In Colombia: $15.000.oo - MÉTODO - Librería Lerner - Librería Nacional
In The United States: $15.000 - MÉTODO - BookSur Store
Chapter I: Descartes, brain and corruption
For many centuries now, purposes, desires and, in general, the mental life of individuals has been hidden in a Cartesian theatre. It is a common belief that every person has two different beings at any given time: one public and one private, which can only be accessed through introspection. It is believed that our true feelings, who we truly are, take place and are hidden behind a curtain; others can only presence what happens behind this curtain,when we open it. It is thought that people surrounding us can see only what we want them to, in such a way that our feelings and secrets can remain absolutely concealed and inaccessible (Ryle, 1967). This idea arises, in part, due to our Judeo-Christian heritage and the ideas of the father of rationalism: René Descartes.
According to René Descartes and to the Judeo-Christian tradition, every person is made up of two substances: a material one, our body; and an immaterial one, our soul. Our body is public, and whatever may happen to it is subject to the observation of anyone; on the contrary, our soul is private and can only be recognized in first person through introspection (Descartes, 1664/1967). Accordingly, it was commonly believed that the intentions and any person’s mental life were restricted to introspection.
For a long time, philosophy and folk psychology, held the idea that every person was “trapped” in a strange internal conscience unknown to the rest of mankind. This psychological idea is known as solipsism and is a consequence of the Cartesian dualism (Ryle, 1967). Nonetheless, medical advances during the twentieth (XX) century allowed the development of a new idea. Our mental live, as well as our feelings, are originated in the brain and the central nervous system; apparently, our mind was a non-mysterious phenomenon, not unlike any other biological phenomena taking place in the body or, in general, in nature.
In order to understand the argument of the present book it isn’t necessary to hold in-depth knowledge on neurology or psychology. It would be enough to bear in mind that the brain is made up of neurons which intertwine in terminations known as axons. Communication between neurons takes place due to an electrochemical reaction.A neuron is able to send information to a nearby neuron in a process similar to a short circuit. When this happens, some chemical substances are released, in a process known as synapse. So, a synaptic network is that made up of connected neurons that are communicating information.
Not all the neurons in the brain are directly connected; some areas that specialize in specific tasks and behaviors, concentrate a larger part of synaptic connections. This differentiation is a result of evolution (Kaas, 2002). Every area must be functioning appropriately in order for the whole brain to work. A closer look of this process has led to the identification of the neurological origin of several behaviors, emotions and feeling that define our every-day life, such as fear, aggressiveness, and sexual desire, among others.
In the last few decades, neurology has developed techniques that allow the direct examination of the brain’s activity while executing specific tasks. This has aided researchers who are able to attribute every area of the brain with certain functions; in some way, they have been able to create a map which connects areas of the brain, other organs and behaviors. As Professor Rodolfo Llinás pointed out during a televised interview: “[…] during the last few years we have been in process of dismantling the clock”.
Different neuronal imaging procedures, such as the Encephalogram, the Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI), along with the development of experimental and comparative psychology and evolution sciences, have no only led to the understanding of the human brain’s structure and functioning, but to its understanding compared to the brain of other species and, consequently, under the light of evolution. This is why now we are able to understand that our behavior is a result of a combination between genes and environment.
Nowadays, it is possible to assure that the synaptic arrangement of any person comes as a result of his genetic predisposition and his collected life experiences. These two elements shape the maturing of the brain and, therefore, determining who we are.
It has also been understood that conducts which are genetically predisposed can be explained through evolutionism, given that their genesis and presence are justified as elements favoring the survival and reproduction of the species. For many years, all of human behavior was thought to be a purely cultural result. Current knowledge on genetics backed the fact that many behaviors are consistently present in human groups through different periods of time; this can be explained by their codified presence in human genes. Many human behaviors are coded into the genome and developed by means of an “unchaining” factor present in the environment. Many daily behaviors seem to be more related with our instincts than with sophisticated elaborations of both intellect and reason.
Traditionally, western culture has bragged about its rationalist inheritance. As Haidt (2000) pointed out, medieval Christian philosophers belittled the importance of emotions because of their link with desire and sin. This explains, in part, why in philosophy and contemporary science, theoretical models guided by logic and clean reasoning are defended. Valid arguments are those which are replicable and, preferably, strict. In a general sense, we interpret the power of our rational capability, as the only useful tool to help us explain all dimensions of life, in method and content.
David Hume (1777/1965) pointed out the undoubted importance of emotions in the construction of moral judgment. Reason can lead us to infer harm done to others with our actions, but only if there are some emotions towards that person, we will have reasons to avoid harming them; so, reason by itself is not enough to build moral judgments that keep us from harming others. Even though, social sciences have supposed that a main part of behavior is ruled by rationality and, therefore, only this variable is helpful in explaining and understanding conduct.
Currently, any behavior which clearly obeys instinct is frequently omitted from research programs in social sciences. For instance, in economics, it is supposed that individual and social decisions can only be explained through rationality only. In sociology, for example, Rubio (2007) has shown how sexual behavior has been omitted as a useful variable to understand the enrollment of youngsters in gangs and prostitution, and has been substituted by variables of economic and labor rationale which prove to be fairly incoherent with the actual behavior of the teenagers. Other instinctive behaviors and biological variables such as couple selection, struggle for scarce resources or the origin of aggression, are also excluded from studies regarding violence in which they fit perfectly (Rubio y Salcedo-Albarán, 2006; Salcedo-Albarán, 2004c).
Generally, those aspects of human life that don’t concern rationality aren’t considered legitimate variables nor objects for research. While establishing the difference between instinct and reason, social sciences have distanced themselves from biological sciences because the latter recognize the explanatory power that the variables associated with instinct and its physiological origin hold. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to neglect the links involving biological and social explanations. These links have been helpful for the comprehension of phenomena which used to be considered as cultural creations, distant from any biological essence. There has been an increasing acknowledgment of the importance of instincts and genetic disposition as variables useful by means of understanding human behavior, both individually and socially.
Several theorist have speculated about a progressive convergence between biological and social sciences; Konrad Lorenz with his work Men’s Natural Science, written between 1944 and 1948 and published in 1993, and E.O. Wilson with his book Sociobiology, published in 1975, are pioneers of this integration
The present book tries to analyze one socially reprehensible behavior using neuronal and psychological elements. These elements constitute novelties in their fields, due to the relatively recent theoretic and empiric researches; nevertheless, they have proven an important explanatory power in both fields. Particularly, we use the concepts of Mirror Neurons and the Theory of Mind, to analyze corruption. We propose some ideas about the highly neuronal, psychological and social requirements, necessary for any person to recognize corruption as a reprehensible behavior. Once these elements are analyzed, it can be concluded that there is a factual disregard of the necessary conditions for any society to perceive corruption as a social infraction or a crime.
Mirror Neurons are cerebral areas that allow a person to simulate the emotions of others, triggered when there is perception of suffering or well-being in someone else. The discovery of this neuronal mechanism allowed recognizing the importance of the state of mind of those surrounding us, as a determinant of our own state of mind. Accordingly, there has been recognition of certain biological mechanism owned by humans that make us essentially social; what we are is causally linked to the people surrounding us.
The Theory of Mind (ToM), or mindreading, consists in the ability of a person to link his state of mind to the state of mind and emotions of his peers. Every person, at any given time, considers what other persons are thinking. We can say that persons “theorize” because these suppositions and inferences about other minds can’t always be validated. When a person is unable to create a ToM about others, he is incapable of representing foreign emotions and thus, unable of “walking in my shoes”.
Mirror Neurons and ToM are an effect of evolution and are triggered by the perception of suffering or welfare of a fellow member of the species. For example, these mechanisms activate when a person harms another. Such activation is produced immediately when the causal link between the action and its consequence is narrow. In this book we propose a relationship between the adequate functioning of Mirror Neurons and ToM, and the ability of a person to generate regret or even prevent the occurrence of certain behaviors in which explicit harm is being inflected to another person.
It is common for the aggressor to feel remorse or aversion when he is near his victim. Mirror Neurons and ToM are triggered automatically, without involving arguments, due to their presence in the group of instinctive responses. Since not all of corrupt behaviors require spatial or time proximity between the aggressor and his victim, it is difficult for Mirror Neurons and ToM to be triggered in such situations.
It may seem obvious that, for an action to be considered as a criminal offense, we must know who is being hurt. This condition was pointed out by Paul Bloom when he reviewed the main subject of the present document. However, we think policy makers must make evident the victims of some behaviors and, in this book, we explain why and how this can be done. For this reason, some neuropsychological aspects must be explained. If it was always obvious, criminal codes wouldn’t include crimes and offenses in which people can’t perceive any victim. The fact that a victim must be identified in order to recognize an action as a criminal offense is relatively obvious for psychology but not for law and other social sciences that help in the development of public policies.
Commonly, ethic and moral arguments have been used in strategies and campaigns for the prevention of corruption through cultural change. The goal of these campaigns is to teach people the importance of protecting and respecting the public patrimony, since any harm against it will affect society as a whole. Although, this argument is only useful when people are capable of establishing complex causal links, in other words, finding connections between causes and consequences that are distant both in time and space.
One important downside of these campaigns and strategies that use arguments regarding the moral respect towards public patrimony is that only a minimal fraction of the population has the necessary training to establish non-evident causal links. Only people trained in the construction of long and complex causal chains have the ability to understand the negative consequences spawned by acts of corruption. This shows that rational argumentation against public corruption has a small chance of increasing crime prevention. This is why it is common in Colombian society, and probably in other third-world societies, to find this statement: “public patrimony has no mourners”. This can be explained because people protect goods and properties that are near in time and space. Opposite to this condition, “public budget” is an object whose property, as result of taxation, can only be established through complex reflections on causality. Actually, establishing a clear sense of belonging to an abstract object – almost theoretical – such as “public budget” demands some rather intricate intellectual constructions.
Some experiences on promotion of social control to public resources show that people are capable of creating a sense of belonging with public patrimony when they realize how corruption harms goods and services that are close to them. This proves the idea that people tend to protect goods and services which they can relate with in first person: my school, my hospital or my town’s road. Moreover, this evidences how society recognizes the importance of protection of public patrimony when it identifies clear causal links between improper acts in local administration, for instance, and one’s well-being.
The purpose of this book is to show that campaigns on prevention and control of corruption can use the concepts of Mirror Neurons and ToM through the design of strategies that reveal links between a corrupt behavior and its consequences. We think that clear connection through situations involving specific persons harming each other must be evidenced. It seems particularly important to show the causal link between the person who commits a corruption act and his victim. To reach this conclusion, we inquired on the following question: why is corruption interpreted as a reproachable conduct by few people, in certain societies? This is an important issue, mainly in such societies in which corruption isn’t perceived as a harmful behavior, but on the contrary, is considered normal or even worthy of praise.
In Colombian society, as well as other societies with low levels of self-regulation, acting in a corrupt way is considered as a sign of shrewd and skill. Society doesn’t perceive a corrupt person as someone who is committing a condemnable action and is harming other persons, but rather as someone astute who is taking advantage of his position for his (or someone close to him) benefit. It seems that in certain societies it is not obvious that a corrupt person is an offender harming society. This book tries to show some leads on the way corruption must be presented in order to make it a reprehensible behavior and at the same time, punish the offender.
In those societies where corruption isn’t perceived as an incorrect conduct, corruption is extended, it becomes the norm, not the exception; it is normal, not reproachable. Some theorists have named systemic corruption as the kind of extended corruption which affects the institutional bases as well as the organizations responsible of investigating, judging and punishing acts of corruption. One characteristic of these situations of systemic corruption is that people don’t reproach corruption and on the contrary, praise it.
When thinking about the best way to handle a case of generalized corruption, we concluded that it is fundamental to show clearly the causal links between the act executed by the offender and the consequences suffered by the victims of such act. In those conducts in which the causal link is evident, such as homicide and theft, society is able to recognize, almost immediately, the act as a crime and the performer as a criminal. Though, this seems not to be case of corruption. Any campaign that explicitly presents the causal chain created from an act of corruption requires only that the central nervous system of the population is working adequately. In this way, prevention of corruption would be based on the ability of humans to experience certain kind of emotions generated by the suffering of others. In this way, prevention would not be based on arguments that require sophisticated analysis and links which most people aren’t used to.
Public corruption is generally defined as the misuse of public goods, by an official, for his own benefit or for private interests. A typical case of public corruption is the mishandling of the public budget. From that fact, it is assured that the whole society is affected. Given that public budget is destined to satisfy the interests of the society as a whole, any misuse must affect the general interest in favor of a particular interest. This contradicts one of the basic principles of most contemporary societies, namely, that collective welfare prevails over individual welfare.
In the framework of political anticorruption policies, strategies to drive cultural changes of rejection towards corruption have been designed. This strategies aim at the creation of mechanisms for cultural transformation by which the society is able to express a generalized rejection towards public corruption. One particular goal is to develop a strong individual self-control, enough to avoid the completion of corrupt acts. Usually, albeit not restrictively, these strategies are targeted towards kids and teenagers. These strategies try to avoid the appearance of those practices that, during the development of personalities, will lead to corrupt misdeeds. We think this purpose can be complemented with the ideas that we expose in this book.
The present book is divided into four parts. The first part is a brief review of some definitions of corruption. The second part is a basic depiction of the concepts of Mirror Neurons and ToM. In the third part we introduce some characteristics of the causal relationships that an individual must establish in order to understand the consequences of an act of corruption. The fourth part is an exposition on the importance of identifying a concrete and specific victim, if we hope to generate rejection or reproach regarding corrupt acts. In the conclusion, we explain why we deem a low effectiveness from the strategies based in the premise that corruption is harmful because it affects society as a whole. We also expose the importance that prevention strategies operate in the scope of emotions and we point out some necessary elements for this to work out appropriately.
