Political Theory
It was Bernard Mandeville who in 1724 said that moral virtues are ‘the political offspring which flattery begot upon pride’. The target of Mandeville’s satirical attack was the view of virtue as self-denial, which according to him was a paradox since all actions spring from self-interest. Mandeville’s cynical views remind us that the tug-of-war between self-interest and benevolence has been around for centuries, yet this debate remains as fascinating and significant today as it was in the eighteenth century. The two books being reviewed here are important contributions to this body of literature.
The principal virtue of Political Altruism? is that it moves the debate on altruism towards empirical case studies, in this case solidarity movements and voluntary organizations within both the national and the transnational context. This does not mean that the book is devoid of theoretical concerns. Quite the contrary. The introductory chapters by Florence Passy and Charles Tilly, and the concluding chapter by Marco Giugni, address the difficulty of defining the concept of altruism. Yet those of us who have a tendency to approach altruism from a philosophical perspective are reminded that there is much to be learnt from exploring examples of altruism in action.
Whether self-interest plays any role in acts of altruism is a recurring theme throughout the book, so much so that Mancur Olson’s seminal study of collective action finds its way into almost every chapter. The fact that the editors resist the temptation of giving one definition of altruism at the outset is also to be praised. As they explain, this open-ended approach was deliberately intended to avoid determining ex ante something that must be assessed after careful examination of facts and explanations. This explains why the book’s main title deliberately ends with a question mark.
While the contributors to this volume may disagree on the relationship between self-interest and altruism, one important thesis that seems to be widely shared is that social relations rather than individual motivations should be the ground on which we judge altruistic actions, since altruistic behaviour is the product of situations and circumstances. This is perhaps the single most important lesson we learn from reading this book.
Concern over the all-pervading appeal to self-interest as the dominant explanatory paradigm in contemporary politics is the backdrop for John Kane’s impressive The Politics of Moral Capital. In this beautifully written book, John Kane wants to convince us that so-called political realists and other methodological cynicists are fundamentally wrong. That is because there is an inevitable and ineradicable moral dimension to life, political life included.
Kane claims he has found the moral dimension of politics in the concept of moral capital. Basically, the idea is that moral reputation inevitably represents a resource for political agents and institutions. It is not so much the ethical dimensions of decision-making that define moral capital, but people’s moral perceptions of political actors, causes, institutions and organizations. By stressing the ubiquity and effect of people’s moral judgement in political life, Kane is able to reject overly cynical views that typically suppose politics to be an inherently amoral realm.
The great virtue of this book is that Kane does not restrict his analysis to ostentatious theoretical speculations. Instead, he supports his thesis with a number of fascinating historical examples. In order to show how moral capital can be acquired during times of crisis, the stories of Abraham Lincoln and Charles de Gaulle are retold with an original moral twist. Moral capital can also be accumulated during periods of persecution – as the tragic stories of Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi’s long incarceration testify. The latter case is particularly interesting as it reveals the potential transmissibility of moral capital (from her famous father Aung San, the martyred hero of Burmese independence). Finally, because moral capital is not exclusively attached to notable individuals fighting for high causes, but may also institutionally reside in a respected political office, Kane takes us through the American presidency from Kennedy to Clinton.
The case studies of different leaders make for fascinating reading, and at the end of the book one is left with the feeling that moral capital deserves to be taken at least as seriously as Robert Putnam’s more famous idea of social capital. In order to pursue the idea of moral capital even further, perhaps the next step is to explore in greater detail what is ‘moral’ in moral capital. After all, there are many paradigms of morality (Kantian, utilitarian, contractarian, etc.), therefore there are many conflicting views on moral judgements, moral choices, moral values and moral ends. Further research in the idea of moral capital should move in the direction of moral philosophy in general, and moral psychology in particular.
