From the New York Times: "Oxytocin has been described as the hormone of love. This tiny chemical, released from the hypothalamus region of the brain, gives rat mothers the urge to nurse their pups, keeps male prairie voles monogamous and, even more remarkable, makes people trust each other more.Yes, you knew there had to be a catch. As oxytocin comes into sharper focus, its social radius of action turns out to have definite limits. The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in-group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism."
So, this hormone makes it more likely that you will be benevolent toward people you see as coming from a trusted group and less likely that you will be benevolent to those who come from groups that you fear or have prejudice towards. And here I thought the social welfare function was complicated enough!!!! Biology, psychology, education, and politics all play a significant role in determining our social contract. Do we need communities? Do we need each other?
People absolutely need communities and eachother! Community plays a vital role in allowing us to create moral judgement, and in fact each level of Maslow's Heirarchy of needs involves some sort of human interaction:
ReplyDeletePhysiological needs are met through intercourse, law and order are (best) established by a group of individuals and satisfy security, love and belonging are met by creating some sort of family unit, esteem is recognized and determined by others (although self-esteem is good too), and self-actualization involves personal growth- but without others to reflect in it would be hard to realize the errors in our ways.
I'm a little confused as to how exactly this effects the social contract in economic terms. My understanding of the Social Contract from class the other day was that the Social Contract important only for Public Economics and that too to ensure the maximization of utility in society as a whole - and this oxytoxin business does not seem like it would effect any of the utility economic members of society can derive from income (or the purchase and consumption of goods and services). In terms of the social contract in more abstract, non economic terms, I'd say this definitely makes the issue more confusing. If a chemical that is supposed to enhance trust/love/affection in general only enhances it towards those people with whom we are already close and trusting, then what implications does it have for our need to be part of a larger, more complex community? This research seems to imply that we do need each other (on a smaller, close knitted group - family/neighborhood maybe) but not necessarily a larger community.
ReplyDeleteThough economically speaking, I believe, we definitely need communities for markets to be possible. The notion of specialization, division of labor, and trade show us the need for a market of sorts that can enhance our utilization of resources which we have to increase our production and utility!
Terrence's comment about Maslow's hierarchy was definitely a fresh way of thinking about why we may need communities for me and I do more or less agree with him. Good comment!
ReplyDeleteI feel communities and networking are play a huge role in our lives today and are extremely beneficial to us, but can also be damaging if viewed the wrong way. We previously spoke on how politics are becoming more and more competitive so it would be interesting to see if this oxytocin would change the way our social interaction as well as political operation changed if our leaders became more exposed to it..
ReplyDelete