So I want to discuss the varying ideas of the three books that we have read so far, including Pete Singer’s The Life You Can Save, the Salwen’s story in The Power of Half and Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen’s Giving 2.0. All these books have a different approach in giving and have different opinions on how philanthropists can help the world. Personally, all these books have affected me differently and have opened up my mind to the various possibilities of helping and giving. The order in which we read these books has an interesting transformation because of the authors’ different outlooks on philanthropy. It seems that it has created a spectrum of how people define philanthropy. On one end it’s radical (everyone should give money) and on the other end, anything you give no matter how big or how much time spent can make a difference.
Didn’t many of you feel almost “attacked” by Pete Singer as he piled on the guilt, that even if we gave a little we could still give more? I felt that his approach to convince an audience to give was a bit radical. There was truth in what he was saying and he had lots of information in explaining poverty and how our contributions can help. However, he suggested that we should be giving away more of our income and when we don’t it’s frowned upon as he compares it to watching a child drown and not doing anything to help. A blog on Give Well.org (http://blog.givewell.org/2009/03/06/review-of-the-life-you-can-save-by-peter-singer/) explains how as a reader, Singer makes you feel uncomfortable and guilty for not helping children in need. Singer focused more on the money aspect of philanthropy and had the ideology that it was our obligation to give. To me, this took away the meaning of philanthropy because people should be giving out of the kindness of their hearts not because it’s their obligation.
The Salwen’s had a different approach to giving, they made the choice as a family to give away much of what they own. They proposed to their readers the idea that they should evaluate whichever organization they are going to donate to. They also had an influence of giving out of pure kindness and not because you had to. However, for many for us its hard to relate to the Salwens because we don’t have as much money as them to give away. So their approach was more of looking inside yourself to find the want of becoming a philanthropist to help those in need. They expressed how important it is to be involved in the act of giving, like when they went to Africa to watch how their money was helping instead of just giving away money (like Singer suggests).
In Giving 2.0 Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen goes further into expressing how people can give, she targets everyone in a positive manner, encouraging them to give by saying that any amount of time or money can make a difference. She provides different avenues for people who want to donate their time and reinforces how volunteering is an important part of philanthropy. She also appeals to less fortunate people by suggesting that they can use their talents to help nonprofits even if they cannot give that much money. Like the Salwens, she encourages philanthropists to look into nonprofits and how their money is making a difference, she makes this accessible through examples such as the Jolkona Foundation (you can look at it here:http://www.jolkona.org/) in which you will be updated on the cause or the child you are donating to.
So the transformation between these books went from Singer’s idea of people being obligated to give money, to the Salwens’ belief that they don’t need money and through evaluating nonprofits (to find the right one) they could go to the source and see how they are helping and now, to Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen’s idea that even the smallest donation and time contributed can make a big difference. Throughout reading these books I feel that their ideas have gradually gotten “softer” and I find myself agreeing more with the ideas in Giving 2.0 than those in The Life You Can Save because I believe that volunteering to help a cause is just as important as donating money, don’t you agree?
I definitely agree with you that as the semester is progressing, the suggestions provided by the books are becoming increasingly easier to relate to. I think this is primarily because as we go on, the value of time and skills as valid donations is being emphasized. The Salwen's certainly put more of an emphasis on time than Singer, who seemed to believe that only money is of any use in helping others, but I found Arrillaga-Andreessen's suggestions for giving time to be the most interesting. Often when I think of volunteering time, I consider the more well known ways to do so, such as working at a soup kitchen and other notions presented in the Salwen's book. Arrillaga-Andreessen helped me to realize that there are more ways to give back time than just the frequently mentioned ones, and many of these ways are specific to skills that one might not often relate to volunteering. For example, I was very inspired by the man who filed tax returns for AARP members after his retirement. This man helped me to realize that there may be fields of volunteering that I never knew about, which may benefit from my specific skills and talents. This book inspired me to think outside the box when looking for ways to give my time as opposed to always doing the same things. Therefore, as each of these books presented a different approach to philanthropy, Giving 2.0 presented the ideals which inspired me the most because of its approach to volunteering.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Cassie,
ReplyDeleteI really like the distinction you draw between the three books. I agree with you that there are three very different approaches to an idea that we originally thought was very simple. Almost every philanthropic opportunity I have undertaken thus far in my life has been a donation of time and not money. Though I must consider this to largely be a product of age and maturity. As students we have a great amount of free time and a relatively small amount of money. Therefore it makes logical sense for us to primarily be a donator of time and thus relate closest to the ideas of Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen. However, if we look at a bigger picture and consider what areas of the world need our help the most, a majority of people would say starving third world nations. Although we learned from the Salwens that volunteering time in underprivileged nations often does more harm than good. Therefore I feel that there is a place in this world for the Singers; the people who will by any logical extension possible attempt to convince you that large-scale donations are necessary to truly make a difference in the world. Are his arguments directed at us? I would assume they're not. But for those few entrepreneurs who recently made a ridiculously large amount of money, maybe he can motivate a pretty hefty donation.
As for the Salwen's, I found their story very inspirational despite my inability to donate such a large amount of money. For me, the inspiration came from the amount of work the family devoted to ensuring their money was spent effectively. I will definitely be keeping this in mind when we start deciding on an organization to support.
While I do agree that Giving 2.0 is the most accessible for our age, I believe that all three perspectives are important for different reasons, and that we should try our best to incorporate the best points from each when moving forward with this process.