Briefly in class we talked of de Tocqueville and his On Associations. According to him, associations arose in a democratic society because the citizens are “independent and weak” and only by banding together could they counteract any form of tyranny that tried to undermine their own individuality. Tocqueville wrote that people “use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools.” As we discussed in class, there exists a dichotomy between philanthropy and capitalism. Philanthropy, naturally, exists as the counter to the many injustices that capitalism brings about; it is the association that counteracts these tyrannies. Comedian Chris Rock in regards to capitalism once said “behind every great fortune, is a great crime.” Think of most of those billionaires from life or fiction. A newer billionaire, Mark Zuckerberg, has made over $45 billion dollars by profiting on people’s own privatized information. Jay Gatsby, from the popular novel The Great Gatsby, resorted to crime in order to rise the ranks of the rich. Regardless if these people deserve scrutiny is another argument (since they are a product of their culture), there is no doubt that philanthropy attempts to act as a middleman between the victim and the crime. Although acting as a middleman provides some relief to the central crime, unfortunately, it is inefficient.
A recent TED talk tries from a man by the name of Paul Tudor Jones II, attempts to counter capitalism with an even greater philanthropic contribution. He proposes to increase corporate giving and create a code of law by which corporate businesses must follow. He hopes to enact a trust amongst businesses and their contributors. This is a noble cause, however, it is a bit short-sighted. A drive for profit naturally causes competition, and competition leads to honorable and dishonorable actions. Tudor preaches that the solution is justice and law, the strongest institutions that keep society from a chaotic nature. Unfortunately, there is no universal law that can dictate all our actions, but there is one solution.
Phil said today in class, changing the behavior of individuals is the best means to providing reasonable and considerable change. In his example, the implementation of a behavioral change not only was costless, but also was the best solution. Behavior is in direct correlation with the background by which an individual is brought up from, and therefore if one could improve the conditions of a person’s upbringing, perhaps instituting a greater sense of morality, one could essentially create a more perfect society. If we as a society can implement a great societal change, philanthropy would not need to exist in the first place. Until then, let the chips fall where they will.
I don’t agree with the notion that philanthropy and capitalism are mutually exclusive entities. They don’t have to be pitted against each other in a war of good versus evil. In fact, I would argue that they are mutually beneficial to each other. Capitalism itself is not inherently evil. In the U.S, it is an embodiment of a free-market economy that encourages efficiency, competition, and free will to pursue whatever business you wish. The competition that capitalism creates is on the foundation that you must earn higher profits as a result of efficient processes, lean manufacturing, and overall mitigation of excess waste. Once your profit is made, it can be distributed as dividends to shareholders, used as a means to pay off debt, and can be used to fund causes your company supports. Thus, it can be argued that philanthropy is (in part) fueled by the means and resources gained by capitalism. It is an ongoing trend that companies are embracing and incorporating social responsibility to their core values and mission statements. Corporate giving, as a result of increased social responsibility, both serves philanthropic causes and gives the company a good name. People are more receptive to companies that give back and make it their mission to involve themselves with social causes. That is why Coca-Cola, Target, McDonalds, and numerous other companies have charities that emphasize giving. It is true that awareness of social responsibility in company agendas is not followed everywhere. However, with the changing behaviors of consumers who demand companies to “go green”, give back to charity, and commit time to community service, it will soon be the norm for companies to be philanthropic if they even want to compete in the market. After all, a company that does not respect or meet its consumer’s wants and needs is not fit to compete. Changing the behavior of individuals is the most reasonable and considerable method of change, as you said, because once individual behavior changes, their mentality will change, and consumer demands will change thus tying the hands of corporations to follow through with charitable giving and engineering corporate strategies to please philanthropic consumers.
ReplyDeleteCenturies ago, when theocratic (or even just heavily religiously-interested) nations were more demographically in power, tithes tied to strong belief systems such as Christian mission and charity or Islamic zakāt were able to achieve, in a microcosm, what Jones II here proposes: a synthesis of law and philanthropy. However, this is because, sociologically, both a strong sense of community and moral fiber tend to be derived from such belief systems held at a state level. The trouble arises, like you pointed out, from the lack of such a union in today's heavily secular society; globalization and modernization have shed the guts of those old societies and left the skeleton: the structure, law, order. etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we have to try to reinstill morality, but perhaps a better approach than an individual behavioral focus would be a focus on something called social fact. Sociologist Emile Durkheim calls social fact, essentially, the product of relationships between people only, not of individuals: a collective fact. They are external from human beings, and cannot be quickly or directly changed by any individual. An example of this is what you wrote earlier, when saying that capitalism promotes competition. This is true, because capitalism plays on human competitiveness to function, and feeds the free market thusly. Because this competitive spirit has been fueled by a system theorized centuries ago, it has created, through countless relationships over time, a social fact, and a social mien, attached to capitalistic societies: competition. Durkheim's other key point about social fact is that only social facts can explain, or be relatable, to other social facts. Therefore, teaching people or groups to be more moral individually may, as it seems through common sense, prove to be too heavy a proposition, because no matter how many people change---even if a whole county, or state changes from greedy to philanthropic---it does not change the perpetuating system at large, and hence, as you said, will ultimately leave the chips to fall as they will, at large.
In my opinion, I therefore think that stock should be put into the notion of analyzing ways of mitigating the intensity of the competitive social fact of capitalism. One way, perhaps, of doing this could be to stop bending Western education towards the sway that capitalism is a superior system of economics. Instead, maybe we should focus on other long-lasting methods of economic social fairness from history, that exhibited, in their times, different social facts: facts that counter the harsh competition of capitalism, such as Mongol meritocracy from the 14th century, or pure Marxist socialism from 19th century German theory. Teaching students other ways of thinking, while still teaching the successes of local capitalism, could on a larger scale open their minds to other social facts, such as the deep-rooted moralism of pure socialism (despite its general failure as an economic system in and of itself), without compromising the internal economy of the nation. In this way, change of a social fact over time may even be possible, and the moral emotional quotient in nations like America could definitely increase. It wouldn't hurt to try, either way.
Very interesting insight, I enjoyed the Chris Rock reference. You raise some interesting points. If a major societal change were to occur which spurs an increased sense of communal morality, then I believe philanthropy would continue to be a necessity in this world. I think in this new Utopian society, philanthropy would definitely be needed, and if anything, the frequency of philanthropic donations would exponentially increase.
ReplyDeleteChristina made a very valid point. Philanthropy and capitalism does not have to exist as opposites, but rather the two can coexist harmoniously and as a means to promote each other. In many cases, the wealthiest individuals in a community are the ones who give the most. The psychology of a wealthy philanthropist is complex. They see their affluent position in society as a reason to make the largest, most positive, difference as possible. In a sense, they make money in order to give it away.
I would have to disagree with your statement regarding the relationship between philanthropy and those in need and your comparison to it being a victim and crime relationship. The crime here would be capitalism, however capitalism is absolutely necessary for our economic system in the US at it currently exists. I do agree that individuals must band together to counter injustices, and in a sense this could be tyranny. However, I would not jump to conclusions by stating that capitalism is inherently unjust.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that all billionaires are criminals, I genuinely believe that some people just worked very hard and with a combination of luck were able to increase their wealth to immense levels. However if they feel the need to give back to their community and help those in need, they cannot be considered bad because without them, these people who need a fraction of their wealth for basic survival would suffer.