The middle section is the psychoanalytical one. As I have intimated, a little psychoanalysis goes a long way, and it seems to me that its categories do not help in understanding either the origin, the need for or the ways of promoting kindness. Out of charity for (I almost said kindness to) the reader, I will illustrate with one of the more comprehensible passages:
It is our unkindness — our lack of affection and regard — that makes our desire possible; kindness is the way we stop ourselves desiring. (In childhood, we should remember, kindness is the medium of appetite and relating.) When we are being kind we know we are dealing with forbidden objects; kindness is what children and parents do with each other. We associate kindness with frustration; unkindness with satisfaction.
I hesitate to push myself forward as a moral exemplar, but the other day I helped an old lady off the bus with her shopping, a small and not completely characteristic (alas) act of kindness on my part. I think, however, that I can put my hand on my heart and say that this act had nothing whatever to do with suppressing my desire for her as a sexual object, unless the word sexual be emptied of all meaning in an attempt to preserve a preposterous theory.
The last section, entitled Modern Kindness, returns to comprehensibility and raises interesting questions that require much more detailed treatment than the authors can give them in so short a scope. They rightly see a rise in egotism in our society, perhaps even of solipsism. They attribute this largely to Thatcherism and the decline of the Welfare State. They do not see that the Welfare State itself induces egotism: for once I have paid my punitive taxes, I have transferred my duty to others to the agencies of the state which, as they themselves admit, dispense cold charity indeed.
Their criticism of capitalism is too schematic and crude. It is true that capitalism often permits or encourages vile behaviour; but it should never be forgotten that its founding theoretician, Adam Smith, was a moral philosopher who commenced his great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, with the following elegant, and even beautiful, words:
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.





Comments
ritalove
April 10th, 2009 11:30amMy new friend ,
i am well pleased to contact you after going through your
profile on my search for genuine relationship at(www.spectator.co.uk) i will
like to be your good friend, please contact me with this
idd (ritakhal54@yahoo.co.uk) i am waiting for your reply soon,
rita
Report this comment
Robert Burns
February 23rd, 2009 12:49pmI've read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," which attempts (in a well-thought out manner, IMHO) to deal with the matter oa altruism as a survival trait. I'd assumed that this book was a spinoff. Evidently not. So I guess I won't read it after all.
BTW, my novel, "The Unselfish Gene" (unselfishgene DOT com) does try to deal some with the Dawkins' concept, albeit in a kind of dramatized thought-experiment form. I dread the thought of what this reviewer might do with it,however.
Report this comment
Andrew Dib
January 26th, 2009 7:22amYou speak of evidence. Where's your evidence for this drivel?
Report this comment
harold stevens
January 20th, 2009 5:25amThe Adam Smith quote at the end of the review is a pretty good definition of "empathy" - and is evidently the answer to the question posed by the reviewer in his opening sentence. I wonder if he realised that....
Report this comment
Vithal C Nadkarni
January 16th, 2009 5:00pmThanks for a characterstically brilliant review and thank you for saving me the enormous bother buying the book (I live in India and it would take 8 weeks to float to our shores at considerable expense)!
Vithal C Nadkarni
Senior Editor
The Times of India
Report this comment