News Archive

Hugh Mackay is a psychologist, social researcher and author of 12 books, including his 2007 social commentary, Advance Australia...Where? His latest book, What makes us tick? The ten desires that drive us, moves into the area of social psychology and explores the human emotions and needs that lie behind Australia's changing politics.

As part of his 11-week book tour, Mackay was in Perth to speak at The University of Western Australia Business School 's Breakfast by the Bay event in December. The social researcher was asking whether we are becoming a less generous society, and here he shares with us his thoughts on generosity.

To Sacrifice

What is generosity? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, generosity means ‘freely giving more than is necessary or expected.' Mackay, however, gives a more exacting definition. ‘I think generosity means acts of kindness or support towards other people that involve some degree of sacrifice,' he says. ‘If it's easy or kind of routine then I don't think it counts as generosity, but if we are giving up something for someone else then it's generous, whether it's a seat on the bus or money.'

Mackay is adamant in his belief that generosity - whether financial or otherwise - is a question of morality, rather than self-reward. ‘Any moral code is about taking other people's needs into account and not just your own,' he explains. ‘Some people will say there's no reason to practice generosity, but the only possible answer is because it's the right thing to do.  Sometimes there is a collateral benefit to the individual - a warm sense of inner glow and all that. However, genuinely altruistic people are not looking for a warm inner glow because it [generosity] then becomes a selfish act.

‘I think the ultimate act of generosity, to be extreme, is to sacrifice your life in order to save someone else's - but these are very rare cases. For example, it might be a parent who loses their own life in order to protect a child. For most of us, however, it's not going to be anything as dramatic as that. Instead, it would be to give everything we have for the benefit of others so that we don't have anything more than we need just to survive.'

When asked about the greatest act of generosity that he has experienced, Mackay takes a minute to collect his thoughts, and admits that he is unsure of how to answer. ‘I haven't needed money to survive on or anyone to save my life or my health, so I have been very fortunate,' he says. ‘I have experienced a great deal of generosity in my friendships and support of various kinds. The most generous is a couple of friends who in a time of real crisis gave me unlimited listening time. I think it's true that listening, serious listening, is the most generous thing we have to give and I have certainly been the beneficiary of that.'

The Cocoon of Self-Absorption

Mackay argues that despite great acts of financial generosity by Australians in response to recent tsunami relief and bushfire appeals, the last decade has also seen us become more self-absorbed - a characteristic, he says, reflected in our growing preoccupation with home renovations.

‘I think we have become somewhat less generous as our community life has broken down and many families have become dysfunctional,' he says. ‘We've spent a lot of money on ourselves, and one reason for that is that it's been a kind of defence against the ravages of a very swiftly changing society.'

At the same time, observes Mackay, the booming economy has led to a new class of the sudden rich. ‘It's happened quite quickly and people who experience sudden wealth, the "nouveau riche", are often a bit less generous than people with less money or those who have inherited wealth and are used to being generous. Of course we can be generous to our own. But being generous to others is real sacrifice in a way that indulging our kids isn't the same thing as helping out someone who is in serious need.'

The problem, says Mackay, is the rapid pace of modern society. ‘Anxiety is a great barrier for people to overcome,' he explains. ‘If they feel life is changing quickly - and it might be because of terrorism, climate change, changes in marriage rates and falling rates of birth, or shrinking households - then revolution makes people feel a bit anxious and when I'm feeling anxious I'm always defensive, less generous.'

He is not just speaking as a social researcher. Mackay has been through two separations, fathered five children, and in his early twenties rejected the Christian fundamentalism that had played such a large role in his upbringing. So when he says that change breeds anxiety and disengagement, it is more than a mere observation.

‘I think that [disengagement] is another example of what we have been through as a result of dramatic social, cultural, economic, technological change, and it isn't just Australia, of course,' he says. ‘Other countries experience this too. The last ten years or so have been very much a period of defensiveness, self-indulgence and anxiety brought on by the level of social change.

‘I do think this is changing a bit. In Advance Australia... Where? I suggest that around about 2006-07 we seemed to be emerging from this cocoon of self-absorption. I think the tide has turned. We have become more conscious of social issues. In the last two federal elections, climate change, national security and those big issues came back onto the national agenda. And if that's so, that will be good news for our level of generosity. It means we will become more engaged and more aware of what is going on in our region, in the world.'

Turning of the Tide

As Australia faces a generational shift, can this turning of the tide last? ‘They're hip, smart-talking, brash and sometimes seem to suffer from an overdose of self-esteem,' began one article in Melbourne's Herald Sun, suggesting that Generation Y - the generation of Facebook, texting and popular culture - could actually be more disengaged than previous generations.

Mackay disagrees, arguing that Generation Y's much-emphasised lack of commitment and high levels of consumer spending don't necessarily translate into a lack of generosity. ‘It's very hard to say that [Generation Y is more disengaged],' he says. ‘I think the period of disengagement was mainly a phenomenon of older people. I think the under thirties, late teens to early thirties, are a product of a very turbulent period in our evolution and I think yours is a generation very aware of what's going on and quite engaged,' he says, ably picking his interviewer as a twenty-something member of Generation Y.

‘I think they are much more conscious of what's going on because they've grown up in a swiftly changing world. They're less likely to commit to making decisions on parenthood and careers; 30 is the new 20 to Generation Y. They're not drifting but they are engaged with what's going on. Many of them are students so I wouldn't expect that they would be contributing to charitable causes, but I'm optimistic that they are more communitarian.'

Making Allowances

Is it possible to be universally generous? In a 2004 interview with ABC TV's Compass, Mackay argued that unintelligent people are too often overlooked when it comes to finding recipients for society's generosity.

‘A lot of people do silly things on the road or make irresponsible purchase decisions, or can't manage their finances, or don't really know much about how to raise their children, just because they're not very bright,' he told the programme. ‘Now I think we're very uncompassionate about that. And we ought to be much more generous, much more supportive, much more communitarian in our approach to that form of disadvantage.'

When I question him on this, Mackay - who holds four honorary doctorates and an adjunct professorship - explains that a person has no control over their level of intelligence. ‘Psychologists would say intelligence is distributed normally in a bell-shaped curve where the majority have mode intelligence and half above and half below average - by definition, half the population has average or below average intelligence.

‘For people who move in reasonably well-educated circles, who complete secondary education and university, it's hard to imagine what it's like to be less intelligent than you are. It's hard to recognise why people are living in public housing, or why they find it difficult to fill in a form, make poor relationship decisions, financial decisions, or get caught in a cycle of drug dependency. It's not because they're bad people. It's because they lack the cognitive skills to function as what you or I might think of as normal.'

Most people would regard themselves as compassionate. But if we consider John Stuart Mill's famous harm principle, can we justify a limit to our compassion? Not necessarily, says Mackay, arguing that it is possible to be generous without endorsing the harmful behaviour of less intelligent people. ‘If we are to be more forgiving and generous do we risk being less generous to people hurt by their actions?' he asks. ‘I don't think in practice it happens. If someone is hit by a drunk driver who is a very unintelligent person, all sympathy will be with the victim. As a society we don't say, "Let's be a bit understanding - this person isn't very bright." They shouldn't be driving.

‘Similarly, all our sympathy would be with the child in a situation of parental neglect. In any society there's this very, very wide broad distribution of intelligence and we have a huge responsibility to show support and guidance and protection to people who are not capable of making decisions for themselves.' This support and guidance, explains Mackay, might include such painful measures as making children wards of the state or using adoptive parents.

While Mackay acknowledges that society has a duty to minimise harm, he argues that it must also aim for greater levels of understanding. ‘I would like to see us having more tolerance of people's erratic behaviour if it's due to their lack of cognitive skills,' he says. ‘People who are physically disabled are now treated better. But we are not quite as charitable when it comes to making allowances for mental illness or cognitive impairment.'

Join us for part two of this conversation , when Mackay talks about ethical business and generous politicians.

Dr. Hugh Mackay spoke at Breakfast by the Bay on 1 December 2010 on the topic of ‘Are we becoming a less generous society?'. The event is jointly sponsored by The University of Western Australia Business School and The University Club. Hugh Mackay's latest book, ‘What makes us tick? The ten desires that drive us,' is available through Hachette.

Media references

Heather Merritt
Director, External Relations
UWA Business School
T: +618 6488 8171
E: [email protected]

Verity Chia
Communications Officer
UWA Business School
E: [email protected]