I thought of my Parisian friend D, the day we woke up to the news of Notre Dame - exchanged some texts about the tragedy and how people were sad there for a loss that felt deeply personal. Life goes on for us both. In weeks that followed, there was a good amount of outrage from varied quarters about the fundraising efforts to restore Notre Dame - how the same monies could restore the coral reefs, feed the hungry around the world and generally do far more meaningful things than just restoring an old church. Those arguments are valid and yet such worthy causes have never captured the imagination of those who have the means to address them. Instead of trying to the shame the would be donors into "doing the right" thing it maybe useful to understand why people give and why they don't.
Maybe philanthropy is not an altruistic thing at all and expectations should be adjusted accordingly. No one would question the right of a CEO to make certain investments that best serve the company's shareholders or pull back from those that do not. In similar vein, acts of giving may have motives that are not about the greatest good, helping those who need it most and such. These ideas reside only in the minds of those who witness the generosity from afar, they chose to become arbiters of what is right and just in the act of giving. It is likely that charity is driven by self-gratification. As such, a person will give in ways that could often appear selfish to onlookers, the more extravagant the gift the greater the outrage.
When I spoke with D a few days ago, this event felt like it were from a long time. We both have work to do, kids to raise and lives to live. The question of whether to give or not give in order to rebuild an old church is not relevant to the issues of our day to day. It probably matters even less what some very rich people choose or not choose to do about it. Maybe that is why those who aspire to have their giving counted and remembered have to try so hard to find a cause that will give them that persistence in public memory.
Maybe philanthropy is not an altruistic thing at all and expectations should be adjusted accordingly. No one would question the right of a CEO to make certain investments that best serve the company's shareholders or pull back from those that do not. In similar vein, acts of giving may have motives that are not about the greatest good, helping those who need it most and such. These ideas reside only in the minds of those who witness the generosity from afar, they chose to become arbiters of what is right and just in the act of giving. It is likely that charity is driven by self-gratification. As such, a person will give in ways that could often appear selfish to onlookers, the more extravagant the gift the greater the outrage.
When I spoke with D a few days ago, this event felt like it were from a long time. We both have work to do, kids to raise and lives to live. The question of whether to give or not give in order to rebuild an old church is not relevant to the issues of our day to day. It probably matters even less what some very rich people choose or not choose to do about it. Maybe that is why those who aspire to have their giving counted and remembered have to try so hard to find a cause that will give them that persistence in public memory.
Comments