In this course,
Philanthropy and Civil Society, we are asked to think about how we can spend
$10,000 in order to make a difference in the Binghamton community. In
order to use this money effectively, we are asked to think like philanthropists
who have to make informed decisions on how they want to spend their money. We’re supposed to learn about the decision
making process and investigate non-profit organizations so we can spend these
philanthropic dollars in the best way, and supposedly, carry on these skills in
the future. But how can we continue to be philanthropists if most of us
are probably going to be stuck in student debt after college and can barely
afford to eat in Marketplace?
The first image
that comes into my mind when thinking of a philanthropist is a millionaire who
throws money at a charity and adds this self-proclaimed title to their growing
list of accomplishments. Philanthropy does not feel like a selfless act
of generosity, but an act of generosity that adds a character token that
screams to be noticed–”I’m a good person!”
In practice, philanthropy seems to be known as big, publicized donations
and everything else is simply reduced to unnoticed efforts.
In the first week of classes, we
learned that philanthropy is not limited to those who have money but that
anyone can be a philanthropist. Philanthropy is defined as an altruistic
effort to better human welfare, to show compassion towards the community. The videos we watched in class extend these
acts of generosity to not only include the donation of money but also the
donation of time or voice. So, as long as one supports a cause they care
about, anyone and everyone can be a philanthropist. And maybe, even a broke college student like
me can make a difference. Although it
may not seem as if we can make a huge difference compared to someone who can
donate millions, it is the goodwill and intentions behind our actions that
makes our contributions just as valuable. In a society that struggles
with the increasing gaps of privilege, it is our responsibility to support and
uplift those of marginalized groups in any way we can.
In Destin Bundu’s TED Talk,
“Philanthropy from a Poor Person’s Perspective”, he talks about philanthropy in
his household. Although his mom and he didn’t have money to give away,
they still wanted to better the lives of others. Bundu talks about his first philanthropic act
as a child, which started after he saw a commercial that claimed that five
cents a day could help a starving child in Africa or South Asia. His
disbelief that five cents was enough to actually help someone in need inspired
him to contribute in other ways, which resulted in him packaging and sending clothes
for children in Sierra Leone every year.
Bundu emphasizes this message: Philanthropy doesn’t always have to be in
a monetary form, especially when that avenue of action is not available to
everyone. Wealth is also not the only defining characteristic of
privilege. Privilege also comes in the
form of having a good public school system, a bed to sleep in, and just living
in America. If we think about and
recognize privilege in this way, then we are all in a position to help improve
the lives of those who do not have these advantages. In class, we have already learned about how
our values can shape our decisions on what kind of causes we would want to
support. Even when our $10,000 runs out at the end of the semester, we
can still be philanthropists in our own way.
There are limitless ways we can spend our time, such as volunteer work
or political advocacy, or we can donate what we do have like Bundu has.
On the monetary side of
philanthropy, however, it is still possible to make a difference with small efforts.
Although it may not seem like small donations can help people, it is the
collective action of selfless individuals that make a difference. In her
TED Talk, “You Don’t Need to be Rich to be a Philanthropist”, Melissa Kwee puts
this idea very simply: “The sum of many small parts has an enormous
impact.” Whether it is the donation of $1 or $10,000, we can be a part of
hundreds of others who are also contributing.
If you’ve ever made a purchase at
Buffalo Exchange, a chain thrift store in the United States, you might have
participated in their Tokens for Bags program. Instead of getting a
plastic bag after you purchase clothes, the cashier will offer a token that you
can place in one of the three boxes by the door. These three boxes represent three different
local charities, supporting different causes, and you can place the token for
whichever cause you resonate with. For every token, five cents will be
donated to that charity. The first time
I experienced this, I was pleasantly surprised by the brief decision-making I
was given to make a small contribution to a cause I cared about. Even though it was just five cents, I was
able to incorporate philanthropy into my daily life through a simple activity
like shopping.
Perhaps these acts of generosity
may not seem equal, especially because money is easily measured and easily
compared. But if we frame acts within the definition of philanthropy
provided by the readings, we can understand that compassion comes in multiple
forms. Compassion can take place in the form of using your time and
skills, and it can only be strengthened by the selflessness of many more. Philanthropy is about resonating with a cause
and exercising one’s values in a way that can help others. In this
course, I hope that we learn more about our values and how we can exercise
them. There is always an impact and
significance behind our actions, so even if our bank accounts are empty, we can
still make meaningful changes.
Maggie Wang
Definitely, the ways a college student or a rich stereotypical philanthropist can contribute are different and likely equal in altruism, if not socioeconomic impact. The innate message of the video we watched was that everyone can be a philanthropist, but it also implies that the rich, old, white, male is something to be rid of. I would say, "no," because it's really only the image that could be harmful as it could prevent others from feeling effective in their giving. In comparison with the Gates and Buffets of this world, there is barely any point in trying. Even though that notion is true in the most obvious way (monetarily)— every bit of money or man-power is valuable. However, I would like to pose a question: what would happen if a stereotypical philanthropist was not so altruistic? I only ask because good-heartedness cannot be measured as cleanly as monetary or labor contributions. What would we do if we discovered Bill and Melinda were only giving for more recognition and to build a public persona of sacrifice and the human ideal? Would we storm the Bastille? I'm sure there will be outrage, but I don't believe that that outrage is warranted, they did give away billions of dollars to aid millions.
ReplyDeleteWe can't separate the gift from the giver, the art from the artist, etc. It might be a cliche at this point, but the "Me Too" Movement has again brought about the question of separating the two. The aggressors who are accused in this movement are taken down rightfully so, but some people would liken Kevin Spacey's movies or Louis C.K.'s comedy to have the same personal value as millions of dollars given to orphans in Africa (again, apologies for the cliche). I don't believe that they are quite equal, but the metaphor still stands. As the true altruistic givers of the world, the ones who give time if not wealth or the general public with the undying high ground, we must ask ourselves, which one is more valuable: the intention or the impact? I'm interested to know what others think about this moral question.
I agree, $10,000 feels like an enormous amount of money, and it can be difficult to decide where to donate it. At the same time, the more I think about it, $10,000 is not really a lot of money. One year at Binghamton University costs roughly $25,000. If college were free (like it is in most of Europe and Australia), we all might have a lot more money in our pockets to use as philanthropists. Imagine if every person left college debt free, and could then afford to donate $25,000 to the ASPCA, or Meals on Wheels! Your post provoked me, because, while I am moved by philanthropy, I don't believe that our country is in the best state to be creating philanthropists. Something like 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, which is incredibly concerning. I am curious to see where our class donates the $10,000, and to see how much of an impact the money has.
ReplyDeleteEven though "we can all be philanthropist" mindset is indeed good-willed and true, it also has its limits. Gaining a status of "philanthropist" is not remedying enough, especially in capitalist countries like the U.S.A (but also in other economic forms), because the economic gap has been long prominent that one millionaire's 1-minute donation can overshadow a thousand college student's funding project.
ReplyDeleteIt surely is wonderful that some people from less fortunate backgrounds like Mr. Destin Bundu could "become" a philanthropist to make some changes, both social and economical; however, I can't help but think how his impact could've been different with the same compassion and more fortune.
Even though $10,000 we'll donate will surely help a charity we choose, I think the real value of our $10,000 comes from the opportunity and education it provides to us. Hopefully this experience will turn us to people who engage in more "strategic" philanthropy that not only brings temporary help but also solution that tackles the rooted issue.
This was a really good post, I felt very similar to how you described about philanthropy when I first signed up for this class. It seemed almost impossible to me that I could be able to be a philanthropist, when I barely could afford a meal with my friends or to get a textbook for class. However, I am having my opinion changed through class and through your post, and am now super excited to engage in philanthropy through this class. The point about five cents a day being able to help a child in Africa or South Asia really resonated with me, because I along with most people probably wouldn't even notice the five cents being gone. I really liked your post and I think it goes really well with the message we are learning in class these first few weeks.
ReplyDeleteI agree that anyone can make a difference, no matter how wealthy they are. The “Who is a philanthropist?” and “I am a Philanthropist” videos, as well as the example you gave about Destin Bundu, certainly demonstrate that point. However, the word “philanthropist” itself is quite contentious. Its connotations are the exact scene you described picturing: rich people trying to make themselves look good. It seems that, just as the wealthy may be prone to do, the average person calling themselves a philanthropist is just a verbal pat on the back. Even if we are to go by the literal definition of philanthropist, “a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others,” it seems ridiculous that anyone would want to use this title. Who would ever admit that they do not seek to promote the welfare of people besides themselves? By this definition, being a philanthropist should be the bare minimum expectation for humanity, so calling yourself one as though it is impressive would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn your final paragraph, you stated that “[p]hilanthropy is about resonating with a cause and exercising one’s values in a way that can help others.” I like your explanation of philanthropy much more than Google’s definition. At the same time, there are so many other terms available, like “giving,” “contributing,” or “supporting a cause.” I am not sure if I am convinced of the need to reclaim the term “philanthropy.” I wonder if you think there is a value in using the term “philanthropist.” Would the title empower college students, and others who are not particularly wealthy, to give? Does it matter if people have selfish intentions for giving, or should we do anything we can to maximize the results? Is it even possible to get people to abandon the word “philanthropy?” Our progression through the semester will hopefully help us create answers to these types of questions.
I agree that anyone can make a difference, no matter how wealthy they are. The “Who is a philanthropist?” and “I am a Philanthropist” videos, as well as the example you gave about Destin Bundu, certainly demonstrate that point. However, the word “philanthropist” itself is quite contentious. Its connotations are the exact scene you described picturing: rich people trying to make themselves look good. It seems that, just as the wealthy may be prone to do, the average person calling themselves a philanthropist is just a verbal pat on the back. Even if we are to go by the literal definition of philanthropist, “a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others,” it seems ridiculous that anyone would want to use this title. Who would ever admit that they do not seek to promote the welfare of people besides themselves? By this definition, being a philanthropist should be the bare minimum expectation for humanity, so calling yourself one as though it is impressive would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn your final paragraph, you stated that “[p]hilanthropy is about resonating with a cause and exercising one’s values in a way that can help others.” I like your explanation of philanthropy much more than Google’s definition. At the same time, there are so many other terms available, like “giving,” “contributing,” or “supporting a cause.” I am not sure if I am convinced of the need to reclaim the term “philanthropy.” I wonder if you think there is a value in using the term “philanthropist.” Would the title empower college students, and others who are not particularly wealthy, to give? Does it matter if people have selfish intentions for giving, or should we do anything we can to maximize the results? Is it even possible to get people to abandon the word “philanthropy?” Our progression through the semester will hopefully help us create answers to these types of questions.