The Problem of Charity
The thing about charity that we rarely consider is what it steals from those it gives. It seems we've all subscribed to some dogma, ordering that anyone with a few bucks, some organizational skill, or likes Angelina Jolie, can and should help the less fortunate.
I wonder what would happen if the charity receivers were privately assembled to give their honest opinions on their sponsors. I'm reminded of a certain acquaintance, who came to my rescue once regarding a matter. There can be no faults recounted on the fervor and passion in which my acquaintance tried to help me resolve the matter. Only after the fact though, did I begin to realize how I was to repay this debt. My personal gratitude almost an unnecessary annoyance, the acquaintance began to use every public opportunity of my sighting to recall aloud the instance in which they came to my rescue. Sort of like a senile person telling the same joke over and over again. Except my personal moment of desperation took the place of that slow and patience defying joke. To the helper, much like the senile person, you cannot say "Hey, you're repeating yourself again". Instead, it is more appropriate to observe the secret code of being a charitable cause: to put on a polite smile, and to nod your way into regret.
So for this reason, I feel there should be a qualifying factor as to who should be allowed to set up a charity. If you have to get a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle, I don't see why we shouldn't require one to operate people's lives. I'm aware that there can be no true way to govern these matters, but at least we could start with some questions.
For example: Dear helper, what drives you to do what you do?
When thinking about what to write for IMPACT, considered a musician who has some cause-inspired music, it produced some very stirring questions. The answers to which troubled me enough to write this piece explaining the problem of charity. I feel it is wrong that the illumination of goodwill, the attention drawn from the holy halo of charity, be placed only on the helper's head. We're almost always single-track-minded about the exchange. Yes, I called charity an exchange. And isn't it? There is rarely a moment of true selflessness during the performance of charity. We can't help it. It's how we're built. We always need some kind of a return on our investments. At its worst, charity springs from our ego's need to be seen as good, or to attain material profit from the misery of others. At its best, it is done to feel good about oneself, or to leave a good name behind.
Religion offers the best example of charity's identity crisis. Here, you're meant to be charitable to please God. And if you do, He might throw a few favors your way. Turns out everyone wants something. But what do the charitable ones want? Aside from good drinking water, digestible nutrition, some human rights, sanitation, aside from school even? They want to keep the one thing that almost intrinsically vanishes in the trade off: their dignity.
Ever heard the Bono joke? He's on stage performing a concert in Ireland and asks the crowd to be completely silent. Then proceeds to snap, and snap, and snap with just a second of a gab between the snapping. And then says, "every time I snap my fingers, an African child dies." And after a short heartfelt moment of silence, a voice from the crowd goes "Well stop bloody doing it then, ya cruel bastard!" As amusing as I find this scenario to be, I can spot some truth in it. A lot of us awareness-raising-wannabe-activists want to keep snapping, even if all it took to stop malaria-related deaths was to quit the damn snapping. We do it because we need evil to exist in order to measure our goodness.
But, in our crooked humanity and its glory, I do think that certain selfishness is good selfishness. In fact, we can say it is necessary to be selfish in order to give. We just have to be honest about our reasons. It is okay to say, 'I want to help people because it's good for me.' It's okay to say, 'I do it not because I am so precious and kind, but because it is in my best interest to do so.' Everything you do for charity is ultimately for you. I am no exception. Some people have water, or literacy, or child rights. My little passion project has always been Somalia.
My obsessive desire to help better this place is also rooted in some form of selfishness. I want to fix it so that I can go back there for sentimental reasons. I want to preserve its culture of poetry because I think some of the greatest poetry in the planet is produced there. I want children in Somalia to have their right to life, to childhood, to education, to peaceful existence, because I know what it's like to lose some of those things. Because I now cannot enjoy those things fully, knowing others are without them. I do everything I do, ultimately for me, and for the unexplainable urge called Love. And yes, even love springs from the self, and therefore cannot be selfless. And yes, I do hope God could throw a few favors my way, too! So when you want to start a cause, or be involved in one, ask why. And if you find that the answers are all rooted in your own beautiful selfishness, don't be alarmed. You're a human being.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is the kind of charity that is harmful and whose ill effects we often see in the developed world's interaction with the developing world: notably the developed world's interaction with Africa.
I do think it's important to highlight the difference between these two types of "selfishness" and to ensure that people recognize that the latter "bad" type actually does more harm than good. This is the type that robs the recipient of his dignity and robs the giver of the opportunity to see and gain from the value that lies in recipient.
I think there are separate issues going on in this article that were not properly teased apart.
There is the long standing debate on whether true altruism can ever exist: if it makes me feel good to do good then am I not selfishly doing good only to make myself do good? Even if my good works involve the greatest sacrifices, injury to myself, the most extreme self-denial, in the end, in my pain and feel good that I have denied myself for goodness' sake. Hence I am selfish. I don't think this form of selfishness is necessarily harmful. In many cases, it amounts to the "good selfishness" that K'naan discusses.
But there is another issue here, which I suppose K'naan would call the "bad selfisness".
I refer here to the kind of giving and aid that arises from one's own deep-seated feeling of superiority and from one's own deep-seated belief in the inferiority of the one being aided. It is the type of giving that patronizes. It is the type of giving that never wants to see an end to the giving but wants to keep the one being aided in a perpetual state of dependence. It is the type that expects undying gratitude and sycophancy from the one being aided. It is the type that casts the roles of giver and recipient in concrete and neither contemplates nor desires a world in which givers and recipients can exchange roles back and forth over time.
K'naan, while there is truth in what you say and it applies to many, it would be unfair to classify all charity-giving in the "exchange" as "selfish." In Judaism, since you mention religion, "Tzedakah," or charity, is not given to "please" G-d, but because it is "expected" by G-d. "Expected" is not to avoid punishment, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Feeling good about it is the human part of it, but it is a by-product, not the motivation. Tzedakah has 7 levels, and the highest is to do the giving anonymously.
Social responsibility and personal responsibility are both necessary components of life. Tzedakah is part of the greater concept of "Tikun Olam," which is "Repair the World." To perform Tikun Olam is a duty, but not a duty of guilt or from fear of punishment or lack of reward. It simply "is." Like breathing. Breathing is a selfish act, but without the judgmental assessment that is it "selfish."
I'm sorry the person who helped you felt a need for the reward of attention at the expense of your embarrassment. The reverse is also true. Many people hate to feel indebted, so instead of showing gratitude, they direct the anger of their circumstance and the people who helped them. So, on the receiver's end, it's good to recognize their own humanity that at some point, we all need some help, we all need each other.
K'naan's post is rich with real issues. I recommend a book set largely in East Africa, Michael Maren's angry "The Road To Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid & International Charity" where he vividly describes both his Peace Corps and private relief experience and how he was actually viewed by those he thought he was helping.
The charity world and the marketing of charitable causes (a lamentable concept) has been radically changed by the internet. Anyone with a good web designer and a gullible, unquestioning celebrity seems to be able to raise money with very little accountability. There are groups like Global Village Market which look flashy and claim to be feeding the world while using legitimate charities' names without their permission and then essentially peddling multi-level marketing concepts as a new kind of charity. These days, if it isn't a religious thing, it's the "new capitalism" or social venture investing or all three.
Im going to have to read that book
I always knew there's was more to u than meets the physical eye. "Until the lion learns to speak the tales of hunting will be weak." C'mon, really?
Acts of "charity" as a transaction (beautiful selfishness, in K'naan's words) and aren't really charitable, since the gift is conditional/requires some sort of zero sum game. If a charity isn't working to put itself out of business by accomplishing its mission, it's not a real charity, even if it's doing great work. It's not "wrong" to want to do good work, be acknowledged for one's achievements, etc., it's very human, and it's better than doing harm, but it's not charity.
Charity is an act of love and generosity (beautiful selflessness) and isn't determined by whether the giver is gaining from the experience. If you believe that we are all interconnected, then giving is always going to benefit you (and the receiver, and those who they touch and so forth). I think the distinguishing characteristic of charity is whether the act is done with the intention of creating of a win-win situation where people can grow to their fullest potential, with their dignity and rights intact. True gifts are unconditional, even though the act of giving can bring a lot of joy.
The funny thing about charity, especially in relation to Africa I often wonder is how can it be called such when more often than not what's being "given" is ours to begin with, the basic necessities,roads, education, medicinal elements...Did we not first give these things to the world? Meanwhile, as a New Yorker, I've learned charity doesn't start at home but on the way there.
In a New York minute you'll be riding on the subway with your bag from Whole Foods ready to take
a bite out of that big apple--excuse me, that big ORGANIC apple that's sitting atop your freshly prepared
quinoa salad and vegan parfait when someone enters into your car and announces that they are Homeless, Diabetic,
living with HIV, AND hungry. Then they say, "If anyone has any food..." And you can't hide that brown bag so you
a. Out of the kindness of your heart offer it up immediately. b. Access the situation--is he/she really hungry (you can't
see HIV and Diabetes) but hunger--well: Skinny--drug user. Fat--possibly hungry, but not starving so...man, it's hard but you count your blessings and give it up. c. None of the above because you don't hear anything except "I Come Prepared" coming from
your music player. But really, if someone is hungry and you donate with a cheerful spirit or a reluctant one, the point is you donate, the hungry gets fed and the feeder climbs the karmatic ladder.
I agree that charity is an exchange and that the problem is that the "giver" does not always acknowledge their motives behind their actions and the impact it can have on the dignity of the "receiver." This is something I observed when I was in New Orleans volunteering after Hurricane Katrina. After my summer was over, I went back to school and wrote a paper about the experience. I felt a lot of guilt when writing my paper. I started talking about "agency" and describing narratives giving "voices to oppressed women." I deleted it all and started over. Who was I to sit at a liberal arts college and talk about the women trying to make ends meet in New Orleans?
I think another dimension and problem of charity is that it fails to acknowledge the inequalities and power structures between the "givers" and "receivers." The majority of "charity" workers in NOLA are white and the majority of "beneficiaries" of that work are black. The volunteers, no matter how well intentioned, do not all recognize the privileges they carry - specifically, white privilege and racism. At the time I did not recognize the class privilege that I carry... and that I stood to profit off my time with Habitat - after all it looks good on the resume.
Thank you K'Naan for the article. This is an important subject that is not discussed enough. Can't wait to read more.
Absolutely beautiful article. I believe it is important for all of us to be able to look into the mirror and say that we all operate from selfishness...and quit trying to judge ourselves by some invisible "standard" of "holiness" or "goodness". We all operate from self as you said, we cannot help it because we are human beings -- and quite frankly, I believe that this admission to ourselves will allow us to be more authentic in our reasons for why we do what we do and lead us farther away from confusion by voices outside of ourselves. Which hopefully only strengthens our resolve and commitment to our "mini-projects".
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and words. :-)
Great article K'naan. My brother and I debated something similar over the summer. I agree that charity work (and every conscious human action for that matter) is done with the motive of selfishness at its roots. And I also agree that there are many types of selfishness and that, just because something is done for your self, it doesn't mean it is bad or any less good. I'm looking forward to your next post.
On a side-note, keep making great, inspiring music. I'm a huge fan of your work.
Interesting article K'Naan. Came across this thru your Twitter feed. There is a selfish saying that goes, " The secret to living is giving." True, powerful and yet insightful. I don't think many people think of the selfish act of giving. And I also don't think there is anything wrong with being selfish. Our economic system is based on being selfish. and without it, we may be able to be as charitable as we are.
Karim Kanji
K'Naan, I couldn't agree more. Keep on keepin' on, Farzana (NYC :)
In the west there is an emphasis on "sacrifice" which historically comes out of a wish to share in the suffering of Jesus.
A deeper understanding of altruism is that there is really no such thing as altruism. When one properly understands the interconnectedness of the world, one realizes there is no way to make the world better for someone else without making the world better for oneself.
I read the story of your rescue a couple of times trying to figure out how you are using it in your argument here. That person was certainly not skillful. In Buddhism things are not categorized "right and wrong" so much as "skillful or not skillful". This is a useful way to look at things. The person who "helped" you was extremely unskillful and probably did not accrue very much good karma. But... you can turn it around for both of you, by blessing his good impulse and forgiving him his lack of skill.
Gandhi said the first principle of non-violence was to make sure no one was ever humiliated in your presence... including yourself. This has real implications for charity. Concentric circles, my man, concentric circles.
May all beings be happy; may all beings have cause to be happy.
Interesting article...insightful...makes me question my own motives...
Thanks.
I thought about this thread before my meditation last night. And what popped into my head was that American Indian story about if you save a person's life, then you are responsible for their life from then on.
But that story is only true if one is attached to a good outcome. When one properly understands the idea of "self" is a dependent illusion, then every skillful act is for the benefit of all. It becomes easy to be cheerful and unattached to a charitable act because it is for the benefit of one's own self to make a skillful action for the benefit of all.
This is why Buddhist monks are cheerful as they give you their last grain of rice. They are not doing it for you alone.
Tulka2, your response is excellent. K'naan does not have to feel his dignity is diminished by his benefactor's need for recognition of his good deed. K'naan can return the charity by allowing his benefactor to fill his need. By allowing someone else to feel good about their charitable act for us, we maintain our dignity.
This goes back to what I said in another comment about those receivers who resent the givers (even when the giver expects no reward or recognition, but simply does the deed). Sometimes we feel ashamed at having needed help, and that shame is directed at those who provided the help.
Someone above said it well also...don't worry so much about the intention. Instead, be happy that the job got done and someone is fed, sheltered, receiving health care, etc.
I did not create the businesses that damage rain forests. I may be able to help by using their products less or not at all, depending on what it is. I cannot help what I was born into -- not even close to "rich" but so much more well off than most of the world. So I can share what I have with those unable to have some of that, despite however hard working they may be.
"Live simply so that others may simply live. But given the inequality that does exist, we can all, for whatever our motivations, try to make it so that someone else lives better and suffers less.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
