The term philanthropy is thrown
around our classroom on a daily basis, nonetheless is the title of this course,
however distinguishing what is a philanthropic action may be an extremely
difficult task for many of us to comprehend.
In tackling what constitutes, as charitable giving it is important to
understand what philanthropy really is.
In my opinion I don’t believe that philanthropy is about who can donate
the most money or time to a cause. In
order to call yourself a philanthropist you must be reaching your full
potential to give back to your community, whether through donations or a
commitment to a cause is unimportant, but having a passion to give back because
we all should want to is what constitutes someone as being a philanthropist,
because no matter how much you do there is always more that you could be
doing. The question of whether someone
is a philanthropist or not is difficult to answer because although I don’t see
myself as a philanthropist right now I do believe that I have the potential to
become one some day. Do you think that
you are a philanthropist or do you see yourself in the position I am currently
experiencing?
Being
involved in philanthropy should be a stress free experience because any kind of
giving is good giving right? Wrong.
While reading the article The
Giving Conundrum I felt an unsettling connection between her experiences
with philanthropy with my own. Perhaps, since the author writes in a way that
sounds younger she is more easily relatable, but I find her experiences
familiar. The face of giving often leads us into challenges of where the best
use of our time and money are going. As
critical thinkers we all want to put our efforts into causes that we believe will
benefit from our support. This
unfortunately leads to a number of overwhelming questions, which the author
experienced, that can consume us regarding who we should give to: ”Should I
give more to smaller organizations and less to large ones, or visa versa?
Should I give to the same organizations year after year or spread the wealth
around? Should I focus locally, because we all have to start where we are? Or
should I focus globally?” All of these
questions have definitely had an effect on my giving and opinions on who to
give to, but it is difficult to say whether one organization deserves it more
than another. According to effective
altruism we should choose the cause where we will make the most difference, but
measuring this value is quite difficult and could be different in others
opinions. A difficult task I have been trying to discover is that one issue
area that I find most compelling.
Although it is encouraged to support a number of different causes I
think a lot of people answer these questions easier with help from their own
personal beliefs and passions. For
example if I had an experience with guide dogs like the author of Two Paths for Charitable Giving: From the
Head or from the Heart, I may be more compelled to donate to causes for the
blind or other handicaps that benefit from the use of guide dogs. Do you believe that you are a more effective
giver if you have a prior connection to a cause? Or should we only give
logically from the head?
If you are interested in whether you are being
an effective philanthropist check out this video of Joy Sun’s Ted talk that takes
a new route to solving poverty issues around the world. In this video Joy tries to explore
alternatives to how we are approaching charity.
In this experiment she encourages a method of charity in which the money
is being transferred directly from the donors to the people it is being donated
to. With the use of technology an
“unconditional cash transfer” with no strings attached allows the poor to
empower themselves and be independent on their own. Although I am still skeptical that all of the
receivers actually use their donations in the most beneficial way, it is an
interesting strategy to approach issues of poverty. Do you think Joy’s strategy is successful or
a disaster waiting to happen?
Although I still have unanswered questions
about my own efforts as a “philanthropist” I admire and believe everyone should
give based on the value that Doris Buffet does, in that, “the best return is
when lives change for the better in some way, that’s the commanding thought
behind all I do.” At the end of the day
it doesn’t matter what cause you are helping, but that you are evoking positive
change in some way.
Great post, Jen. You've brought up a lot of good points and questions. What interests me most about your post is the video you shared. I've never thought that that approach to giving was even possible. I like it, because it shows a new kind of respect for people in developing countries, or poor people in general. I think that people often underestimate "the poor." Take, for example, Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth. One quote that struck me is, "The millionaire will be a trustee for the poor... administering it [wealth] for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself." The video turns the table on this attitude by saying, "...organizations would have to prove that they’re doing more good for the poor than the poor can do for themselves." Sure, there might be a few people who will spend the money on cigarettes or something, but the majority of people just want to support themselves and their families, and I think it's only fair that we trust them. I think that there should be educational efforts about how they should spend the money (for example, Helen Keller International's efforts to encourage people to buy seeds for orange-fleshed, vitamin-rich sweet potatoes rather than another, less nutritious variety), but ultimately, no one knows what someone needs more than that person themselves.
ReplyDeleteJen, I really enjoyed your post and I am experiencing similar thoughts myself. I agree that intent matters, just giving your time or money does not suffice in order to be considered a philanthropist. i think being a philanthropist includes giving away your time and money for selfless reasons, not selfish ones. I also don't consider myself a philanthropist although I would like to be one in the future. Even though we've only had 3 classes so far, those 3 classes have really inspired me to want to be a better person and donate more of my time and money. Even if I don't have much considering I am a college student, I've realized that anything can help. I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking my donations would be like dropping something in the ocean.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked The Giving Conundrum article and felt like I could really relate to it, I think the young voice definitely had something to do with that. Her writing style was very real and hit close to home as I am thinking about the same things as she is. I don't think there is any right answers to the questions she is asking, you will never know if you are donating your money to the right place because that is all relative. I think what matters is donating time or money because your heart is in the right place and donating to an organization or charity that makes considerable changes. I think if you donate to a charity or organization that makes concrete changes, you donated to a good cause and shouldn't stress out about it. I believe you should think with your heart and with your head when considering donating, when you think with your heart you will be more passionate about the cause you are giving to and will feel more compelled to keep giving and at the same time if you think logically with your head you will be donating to an organization that you are passionate about and that also makes positive changes.
I also dont think there is a right answer to Joy's strategy, that is also relative. If she gives money to a poor person who really wants to get their life together then they will use it in a beneficial way but if she ends up giving to a drug addict then they will probably not use it for the right purposes. I think an alternative solution is Doris Buffets way of handling this. She directly gives money to the poor but instills different conditions people have to meet in order to get the money or she makes sure they show proof of their hardship. I really admire Doris Buffet and her philanthropic ways and I am happy we are learning about her and that you wrote about her.
Does true philanthropy only arise when we give away every penny and minute of our time that we can afford to give, or do the good intentions alone make us philanthropists? Likewise, is there a distinct line between good-doer/giver and becoming a philanthropist. I agree that not all people who donate time and money can be considered philanthropists, but do intentions and heart add to the equation.
ReplyDeleteI by no means consider myself a philanthropist and I don't know if I ever will be. Reading the articles from Tuesday and "The Power of Half" I do not know if I will ever be able to live pay check to pay check or give away my house all in the name of helping others. Is that what makes someone a philanthropist? Does my hard work going into planning events and advocacy not count for anything or does it just not make me a philanthropist?
On a different note, I have to object with the philosophy of Peter Singer (not something I do often) when it comes to giving. I can't support a philosophy that only advocates for giving to organizations where my single dollar can make a noticeable change. There has to be a time where the heart outweighs the head. Though I can can cure thousands of blindness in Africa for the same money that I can support and train one single guide dog, does not make it any more worthy of a cause. In addition, should we only be putting our money to solving issues that have relatively quick and easy fixes (my mind automatically goes to campaign to buy mosquito nets) or should we put our money towards research to help find a cure for ALS or breast cancer. Are the lives that only cost a few dollars to save more worthy then the lives that may cause millions or even billions?
Often times, whether the philanthropic work is a donation of time or money, I believe that even putting a heavy emphasis on the word philanthropy or holding such actions in high regards detracts from the intention of being kind or giving. Why do such actions need to have an entire category onto themselves. I think that beginning to reshape the context of what giving is, whether in terms of money or time, can maximize the overall welfare of everyone. Good "philanthropy", if one were to measure it, or at least attempt to. Does not lie in how much time or money is given, but rather the impact on one individuals life. If your actions managed to change even one person's life for the better than you have done philanthropy well. Again, I have my own contempt for the word philanthropy, but I think you summed it up nicely with your ending quote. Philanthropy is a relationship between yourself and a cause. I believe seeing the intersectionality of all the causes in the world is what allows someone to do philanthropy well. To acknowledge that regardless how important a cause may be to you, there are plenty of other issues that may have your attention and that ultimately there is a lot of work to be done in this world. In essence, no one issue supersedes another. I guess that is what it means to do philanthropy well for me.
ReplyDeleteI have been finding the whole argument over what it means to be a philanthropist very problematic. The term is very diluted. Everybody has a different idea of what it means, and at the end of the day, anybody can make up a definition that describes themselves.
ReplyDeleteGiving is not a competition though. There is no big awards show for it where we are crowned with that coveted title "philanthropist." There are instead 3 types of people. Those who do good, those who do nothing, and those who think they are doing good, but are not yet aware of the negative externalities of their do-gooding. The only aspiration we need to hold is to be one who does good. The title we put on it does not matter. Anybody can call themselves a philanthropist. Only those who do good can be clearly defined.
How do we do philanthropy well reply:
ReplyDeleteJen, I really enjoyed your blog post. Your comment about “full potential” caused considerable thought for me because I really think that is a great way to describe what a philanthropist is. We all wear a lot of hats. Some of us describe ourselves by our profession,“ I am a doctor”. Many people describe themselves by their favorite hobby, “I am a golfer who works at a hospital to support his habit”. Sometimes people describe themselves by order, “I am a father”. They way one describes themselves seem to reflect their primary purpose or “full potential” as you put it. Since we all are involved in many things, we all have differing motivations and sometimes conflicting agendas that may confuse who and what we are perceived as. Is it possible to be a bank robber by day and philanthropist by night?
It seems to stand that which we put most of our “intent” into, that which we enjoy doing the most, is what we see ourselves as. Perhaps that bank robber hates robbing banks but great suffering will occur otherwise. On the other hand, maybe he loves that thrill of robbing banks and gives the money away only out of guilt and shame. On one hand I could consider the person a philanthropist and on the other criminal. Distinguishing, as you pointed out, between what constitutes philanthropic action can be an extremely difficult task for us to undertake.
The Giving Conundrum was, I agree, somewhat unsettling. Making the “most difference” is great ideologically but if in practical application the pressure to give “perfectly” is preventing people from giving (or getting involved) then the principle has little value. Amanda’s conclusion in her blog, making the correlation between altruism and philanthropy “counter-productive” was, in my opinion, right on the money. The softer and more preferred approach as expressed in Two Paths… causing one to think about how they give.
I especially appreciated your positive ending quoting Doris Buffet on the greatest return in giving. It’s so much nicer to focus on the feeling of helping rather than all of the analysis we do as to why we feel compelled to help one another. Thanks for that, Jen!