By Ian Jobling • 12/18/09
In a post on The Occidental Observer Blog, Kevin MacDonald claims that I misinterpreted his theory of ethnicity in my article “The Ethnic Nepotism Fallacy.” I attributed to ethnic nepotism theory partisans, including MacDonald, the belief that relatedness within ethnies creates altruism among co-ethnics, or “ethnic altruism.” MacDonald responds that he rejected the idea of ethnic altruism in “An Integrated Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity” (“Evolutionary Perspective”). Rather, he thinks co-ethnic relations are characterized by reciprocity, rather than the unreciprocated altruism that one finds among kin. In a post on The Occidental Observer Blog, Kevin MacDonald claims that I misinterpreted his theory of ethnicity in my article “The Ethnic Nepotism Fallacy.” I attributed to ethnic nepotism theory partisans, including MacDonald, the belief that relatedness within ethnies creates altruism among co-ethnics, or “ethnic altruism.” MacDonald responds that he rejected the idea of ethnic altruism in “An Integrative Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity” (“Evolutionary Perspective”). Rather, he thinks co-ethnic relations are characterized by reciprocity, rather than the unreciprocated altruism that one finds among kin.
However, it is MacDonald who is confused, not me. Reciprocity and altruism are not mutually exclusive, so altruism can exist within reciprocal relationships. MacDonald’s theory of ethnicity attributes such altruism within reciprocity to relations among co-ethnics (members of the same ethnic group). More broadly speaking, MacDonald’s article is incoherent. Although he denies that ethnic altruism exists in one section, other passages in the article rely on the assumption that ethnic altruism does exist.
That MacDonald is espousing a version of ethnic nepotism theory (ENT) is patent. He believes relatedness in ethnies (ethnic groups) led to the evolution of several psychological adaptations (or instincts) designed to further individuals’ ethnic genetic interests: preferential cooperation among co-ethnics,1 a “human kinds module” that facilitates differentiation among ethnies, and ethnocentrism.2
MacDonald’s dismissal of the concept of ethnic altruism will immediately strike anyone who understands ENT as odd. The essential claim of the theory is that relations among co-ethnics ought to be analogous to those among kin because co-ethnics, like kin, are related. What relatedness produces among kin is altruism. So if MacDonald doesn’t think relatedness produces altruism among co-ethnics, what does it produce? And what quality distinguishes relations among co-ethnics from those among allo-ethnics (members of different ethnic groups)?
“Evolutionary Perspective” is incoherent on the subject of ethnic altruism. Criticizing J. Philippe Rushton’s work on ethnocentrism, MacDonald states that relationships among co-ethnics are characterized by reciprocity rather than unreciprocated altruism:
Because the similarity-detecting mechanisms implied by [Rushton’s genetic similarity theory] assess low levels of genetic relatedness, they would not be expected to produce detectable levels of providing unreciprocated resources to others (altruism), but to affect the cost/benefit structure of self-interested behavior…. Relationships of marriage, friendship, and ethnic group affiliation fundamentally involve reciprocity.3
Presumably, what MacDonald means in the first sentence is that unreciprocated altruism can evolve among people of very high relatedness, such as kin, but cannot among people of low relatedness, such as non-kin co-ethnics. MacDonald’s logic here is plainly invalid: after all, if kin selection can work at the level of the ethny, why shouldn’t it lead to adaptations for altruism among co-ethnics as well as kin? At low levels of relatedness, altruism should be attenuated, but not absent. That is, once one accepts Rushton’s premise, one must accept Rushton’s conclusions, or at least explain clearly why these conclusions are invalid, which MacDonald does not do.
MacDonald’s effort to distinguish his theory from Rushton’s depends on the assumption that reciprocity and altruism are mutually exclusive categories. However, this assumption is invalid: reciprocal relations can be characterized by altruism. An action is altruistic when an individual forgoes a benefit to himself in order to grant one to another. When one unpacks MacDonald’s arguments, one finds that altruism is implicit in his theory of ethnicity.
MacDonald writes that relations among co-ethnics are characterized by reciprocity on easy terms: “Successful alliances of any kind with genetically similar others have a lower threshold of trust and a higher threshold for defection.”4 Rational cooperators can be expected to defect, that is cheat or not hold up their end of the bargain, when defection brings a greater benefit to self than further cooperation would. MacDonald is saying that, because of the genetic interest they have in each other’s well-being, co-ethnics go on cooperating even when it is in their self-interest to defect. That is, an individual will forego a benefit to himself in order to grant one to his co-ethnic cooperative partner. This is altruism.
Also, MacDonald thinks that people prefer to cooperate with co-ethnics rather than allo-ethnics because the former are more inclined to trust each other more than the latter are.5 Let’s examine what such ethnic preferences entail on MacDonald’s model. A typical example of ethnic preference is bias in hiring; for example, we would say a black CEO is racially biased if he hires a black candidate rather than more qualified non-black candidates. Certainly, the relationship between the CEO and the chosen candidate will be one of reciprocity: as an employee, the candidate will work for the CEO, and the CEO will pay him. However, the fact of reciprocity does not mean that the CEO is not acting altruistically towards the employee. Hiring the more qualified candidate would normally result in a greater profit for the CEO. By hiring the less qualified candidate, the CEO foregoes a benefit to himself in order to benefit the candidate. This is altruism.
So despite his denial that altruism exists among co-ethnics, MacDonald plainly does believe this. Moreover, many other passages in the article are comprehensible only on the assumption that ethnic altruism exists.
For example, in defining ethnocentrism, MacDonald quotes a passage from William Graham Sumner that implies the existence of ethnic altruism. According to Sumner, ethnocentrism is characterized by “loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt of outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without.”6 MacDonald makes it clear that he generally endorses Sumner’s views. MacDonald does say that martyrdom for the ethny is maladaptive,7 but he does not deny that less extreme forms of self-sacrifice are products of our instinct for ethnocentrism. How is sacrifice possible without altruism? Altruism seems essential to the very idea of sacrifice. Moreover, if the ethnic bond is one of “brotherhood,” why shouldn’t the same altruism that exists among kin also exist among co-ethnics?
Later, MacDonald writes, “Even if all humans were equally opportunistic and fickle in their group affiliations, so that group interest was always contingent on individual self-interest, groups as vehicles of selection would still be required in order to understand the behavior of coordinated groups.”8 Here MacDonald implies that sometimes people may not be motivated by self-interest, and it seems to me that altruism is the only alternative.
In another passage, MacDonald writes, “For individuals highly predisposed to collectivism, ingroup norms and the duty to cooperate and subordinate individual goals to group goals are paramount.”9 Subordinating individual goals to the goals of the ethnic group would seem an act of ethnic altruism. MacDonald does nothing to reconcile this sentence with his earlier assertion that ethnic altruism does not exist, despite the apparent contradiction. The same is true of the other passages in which ethnic altruism is implied.
In sum, after denying that ethnic altruism exists, MacDonald continually makes statements that tacitly assume that it does. This contradiction renders “Evolutionary Perspective” incoherent.
MacDonald’s confusion is evident in his blog post as well. If MacDonald does not believe in the existence of ethnic altruism, then he must disagree with Frank Salter’s theory of ethnicity, to which the concept of ethnic altruism is central. Salter plainly believes that natural selection has led to the evolution of instincts for ethnic altruism. For example, in a paper co-authored with others, Salter writes that during human history “belonging to [ethnic] groups was necessary for survival and reproduction, selecting for the predisposition to identify with and show differential altruism towards ethnic and other groups.”10 Salter goes on to argue that instincts for ethnic altruism are one of the reasons that people prefer to give money to co-ethnic rather than allo-ethnic beggars. Surely, the beggars cannot be expected to reciprocate this generosity! Given this clear disagreement, why does MacDonald say that “Salter’s work is absolutely bedrock sound” in his blog post?
It is not hard to guess the reason for MacDonald’s confusion on the subject of ethnic altruism. He is deeply attracted to the idea but recognizes that it is vulnerable to criticisms like mine. Consequently, he denies that his theory of ethnicity depends on the existence of instincts for ethnic altruism despite the fact that it does.
In conclusion, it is clear that “The Ethnic Nepotism Fallacy” does identify real problems with ENT, including MacDonald’s version of it. MacDonald should confront my criticisms rather than trying to evade them.
To deal briefly with the other points in MacDonald’s post. It is true that I misunderstood his statements on martyrdom among Jews. However, MacDonald’s discussion of this issue is not as clear as it could have been, as I noted in the comments section of his blog post. I will remove the offending passage from the article. On the subject of genetic similarity theory, I have explained here that consensual validation theory better accounts for the facts. I will write more on this subject soon. “The Ethnic Nepotism Fallacy” dealt only with the claim that ethnic genetic interests resulted in instincts. The question of advancing these interests through non-instinctual “rational choice mechanisms” is irrelevant to my thesis and will be dealt with separately. Contrary to MacDonald’s claim, Salter does not address my criticism of ENT in his “Misunderstandings of Kin Selection” article.11 My criticism was that kin are the optimal vehicles of nepotism so instincts for nepotism towards co-ethnics could not have evolved. Salter nowhere takes up this problem.