1The birth of sociology begets some open questions, including the debate on altruism or moral solidarity. The term “altruism” was coined by Auguste Comte (1929 [1851-1854], I, p.621, 693, 733; 1966 [1852], p.70, 142-143, 173, etc.) and spread following the translations of his works (Dixon, 2012). It is one of the few terms born in the scientific field that will enter the common language whilst retaining its original meaning: those actions that benefit others than the actor. In a nutshell (and Comte’s words), altruism means “vivre pour autrui” (live for others). For Comte, a positivist, altruism represented the powerful impulse necessary for the intellectual and moral development of humanity, towards which we should all strive.
2The centrality of altruism in the social sciences can be observed in many classics (see Wuthnow, 1993; Bykov, 2017). Durkheim explains the basis of social solidarity in modern society precisely through the contrast between altruism and egoism. In his well-known work Le Suicide, he defines its implications by contrasting altruistic and egoistic suicide, identifying what will later become the most famous type of suicide. Similarly, both Weber and Marx, although not using the term “altruism” as such, refer to it indirectly. The former, when he describes the love ethics of charismatic authority as opposed to legal and rational authority; the latter, when raging against Christian charity.
- 1 The promoter of the initiative is Vincent Jeffries who, together with other colleagues, in Altrui (...)
3The interest in altruism as an object of study in the social sciences then gradually decreased, especially in Europe. Since the 1950s, theoretical and empirical studies have clearly shown the disinterest of social scientists in this topic. In recent years, however, the study of altruism seems to take on new vigour, particularly in the United States: in 2012, the American Sociological Association started including in its ranks the section “Altruism, Morality & Social Solidarity”1 (Nichols, 2012). The promoters of that intellectual initiative considered these three aspects as a single field of specialization, as they are significantly interdependent in socio-cultural reality (Jeffries, 2014). Europe also experienced a renewed interest in studies on altruism, particularly in French‑speaking sociology, stemming from the numerous retakes on Marcel Mauss’ work on the gift and following Alain Caillé’s (1988) Mouvement anti-utilitariste dans les sciences sociales (MAUSS). Last but not least, Philippe Steiner’s work (2016) outlines a history of altruism starting from a critical theory of economics.
4Despite this renewed vitality of the studies on altruism, especially in European literature (e.g., the MAUSS’s scientific production), I notice that Pitirim A. Sorokin (1889-1968) is often forgotten, although he has vastly contributed to their development and being himself still frequently the subject of in-depth study in the United States. In light of the above, this article aims to probe the Russian-American sociologist’s theories of altruistic creative love by examining their original ideas, characteristics and aims.
- 2 A similar typology (Antagonistic and Harmonious Interactions) appears in an unpublished document: (...)
5For Sorokin, altruistic love is not only a feeling but also a vital force through which solidarity can peak as a specific form of social interaction. It is no coincidence that, since Contemporary Sociological Theories (1928), the terms he uses to qualify human conducts are not “conflicting” and “cooperative”, but “antagonistic” (or “compulsory”) and “solidaristic” behaviour2. The latter term is not accidental: the protection of social weaknesses is entrusted to social solidarity, which presupposes reciprocity. The main problem of an ever-changing society is the disappearance of Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity, with the action that becomes causal dependence between the physical involvement and the environmental pressure on the individual. The solidaristic form of human conduct will then be replaced by the “love relationship”, considered by Sorokin as “the supreme and vital form of human relationship”.
6To outline the genesis of this concept, I will refer to The Crisis of Our Age (Sorokin, 1941a), written in the United States while World War II was raging in Europe.
7Sorokin had previously argued that “every important aspect of the life, organization, and the culture of Western society is in the extraordinary crisis” (1937c, p.535), gaining him the appellation of “‘Cassandra’ and other epitheta opprobria” (1941a, p.14). His prediction of the perseverance of wars and revolutions in the 20th century proved true with World War II and its consequences.
8In The Crisis of Our Age, Sorokin details the crisis of Western society in the various spheres of action of individuals, highlighting the viewpoints, or diagnoses, on the issue. The two main perspectives were in opposition, so much so that he defined them as “optimistic” and “pessimistic”, respectively.
9The first diagnosis considers the emergency as an ordinary economic crisis “similar to many through which Western society has passed several times in every century” (ibid., p.15) and, therefore, to be weathered with a little intervention. “Its main issue they see, respectively, in a conflict of democracy versus totalitarianism, or capitalism versus communism, or nationalism versus internationalism, or despotism versus liberty, or Great Britain versus Germany. There are among these diagnosticians even such ‘experts’ as reduce the issue to a mere conflict of ‘wicked men’, like Hitler or Stalin, or Mussolini, and ‘good fellows’, like Churchill or Roosevelt” (ibid.). To overcome this crisis, the proposal is either to readjust the economic and political conditions or to eliminate the “wicked men”, in order to hope for a return of prosperity. This diagnosis is optimistic in identifying both causes and remedies.
10The other diagnosis is pessimistic (particularly for the United States), considering the crisis as the agony that precedes the death of Western society and culture. “The end of the decline is the irretrievable collapse of the culture and society in question. Western culture and society have already passed their zenith; at the present time they are in the last stage of decline. The present crisis is but the beginning of the end of their historical existence. No remedy can avert this destiny; no cure can prevent the death of Western culture” (ibid., p.16).
11Considering both diagnoses fallacious, Sorokin suggests a third one, which is neither reduced to political or economic contrasts, nor to the destruction of culture and society, since “the total sum of social and cultural phenomena of Western society and culture has never been integrated into one unified system” (ibid., p.26). In his opinion,
the present crisis is not ordinary. It is not merely an economic or political maladjustment, but involves simultaneously almost the whole of Western culture and society, in all their main sectors. It is a crisis in their art and science, philosophy and religion, law and morals, manners and mores; in the form of social, political, and economic organization, including the nature of the family and marriage—in brief, it is a crisis involving almost the whole way of life, thought, and conduct of Western society. More precisely, it consists in a disintegration of a fundamental form of Western culture and society dominant for the last four centuries (ibid., p.16-17).
- 3 This work was subsequently revised and published in a single volume as Social & Cultural Dynamics (...)
- 4 For further information, please refer to Sorokin’s extensive discussion in the four volumes of So (...)
12In this diagnosis, Sorokin retains the overall theoretical framework of his previous work, particularly the systematic interpretation of social reality, its structures and dynamics. The four volumes of Social & Cultural Dynamics3 (Sorokin, 1937a; 1937b; 1937c; 1941b) systematically present the concept of society and its social and cultural dynamics. Hence the development of the theory of cyclical movements of the systems he had identified (Ideational, Sensate, and Idealistic)4 that are produced by the transformations of the cultural mentality of men and groups (experience linked to people’s thought and processes of symbolic mediation allowing for the ascription of meaning).
13His attention never departs from the two foundations that characterize his theoretical framework: 1) The indivisible sociocultural trinity: Society, Culture, and Personality (1962 [1947]). The complexity of sociocultural phenomena and the processes of meaningful human interaction are given by the interactions between these three aspects and three other components (human beings, meanings and vehicles); 2) the idea of sociology as engaged in the study of “meaningfull interactions” between the elements of sociocultural phenomena and able to show the way for improving the living conditions of individuals. Hence also his criticism for the “negativistic”, focus of social sciences, capable of bringing out only negative or pathological phenomena without ever highlighting positive and healthy ones.
14On these theoretical foundations, Sorokin bases his diagnosis of the extraordinary crisis experienced by Western societies, which he analyses in various areas (fine arts; science, philosophy, and religion; ethics and law; family, government, economic organization, liberty, and international relations; criminality, war, revolution, suicide, mental disease, and poverty). In the last chapter of The Crisis of Our Age, Sorokin elaborates his theory to get through the crisis.
15But what is Sorokin’s way out of the crisis? Based on his analysis, it aims at changing the “sensate cultural mentality”: “A careful study of the situation accordingly shows that the present crisis represents only a disintegration of the sensate form of Western society and culture, to be followed by a new integration” (1941a, p.24). This change entails correcting the errors of the sensate phase of society and culture to create what, according to Sorokin, should be a mental, moral and socio-cultural revolution of Western societies. It should take place through five steps, which can be summarized as follows: 1) recognising the extraordinary nature of the crisis; 2) acknowledging that the sensory system is not the only possible form nor is it immune from defects; 3) shifting from one system to another following the awareness that the creative force of the former is running out: “a given culture, in order to continue its creative life, must shift to another basic form of culture—in our case, from the agonizing sensate to the ideational or the idealistic or integral” (ibid., p.316); 4) re-examining the values and rejecting fake ones by strengthening the real ones; and, finally, 5) transforming the forms of social relation and social organization, together with the change in cultural mentality.
16In other words, the change should affect the forms of social relation, replacing the “compulsory” and “contractual” ones with purer relations, so as to transform the system of values and the behaviour of men towards others, cultural values and the world.
17In The Crisis of Our Age, Sorokin also refers for the first time to the Sermon on the Mount, which he will recall several times in subsequent works: “But there must be a change of the whole mentality and attitudes in the direction of the norms prescribed in the Sermon on the Mount. When such a change occurs, to a notable degree the technical ways of remodelling the economic and political structures in this direction become easy. Without this change, no mechanical, politico-economic reconstruction can give the desired results” (ibid., p.319). In Sorokin’s mind, this remedy is not based on what is desirable, but on a sociological induction that is repeated for all previous crises, summarized in the formula: “Crisis-ordeal-catharsis-charisma-resurrection” (ibid., p.321).
18Sorokin’s intellectual purpose, beyond his specific object of study, has always been the same: the search through sociology for a vital energy (a remedy) that would help humanity overcome its crisis.
- 5 Some aspects related to “hunger” were discussed by Sorokin (1922) in a book that was then censore (...)
19This theoretical framework also includes Sorokin’s analysis of socio-cultural changes (i.e., the transformation of everyday life) as consequences of disasters in Man and Society in Calamity (2010 [1942])5. Starting from the idea that individuals live in an age in which disasters are repeated, he believes that these have a great influence on many aspects of everyday life: from forms of thought to behaviour, from social life to cultural processes.
20When Sorokin wrote this book, it was quite clear what he meant by calamities—be them natural (hunger and pestilence) or man-made (war, revolution)—and how these “monsters” transformed individuals’ everyday lives. He defines the “typical effects” occurring every time disasters of the same type take place and states: “The life history of any society is an incessant fluctuation between periods of comparative well-being and those of calamity [...]. Sooner or later this catastrophic phase is succeeded by a new stretch of well-being, which is replaced, in turn, by a further period of calamity. And so this alternation goes on, throughout the entire duration of the society in question” (ibid., p.13). Beyond this first consideration, and even before discussing individually the effects of the four “monsters” on thought, behaviour, social organisation and cultural life, he clarifies a general principle (law of diversification and polarization of the effects of calamity): “I would stress the general principle of the diversification and polarization of these effects in different parts of the population. By this principle is meant that the effects of a given calamity are not identical—indeed, often are opposite—for different individuals and groups of the society concern, since individuals and groups differ from one another biologically and psychosocially” (ibid., p.14). This also depends on the degree of exposure to calamity.
21They affect not only emotional aspects—such as fear—but also cognitive processes of representation, memory, imagination and structuring of thought: “The first of these effects consists in the tendency of all the cognitive processes to be concentrated more and more upon the calamity and the phenomena that are directly and indirectly connected with it, together with increasing insensitivity (beginning with sensation and perception) toward extraneous elements” (ibid., p.28). The second basic change consists of a: “tendency toward disintegration of the unity of our ‘self’ and of mental functioning. It manifests itself in an increasing incapacity to concentrate on objects unrelated to the calamity, in a growing dependence of our thinking upon fortuitous external influences; in a decreasing autonomy and self-regulation of our thoughts, independently of external stimuli; and, finally, in an access of various forms of mental disease. In brief, calamities promote the growth of mental disorderliness and disorganization” (ibid., p.35). These are factors that determine great changes in both individuals and social structures, which require to exit the crisis and search for new balances. Disasters-caused crises are not to be considered sui generis but represent a normal moment in life, which highlights characteristics of social systems that may not be otherwise recognized, because of their consequences on individual lives and mechanisms of socio-psychological regulation. “In this sense calamities constitute one of the potent and radical agents of sociocultural change. Although when the emergency is over, many a society rapidly recovers (reestablishing its equilibrium, its unity, its institutions, its system of social relationships), nevertheless it is never the same as the one that existed before the calamity [...]. For good or ill, calamities are unquestionably the supreme disruptors and transformers of social organization and institutions” (2010 [1942], p.120-121). In communities prone to disasters, there is always a “before” and an “after”; therefore, it is paramount to address the problem of relief. In Man and Society in Calamity, Sorokin dedicates the last chapter to future perspectives (A Glance into the Future) and to what can be the means of escaping from a crisis caused by disasters but also by an anarchy of values that can be overcome only with their greater integration and rootedness:
Since the trends are already in operation they cannot be prevented or averted. They can be shortened and alleviated, however, by the individual as well as societies. The best way for an individual to meet them is by integrating his values and rooting them—not so much in the values of the sensory world—but rather in the moral duty and the transcendental values of the Kingdom of God [...]. For societies, the shortest, the most efficient, and the only practical way of really alleviating and shortening the crisis is by reintegrating its religious, moral scientific, philosophical and other values. This reintegration must be effected in such a way that the new system of values is rooted not only in the noblest values of this sensory world, but primarily in the values of moral duty and the kingdom of God (Sorokin, 2010 [1942], p.318).
22In light of these statements, it can be deduced that Sorokin, in Man and Society in Calamity, advances the same remedies as in The Crisis of Our Age: for human societies, the fastest and most effective way to really alleviate and shorten the crisis is to reintegrate their values, so that the emerging system of values is rooted in moral duty and can normalize everyday life by strengthening existing networks and structures, restoring existing ones and/or creating new ones.
23The search for solutions to the crisis continued in The Reconstruction of Humanity (1948). In it, Sorokin attributed the break-up of solidarity ties to the exasperated individualism existing in the sensate cultural mentality, which if not countered could lead to the destruction of humanity. In this book, he tries to outline how individuals can emerge from the uncertainty due to the crisis that followed World War II. For Sorokin, the way out can only be altruism, which becomes an essential tool for peace and survival: “A peaceful, harmonious, and creative society can exist only when its members possess at least a minimum of love, sympathy, and compassion ensuring mutual aid, co-operation, and fair treatment. Under these conditions its members are united in one collective “we” in which the joys and sorrows of one member are shared by others. In such a group a member is not as isolated “atom”, but a vital part of a creative community” (Sorokin, 1948, p.57-58). He defines altruism by arguing that each individual, through their experience, knows “what constitutes love or altruism” (p.58), but then distinguishes between altruistic conduct (genuine), nonaltruistic conduct (not opposed to altruism, but lacking its own characteristics), and antialtruistic or egoistic behaviour (actions clearly opposed to altruism such as hatred or enmity). A further distinction separates “wise and creative altruism from blind altruistic passion”; the former consists of actions without harmful effects for others, both subjectively and objectively, whereas the latter is subjectively altruistic in its end but objectively nonaltruistic in its nature (for example, a mother who satisfies all her son’s whims without refusing his most harmful demands).
24Towards the end of the book, summarizing the remedies for overcoming the crisis in the sensate society, Sorokin argues that the main reason for man’s powerlessness in being creatively altruistic is the neglect of mental phenomena by science for the last four centuries. In his opinion, it is a priority for science to correct the erroneous conception of man and the socio-cultural universe, and, for this reason, future research plans must study “human energies”.
25Individual conduct is not always positively oriented towards others, but this can be transformed by a (nonviolent) revolution of minds and hearts. The book concludes with a recommendation for the future in order to ensure the rebirth and transformation of mankind towards a creative and happy order:
Since the existing sensate order is moribund, we have no choice, unless we are resigned to the extinction of our civilization, but to follow the road to renaissance and transfiguration. Assisted by the forces of the historical process and especially by the liberated energies of the superconscious, humanity may travel this road until it reaches the haven of the new order of creative peace and happiness. All that is necessary is the supreme mobilization of our available mental and moral forces, control of subconscious drives by the conscious and superconscious factors, and unflinching determination to meet courageously all the difficulties of the pilgrimage. It is for humanity itself to decide its destiny! (Sorokin, 1948, p.241).
- 6 The theoretical contributions framing this analysis, as well as the first attempts to outline and (...)
26Sorokin claims full confidence in the potential of the social sciences as guides for mankind, to the point of hypothesizing a new applied science specifically addressing the promotion of friendship, unconditional love and mutual aid: “The historical moment has struck for building a new applied science or a new art of amitology—the science and art cultivation of amity, unselfish love, and mutual help in interindividual and integroup relationships. A mature amitology is now the paramount need of humanity. Its development tangibly determines the creative future of homo sapiens” (Sorokin, 1951a, p.277). The first task of this new discipline would be an accurate analysis of the main aspects, properties and basic forms of altruistic relation6, which means that amitology starts from the study of social relations and interactions. At the heart of amitology are two complementary ideals: 1) an anthropological end, which aims to discover the most efficient techniques for the altruistic transformation of the human personality, and 2) a social ideal, aimed at rebuilding humanity as a universal community of altruistic love (Rusu, 2018). Applying these ideals, however, implies understanding the mechanisms through which human beings make their decisions based on their degree of knowledge about a given situation.
27In short, Sorokin argued for the overcoming of the sensate culture by rediscovering the positive values of man, through a transformation of relations between individuals, and between individuals and institutions.
28What Sorokin presented in The Reconstruction of Humanity (1948) will find its maturity in the over five hundred pages of The Ways and Power of Love (1954a), which represents the sum total of his research on altruism. This theoretical framework enfolds Sorokin’s love relationship: “the supreme and vital form of human relationship” (ibid., p.76) as love energy, which can be compared to an iceberg (see ibid., p.3) because only a small part of it is visible. It is an inexhaustible universe, with both qualitative and quantitative characteristics. These refer to the multiple aspects of love: a) the religious aspect of love, the experience of love for God or the Absolute; b) the ethical aspect of love, love as the essence of good inseparable from truth and beauty: “Ethically love is identified with goodness itself” (ibid., p.6); c) the ontological aspect of love, considered the highest form of unifying, integrating and harmonizing creative power or energy. This is the “core” of love, underpinning the functioning of the world—its absence would see the physical, biological and social world collapse; d) the physical aspect of love, love expressed through the unifying, integrative and ordering energies of the universe; e) the biological aspect of love, manifested in nature itself and in the fundamental processes of life (without it, life itself is not possible, nor the conservation or survival of the species); f) the psychological aspect of love, includes all the intellectual aspects of emotional, emotional and desire experiences (by its very nature, psychological love is an “altruistic” experience); g) the social aspect of love, is the last of the forms identified by Sorokin. But “on the social plane love is a meaningful interaction—or relationship—between two or more persons where the aspirations and aims of one person are shared and helped in their realization by other persons” (ibid., p.13). The highest form of social love identified by Sorokin is represented in the Sermon on the Mount, expressing the social love relationship at its highest level.
- 7 On these five dimensions some scholars (Levin and Kaplan, 2010) have developed and validated a me (...)
29It follows that love not only has multiple aspects and forms, but also different dimensions. Sorokin identifies five of them, for which he eschews any psychometric analysis7, given that they have both scalar and non-scalar characteristics. However, he believes that it is empirically possible to find evidence or proofs of the different dimensions of love. While it is difficult to detect how much an act of love can be inferior, superior or equal to another act of love, it is possible to empirically witness acts of love and know that one act is greater than another. Briefly, the five dimensions are: a) the intensity of love indicates the extent of love, on a continuum that ranges from zero to the highest level (where the zero point is neither love nor hatred); b) the extensity of love ranges from love of oneself only (zero point) up to love for all mankind, living creatures and the entire universe—again, on a continuum; c) the duration of love can range from a very short time to the whole life of an individual or a group; d) the purity of love ranges from fully disinterested love (without any utilitarian purpose) to love as a means to a utilitarian or hedonist end; and, finally, e) the adequacy of love, which ranges from a complete discrepancy between the subjective aim of love actions and their objective consequences, up to their complete identity. Inadequacy can have two different forms: 1) the love experience can be subjectively genuine in the actor, but the objective consequences of his actions can be different or opposite to the subjective aim of love; 2) an individual may have no love experiences or intentions subjectively, but the objective consequences of his actions can still benefit others. The first form of experience is altruistic subjectively, but not objectively; the second sort of experience is subjectively not altruistic, but objectively altruistic.
- 8 Sorokin himself, in subsequent works, clarifies that these elements are inseparable and together (...)
30In addition to describing the aspects and dimensions of altruistic creative love, Sorokin considers it an energy that can be produced, accumulated and distributed by individuals and institutions: “If love can be viewed as one of the highest energies known, then theoretically, at least, we can talk about the production or generation, the accumulation (or loss), the channeling, transmission, and distribution of this particular energy” (ibid., p.36). He identifies five steps through which to produce and improve the love energy: 1) the increase of creative heroes of love, meaning the great creators and thinkers (e.g., Plato, Dante, Shakespeare, Mozart, etc.) and the heroes or apostles of love (e.g., Buddha, Christ, Francis of Assisi, Gandhi, etc.); 2) the increase of creative heroes of truth and beauty, thinkers and creators in different fields of science and the arts are great forges for some of the components (truth and beauty) of the highest value (love energy)8. What is needed is a growth in the love of parts of society. What is necessary, therefore, is a growth in love in certain social spheres: 3) the increase of love by the rank and file; 4) an increase in the production of love by groups and institutions; and finally 5) the increase of love-production by culture and the total culture.
- 9 A symposium on the aspects of “altruistic spiritual growth” gave then rise to a collective work e (...)
31If these are the steps through which to generate or increase love energy, it is therefore not a utopia to think that it can also be accumulated and distributed by individuals, social institutions and culture. Chapter IV of The Ways and Power of Love, addressing the beneficial powers of creative love, ends the descriptive part of the book to leave room in the remaining part (about two thirds) for an analysis of the types of altruism, the ways to increase it and the techniques for transforming individuals and groups into altruists. If The Reconstruction of Humanity describes altruistic behaviours (genuine, nonaltruistic, and antialtruistic or egoistic), in The Ways and Power of Love Sorokin identifies a typology of altruists emerging from specific growth paths9.
32Sorokin’s threefold typology is based on self-identification and distinguished into “the early-fortunate”, “the late-matured” or “late-catastrophic”, and finally “the intermediary”. The first type of altruist identifies himself from early childhood with the value system and he is born in or belongs to environments that encourage altruistic development; in the second type the change in behaviour is due to a sudden change in the life of the individual (an event that divides life into pre-altruistic and altruistic), which can be long- or short-lasting and consists in the reintegration of the value system; the last type, as the name suggests, lies mid-way between the previous two, accentuating the characteristics of one or the other. Not all forms of self-identification help transforming the behaviour of individuals towards altruism:
Not all self-identifications help in the altruistic transformation of individuals. Only when self-identification means not a mere ideological acceptance of a certain value as supreme, but also a deep permeation by this value of the body of one’s ideas, emotions, feelings, volitions and, eventually, actions; only when, in addition, the supreme value is positive and contains in itself sublime love, does such self-identification become a decisive factor in melding one’s personality and overt conduct into the living incarnation of love (ibid., p.175).
33In his theories, Sorokin never abandons the idea that individual development is in close relation with socio-cultural organizations. The personality does not result simply from the conflict between conscious and unconscious aspects (as in Freudian theory) but from a complex negotiation between several aspects. Sorokin had previously (1962 [1947]) described four levels which combine to develop the acting personality: 1) the biological unconscious, which is the lowest level and represents instincts; 2) the biological conscious or bioconscious, in which the energy of the individual body becomes conscious and can control instincts; 3) the sociocultural conscious or socioconscious, which is formed by interacting with others, through personal experiences that take place together with others through collective life and that are transmitted from individual to individual, from one group to another, and from one generation to another; and 4) the supraconscious, which represents the fourth and highest level of psychic activities and mental energies in which personality is expressed.
34The latter is the level to which Sorokin refers when he speaks of transforming personality towards more altruistic conduct. To this end, it is necessary to concentrate on the potential of the higher levels of the personality (supraconscious and conscious) able to control the lower one (unconscious). The transformation of the individual’s behaviour in an altruistic sense entails a threefold action: a) the reorganization of the various components of the personality, which must develop the supraconscious and conscious to their maximum degree; b) the revision of all the values and their subordination to the highest creative values (goodness, truth, and beauty); c) an affiliation of the individual to those groups that cultivate positive values, breaking with selfish and negative groups.
35Sorokin identifies and describes 26 different techniques of altruisation or socialization to altruism (see Sorokin, 1954a, p. 290, part IV, chap. 16-22), which he classifies into two major main systems: the ego-transcending and the ego-centered.
36The first system is based on a complete transcendence of the ego and total control of the unconscious impulses: “Altruistic transformation in the ego-transcending system is one of the steps towards the final state of egoless pure spirituality or towards union with the suprapersonal supreme value, called ‘God’, ‘Love’, ‘Universal Self’, and many other names” (ibid., p.288). Conversely, in the second system both the ego and the unconscious impulses are considered positive values and their preservation is the necessary condition for altruisation: “According to its postulate, a person who does not love himself or his own egos cannot love anyone else. Selflove is a necessary condition for loving others” (ibid.).
37Sorokin also clarifies that—like other tools—most techniques for transforming human behaviour can be used for both positive and negative purposes, both for altruistic development and for selfish development. He considers them, for his purposes, only as a means for altruism.
38The last part of The Ways and Power of Love, consisting of a single chapter (From Tribal Egoism to Universal Altruism), closes the over five hundred pages of the book by posing a dilemma to all mankind:
By the mysterious forces of destiny mankind is confronted with a stern dilemma: either to continue its predatory policies of individual and tribal selfishness that lead it to its inevitable doom, or to embark upon the policies of universal solidarity that brings humanity to the aspired for heaven on the earth. It is up to everyone of us which of the two roads we prefer to choose (ibid., p.489).
39It should be noted that although in this book Sorokin referred to the ways and power of love, nowhere in this work he provides a satisfactory definition of the word “love” (Eckhardt, 1983). He merely argued that love is “the supreme and vital form of human relationship” (see Sorokin, 1954a, p.76), that it is neither a “compulsory” nor a “contractual” relationship. The words “love” and “altruism” he made interchangeable by referring to all actions that produce and maintain the psychological and/or physical well-being of oneself and others through altruism. I could, therefore, argue that love is the energy (force) through which altruism manifests itself.
- 10 Using a medical metaphor, Sorokin also stated that sick humanity can find an effective cure in th (...)
40In The Mysterious Energy of Love (1959), Sorokin argues that, although little is known of this energy and of how it is produced and used, it is enough to justify the hypothesis that the “grace of love” is one of the three highest energies known to man (along with truth and beauty). Taken together, the three are facets of that vital energy that is identified in the force of “creative altruistic love” and considered a powerful tool to rebuild crisis-ridden mankind10.
41The search for a vital energy capable of rebooting mankind to overcome the all-encompassing deadly crisis will be the subject of study of the Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism that Sorokin founded in 1949.
42The Center was officially established on February 1949, thanks to a 120,000 dollars grant—20,000 of which had already been paid in the winter of 1946— donated to Harvard University by Eli Lilly and the Lilly Endowment to allow Sorokin to adequately continue his research on altruism.
43In a nutshell, the Centre’s objective was to study—in an interdisciplinary way, through the promotion of research and symposia—the theme of altruism by analysing its various types, aspects and dimensions, as well as the effects on individual, social and biological life.
44Two assumptions underpinned its work: 1) no intervention, including international ones (e.g., the United Nations), had succeeded in eliminating or reducing conflicts or bloody struggles between peoples; 2) creative love, of which little is still known, is virtually a power—the mysterium tremendum et fascinosum.
45We can distinguish two phases in the activities of the Centre. The first one aimed mainly at delineating and formulating an operational definition of creative love and verifying the state of the art of this topic in contemporary sciences. The second phase focused on investigating the procedures and factors of formation and transformation of altruism, and testing (where possible) the effectiveness of the approaches of altruistic education starting with Yoga’s ancient techniques.
- 11 The studies have been published in The Ways and Power of Love (1954a), but a synthesis in thirtee (...)
46The first phase is linked to the publication of Altruistic Love (Sorokin, 1950a) and Explorations in Altruistic Love and Behavior (Sorokin, 1950b), as well as the various studies conducted on the “power of love”, consisting of collections of stories on the subject through a semi-experimental or experimental method applied to students of Harvard University, Radcliffe College and Boston Psychopathic Hospital11. In Altruistic Love, published at the start of the Centre’s activities, Sorokin applies his skills as social analyst to the study of the characteristic traits of individuals who are sensitive to the needs of others and who respond freely by providing help: the “American good neighbors” and “Christian saints” (500 and 4,600 cases respectively). The study is as a sort of census, in particular of the saints, with the cataloguing of certain socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex, occupational, economic, and social position, territory distribution, etc.) which point to two recurrent aspects: 1) the extraordinary health and longevity of these saints; 2) the constant growth of holy women from the 1st to the 20th century, a change that reflects the transformations of Christian societies. Explorations in Altruistic Love and Behavior is rather a collection of reports presented at the symposium bearing the same name, which sought to outline the main aspects, forms and dimensions of love, as well as the state of the art on the subject in a multidisciplinary perspective. These works show that this object of study is highly neglected by the modern sciences.
- 12 The results are presented in The Ways and Power of Love (1954a) and Forms and Techniques of Altru (...)
47In the second phase of the Centre’s activities, the focus shifts from description to practice and research focuses on the factors and techniques of altruistic education and transformation. In particular, the effectiveness of the various methods of altruistic education of human beings and groups is tested experimentally—whenever possible, starting with the ancient techniques of Yogas, Buddhism, Zen-Buddhism, Sufism, and somatophysic techniques of Orthodox Christianity, but also reviewing the techniques invented by the founders of the great religions and monastic orders, both eastern and western; and, finally, a study of the techniques of the major educators and pedagogists of modernity (Comenius, Pestalozzi, Montessori, Froebel and others)12. The interest in these techniques was justified by their undeniable effectiveness. Their advocates can claim the greatest moral transformations known today and have had great success for the moral education of mankind.
- 13 These studies implied a deep knowledge of the society, culture and value system in which individu (...)
48The study and research activities of the Centre13 yielded four lines of result: a) identifying three types of altruists (“the early-fortunate”, “the late-matured” or “late-catastrophic”, and finally “the intermediary”); b) upholding the law of polarization previously formulated (Sorokin, 2010 [1942]), according to which many individuals in a community hit by a catastrophe transform their behaviour egoistically (carpe diem) or, conversely, altruistically; c) reconsidering the prevailing theory of the structure and integration of the personality; and, finally, d) outlining strategies to achieve altruistic transformation in group affiliations through the detailed study of their modalities.
49With Sorokin’s retirement as Professor Emeritus at the end of 1959, the activities of the Centre, now without funds, were officially terminated. It was affiliated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to carry out ordinary administration activities but no longer research activities.
50Reconstructing the Centre’s activities is not an easy task, since it can be based on three publications only (Sorokin, 1955; 1963, chap.15; 1995), all of which follow the same structure: establishment of the Centre and relative associated funding, assumptions and phases, description of the phases with summary of the results, overall results. What changes from one to the other is the ending, although they can all be traced back to the idea that social scientists must play a leading role in the social transformations necessary to “reconstruct humanity”.
51The first report, published in Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, ends with the following statement: “L’humanité se meurt par disette d’amour. Les vastes champs de l’univers humain demandent des jardiniers de cette fleur merveilleuse. Vivos voco!” (Humanity is dying from a lack of love. The vast fields of the human universe require gardeners of this wonderful flower. Sorokin, 1955, p.103). Interestingly, this “call” was not spelt in the same terms in the two English versions. In less categorical but equally clear terms his autobiography reads: “I have devoted some ten years of my life to the study of the ‘mysterious energy of love’. This study has seemingly added something to the extant knowledge of this energy. If the results are more modest than I might have wished, my excuse can be expressed by an old adage Feci quod potui faciant meliora potentes” (Sorokin, 1963, chap.15, p.292). According to Sorokin, transformations must begin with a rediscovery of the positive values of man, and science acts as a guide also by overcoming strictly sensate models of knowledge. In the case of sociology, it is not only a sociology of the crisis but a “critical sociology” that does not stop at analysing the degenerative processes of society but searches for its deep roots, denouncing the negative factors that cause them. The “call”, instead, is absent from the posthumous work (Sorokin, 1995) published with permission of his son, Sergei.
52The activities of the Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism allowed Sorokin to focus the attention of researchers on some themes (love and altruism) previously disregarded by social sciences, still too committed to seeking negative values instead of positive ones. According to Sorokin, the change had to be triggered by the rediscovery of the positive values of man and, in this perspective, science had to act as a guide to overcome the models of strictly sensate knowledge.
53The studies on altruistic creative love represent the endpoint of Sorokin’s effort to affirm the leading role of sociology in the social transformations necessary for the “reconstruction of humanity”. Before Sorokin could express his “foolish” ideas—as they were then termed (Sorokin, 1955)—no solution had been found for devastation and war (one of the constitutive aims of the Centre), since any attempt to change the behaviour of individuals and groups had been made by acting from the outside and thinking of changing political and economic institutions, rather than changing the interactions of the individuals acting in these systems.
54Beyond the “prophetic vision” and the polemics it entailed, Sorokin had an “intuition” that could be summarized as follows: the future and development of mankind are in the hands of mankind itself. Neither law, nor education, religion, the economy or even science is enough to rescue humanity out of its crisis. The controversy that followed the first studies of the Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism was resolved only by Sorokin’s death in 1968 and, even then, only in part. They were probably fuelled by the fact that Sorokin’s career was imbued with the moral activism typical of the educated Russian classes (intelligentsia) of the 19th and early 20th century.
55The figure of Sorokin in America has remained very “Russian”, in style and vocation. He was not a “soldier of fortune” (Martindale, 1975), nor simply a “perpetual loner” (Coser, 1977), but he was certainly a “prophetic” nonconformist (Johnston, 1995). Therefore, his prophetic tendencies, especially in his last decade, which could appear to most as a set of idiosyncrasies, were expressions of his role as an intellectual with a Russian education. After all, the sociology and social sciences that Sorokin found upon his arrival in the United States had a theoretical poverty at odds with his conception of man and society—they analysed merely particular aspects of that society, without aiming at a deeper interpretation of social reality through which to give orientation, value and meaning to the research itself. His open gaze on mankind and its history brings him closer to European thought than to North American one, drawing his intellectual attitudes.
- 14 The collection was given to the University of Saskatchewan after Sorokin’s death. It contains his (...)
56Whatever judgment one takes on Sorokin’s ideas, it is a fact that he has contributed like few others to making altruism an object of study of social sciences. With delay, and, at the present time, in English-speaking sociology (especially American) only, his legacy has been picked up by several scholars (Jeffries, 2014; Jeffries et al., 2006; Johnston, 2001; Krotov, 2012; Nichols, 2012, 2019; Weinstein, 2000; Mangone and Dolgov, 2019). Many of them are at the origin of the American Sociology Association’s “Altruism, Morality & Social Solidarity” section that I mentioned earlier, and they also created, together with Sorokin’s family members, the Pitirim Sorokin Foundation, which, besides the University of Saskatchewan in Canada (University Archives & Special Collections, P.A. Sorokin collection, Fonds MG 449)14, safeguards the intellectual heritage of the Russian-American sociologist by making unpublished documents available for study and research purposes.
57Other studies have also revived Sorokin’s thought through collective works and reconsiderations. For example, the books edited by Elvira Del Pozo Aviñó (2006) and Colbert Rhodes (2017), or my own work (Mangone, 2018a) published on the 50th anniversary of Sorokin’s death and aimed at an updated reinterpretation of his theories. I also addressed indirectly the “reconstruction of humanity” in examining disasters (Mangone, 2018b; 2018c; 2018d) starting from Sorokin’s theories exposed in Man and Society in Calamity (2010 [1942]). To summarize the current situation, in Europe, unlike the United States, there is no “hard-nucleus” of scholars who have adopted or continued Sorokin’s theories, except for the Centre “Nasledie Pitirim Sorokin”, based in the Republic of Komi (Russian Federation), the birthplace of the author, but consisting solely of Russian scholars.
58Regardless of the number of scholars following his theories, what he expressed cannot be defined “sociological humanism”, but rather “humanistic sociology”. In such a perspective, studies are needed that not only account for the negative conditioning or effects of social phenomena but contribute to a science—positive sociology (Nichols, 2012; Yogan, 2015)—that can contribute to the analysis and study of the most human part of the individual and the social (altruism, volunteering, social solidarity, friendship, closeness, etc.) with the aim of transforming the way human beings interact, orienting them towards that bond that Sorokin defined as love relationship and that characterizes a free, harmonious, humanistic and creative society.