today as i've written about bribery i've grown to appreciate how deeply imbedded in society is the notion of reciprocity, and how gravely bribery manipulates it. as we struggle to exist in close proximity to others, as we seek ways of avoiding conflict while we enhance our lot and that of our family and friends we rely on reciprocation. when people don't reciprocate we feel hurt, abused, bemused. and yet i reflect, how often i have failed to reciprocate - when i've been low, or tired, dog weary, or just plain negligent ... and today i feel deeply sorry for that.
i'm thinking, too, this is at the heart of our repudiation of bribery, our assessment of it as a deeply immoral act. while bribery has been around for time immemorial (there exists a list from Assyria of bribers that was created 3400 years ago) it still exists, it still flourished, it still damages and distorts equality and the scales of reciprocity.
how's that? because even deeper than this sense of reciprocity is our sense of self advancement, our own entitlement?
I think that, like morality, the function of reciprocity is ultimately self-advancement. So if we see an opportunity for greater self-advancement through bribery than could be gained by honouring the societal 'rules' of equality and reciprocity, then we take it. I suspect also that those of us who abstain from bribery do so in the cause of self-advancement, that we simply have different goals to those who don't. This would explain the persistance of bribery through the ages, as the urge for self-advancement has never wavered, has it? What do you think???
ReplyDeleteHere's a question. In the paper here there was an article detailing a trial involving a blogging police officer who posted about things he had seen on the job. A journalist, seeing how popular the site was, set about finding the identity of the "Night Jack" blogger. The police officer asserted that he had a right to anonymity that had been breached by the journalist. The judge ruled otherwise, on the grounds that "blogging is largely a public pursuit", and that bloggers have no right to anonymity. But I wonder, how is it different from an author who uses a non de plume? And in a case such as that described, in which the blogger is contributing to society and this contribution is dependent on his anonymity, should he not have a right to it? When do people have the right to anonymity and when not?
ReplyDeletei agree that the tendency to reciprocity reflects a deeper concern for self preservation - i have read lovely reports of chimps getting really riles when their kindnesses to fellows are unreciprocated or ignored - but i think it goes deeper than that. What we overlook here is empathy - we have deep within us a sense of empathy which makes us do thing for others just because we feel for them.
ReplyDelete