The Family Tangential [May 29]

Singer asserts that we, the wealthy, the comfortable citizens of the developed world, have taken it for granted for too long that national boundaries carry moral weight, and goes on to develop this argument through a utilitarian discussion of morality that analyzes the belief that we owe care to our countrymen, not to other nations. The argument takes place in two levels, as he says: the intuitive level and the critical level.

On the intuitive level are the instinctive moral behaviors we generally see as being “right” and “wrong,” especially considering immediate duties of obligation and of gratitude. These are usually expressed first towards those with whom we have partial relationships—our relatives, our friends, those with whom we do business or who have done us favors, acquaintances, fellow citizen.

The critical level is the internal dialogue that analyzes whether or not what we have done is actually moral—and in effect how moral we are or are not in our actions and thoughts.

The first level is important, but to paraphrase, it’s in essence a thought too short. In day to day interactions, it’s fine—more than fine. In your relations with family and friends, you expect to be partial—not even that. It’s a reality that one is partial to her intimates, and it’s rarely spoken of except when taken to extremes (nepotism, Wolfowitz).

But the extreme case presents a good example: society in general expects a distinct level of partiality regarding friends and relatives, after which point any more special consideration is considered immoral, unfair, and generally incites jealousy and unrest. This is one of the reasons why members of the armed services can’t have relationships with people higher or lower in their chain of command (and ideally don’t have relationships with equals in that same chain of command), why promoting a relative or close friend in a corporation is frowned upon by others, and why companies who throw public contests/sweepstakes don’t allow employees or their relatives to participate.

In the same way, promoting (or favoring) professionally individuals mainly or only of one’s own race or gender has become, when not flat out illegal, a passe practice. Why hasn’t favoring people of our own nationality gone out the same way (and will it)?

This summer, I went on a conference known as JASC. For the most part (with a bare handful of exceptions), half of the 72 students there were American, and the other half were Japanese. Unsurprisingly, during the month of the conference, there were disgruntled murmurs about social cliques forming based mainly on regionality (a few representatives of other Asian nations were also a part of the conference). More powerful was the lack of “professional” favoritism between us and the level of cooperation and support as we worked and traveled across the U.S. As individuals, we were all young students, and we all stood to gain immeasurably by mingling and cooperating. In groups, we were representatives of our cultures and the collective understanding those cultures created.

To some extent, a certain clannishness among people of the same nation is inevitable not necessarily because of “race” or a feeling of extended kinship, but because of the ease of communication—shared culture, shared language/dialect, shared history. In essence, cultural shorthand that makes efficient communication between members of the same nation whereas communication between citizens of two different countries that speak (nominally) the same language (re: German language nations) is awkward in comparison. It’s easier to feel compassion for someone you understand. This principle can be applied to smaller groups just as easily.

But the walls are falling, as Singer notes—nearly all of us have friends here who are international students. That’s just the first step. Many of us will be working for MNCs and multinational NGOs and government organizations requiring international collaboration. The scale of such interaction is growing—the existence of UNICEF proves that, even if the fundraising they do to prevent daily horrors falls behind the cash poured into the Red Cross for the victims of one incident.