Reading Beyer: Solidarity by Grace, Nature or Both?

Gerald J. Beyer. “Solidarity by Grace, Nature or Both? The Possibility of Human Solidarity in the Light of Evolutionary Biology and Catholic Moral Theology.” The Heythrop Journal 54.5 (2013):  via academia Web Accessed 26 June 2026. [https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.12030]

I am fairly harsh on Catholicism, that variation of Christianity with its origins as a rogue version of an imperial cult gone into universal exile. Of course all traditions that go global develop, not just differences and localizations, but internal strands of decent humanity that criss-cross the hierarchy and the stratigraphy of hierarchy and laity. We are human after all.

Certainly I was taught by nuns and brothers from those strands.

It is not necessarily unconscious, but the members of a more decent and less dogmatic humanity are often surprised at the bad outcomes of their organisation, along with a little bit of “if only the tsar knew” hand-wringing, all the while needing to out-manoeuvre the conservatives who seek to impose their true version of what a rogue version of the Roman Empire’s mind control unit should be doing. (Spoiler: both groups are worlding the self among others doing the same.)

So it is thus I come to Solidarity by Grace, Nature or Both? The Possibility of Human Solidarity in the Light of Evolutionary Biology and Catholic Moral Theology by Gerald J. Beyer.

This article looks to insights from evolutionary biology to examine whether or not human beings can embody solidarity sustainably on a broad scale.³ It aims to demonstrate that striving for universal solidarity is not contrary to human nature. Rather, social solidarity is an expression of inherent tendencies built upon the evolved biological origins of the human species. This article also argues that the biological basis of solidarity is stronger than most theologians engaged with evolutionary theory have recognized. These theologians fail to acknowledge fully that even though the tendency to act selfishly is deeply rooted, it is counterbalanced by caring, empathic drives, firmly embedded in human nature by the process of evolution.
The argument unfolds in several stages. First, this article briefly introduces the key elements of the Catholic ethic of solidarity. The subsequent section summarizes views among sociobiologists and several leading Christian theologians who deny the consistency between human nature and solidarity to one degree or another. Next, the article analyzes the work of renowned evolutionary biologists Frans de Waal and David Sloan Wilson, both of whom have done some of the most important work in evolutionary studies of morality in recent times.

So, yeah. Solidarity. it’s not just an 80’s protest movement Solidarność.

And damn if it doesn’t look just like my version of ‘good worlding’. Those nuns and brothers did their job.

1) The recognition of human interdependence and corresponding obligations to others that flow from it, especially obligations to the marginalized. 
2) A firm commitment to the common good, which requires creating social structures that promote the participation and rights of all.
3) A willingness to work with others across boundaries of class, gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion and nationality to foster an inclusive common good.

The point for me here is the world does not care about any of this. I.E. Morality does not care. That is up to us.

And that ‘that’ requires empathy.

Unlike Weberian, Marxist, and other exclusivist conceptions of solidarity, the Catholic tradition posits the possibility of highly inclusive solidarity across classes, genders, races, religions and nations.¹⁵ All persons – oppressors, the oppressed, and defenders of the oppressed – should exercise the virtue of solidarity toward one another and for the sake of the common good. The oppressed unite in solidarity to promote one another’s rights and well-being, together with those who join them in their struggle. They also challenge oppressors to undergo conversion and begin to cultivate solidarity with the victims of their wrongdoing. Once the oppressed overcome the shackles of injustice, they in turn must ‘carry the burden’ of other oppressed persons. This is how communities of solidarity are formed.¹⁶ Catholic thought envisions such communities of solidarity existing on the local, national, and global levels.¹⁷ In this vein, John Paul II called for ‘globalization in solidarity’, which would allow all nations to be full and equal participants in the global market economy and in the governance of international institutions.¹⁸ In short, the Catholic tradition sees solidarity as both a virtue that individuals should practice and a characteristic of institutions and social relations. Solidarity should shape various aspects of economic, political, and social life both within and among nations. While not denying the possible necessity of conflict for the sake of justice, Catholicism holds that solidarity is possible across the full spectrum of social relations.¹⁹ In other words, the Catholic ethic of solidarity requires creating and sustaining the common good and the rights of all people on the local, national and global levels.

Of course it is also an extension of the golden rule, and without the implementation of game-theory narcissism (AKA the empathy-less) who immediately want to intervene and surf its juicy goodness, is something any human might come up with. As I said earlier, we, after-all, we are human, and these provisions, in various forms, are common outcomes of those strange attractors around which our iterated choices move in prosociality. 

The world itself does not care, but we often care to think it does, and cry when it fails. These emotions to save the world help maintain it, even if the world goes on without our solitary efforts, even if they are often over-wrought and hijacked by boundary riding empathy-less concierges, who at the very least seek to restrict solidarity to the groups and subgroups that cult leaders, like emperors, seek control of. In the name of.

The world doesn’t care about them either.

If only the tsar knew.

The article then explores work in evolutionary theory that can help frame an understanding of this Catholic strand of prosociality developed as ‘solidarity’ (described in the three-pointer above) and vice versa. I.E. in out-manoeuvring reductionistic excesses, or positions like some readings of Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (see previous post on If I had a Haworth…) who was spurred to write in response to Robert Ardrey’s (the Man-the-Hunter man) writing on group selection (my reading of him here ① and ② and ③ ). I.E. atruism/self-sacrifice/Jesus-crucified.

The foes mentioned are Jeff Skilling, Thatcher’s, Reagan’s neoliberalisms, those labelled sociobiologists, etc.

That Michael Ghiselin quote.

The response then comes in from Frans De Waal and David Sloan Wilson.

Then, the next section brings in the theologians to compare matters with regard to what might be labelled ‘original sin’ of the selfish gene. I.E. it is not the whole story, nor a completely selfish experience to live as a human (with some exceptions). And that is where the notion of grace comes in. I.E divine intervention (even for those exceptions this is a universal exercise after all.) God's grace is an offer (the mind control idea) that can save us if we accept it.

(A 'City of God' technique out of which individual conscience and the later development of the social institution of the individual are unforeseen outcomes of imperial over-reach into the human soul.)

This idea of grace is not so far from those variations of what some claim (Bruno Snell’s The Discovery of the Greek Mind) that pre-Homeric Greeks believed all human thought & emotions were put directly in one’s (head/heart) by an act of a god mischievous or reasonable by turn. Cupid’s arrow and all, and no human individual culpability at all. When morality was based on the polis balancing outcomes, and not some church inscribed decision tree which later gave birth to ethics committees out of its thigh or belly-button or something.

There are "evolutionary-framed" variations of this motif in this Julian Jaynes' bicameral consciousness, and even a substacker who thinks humanity is a recent raising of consciousness circa 70K years ago. And sees snakes as an emblem of this so I am not too harsh. See Eve Theory of Consciousness v3.0.

The reality is this sudden moment of grace is our doing, and goes way back, and because it took a very long time to gain an influence in selfish gene selections into prosociality feedbacks, that we cannot know of it, even as we regard it, in reflection, as miraculous. The light globe 'moment' grace/snakes/arrows will keep popping up as an explanation as long as we are humans given to sudden insights. None of which are really sudden, they just feel that way, especially in their rightness. And especially bad in their righteousness.

And the feedbacks? What is this recursion in which the suddenness arises, and of which you speak? The (the worlding we self) out of the body in its landscape, of the (the selfing we world). The extended phenotype we read into our interactions with others in the noyaux of our mis-understandings (the world)(the self).

The 'moment of grace' is really just throwing into the gap of our ‘understanding’ or ‘reason’ (as guided or not by the church’s claim to guiding reason as a dogma of imperial tradition) what we do anyway, without any interventions. It is so strong many of us in some cultures cannot imagine it any other way without an intervention, which might be true, but it comes from us. Most likely from our parents, those god-like creatures we first encounter at our creation at birth and so on. So I guess the confusion is never going away. It is this strength of feeling that is colonised by claims to it by a tradition, or in a tradition by a tradition, and by those stare at themselves as gods among us, as rebels and saints.

Gerald J. Beyer covers those instances with regard to the church’s version of intervention of grace to humanise us compared to those pagans who have no idea, with regard to the altruism/self/sacrifice/Jesus/solidarity mentioned above.

If only they had a tsar to tell them this stuff perhaps.

But no! we just need to realise:

solidarity may be more natural than heretofore acknowledged in Christian theological discourse

Beyer then goes through each element lised in the three-point definition of solidarity with respect to de Waal & Wilson’s thought, and works as an excellent introduction to the area. And useful for me, because this strand of Catholic church, beside describing my own background, is evidence that hope springs eternal, because the world does not care.

Morality does not care, but you do.

That is why we should. Even if we guess wrong as to when, and particularly who, it happened by/to/how all this care happens. Morality is only an ophan because we disown it. Much like the creator is an orphan because we disown that responsibility in the name of giving credit to a god.

Beyer ends with a section called III. CONCLUSION: SOLIDARITY AS THE FRUIT OF NATURE AND GRACE, EQUALLY

This is a useful compromise. But this is unnecessary if we recognises both nature and grace are unnecessary, and this means rejected not only original sin but original innocence, for hope will spring eternal without intervention, because it is up to us, and we will do it even if we ascribe it erroneously to the gods of intervention.

This is a part of Reactions to papers/books on evolution~morality. This post is crossposted at substack.com