CC BY
1PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES
CHARITY IN PSYCHOLOGY: PARADIGMS SHIFT
Tolmachova I.A.
Kiev National University of Culture and Arts, a graduate (Kiev, Ukraine);
NGO «Institute of Philanthropy», a director (Kiev, Ukraine).
Abstract
Basing on the works of modern psychologists a paradigmatic analysis of charity was done. The principal differences between the psychological paradigm of traditional charity and the psychological paradigm of modern charity were revealed.
Keywords: philanthropic direction of psychology, psychological direction of charity, psychological paradigm of charity, charity, philanthropy, altruism.
Formulation of the problem. The relevance of the study of the charitable direction of psychology in the context of the paradigmatic approach is conditioned by the potential influence of the political and economic and sociocultural paradigms on the disciplinary matrices (disciplinary paradigms). The changes that took place in the post-Soviet countries at the end of the last century actually influenced the charity industry. So, what has changed in the theory of charity and what is its new paradigm?
Through the prism of the paradigmatic approach we will look at the controversy between Z. Freud and K. Jung in relation to what altruism is. So, is it hidden by egoism or true altruism? So, Freud or Jung?
The purpose of the article is to research the charitable direction of psychology on the subject of the paradigm shift.
Analysis of recent scientific publications. In recent years, the greatest scientific attention of psychologists-researchers of charity has been paid to the problems of the ratio of egoism and altruism in a person [6; 7; 10; 13]. In the works of scientists, there are attempts to systematically comprehend the motivational base of charity [1; 2]. Also, the attention of scientists was attracted by the problem of finding a new antipode of altruism [2; 4], which shows that psychologists feel the fundamental, paradigmatic changes in the theory of charity.
Presenting basic material. The specificity of the psychological paradigm of charity provides an emphasis on the motive of charity, and according to the unanimous opinion of scholars, the central category is altruism. We assume that by defining the central category through the concept of "altruism", the researchers wanted to say: "We are studying not all charity, but only it's motivation". However, psychologists consider charity not only in the context of the motivational aspect, but also in the behavioral, which, in my opinion, makes this separation doubtful.
In general, the question of altruism as a central category is considered to require an urgent solution, because, in addition to the aforementioned, it is also extremely uncomfortable in the context of a systematic study of charity. On this occasion, however, with another vision of the problem solution, V. Dorozhkin writes: "The obstacle to the systematic study of altruistic behavior is the tendentious valuation view inherent
in a number of philosophical, religious and psychological concepts of altruism, which forms its perception as "solely a positive act" [3]. According to the scientist, the most appraised approach to altruism "substantially impoverishes the phenomenal series of non-beneficial assistance and deduces from the scope of scientific consideration the whole range of altruistic behavior" [3]. In the above-mentioned there is an attempt to shift attention from the sacrificial nature of altruism. Psychologist L. Antilohova also believes that in the context of determining the essence of altruism, "the most correct accent is the absence of practical benefit or reward for the acting the self and not on the moment of sacrifice" [2; p.36].
So, what happened in the charitable direction of psychology? Why did the term "altruism" for a long time quite suit the researchers as a central category, and suddenly became uncomfortable and need to justify its sacrificial nature? And there was a paradigms shift: the paradigm of traditional charity yielded to the paradigm of philanthropy. Traditional charity is essentially rational, because the believer-benefactor, giving the alms, counts on certain dividends from God, but the Church has always emphasized the sacrificial nature of charity. Altruism also has a sacrificial character and is interpreted as an unprofitable activity that involves readiness for self-sacrifice. Thus, the concept of "altruism" as a central category within the disciplinary matrix of traditional charity was quite appropriate. However, for the disciplinary matrix of philanthropy, this concept turned out to be "too narrow" and began to "apart at the seams", since within philanthropy, in addition to sacrificial and rational charity, rational-egoistic charity is also recognized. Some researchers, including V. Dorozhkin and L. Antilohova, felt this and began to look for solutions to the problem. As already noted, researchers proposed to solve the problem of systematic comprehension of the phenomenon under study, which was formed on the ground of paradigms shift and the central category of charity, by rebooting the very concept of "altruism".
I think the concept of "altruism" as unprofitable activity, which involves readiness for self-sacrifice, is more stable than altruism as the central category, which actually needs to be reviewed. I am convinced that the definition of the central category through the concept
of "charity" will open the way for researchers to systematically study the motivation base of modern benefactors. Such renaming will allow scholars to explore the entire spectrum of diverse motivations of benefactors and call things by their names: unprofitable motivation that prompts sacrifice - altruism, and all kinds of rational motivation (rational, rational-strategic, rational-egoistic) - charity.
In order to consolidate the concept of "altruism" as understanding unprofitable charity activities that involves sacrifice or readiness for self-sacrifice, I consider it necessary to rethink the definition of forms of unsacrificial charity within the various disciplinary paradigms of charity. For example, within a biological paradigm, forms of charity are related altruism, reciprocal altruism, and indirect reciprocal altruism, which have, respectively, sacrificial, rational and rational-egoistic characters. So, renaming reciprocal altruism in reciprocal charity, and indirect reciprocal altruism in indirect reciprocal charity, will contribute to underscoring the sacrificial essence of related altruism.
Since, within the paradigm of traditional charity, rational-egoistic charity was not recognized as it was, the opposition to altruism and egoism based on the principle of "good and evil" was actual. However, with the emergence of a paradigm of philanthropy, within which rational-egoistic charity acquired "legalization" and found expression in the form of public charity (whose sociopolitical effect, incidentally, is the promotion of charity), the concept of "altruism" began to require a new antipode. In the works of some researchers, for example - V. Dorozhkina [2], R. Nemova, [4, p. 503], such an antipode was aggression. However, it should be noted that the change of antipode researchers explain not by the change of the paradigm, but "the spread of the world's unfair human activities: wars, crime, inter-ethnic and interracial conflicts" [4, p. 503]. It should also be noted that some researchers continue to oppose altruism to egoism [5, p. 147; 7, p. 206], that is, they
continue to use the paradigm of traditional charity. The foregoing gives grounds to talk about polyparadigma in the charity field of psychology.
An important component of any disciplinary paradigm is the classification criterion. It was noticed that philanthropy researchers often use the concept of "true altruism" [7, p. 206] and "real altruism" [7, p. 207], which involves the use of the criteria, respectively, of truth and reality, and identifies researchers' considerations with the categories of traditional paradigms of charity.
In contrast to the traditional paradigm, in which the only criterion as disinterestedness was recognized, the classification of motives on criterion of the essential nature of the motive becomes relevant within philanthropy. According to it, the motives of charity activity are divided into non-beneficial, rational (classical charity, when the benefactor counts on forgiveness from God) and rational-egoistic (public charity, when the benefactor is counting on increasing of social status).
The topicality of classifying the motives of charitable activity on the criterion of the essential nature of the motive is further believed that it is consonant with the classification of charity, by results of charitable activity for the benefactor. According to this criterion, charity within the philosophical paradigm can be divided into sacrificial charity (altruism), mutually beneficial charity (classical charity) and reputation charity (public charity) [6, p.35]. In biology, sacrificial charity is related altruism, mutually beneficial charity is reciprocal altruism, and reputational charity is indirect reciprocal altruism. Comparison of different paradigmatic models of charity through these classifications is useful in the context of multi- and interdisciplinary charity research. In this way, we can draw parallels between the psychological, philosophical and biological paradigms of charity. Table number 1 clearly reflects this comparison.
Table №1.
Comparison of different paradigmatic models of charity by means of charity classifications by motives _ and consequences of charitable activities.__
The classification of motives of charitable activity on criterion of the essential nature Non-beneficial Rational Rational-egoistic
Models of the psychological paradigm of charity transfinantic altruism the concept of "masked egoism"; the theory of altruism, based on empathy the theory of social exchange
Classification of charitable activities by results of charitable activity for the benefactor Sacrificial charity Rational Rational-egoistic
Models of philosophic paradigm of philantropy altruism (cultural) classical charity reputational charity
Models of the biological paradigm ofphilantropy related altruism (genetic altruism) reciprocal charity (reciprocal altruism) indirect reciprocal charity (indirect reciprocal altruism)
The comparison of non-beneficial charity with the fact that unprofitable charity, even in the absence of fi-sacrificial charity is considered to be justified by the nancial sacrifices, or secrifices of their own health or
Table № 3.
life, is already sacrificial in itself through the spending traditional charity (Table No. 2) and a psychological
of their own time. paradigm of modern charity i.e. philanthropy (Table
Concluding the research I consider it necessary to No. 3). depict in a schematic form a psychological paradigm of
Table № 2.
The psychological paradigm of traditional philanthropy._
Interposition of theoretical core religious studies
Nature (Essential Model) ethical
Value non-beneficial, perfection of the motives of the benefactor
Antipode of charity egoism
Central category altruism
Nomenclature mercy (the embodiment of high love for our neighbors; an active desire to help everyone who needs it) alms (detection of caring for a neighbor mainly in the form of material assistance) needy
Main classification criterion truth (unhelpfulness of the philanthropic motives)
The division into forms according to the main criterion charity (sacrificial and rational charity) deviant charity (rational-egoistic or public charity)
Factor of charity compassion
Understanding the socially-oriented philanthropy the case of the church, the state and the rich people
Specificity of realization of moral and educational potential because of emotions that have a negative sign of modality
The psychological paradigm of modern charity (philanthropy).
Interposition of theoretical core philosophy
Nature (Essential Model) rational-egoistic
Value efficiency of charitable activity, private and public utility
Antipode of charity aggression
Central category charity
Nomenclature altruism (a form of charity that involves readiness for self-sacrifice) charity (traditional charity) philanthropy (modern charity) purchaser of charity
Main classification criterion essential nature of motive
The division into forms according to the main criterion altruism (sacrificial charity) classical charity (rational charity) philanthropy (rational-egoistic charity)
Factor of charity social and civic initiative and responsibility, private interest
Understanding the socially-oriented philanthropy the case of all citizens
Specificity of realization of moral and educational potential through emotions with a positive sign of modality
The above mentioned psychological paradigms of traditional and modern charity are rather conditional, schematic and untethered. But despite the imperfection of the proposed disciplinary matrices they can contribute to a certain methodological order in the charity direction of psychology. In particular, systematized disciplinary matrices reveal irrelevance in the context of modern studies of the criteria of "truth of altruism" or "reality of altruism"; opposition to the altruism of egoism; and an emphasis on the motive of compassion.
Conclusions and perspectives of further research. Thus, it was discovered that in the charity direction of psychology the paradigms shift is taking place, and the current state of this area is characterized by a methodological polyparadigmality: some scholars
use the paradigm of modern charity - philanthropy, while others continue to use a paradigm of traditional charity. The failure of altruism as the central category of the modern disciplinary matrix was revealed. The traditional paradigm of charity is characterized by the urgency of the criterion of inprofitability (truth, reality), the opposition to altruism of egoism and attention to the motive of compassion. The modern paradigm of philanthropy is characterized by the relevance of the criterion of quality of utility, the opposition to altruism of aggression and attention to the motive of utility.
Returning to the dispute between Freud and Jung, one can conclude that every of them is right: the theory of true altruism, which Jung advocates, is conceptual in the framework of traditional charity, and Freud's theory
- within the framework of modern charity - philanthropy.
References
1. Antilohova L. N. Altruism and its role in the professional activity of social official / L. N. An-tilohova // Social work in Siberia: a collection of scientific works. - Kemerovo : Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2004.
- P. 35-44.
2. Dorozhkin V. Altruism: so called goodness / V. Dorozhkin. - Simf. : Tavria, 2010. - 233 p.
3. Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions. / T. Kuhn // Transl. From English by I.E.Naletov.
- M.: Progress. - 1975. - 287 p.
4. Nemov R. Psychology / R.S. Nemov. - In 2 b., b. 1. - M, 1994. - 576 p.
5. Prohorov A. S. Psychological peculiarities of manifestation of altruism-egoism of personality / A. S. Prohorov // Collection of scientific works of the Khmelnytsky Institute of Social Technologies of the University «Ukraine». - 2012. - № 6. - P. 146-149.
6. Tolmacheva, I. A. Charity in the context of a interdisciplinary analysis / I. A. Tolmacheva // Questions of culturology. M.: Panorama, - 2014. -№ 5. - P. 35-38.
7. Trufkina A.M. Analysis of the problem of altruism in domestic and foreign psychology / A.M. Trufkina // Scientific Bulletin of the South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after. K. D. Ushinsky. - 2011. - № 5-6. - P. 205-216.
