Strategies of prosociality: Comparing Nordic and Slavonic altruism toward Ukrainian refugees

Nordic high-trust societies are underpinned by prosociality, a term denoting cooperation and working for the good of others. State-funded voluntarism provides opportunities for altruism that appears to contribute to the Nordics’ exceptional level of well-being. Altruists are rewarded by a warm, lasting affect that enhances personal well-being, thus motivating further prosociality. Humanity’s evolutionary past coded into us a desire to strengthen our community by helping those in need—a biocultural drive that is corrupted when authoritarian regimes enforce unselfish behavior on disempowered populations. Such coercive altruism has a line of adverse long-term consequences for communal functionality and individual flourishing. Our study examines how sociocultural context influences people’s prosocial strategies, and how sharing insights and practices from democratic and authoritarian traditions can lead to new, revitalized forms of altruism. Our in-depth interviews (n = 32) of Nordic and Slavonic helpers of Ukrainian refugees in Norway (1) illuminate the impact of culture and memory on altruistic practices, (2) define points of tension between systemic and anti-systemic modes of prosociality, and (3) identify cross-cultural interactions that generate trust, well-being, and social innovation. The post-communist experience of the Slavonic informants motivated anti-systemic altruism, which highlights spontaneity, improvisation, and occasional rule breaking. Norwegian systemic altruism is based on trust, efficacy, and rule-following. Our evolutionary approach to cultural psychology substantiates how important it is for development and immigration policies to align our knowledge of human nature with insights into the workings of cultural legacies. A better understanding of the biocultural mainsprings of altruism could be of crucial importance in our era of reemerging authoritarianism and increasing migration

A multilevel selection model for prosocial well-being

This article proposes an evolutionary model for well-being informed by multilevel selection. We posit that people’s subjective assessment of their own quality of life is the sum their happiness, which is related to individual selection, and their sense of having a meaningful life, which is related to group selection. Conceptualizing life quality as “Happiness + Meaning = Well-being” offers insights into how the human well-being system helps people navigate between individual and group needs. We define happiness as the cluster of affects that reward individuals for solving adaptively relevant problems. We approach meaning as a reward individuals experience when contributing to their community. While people derive happiness from cooperation and competition, meaning originates from prosocial (cooperative/altruistic) behavior. Since increased within-group competition often reduces societal well-being, public policy should aim at cooperative means for good living. Our model brings attention to these dynamics. The Nordic countries, which score highest on quality of life, facilitate multilevel well-being, that is, individual prosperity and altruistic opportunity. Our preliminary quantitative study confirmed the correlation between some markers of prosociality and well-being at a national level. To investigate the psychological mechanisms behind this correlation, we conducted in-depth interviews of Nordic and Slavonic helpers of Ukrainian refugees in Norway (n = 32). A primary ambition was to illuminate how the human quest for meaning contributes both to individual flourishing and group selection. In line with Nesse’s view on happiness not as an affect meant to be maximized, but an evolutionary signal, we use a qualitative approach that allows for a deeper understanding of how individuals adapt to these signals. Our findings suggest that happiness is transient so that the well-being system’s signal sensitivity can be preserved. Meaning is enduring since it assesses and reinforces social belonging. These insights are relevant for our era’s turn toward more holistic development policies. Compared to often materialistic, competition-driven happiness pursuits, meaning-driven well-being is a more sustainable alternative for individuals, communities, and the planet

Happiness Maximization Is a WEIRD Way of Living

Psychological science tends to treat subjective wellbeing and happiness synonymously. We start from the assumption that subjective wellbeing is more than being happy to ask the fundamental question: what is the ideal level of happiness? From a cross-cultural perspective, we propose that the idealization of attaining maximum levels of happiness may be especially characteristic of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic) societies, but less so for others. Searching for an explanation for why “happiness maximization” might have emerged in these societies, we turn to studies linking cultures to their eco-environmental habitat. We discuss the premise that WEIRD cultures emerged in an exceptionally benign ecological habitat, i.e., compared to other regions, they faced relatively light existential pressures. We review the influence of the Gulfstream on the North-Western European climate as a source of these comparatively benign geographical conditions. We propose that the ecological conditions in which WEIRD societies emerged afforded them a basis to endorse happiness as a value and to idealise attaining its maximum level. To provide a nomological network for “happiness maximization”, we also studied its several potential side-effects: alcohol and drug consumption and abuse, and the prevalence of mania. To evaluate our hypothesis, we re-analyse data from two large-scale studies on ideal levels of personal life satisfaction—the most common operationalization of happiness in psychology—involving respondents from 61 countries. We conclude that societies whose members seek to maximize happiness tend to be characterized as a WEIRD, and generalizing this across societies can prove problematic if adopted at the ideological and policy level

Teaching Sustainability in Norway, China and Ghana: Challenges to the UN Programme

The article compares how the UN-initiated education for sustainable development (ESD) has fared in three seemingly dissimilar countries: Norway, a wealthy, ‘post-materialist’ liberal democracy, Ghana, a developing democratic country, and China, a fast catching-up, centrallysteered economy. The study – based on an analysis of national ESD programmes, schoolbooks and qualitative interviews with teachers and students – discusses some of the pivotal reasons for the decline in ESD schooling in all three countries. It also explores surprising ‘archipelagos of pedagogical innovation’, as shown by one of the high schools in Ghana. Our conclusions are that, apart from specific, cultural and political contexts which influence ESD, students’ socio-environmental literacy in the examined countries has been affected by an ever more pervasive competitive and neoliberal mindset. Further, in all three cases, the agenda of ‘sustainable development’ suffers from a ‘narrative and mythical deficit’: a lack of a mobilizing story, the absence of which reduces the attractiveness of sustainability ideals and inhibits their empowering potential. © 2017 Taylor & Franci

Humanism Under Siege: The Janus Face of Modern Revolution of Dignity

The article interprets the crisis of liberal democracy in the 21st century as the result of an ongoing, dual revolution of dignity. One such revolution is the work of “humanist outliers”: small groups and individuals dedicated to compassionate social emancipation. Thus anti-authoritarian revolutions like that of Solidarity in Poland (1980–81) succeed in large part thanks to cultural and political innovations springing from the work of such small groups. However, the humanist revolution of dignity – featuring altruism and cooperation – has its “tribal doppelgänger”: a twin revolution that strives to reclaim national dignity and pride at the price of submission to authoritarian rule