Does Speaker's Corner still exist in London's Hyde Park? When I was a teenager in the early 70s, our family lived in Europe, and seeing a young man atop a soapbox holding court with an audience of Londoners left a strong impression.
So, today, I want to use this column as my virtual soapbox. To share an idea that is just taking shape in me. And to hear your thoughts in reply.
The notion that "charity is dead" has been brewing for some time. On Earth Day (April 22), I remembered something an uber-green friend once said when we were talking about garbage, "There is no 'away'." That is, when we say of things we no longer want, "Oh, I'll just throw it away," we aren't really thinking about what happens to the stuff. It's now abundantly clear that that attitude created a huge problem - from overflowing landfills to the floating plastic island in the south Pacific.
Here's another piece of the puzzle that I'm struggling to put into place. In recent weeks, I've worked with and interviewed some remarkable people who have chosen careers in the non-profit sector. And from each of them I heard - perhaps for the first time, really heard - how they spend much of their time. Not, as we might imagine, helping people in need. Instead, they constantly do a desperate dance designed to attract the attention of people like you and me. So that they can raise awareness of their work. And the money they need to keep going.
Something is wrong with this picture.
What if we took the environmentalist's "There is no 'away'" and extended it in all directions? What if we started to say (as a first step toward figuring out how), "There is no 'other'"?
What if, I wondered, non-profits weren't charities at all - what if they didn't have to depend on catching our eye in order to continue their work? What if the world's poor didn't have to wonder if those of us fortunate enough to have been born into a place of privilege on this shared planet would ever turn our hearts and minds in their direction? What if the act of giving didn't have to please us first? Or what if we didn't think of it as "giving" in the first place? Might "sharing" be a better word?
Important steps in this direction are being taken, of course. Social entrepreneurs are a prime example. They've discovered that it's better to use what they know to help the world's poor start businesses than it is to give them hand-outs.
But surely, surely, this is just the beginning.
I've always loved Henry Kissinger's wry line, "There cannot be a crisis this week, my schedule is already full." And now I wonder if it doesn't sum up what ails us. We've got full lives, and many of us are running hard to just stay in place. We believe that we don't have anything left to give.
Charity isn't really dead, of course, but I think it's on its last legs. And I'm looking for a path that will lead us out of our cramped habit of self preoccupation and into a greater world of fellowship with all human beings. One that embeds helping others into all of our institutions and our daily lives. And I know that I'm not alone.
I'm already looking for examples of this next generation of New Radicals, and will write about them as they appear on my radar. But in the meantime, what do you think? Do you agree with the idea, "There is no 'other'"? And how might we actually get there from here?
Please share your thoughts by commenting below, or by emailing me at julia@wearethenewradicals.com.
Julia Moulden is on tour talking about the New Radicals. She writes speeches for visionary leaders around the world.
Follow Julia Moulden on Twitter: www.twitter.com/juliamoulden
http://bobbyvassallo.org has lots of ideas on giving, how to give, tax implications, etc. Hits have gone down this year, but are still steady. People are giving, but much more locally, it seems. Charity does begin at home.
When the president of a college, the doctor who heads a research lab, the social worker who heads a human service agency raises money, they provide resources that exponentially multiply their individual capacity to meet a need. Is that not helping people? Is that not sharing? What makes you think that when people give they aren't sharing?
How much direct, hands on work have you done with charities and the people that run and support them? How many students have you talked with that were in school because someone raised the money to assist them? How many disabled people have you met that weren't grateful for the equipment or services they receive because the head of that agency spent his/her time raising awareness of the plight of their clients?
How is that a "desperate dance"? What is desperate about doing whatever it takes to help as many people as one can? I don't get it. Perhaps you can explain it to me and all those who benefit from it.
Read more on HuffPost http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-chin/a-response-to-charity-is_b_199120.html
Non-profits haven't yet figured out that their largest pool of resources is volunteers. Not the ones that they traditionally reach out to- "envelope stuffers" but rather those who have the ability to contribute high value added service. This is not because of a lack of knowledge but largely because many of those non profit executives are scared to have the high powered talent volunteer- they would rather they gave the money and kept out of the business.
I see a number of developments that might help the idea of "charity" die a slow and painless death. One is social entrepreneurship and the "social business" model. Another is the corporate social responsibility movement. Another is the growing co-op movement. Another, and probably most important, is democratization aided by the web, which is helping to reshape (we hope!) the concerns of government away from corporate interest and toward social and environmental well-being. Is it possible that the current economic upheaval will help open a way to a new economic and environmental landscape in which "charity" will be less necessary?
Ann Bagala
http://changeaction.org
http://schweitzerfellowship.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/huffington-post-blogger-charity-is-dead/
Thank you for getting this conversation going.
Clearly, this idea -- that charity as we know it and that the time for thinking of people in need as "other" -- touched a nerve. I'll do all I can to keep the conversation going!
As the president of the board of a local non-profit in CT dedicated to helping women and families, I have to say that I am still quite optimistic about the future of giving. We have found our individual donations continue to stay strong- because people can tangibly recognize the outcome of their dollars. I think the large charities tend to blur where the money goes.
I have also found people are less tolerant of fancy black tie events to attract them to spend money. It is absurd to spend $100K on an event just to earn money to stay open!
I also have faith in our President. I am hoping he will continue to inspire new social entrepreneurs like yourself to blaze the field of Meaningful Work as the new Wall Street.
Keep 'em coming.
Kari
Look at the dishonesty discovered after 911 with the money the Red Cross tried to withhold from the victims. I tried once to get help for a family whose home burnt down just to be told they only handle major crisis. At that time I worked for The Salvation Army & the help we gave was limited.
The Salvation Army has been exposed before, too. I was promoted to supervisor & to my dismay, witnessed what many times, really happened to donations. If anyone would like to challenge my stating this, I welcome debate, lie detector tests, court, or whatever.
Our Northeastern territory, for years, had major increases in profit over all territories due to change implemented to clamp down on dishonesty & thievery.
I'm not saying all are that way, at TSA, but let's put it this way. We usually get a few bad apples in every bunch but in this case, only a few good ones to the many rotten to the core. This is sad & sickening & goes on in many charities, unfortunately.
Charity & welfare of our people needs put back on the churches as it used to be.
"Perfectly Legal" is is a 4 part series that started today, 5/3/09.
And guess who, so far, is the big offenders? The Evangelical charities...as in, keeping the medicine they receive from drug company donations ( companies who give them out-dated drugs, no dosage directions, ect) after the "christian charity claimed it was sent around the world for breast cancer in 2005, but, the drugs have been "discovered " in some church basement in St. Louis...something like 8000 lbs of cancer drugs never shipped but kept for a ponzi scheme. And it gets worse
Go read the rest for yourselves...