The Benevolent Neurotic & The Invention of Altruism

Benevolence is the new opium of the masses.

“When we are shown scenes of starving children in Africa, with a call for us to do something to help them, the underlying ideological message is something like: “Don’t think, don’t politicize, forget about the true causes of their poverty, just act, contribute money, so that you will not have to think!”
― Slavoj Žižek

Now commonly termed an obsessive-compulsive disorder, obsessional neurosis can involve a range of experiences including persistant, unwelcome thoughts; the need to perform a certain action or set of actions at a particular time or in a particular way; and constant checking (of door locks, the stove, one’s bank account balance). These behaviors are often accompanied by a pervasive sense of guilt and anxiety. The account of the Rat Man is Freud’s most famous description of a case of obsessional neurosis.

Two months ago Forbes magazine listed 48 Heroes of Philanthropy from across the globe. What was one of the central criteria that defined their altruism? Yep, you got it: Money. Capital. According to some, its what makes the world “go ’round”. Somehow benevolence has been redefined to mean he who gives the most. The most time. The most resources. The most ___________ [fill in the blank]. That somehow giving is meant to be quantified. That ethics are meant to be something that is for the public eye. Of course, that begs the old ‘tree’ question – you know, if no one is around when someone enacts benevolence, is it benevolent? But, I’ll leave that for you to answer.

I wonder if the image of the chivalrous young student who helps the weak old lady across the street is not just tired and outmoded, but also a bit degrading? Or take the prolific advertisements that run across our television screens and periodicals of the bloated children in some underdeveloped country pining just for you to pick up your phone and make a monthly donation. Notice that one of the major features of  these condescending commercials is its’ presentation [referring to the television/advertising presenter] of  Western “Whiteness” . Simply put, whiteness is the perpetuation and/or privileging of the color ‘white’ [referring to skin color] over other skin tones/races. The studies themselves center around the construction of the ideology that makes someone white and when, where and why this privileging occurs.

Eric Liu, a Chinese-American and former speech writer for President Bill Clinton, says this: “If whiteness were of no particular advantage, then having a fuller color wheel of skin tones would be purely a matter of celebration. But whiteness – just a drop of it – does still carry privilege. You learn that very young in America”. It’s even in our everyday speech. We say things like, “Oh, there was this black guy at the store…” and so on. Or the racism is more apparent, like: “Why don’t they go to back their own countries!” [this has been overheard many times; more specifically, either in response to how someone drives a car, or even in immigration debates]. In that moment, Whiteness takes on a geographic personification [i.e., America is better than other countries because its phenotypic racial privileging].

There are a lot of problems with the benevolent young student who attempts to open doors for old ladies or ladies at all. In today’s over-sensitive landscape – chivalry has been traded-in for an overcompensated feminism. [Btw, I am pro-feminist]. But when feminists solely define themselves against the things the very things they are attempting to distance themselves from – they are simply being  masculine with different rhetoric [think Sarah Palin who uses similar rhetoric, anger and mannerisms and the male machismo so prevalent in historical patriarchal masculinity].

Today there aren’t enough true feminists, there are too many ‘masculine feminists’. I actually agree with the claim that chivalry is too condescending against the female gender. It implies that the there is a weakness in being female, that females somehow need saving. I think this is perverse, not only due to the fact that this view occurs from the outside-looking-in. It’s also a denial and negation of the female gender and their ability to be autonomous. So, do I think the young student helping the woman across the street is being anti-feminine: yes. Sure, he probably isnt aware of it, but he still is. But not being aware of it is one of the major points of this article. ‘Forgive them father, for they know not what they do’. We tend to implicate evil with knowledge – as if knowing evil and doing it is somehow privileged over not knowing it [some refer to this as unintentional]. What does unintentional mean? Without intention. Outside of intention. No purpose. This means its simply a ‘loose cannon’ with no trajectory. Its a continuous misfire with innumerous casualties. This is very much akin to the movie ’23’ a psychological thriller with Jim Carrey. He plays someone who is given a book as a gift [something outside of his control – most gifts are] and begins obsessing about the number 23 and follows a trail to a murder – in the end, he finds out that he not only wrote the book but also committed the murder. This form of retrograde amnesia is often close to the idea of unintentional benevolence. Not being aware of the trauma we are causing.

So far, we are met with a simple ill placed conundrum. Saving people is problematic. Why? Because its from the outside-looking-in. Privileging is happening even if unintentional. It implies that the helper is there to ‘save the day’ and the the receiver must not only be receptive to the help but also be grateful for the help. This kind of altruism is an obscene form of neurosis. Freud referred to a nuance of this aspect as the pleasure principle. Meaning, we do things for pleasure – to feel good about ourselves. Can altruism exist without someone feeling good about themselves? And if so, why is there this desire to have some form of pure benevolence that is unfettered by feeling good about? However, what happens when the pleasure principle becomes the narcotic that drives the altruistic acts? Well, this is not just problematic, but this leaks into all kinds of vulgar areas [namely : politics and western democracy – where we as westerners feel the need to spread democracy like syphilis].

What about what the  French film theorist Andre Bazin claims about the image, that it doesn’t show us what is on the other side of it. It literally frames our interpretation. Let’s use a simple advert like seeing an Asian woman and a plea to rent-a-human for a specific amount a month and the narrative is that she is somehow in crisis and if we don’t do something she will surely die. Already, before we have even begun there is a privileging in the way ‘need’ is expressed and defined. What about the picture itself, how do we know the woman in the picture is in need? How do we not know she might live in a 3-story house in Orange County, California. Needs tend to be expressed by those who don’t have that specific need. If we, as westerners, venture to another country unlike ours and come with our western minds, backgrounds and baggage;  see something that looks out-of-sync with our interpretation of reality then we somehow think it is our role to rectify the situation.

But ‘who’ said it was our responsibility? We are encouraged to love our neighbors not continuously save them, these are two very different things. This is where benevolence becomes evil. I use the word evil here in the sense of something that exceeds material reality. Would the initial responsibility not fall to the local community, to the local town and then stream out from there? And what of the fact that they may not want anything, because they are actually happy with their lives? So, then what does that say about our own happiness with our lives? Or even benevolence itself, what does this imply about reality? – If we are in constant ‘help’ mode, is this not the most depressing view of reality par excellence? Meaning, we think there is something intrinsically wrong with the state of humanity and we think inequality is somehow at the heart-beart of existence. Although, I concede there are inequalities and that we have problems, most of them stem from our views of reality proper.

Theorist Jean Baudrillard once referred to ethics as evil. Why? Because ethics create a role-based response to deep structural issues that needs more of an end-to-the-system then simply a slow-perpetuation of them. That the implication is once we enact some benevolent ethic we somehow change the system – but his point was that these ‘act’ no matter how philanthropic are exactly what the system itself feeds off of. That the truly benevolent act is destroy the system. That to end poverty, we must not simply give $5 dollars to the guy on the corner holding a cardboard sign, but rather that we must seek [with the help of the guy with a cardboard sign] to eradicate the very systems in place that keep him there [unless he wants to be/has chosen that life style].