It takes a certain kind of person to advance social change. Throughout history, many different personalities have made a meaningful difference in their communities, but they all had something in common. Anyone who devotes their life to making a positive change in the world must have passion inside them to do so. I began thinking about this idea after our discussion in class about everyone's good friend, Peter Singer. Mr. Singer believes that everyone should give their money in a way that has the most effective impact. He says that we shouldn't give based off of what we're passionate about. What Peter Singer fails to acknowledge is that if people aren't passionate about a particular issue, they don't give at all. Passionate people are not only motivated to give, but they are more likely to go the extra mile in working toward their particular issue area.
This is the reason nonprofits spend resources on marketing. A passionate person is incredibly valuable to a nonprofit organization because they will spread the organization's message and gather additional donors. However, a person isn't going to become passionate about the Red Cross after seeing an ad in a magazine. They need some personal connection to the issue or organization. The best the Red Cross can hope for is that someone who is already passionate about disaster relief sees one of their ads and chooses to support that organization. Otherwise, the Red Cross or another nonprofit has to work at making their existing members into passionate supporters which is no easy task. Emotional connection cannot be manufactured. It needs to develop organically. However, these sorts of connections aren't created by mailing a check to an organization. Volunteering is the most common way a person develops a personal connection to an issue. We've all heard stories of people who travel to a foreign country to do humanitarian work and come back eager to continue making a difference. Frequently, these people revisit the same place or travel somewhere else to give their time to make a positive difference. For this reason, I believe nonprofit organizations should promote volunteer opportunities at least as much as they solicit monetary donations.
Throughout our lives, we are constantly looking for something to be passionate about. We try to find meaning or purpose in our lives so we can feel fulfilled. Most people will tell you that they feel great after participating in philanthropy in some way, whether that be donating time or money. Why is it, then, that many people don't regularly participate in philanthropy? My guess would be that most people are reluctant to give their time or money. We think that we would be happier with more money and time for ourselves than if we gave some away for a good cause. We then wonder why we can't find fulfillment. I think more of us should find issues that we are particularly passionate about and spend some of our time advancing it. Then, the world would have more dedicated philanthropists and more people who feel fulfilled in their lives which sounds like a pretty good situation to me. I don't mean to make this sound easy. As I said before, passion can't be manufactured. The best we can do is keep an open mind and look for issues that can use our help.
Questions
1. Do you think people should give based on effectiveness or passion?
2. Can nonprofits get donors and members to feel passionate about their organization? If so, how? What causes most people to become passionate about an issue?
3. Is philanthropy a reliable source of fulfillment?
I believe that it is important for people to give to causes that they are passionate about. For example, I know that my $50 dollar donation for Breast Cancer Research won't go as far as buying nets to protect children against Malaria, however I have had personal experiences and have been impacted by breast cancer. Therefore that donation will mean more to me, and I would probably be motivated to give more money to the cause in the future. I think that nonprofits can use advertising and media to make people feel passionate about an issue. The ASPCA targets their audience and much of the United States with touching videos that force people to feel something about the animals they see. I believe that nonprofits can cause people to become passionate about an issue if they help to relate the donor to the issue. In Path Appears they discussed how Smile Train used a white boy on their advertisements instead of someone from India or Africa because donors connected to them more. This idea might be a little extreme, it helps them to achieve their goal.
ReplyDeleteMike, I thoroughly enjoyed your blog post, especially the last paragraph as it encompasses much thought and reasoning and is a thought that I have had myself. I am also in disagreement with Peter Singer for some of the same reasons as you. If people give emotionally, they will be much more inclined to give more money and time than those who have no connection to the organization they are giving to. Also, people who emotionally give will attract other donors because other people will see how passionate the donor is about a particular subject and may want to help in the same way. Some people may want to help in the same way so that they can feel as passionate about a topic as the original donor does about his philanthropic donations. People want to feel like they have a purpose, like they actually mean something, people want to feel fulfillment. Philanthropy is a very valid and reliable source of fulfillment, but only if the donors are partaking in emotional giving. In order for someone to be fulfilled, they must be physically, mentally, and emotionally fulfilled. Therefore, someone must be emotionally involved in their giving in order to feel fulfilled. Also, philanthropy is a reliable source of fulfillment especially when people are giving their time and volunteering, so they actually see the difference that they are making in other people’s lives. Nonprofits can get donors to feel more passionate about their organization by getting them more involved in the organization and making donors feel part of a community. Nonprofits can do this by allowing more people to volunteer instead of just giving money. In addition, nonprofits can hold fundraising events where donors can interact with the people who they are helping.
ReplyDeleteI think that the only truly effective way to give is when based upon passion, because people feel more whole when they are doing something they care about. More so than just for the individual, this sensation is important because friends or relatives of individuals who are so passionate and thusly fulfilled will have much greater incentive to, as you'd said, Mike, advance their own fulfillment. Therefore to answer number 3 I think it is undoubtably true that philanthropy, if done purposefully/passionately, rather than calcuably, is a reliable source of fulfillment. Some ways organizations could promote more passionate adherence to their missions by donors would be transparency, rather than vague statistics or program descriptions, and unfettered display of how they achieve their mission's goals. This encourages a donor/philanthropist to believe that the organization is very ambitious and direct, and so his response to that kind of organization would be parallel. Also, as Chris had stated, community involvement is key, because that not only informs communities of a non-profit, but also personalizes the organization by, literally, "hitting close to home." However, overall I think the strongest propagation of passion for an organization is seeing another person's passion, and seeing more intimately and outright how this friend or acquaintance is being fulfilled. This removes the feeling of fulfillment from the bureaucracy of non-profits, and makes it seem purely personal. To me, therefore, passion in philanthropy is essential not just because it usually propagates more giving for the individual, but more so because the fulfillment caused by passionate giving is contagious, and communicable (in the good way!).
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post and thought that it was really thought-provoking! I agree that overall, most people aren't strict effective altruists like Peter Singer, and that as humans, we are affected by appeals for emotional giving based on our passions. In order to truly make a difference in societal issues, I think that it is important to be passionate about the issue, because at the end of the day, that passion will be what keeps you interested and motivated to get up every day and continue to try to effect meaningful change. I also really liked the ideas about volunteering that you discussed. In class, most people have indicated that volunteering with an organization has a large impact on where people would donate their money, because they have seen firsthand the good the organization is doing. Volunteering can be an extremely fulfilling form of philanthropy, because it gives us personal connections and I think that it helps us to find issues we are passionate about. In order to make effective societal changes, maybe we can all follow our passions, but find the most effective organizations within our field of choice to give to.
ReplyDeleteNice post Mike! Personally, I feel that passion tends to drive philanthropy more than effectiveness. It would be nice if everyone gave as effectively as Singer wants, but this, more than likely, is a utopaian view of the world. If everyone gave to what was effective, then people would become unattached to the cause that they were helping. So it may even be closer to a dystopia than a utopia, in which people are emotionless drones driven by numbers. Personally, I believe that an emotional connection is very important. In "A Path Appears," we learned about a lot of positive health effects that come from giving. I think that may be in part because people give to organizations that they are passionate about. If you take out the passion and replace it with effectiveness, you may lose some of those health benefits associated with philanthropy. Speaking of those benefits, I think they relate to to your question on fulfillment. I think that a lot of people really enjoy giving back. They get pleasure from seeing the positive impact that they have on the lives of other. I believe that pleasure is fulfilling. At the end of the day, someone who feels fulfilled is more likely to live a happier, healthier lifestyle, which is truly a good thing.
ReplyDeleteNice post Mike! Personally, I feel that passion tends to drive philanthropy more than effectiveness. It would be nice if everyone gave as effectively as Singer wants, but this, more than likely, is a utopaian view of the world. If everyone gave to what was effective, then people would become unattached to the cause that they were helping. So it may even be closer to a dystopia than a utopia, in which people are emotionless drones driven by numbers. Personally, I believe that an emotional connection is very important. In "A Path Appears," we learned about a lot of positive health effects that come from giving. I think that may be in part because people give to organizations that they are passionate about. If you take out the passion and replace it with effectiveness, you may lose some of those health benefits associated with philanthropy. Speaking of those benefits, I think they relate to to your question on fulfillment. I think that a lot of people really enjoy giving back. They get pleasure from seeing the positive impact that they have on the lives of other. I believe that pleasure is fulfilling. At the end of the day, someone who feels fulfilled is more likely to live a happier, healthier lifestyle, which is truly a good thing.
ReplyDelete