LSE alumna, Nishanthini Ganesan, has developed the concept of disruptive altruism to represent going against the status quo to act in the interests of society and the environment. This is a monumental challenge, as it means overcoming ingrained cultural aspirations and a system which prioritises resource-use for economic growth.
Progress is not new to our kind. From leveraging tools to perform tasks to using these tools to craft more sophisticated tools, our species has always sought progress. Altruism is a notable part of our evolution. Esteemed anthropologist, Margaret Mead, considers the first sign of civilisation to be a healed broken femur. A human with a broken femur cannot fend for itself, so a healed broken femur is evidence of it being cared for by another human.
Some in today’s capitalist economy may consider Mead’s conceptualisation a romantic notion. Although there is no shortage of altruistic individuals, we live in a dog-eat-dog world that prevents resources from being channelled into altruistic pursuits. Cultural aspirations like affluence also focus the attention of individuals away from altruistic pursuits and in favour of wealth-driving activities at a significant social and environmental cost.
Altruism amidst capitalism
There are enough resources to meet the world’s challenges. Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world and one who made his wealth through green technology nevertheless, was criticised for directing funds into space exploration instead of solving hunger on Earth. He pledged $6 billion USD to solve the issue if he were to receive a plan for how the money would be spent. However, Musk failed to follow through upon being given a plan by the UN World Food Programme. Despite receiving a federal loan during the Obama administration, which was key to Tesla’s success, the billionaire is now endorsing Trump, whose administration threatens to dismantle much of the work of the Obama administration. Much of public perception dismisses Musk as an unstable character, but that is unwise given his economic and political influence. He presents an extreme example of wealthy individuals aligning themselves, not with socially and environmentally responsible progress, but rather, self-serving interests that are primarily financial.
It is worth noting that the issue of hunger is not confined to developing countries. Earlier this year, I investigated the impact of the current food system on rampant food insecurity in the UK through interviews with smallholder farmers. These individuals are also engaged in food production, but they go against the status quo by maintaining a nature-based and community-focused ethos. They pointed to the profit-driven dynamics of industrial food production and distribution as worsening the issue of food insecurity in the UK, by hampering cooking confidence, especially among marginalised communities, making unprocessed and nutrient-rich food less accessible, and eradicating the potential of food production to foster ‘community building, ecological connection, and personal fulfilment’.
Development as an industrial complex
This article does not seek to criticise the millions of altruistic individuals, many of whom operate at a grassroots level, who seek to improve the lives of others. Instead, it criticises the industrial complex surrounding development, which hinders resource allocation towards pressing social and environmental issues, instead positioning these resources for further profit-generation.
Some attribute the origins of modern development to the colonial missions for “civilising” the Global South, under which guise exploitative, transnational supply chains were built. These supply chains continue to benefit Western countries while driving exploitation in the Global South. Others point to former US President Harry Truman’s inaugural address in 1949, where he presented the call for America to facilitate the industrial and economic progress of the rest of the world, a means to spread Western democracy while quashing the threat of communism.
However, Truman’s speech perpetuated a cultural tendency towards focusing on economic growth, which was already in place as one of colonialism’s legacies. Although industrial progress took place globally, the social and environmental dimensions of economic growth were neglected, leading to widespread environmental degradation, social inequality, cultural erosion, and displacement. Each of these is an umbrella impact, representing a host of others. For example, environmental degradation comprises pollution, unprecedented rates of species loss, and depletions in ecosystem integrity.
The concept of development as an industrial complex holds ground when considering the interconnected entities and systems involved in the development apparatus. Economic interests create cycles of dependency on continuous investment and growth. Powerful actors influence policy and regulation through extensive lobbying. Market dynamics lead to increased competition at the expense of social and environmental sustainability. Specific types of knowledge, particularly those linked to profit-generating activities, are prioritised over others. This manifests as a preference for STEM over the arts and humanities, which are crucial for developing introspectiveness, social awareness, and cultural continuity. The ranking of these forms of knowledge is apparent in the corporate world’s designation of “hard” and “soft” skills, the former relating to tools and methodologies and the second relating to social interactions. Globalisation and unequal power dynamics at the international level mean that outcomes for local actors are driven by external forces as opposed to local interests. Amidst all this, the purpose of development is unquestioned at best and serves to obscure hidden agendas at worst.
Disruptive altruism as the solution?
Despite calls for more environmentally sustainable and socially responsible forms of development, economic growth driven by capitalism tends to take centre stage in development strategies.
I wrote my master’s dissertation on the impact of multinational corporations on the human rights of migrant workers in Singapore. During my study, one of the senior executives I interviewed admitted that they’d never seen a senior executive make a decision in favour of human rights over profit without having any other choice. Where an executive had done so, it was intended to capture financial gain through these means, i.e. the prospect of selling more products at a higher profit margin due to these products being environmentally sustainable or responsibly produced.
Do our daily actions match the ones we should take to hypothetically fix the femur of a neighbour? While Mead may not have a monopoly over the meaning of civilisation, they inspire a belief in disruptive altruism. In other words, going against a system that abandons social and environmental good for financial gain, to further altruism. This may just be a return to progress.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image credit: NASA HQ PHOTO via Flickr.
