The Charity Essay
A couple of days ago I was invited to a yummy mummy (YM) coffee morning. As per usual, most of the talk was about dinner parties and the latest volunteer work that the mothers were undertaking. Most of the YM’s in our social circle either work part time or are stay-at-home mothers, and they dedicate huge chunks of their time to voluntary projects such as save the local woodland, save the otter, art for trees and so forth (no I’m not kidding about any of those.)
“What do you do?” I was asked by the head charity YM henchwoman who was dressed head-to-toe in gold chains and Burberry, and who is always terribly busy dedicating all of her “free time” to “worthy causes.”
“I work,” I replied.
“Oh not that sort of work. Other work, I mean. Who do you support?”
“Myself and my family,” I retorted. “If someone comes to our door collecting for charity then I don’t donate.” You could have heard a pin drop. Guess that’s the last invitation I get to a coffee morning for a while.
I don’t know about in America, but over here in our horribly middle-class social circle, it is de rigeur to boast about how many worthy causes you support. You are supposed to do school fundraisers, church fundraisers, local community fundraisers and anything else that’s deemed a good cause because it is your moral obligation to do so. You’re not part of “the in-crowd” unless you’re ignoring your family and spending serious amounts of time saving the local otter instead. It’s literally a competition to see who can give most, both in terms of time and money.
Unfortunately this hive of supposed generosity is all about personal egos and social pecking orders and much less to do with the individual causes concerned. Most people donate to charity in order to feel good about themselves, to “give something back” in return for having a comfortable standard of living, to appear selfless in their own minds and especially in the eyes of others. A British bishop once confessed that he worried when a volunteer or charitable donor appeared utterly selfless: “Unless I can identify that they are getting back something in return” he said, “be that status, recognition, inner peace or whatever, then I know they won’t be staying for long. Human beings simply must have a payback.”
But is it right that you should pay a monetary debt for leading a privileged life? Is giving to charity critical to a libertarian’s moral principles? I agree that it’s wrong to be greedy, and yes indeedy if no-one gave to charities then millions would starve, but I fundamentally object to being emotionally blackmailed to donate (be it time or money) because charity organisers choose to play on the very human characteristics of guilt and altruism.
Charitable giving results in a form of what economists call “rent exhaustion”: the more you give, the harder they try. However much you give to these people – it’s never enough. There will always be a need for more, more, more. If someone knocked on your door today collecting for Christian Aid, then you would probably find $5 to give them simply because you don't want them to think badly of you. Similarly, instead of watching TV tonight, you could also be out fundraising, saving your local forest, collecting door-to-door yourself and making other people feel guilty about parting with their non-existent money to assuage their guilt. There is always an opportunity to make more money instead of spending time with your family. But you don't, and it’s right that you don’t. You know that your family would rather have you at home, and that you need that extra $5 right now because you have bills to pay.
If capitalism is the best way for society to flourish, why is charity necessary? At what point does you giving $5 more for starving people in third world countries become equivalent to government donations? When you and a friend make it $10, or when you and 280 million people you’ve never met make it $5 billion? Surely it makes more sense to lobby your governments and force them to donate instead, as they should be doing in the first place? Why does society have to rely on the global personal blackmail machine in order to save lives? Why should we use guilt as a weapon to beg struggling middle-class families for money? Shouldn’t it be a personal choice as to whether you decide to donate or not? And even if you assume that each person has a moral obligation to give something back to the poor and needy, then shouldn’t it be up to the individual to decide if, how or when he donates? Why should charity be all about feeding egos not feeding the millions who need it?
By now you’ll all be shocked out of your chairs and be thinking that I’m a horrible greedy, selfish person. Just to reassure you, that’s not actually true.
There is a way to give back without emotional blackmail, there is a way to help others who really need it.
Recognise the emotional manipulation which is going on here and actively choose to opt out. If you are going to give, then pick the poor people who are expecting it least. Pick a favourite charity and donate to it, but do it quietly. There’s no need to tell anyone, and if you just can’t afford it, then do not under any circumstances feel bad that you can’t. Your family is the most important donation you can make (in both time and money) and let’s not forget that charity starts at home. As for volunteering, if you have a cause you love then by all means go for it, but don’t do it just to prove you’re more noble than your peers. It’s not about you or what others think, it’s about less fortunate people who are genuinely in need of your help.
We’ve been approached by door-step charity collectors hundreds of times. We always decline to donate. They frown, they usually get annoyed but very occasionally some of them take the time to ask us why? We quietly explain that we do donate when we can through our day-job business and that we simply can’t afford to donate any more. They always shake our hands and leave with a smile.
It’s not about ego.
Your deeds are as tall as you are.
All images are of Ifat.
“What do you do?” I was asked by the head charity YM henchwoman who was dressed head-to-toe in gold chains and Burberry, and who is always terribly busy dedicating all of her “free time” to “worthy causes.”
“I work,” I replied.
“Oh not that sort of work. Other work, I mean. Who do you support?”
“Myself and my family,” I retorted. “If someone comes to our door collecting for charity then I don’t donate.” You could have heard a pin drop. Guess that’s the last invitation I get to a coffee morning for a while.
I don’t know about in America, but over here in our horribly middle-class social circle, it is de rigeur to boast about how many worthy causes you support. You are supposed to do school fundraisers, church fundraisers, local community fundraisers and anything else that’s deemed a good cause because it is your moral obligation to do so. You’re not part of “the in-crowd” unless you’re ignoring your family and spending serious amounts of time saving the local otter instead. It’s literally a competition to see who can give most, both in terms of time and money.
Unfortunately this hive of supposed generosity is all about personal egos and social pecking orders and much less to do with the individual causes concerned. Most people donate to charity in order to feel good about themselves, to “give something back” in return for having a comfortable standard of living, to appear selfless in their own minds and especially in the eyes of others. A British bishop once confessed that he worried when a volunteer or charitable donor appeared utterly selfless: “Unless I can identify that they are getting back something in return” he said, “be that status, recognition, inner peace or whatever, then I know they won’t be staying for long. Human beings simply must have a payback.”
But is it right that you should pay a monetary debt for leading a privileged life? Is giving to charity critical to a libertarian’s moral principles? I agree that it’s wrong to be greedy, and yes indeedy if no-one gave to charities then millions would starve, but I fundamentally object to being emotionally blackmailed to donate (be it time or money) because charity organisers choose to play on the very human characteristics of guilt and altruism.
Charitable giving results in a form of what economists call “rent exhaustion”: the more you give, the harder they try. However much you give to these people – it’s never enough. There will always be a need for more, more, more. If someone knocked on your door today collecting for Christian Aid, then you would probably find $5 to give them simply because you don't want them to think badly of you. Similarly, instead of watching TV tonight, you could also be out fundraising, saving your local forest, collecting door-to-door yourself and making other people feel guilty about parting with their non-existent money to assuage their guilt. There is always an opportunity to make more money instead of spending time with your family. But you don't, and it’s right that you don’t. You know that your family would rather have you at home, and that you need that extra $5 right now because you have bills to pay.
If capitalism is the best way for society to flourish, why is charity necessary? At what point does you giving $5 more for starving people in third world countries become equivalent to government donations? When you and a friend make it $10, or when you and 280 million people you’ve never met make it $5 billion? Surely it makes more sense to lobby your governments and force them to donate instead, as they should be doing in the first place? Why does society have to rely on the global personal blackmail machine in order to save lives? Why should we use guilt as a weapon to beg struggling middle-class families for money? Shouldn’t it be a personal choice as to whether you decide to donate or not? And even if you assume that each person has a moral obligation to give something back to the poor and needy, then shouldn’t it be up to the individual to decide if, how or when he donates? Why should charity be all about feeding egos not feeding the millions who need it?
By now you’ll all be shocked out of your chairs and be thinking that I’m a horrible greedy, selfish person. Just to reassure you, that’s not actually true.
There is a way to give back without emotional blackmail, there is a way to help others who really need it.
Recognise the emotional manipulation which is going on here and actively choose to opt out. If you are going to give, then pick the poor people who are expecting it least. Pick a favourite charity and donate to it, but do it quietly. There’s no need to tell anyone, and if you just can’t afford it, then do not under any circumstances feel bad that you can’t. Your family is the most important donation you can make (in both time and money) and let’s not forget that charity starts at home. As for volunteering, if you have a cause you love then by all means go for it, but don’t do it just to prove you’re more noble than your peers. It’s not about you or what others think, it’s about less fortunate people who are genuinely in need of your help.
We’ve been approached by door-step charity collectors hundreds of times. We always decline to donate. They frown, they usually get annoyed but very occasionally some of them take the time to ask us why? We quietly explain that we do donate when we can through our day-job business and that we simply can’t afford to donate any more. They always shake our hands and leave with a smile.
It’s not about ego.
Your deeds are as tall as you are.
All images are of Ifat.
posted by Lin at 12:54 PM
10 Comments:
Woooooooho!
I'm very much in your corner, Lin. I've had too many instances when asked to join a board or similar organization, simply because they want to tap what is viewed as a source of fresh and bountiful capital, not because of anything I can actually contribute to the organization in terms of brains or effort. They learn quickly that it's not a route to my pocketbook.
January-November I have a stock, very firm reply to solicitations: "We make all those decisions in December." Come December, in normal years (and this is decidedly NOT a normal year), one institution, The University of Chicago Law School, receives a sizable donation, because in that case I'm "giving back" for the full-tuition scholarship I received -- which by this time I've repaid many times over. Otherwise, if you (a charity) don't ask in December, you won't get anything. This year nobody gets anything.
"Do not tell me of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
1803-1882, American Poet, Essayist
"You are much surer that you are doing good when you pay money to those who work, as the recompense of their labor, than when you give money merely in charity."
Samuel Johnson
1709-1784, British Author
I totally agree with you. I find it very offensive to me when people accost me for money then are indignant when I decline.
It is also appalling when you find that in a great number of them a very small amount of the money given actually goes the the actual charity subject.
A number of years ago the local religious groups complained that we did not have affordable housing in our community for the low income people and that we as tax payers and good citizens should provide for them. In that same year the local churches spent 28 MILLION dollars in putting up new, expanding or remodeling buildings.
I figure they could have bought damn near every low income family a house.
Just last week someone called and wanted me to donate $50. I said that I couldn't right now - they said that it was a small amount and would I rethink my refusal - I said no - and then they said well what amount would I feel comfortable with - I said again I couldn't help right now - then she says that surely I could help with a few dollars - I said well what would really help would be if you would send ME $50 because I had a hard time paying all my bills last month - she hung up.
Just gives ya the warm fuzzies.
I know this is long - but one more.
A motivational speaker whose name escapes me right told this story.
A man came up to me after a speech. He said that I would probably not remember him. But that several years earlier he had been down and at a low point in his life. He had been sitting outside a N.Y. subway station with a bucket with some pencils and a sign that said $1.00 each. That I had come by and dropped $5 into the bucket and kept walking. But then I had came back and said that I was very sorry. I then had told him he was not some charity case begging for money, but a business man selling pencils and that I wanted the 5 pencils I had purchased from him. He told me from that moment on he was a business man and now owned his own shop and had a family and a good life. He then thanked me. I told the man I indeed didn't remember him, but that I would never forget him and it was me that should thank him.
Now that's a warm fuzzie.
This was given in the context of how what you say to someone can affect them. So charity doesn't always have to be money.
D.L. Wood
Thanks chaps. I actually thought I’d get flamed for this post. I didn’t think folks would agree at all so I’m pleasantly (?) surprised that some others feel the same.
I liked Mr Wood’s warm fuzzy pencil story. He’s right of course. The problem with giving to beggars is that too often it takes away their dignity. That’s a novel way to deal with the issue of giving whilst maintaining self-esteem. I’ll have to remember that one.
Dearest Lin, it’s so nice to have you back in such fine form! I echo your readers, I’ve always found it much better to do things for a person rather than give cash. In return Karma has a way of finding you when you need it most. Have a nice day!
M
Lin, you are right, of course. Charity must come from the desire to give, from the heart, not from social pressure or persistent telemarketing or guilt campaigns (I receive appeals with postage-stamped return envelopes provided to guilt me into actually sending a donation, and just to show them they can't cow me into giving, I rip off the stamp and use it to pay a bill).
Now. Are you and I in the Scrooge category in Charles Dickens' anti-Capitalist Bible "A Christmas Carol"? Certainly not. Scrooge did not give the holiday bird to Tiny Tim until he felt like it. No one could coerce him into giving, well, except those three putz ghosts. But that was supposed to come from a higher power than the Yummy Mummies.
But you get my point. We give where and when our heart leads us. And no one should succeed in guilting us into it.
Btw, I can attest to the fact you are charitable with your most precious commodity--your time.
I loved "A Christmas Carol" (both book and Jean-Luc Picard's televised version) although I didn't realise it was the anti-capitalist bible (I learn something every day!)
But who knows, maybe there is some sort of higher power acting through the yummy mummies? Now that's a scary thought.
Ahhhh, now I largely agree with you, but your post does flag up a wonderful contradiction.
1) We want those charity causes we deem worthy to be supported/helped
But
2) If we do so, we effectively let those who can actually make a serious difference (i.e. governments) off the hook. So long as a charity 'appears' to be doing something about a problem, no matter how ineffectively, then governments will mostly leave the issue alone.
They do this because
3) In western democracies, we usually vote for the political parties who most effectively offer to put more money in our pockets through lower taxes, even if this public spending reduction means that there is nothing in the pot to look after those unable to help themselves.
So the answer is simple, we are all to blame (myself included). We want problems sorted, but we want someone else to sort them out, without inconveniencing ourselves.
Around where I live we have loads and loads of 'chuggers', i.e. charity muggers. They will approach you on the high street with a well rehearsed, heart breaking story about their particular cause, which will always end up in a request to sign a form to give £10 a month from your bank account. These Chuggers claim to be 'working for charity', yet are paid £7.50 per hour. Hmmm
Now I welcome the effort of putting campaigners out on the streets to raise awareness of issues, but the inevitable request for cash has several effects
4) Those of us who work near Chuggers get hounded by them up to 5 times a day, which leads to great annoyance, bordering on verbal violence and complete 'charity fatigue'. Heck the bastards have even taken to coming to my house at night. Like you Lin, I do my bit through work, in that the work that I do is campaigning of a sort.
5) Those who give in to the chuggers and cough up the dough feel as though they've done something useful, when in reality, all they have done is to perpetuate the circumstances the chugger has told them about - see
point 2 above.
It would be FAR more effective if the chuggers, instead of asking for money, gave out ready to sign letters, pre-addressed to the relevant political representative, enabling a mass of people to hound those who CAN actually do something about the issues. Politicians will take more notice about 5 hand written letters from those who voted them in than from a score of charity representatives.
My view is that the whole situation is depressingly cyclical. Everybody wants something done, and the small feel good factor involved in charity giving give people just enough reward to think that they've now 'done their bit' and don't have to do any more. This actively gets in the way of people getting involved in the political process and complaining to their Member of Parliament - which DOES work once a critical mass of people get sufficiently annoyed to complain.
And in case you're wondering, yes I do write to my MP. I hope to go and see her quite soon for a grilling on her standpoint on climate change. Now that WILL be fun.
Nicely written my dear Grommit, and you're absolutely right of course, on every count.
I love the category of "chugger"
Can't think of a more apt way to describe them. Regarding writing to my MP, hadn't thought of that, although I will be penning a letter to Mr Cameron in the near future regarding the inner workings of the new totalitarian HMRC...doesn't qualify as charity though, unless you count helping poor oppressed tax inspectors.
More soon on that.
Oh dear, this blog seems to be turning rather political. Clearly I need to read some more photography books.
"Clearly I need to read some more photography books"
A nice Charitable Nekkid Picture would be nice too. :-)
D.L. Wood
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home