powerbase, and this came with industrial might.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

But to guarantee their industrial might, they needed an organised workforce, institutionalised for the factory. Whilst this process eventually improved the lot of the poor, it was achieved as much by trade unions as these philanthropists. Their entire benevolence was, it seems, geared to give what was needed to provide a workforce to line their own pockets.
Prior to these advances, Christian missionaries were thought of as benevolent, bringing great advantages to the world as they spread their benevolence around Africa and other continents.
But alongside their benevolence came the word of God, pulling endemic peoples from their natural culture, to be closely followed by traders and empire-builders. And again we find a high dose of influence at work which, when analysed, is not as benevolent as we first thought. Rather, in this respect, benevolence was a tool of conquest.

RISE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Benevolence is increasingly being seen, here, as not very benevolent at all. To be benevolent is to downgrade your needs in favour of others. And we can see this is not the case in either Christian missionaries or Victorian society.
As to today, benevolence is increasingly old hat. Our present creed of materialist capitalism is a force against benevolence as it panders to our individual desires. Only the individual is important, so there is no desire to help others, who belong to a wider community outside the individual.

SPIRITUAL v THE LIBERAL

People who do tend to be benevolent in its pure sense tend to be spiritually inclined. This makes sense, as the spiritual person accepts a force above his individuality. As such, it is obvious that individual desires would lessen in favour of the community.
Perhaps we should be giving more power to religious institutions, who could easily take their benevolence out to the community and do a far better job than paid social workers. But even here, we are not talking about benevolence in its pure sense.
Some people – left liberal do-gooders, for instance would argue with the above stance. They would say they are benevolent, and are so from an atheistic stance. Absolutely. But I’ve never yet met a left-liberal do-gooder who does not have a particular axe to grind. Almost to a man and woman, they are fuelled by ideology, their benevolence a form of influence to create the world they want.
This is the same argument that could be used against the spiritual do-gooder. It is beginning to seem as if benevolence can never be a force in itself, but always a form of weapon or influence attached to a need to place your values on others.

WHAT BENEVOLENCE IS AND IS NOT

The spiritually inclined would also disagree with this. They would say that, even if this was so, the standards they live by are the right standards that all should live by, thus negating the argument. Their rightness precludes all debate.
But this is not benevolence, but arrogance. And if spiritual benevolence was without selfishness, as they claim, what is the need of saints?
In practically every instance benevolence IS selflessness, but only on the surface. There is always a hidden agenda. And this agenda is even there when no theological or ideological spur can be found in answer to the benevolence.
This is so because being benevolent provides a buzz. There is nothing more ennobling than being known as a good, kind person. To help another person can provide a pleasure that transcends any form of materialist value.
So benevolence is outed as selflessness fuelled by selfishness. Benevolence helps the needy, which always includes our own ego. Which all seems to be a rather depressing outlook to take. But not necessarily.
We are, by nature, a selfish species. We have emotion, and emotion provides desires. Such desires are always more pleasurable than the nastier side to human emotion. So it is inevitable that pandering to our desires will be an endemic part of the species we are.
Benevolence thus becomes alien to our nature, unless fuelled by theology or ideology. Yet this need not necessarily be so.
As advised above, real benevolence is a marvellous feeling to have, above mere material needs. So perhaps the answer to our lack of benevolence is to hammer home its innate selfishness.
Because, if the outcome of benevolence being personal pleasure became an accepted and popular concept, then our degree of benevolence to each other would grow. So go on. Be selfish.
Be benevolent.

© Anthony North, May 2007

Click Tony On for my current affairs posts