Upon stumbling upon a post from another blog about philanthropy (Philanthropy 2173), I read about an idea that is extremely simple, but necessary to efficiently donate services or money. Who knows what the community best than the community members themselves right? The profound idea is to incorporate the community members' ideas about how to utilize donations to improve those lives in need. Such implementations are crucial in non-profit organizations that attempt to help those in need, as the money may be allocated inefficiently by not inputting opinions from those directly affected. This also allows for a sense of connection between both the benefactors and the beneficiaries.
However, the community consists of a variety of people who probably have different priorities and needs in their lives. The main question would be: Who do we incorporate in these inclusive meetings to meet the needs for the majority of the members within the community? Now, this makes the simple idea of including the community into philanthropy a difficult concept. Those who participate may not represent the majority, but rather an outlier who intends to sway the decisions to fit his or her personal needs. This defeats the purpose of philanthropy and leads to an unintended distribution of money to the community. So what needs to be done to prevent these occurrences?
These concerns display the necessity to engage in philanthropy intelligently. Many people have the notion that philanthropy is easy and necessitates only the action of giving something away. Although this may make the donator feel better, the donation may be misguided. Therefore, research is crucial before one begins to "give away" because donation may be just that: randomly giving away rather than providing.
I'm so glad Seoyoon posted about this! I was having a conversation with my aunt about our class the other day. She lives closer to Singer's definition of a moral life than anyone I know; almost every penny she makes goes to Haiti. She spends a lot of time there and has some really interesting things to say about the effects of philanthropy. For one, Haiti is overrun with non-governmental organizations(NGOs). There are so many, in fact, that in many ways it’s doing more harm than good. Almost all of these organizations are run by and exclusively employ non-Haitians. What so many Haitians really want and need is a stable job, and yet these NGOs continue to import their staff. Similarly, many NGOs are focused on more or less the same problems, but, because the leaders are so dedicated to their organization, they refuse to merge and consolidate operating expenses. In essence, many of them have become so wrapped up in feeling like they are making a difference, that they’ve stopped caring about the most efficient way to do so. I think that incorporating the members of the community is essential to maintain giving to benefit someone who needs it rather than giving for giving’s sake.
ReplyDeleteThe issue that Seoyoon discusses displays the common puzzle philanthropists faced. In essence, the question that most philanthropists (and even our class) ponder about is whether we should give for the end result or give for the sake of giving (Buffett Vs. B. Verdad). While intelligent giving is necessary for a productive use of philanthropy or charity, I personally believe that when the community is integrated into the art of giving, the community gains so much more than it would through productive giving. When each member of the community engages in philanthropy through either volunteering or donation (or both), the community as a whole produces cooperation and collaboration. Giving, to me, can’t be measure by how much we give but how we give. Giving time to volunteer means more to me than donating money to an organization. After all, the purpose of giving is to support the beneficiaries and send them a message that we care. So intelligent or not, giving should come from genuine intention because at the end of the day, empowerment is not determined by financial support, but companionship. All in all, I think that intelligent giving will produce effective philanthropy, but I think that it’s more important to foster collaboration and cooperation in the community and the best way of building communal value is through integrating multiplicity among different individuals.
ReplyDeleteSeoyoon is proposing a very interesting idea here: that the community as a whole is needed to effectively engage in philanthropy and produce change, and how including research is a necessity to consider it as "intelligent philanthropy".
ReplyDeleteHowever, it needs saying that although thy neighbor is nice some days, other days they need to pay their taxes or buy their child an xbox, and wait? Where did their money go?
It is far too difficult to change human nature, as reflected by history and our cultural values (namely, Capitalism), to get individuals within our communities to get involved in philanthropic organizations or volunteer work. Also, there is the issue of confidentiality. Perhaps there is a hunger organization in your community, helping and aiding some 20 to 50 families annually; will these people like to have their names attached to this organization? Probably not, as disadvantaged peoples often prefer to maintain a sense of anonymity as well as their integrity. Even if they are not attached, perhaps your community is small enough to the point that the majority of the community knows for the most part who these people are. I know for instance, that in my community, we have a turkey drive every year for Thanksgiving. Many of my peers were involved in the collection of the goods and the advertising of the event, but only a select few were involved in the distribution of the turkey baskets. I know that some of my peers who were involved in the distribution of the goods knew some of these families, or had siblings who were the same age as their children; never did they reveal the names of those they helped.
Helping others is often a thankless task, however it is a necessary one.We all know that as children, and even now as young adults, how we idolize big name celebrities for their philanthropic work and heroic accomplishments. I argue that they are certainly an asset to society, but at the same time so is the seemingly "little person"; the teacher, the friend, the elderly neighbor. We cannot leave all of the work in the world to the big named celebrities and people with deep pockets. Each of us have an obligation to look around, and help each other in little ways. This is the challenge we face: to engage in philanthropy actively, not necessarily intelligently. Active philanthropy, defined: actively expressing your individual love for your fellow human.
I thought this blog post brought about a new topic that hasn’t been spoken about thus far on the blog. Seoyoon’s mention of involving the community that is actually being benefitted from the donations is a spectacular idea. Honestly though, it really does depend on how the community is doing as a whole. If there are just some trouble areas in the community, then voting on such issues as utilizing the money or donations may be difficult because the community voting process would include people that are not receiving the aid. This could lead to the wealthier people deciding more things in the community and the impoverished people feeling as if they have less of a say. Granted, the poorer people probably feel like they have less of a say to begin with because of how organizations are usually run with the people giving the donations saying what the money should be used for. I agree with the idea that the donors should have a say on where their money is going, but sometimes the benefactors really do not know what the community needs. It would be more advantageous for the community to first figure out what they need and proceed to ask for this kind of aid in meetings that include the benefactors. This would create a better connect with the sponsors and the people receiving aid.
ReplyDeleteThe main question Seoyoon poses is a difficult one to answer. If the aid is going to an area where everyone is in the same position, then I believe that definitely everyone who has an interest in the donations should be at the meetings. I feel that it is almost their duty to make sure that the help they are receiving is going to the right place. Only the people in the community know where there is weakness. In communities where there are splits in wealth, I believe that the main vote should go to the people who are receiving the aid. The people who are wealthy in town should not have a say unless they have donated to the cause. You may live in the same community, but if you send your children to private school, you probably would have no clue that the public school in town is lacking in technology and textbooks.