When it comes to sociological topics such as philanthropy, my favorite sources of information tend to be the outliers: polarizing and serious social commentaries, which, contrary to more stable theories, introduce radical views. These radical views create both explicit and implicit theories on how to deal with social issues, which can then be analyzed in conjunction with common sense to find a well-rounded solution. For example, in class we have, over time, talked extensively about the idea of where our philanthropy is best focused: in either short-term, or long-term solutions. A lot of us, when asked to choose one, picked the latter, because it endorses more change over time. In other words, whereas handing out food to an impoverished area helps alleviate hunger immediately, attacking the underlying causes of that hunger/poverty tends to be a more efficient solution. However, I think it's interesting to delve a little deeper, and ask WHY it is that system fitness (prevention of hunger's causes) in society seems more essential than individual cases in preventing social problems, despite this country's ardent mantra of individualism. A very interesting (though, again, rather radical) essay, "The Soul of a Man under Socialism" by British author and social activist Oscar Wilde challenges us to ask just that question.

Largely ignoring the political undertone about socialism as a national system, it's rather best here to think about the socialism he prescribes as a philanthropic system only, in relation to Wilde's direct addresses of charity in the essay. Wilde topically argues that "[modern charity/philanthropy] is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it..." This interesting view of philanthropy suggests that trying to solve poverty or other social ills through charity is contradictory, because it implicitly reemphasizes the social/class superiority of the philanthropists. To put it another way: "it is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair." Ultimately, Wilde suggests national socialism as an equalizer for the poor, in order to promote what he calls True Individualism: the idea that one is truly free to pursue one's happiness, not being withheld by a potentially disenfranchising system (capitalism). However, if you look at history, it's clear that socialism as a national system cannot work without a utopian society to boot; this is evidenced in Wilde's unrealistic claim that poverty can be made "impossible" in society. How, then, is Wilde's essay valid as a suggestion for philanthropic progression?

Like I'd said earlier, if you extract the extremism from this essay, a very interesting theory remains, regarding philanthropy. If, unlike Wilde, we accept that charity must exist because a perfect society is impossible as we are only human, the most effective method of philanthropy is to act it out in as utopian a way as possible. What I mean by this is that not only should long-term solutions be supported to prevent such extreme poverties and other issues, but also one-on-one contact should be promoted through philanthropy very seriously. Through the synthesis of these two practices, a more full and fair cultivation of philanthropy is possible, specifically working gradually to downplay the class hierarchy inherent in charity, instead promoting equality through community, eventually letting significantly more people be Truly Individualistic. What do you think about including Wilde's ideas applied to philanthropy? Is this synthesis a reasonable and more plausible solution for social ills, or is the combined program too much to expect organizations and individuals to perform feasibly? Either way, the radical ideas of the essay definitely bring about healthy debate on the topic of specifics concerning long-term philanthropy.