Throughout my life, my ideas about philanthropy and giving have basically remained the same. One of the main philosophies that I grew up with is that no matter how poor or rich you are, as an act of compassion toward the human race, you should give a portion of what you have to charity. It was normal for me to hear stories about extremely rich people such as Bill Gates giving away huge chunks of money, as well as stories about people skipping a meal for a day in order to give their last penny to the church collection; I figured giving was normal for everyone, because that’s how my parents raised me. However, as I grew up, I realized that true, pure generosity usually came from the poorest of the world.
Why would those below the poverty line give more than people making six figures? One idea that I remember seeing is that people are rich because of the fact that they don’t “waste” their money on charity. However, even without research I was sure this was nonsense. After our class discussion about why people give, I was reminded of my curiosity about this topic. A study conducted at UC Berkeley found that those who identified as “poor”were inclined to give 44% more of their allotted amount of money than those who considered themselves wealthy. The University of Notre Dame did a similar study, and the findings were the same; the Huffington Post where I found this study stated that “about 30% of Americans living below the poverty level gave to charity”, which means the wealthy were half as likely to give their money. These studies prove the validity of my observation that the poor are extremely giving, but the question remains - why?
In the 3 sources I reviewed, the answer was the same: compassion. In a Psychology Today article, the same UC Berkeley study from earlier was explained in more detail. When financially disadvantaged people were shown videos that put them in the mindset of a wealthy person, they were less likely to be giving. The opposite was true as well - a wealthy person seeing a video that triggered a sense of compassion toward the poor was more likely to give money to the poor than they normally would. My question is, if sympathy, empathy, and compassion are what primarily drives philanthropy, what would our main issue areas have been if we were told to use our hearts as a guide to choose organizations to donate to, instead of the main issues of Broome County? I assume very few (or none) of us have dealt with extreme poverty in our lives, and the same is true with opioid addiction. Would these issues have surfaced, or would other ones have dominated? In other words, these studies prove that compassion drives people to give, but is it what dictates where they give?
Sources:
- Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201008/why-are-the-poor-more-generous)
- Huffington Post (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/why-most-americans-give-l_b_9355088.html)
- NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129068241)
Isabella, I must say, I enjoyed reading your post. It reminded me of the Bible verse, Mark 12:41-44:
ReplyDelete“He [Jesus] sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, 'Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”
The wealthy people gave large, impressive sums to the treasury, making the widow’s two coins hardly anything by comparison. However, the gifts from the wealthy were merely pennies to them, and the pennies the widow gave were everything she had. I think this verse speaks volumes and is still relevant today, especially in this blog post. The story serves to speak about themes of giving, generosity and faith.
I think it’s interesting how these words, as old as they are, still occur today on some level. Like you said, those below the poverty line give more than the wealthy. I feel like this is because people that struggle financially have been humbled by their hardships. They know what it’s like to be in need and they are used to having to give things up and make sacrifices. They have had to make due with little and are used to it. I could see how factors such as these could motivate those in poverty to give more.
As far as where a person gives, I feel like when you are removed from situations, you decide with your head. You look at magnitude, margins and efficiency. However, when you are exposed to situations or see something firsthand, you develop compassion, making the “where” decision with your heart. This has been evident thus far in class. For example, most have agreed that it is best to give with your head and logic to have the biggest impact. However, in class on Thursday, The Crissy Fox Foundation won over Concern Worldwide. None of us know what it’s like to live in extreme poverty in a third world country. But we do all know someone who has struggled with or been affected by cancer, which, as Hannah said, “tugged at our heart strings”.
Hi Isabella,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this insightful and thought-provoking post! Your discussion of why the rich might be less charitable than the poor makes a lot of sense, and I agree that social distance is a factor when it comes to the redistribution of wealth. After reading the articles attached, I seem to still think there is a factor that relates to compassion--almost acting like a substitute.
You might agree that a certain portion of rich people have the desire to be rich and have determined that becoming wealthy is how they want to feel fulfillment. Then, I believe it is quite likely that some of (if not all) of these people do not feel fulfilled by their wealth status--even if they are much wealthier than a lot of other people!
I believe this because there are different ways in which people deal with their insatiable desire for fulfillment in their lives--it may be by attaining wealth, seeking the "perfect" relationship, or finding foundation in a religion--but most options ultimately fail to satisfy our expectations. So in the case of those who seek after wealth as a form of self-fulfillment, they may slave over 80 hour work-weeks for years and build up a large sum of money without ever feeling that they have enough. Thus, I think the desire to be wealthy inhibits our ability to give generously because those who give are not seeking after unattainable goals. I believe those who are most generous are giving because they believe in helping others (like the article wrote) and their core values have nothing to do with becoming rich.
Unfortunately, our capitalist world incentivizes greedy behavior and can blur the benefits of generosity. But I believe if we build connections with our neighbors and practice helping our neighbors as ourselves, we can find fulfillment that, unlike the pursuit of wealth, is lasting.
Isabella,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that compassion is the main factor that drives people to donate to charity. The class’s recent decision to donate to The Crissy Fox Foundation is a perfect example of how empathy and compassion can influence people’s desire to give. However, I do not think that being wealthy in itself is the reason why the rich may be less generous than the poor. An article from 2015 states that inequality—not wealth alone—reduces generosity. This articles claims that new research reveals that higher-income people are less generous only when they live in a place that has high levels of inequality between the rich and the poor. When that gap is low, the rich might actually be more generous. This study raises many questions that I find difficult to answer: are places with high inequality shaped by the stingy rich, or do the places themselves facilitate this stinginess. Conversely, do the generous people who make a lot of money prefer to live in places where there is low inequality between the rich and poor, or does an environment with low inequality bring about generosity within the rich?
This same article shows another study with very interesting results—when people believed that they were among the wealthiest in their state and that their was a large gap from the poor, they were less generous. However, when higher-income people were led to believe that their social statuses weren’t as high, they were actually more generous. These results are kind of disappointing to me, because in a way it shows that people are less willing to help those who they look down upon condescendingly. It makes sense that people who feel more connected to others would want to donate to their cause (which is why poorer people can be very generous), but it’s disappointing that a wealthy person is less inclined to donate just because he/she may be sheltered or removed from people who are less fortunate.
Here is a link to the article: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_the_rich_really_less_generous
Isabella,
ReplyDeleteThis topic is particularly intriguing to me. Often times, when we hear or read about philanthropy, it is of the donations of the wealthy--Rockefeller, Carnegie, Bill Gates, etc... As a society, we don't really talk about philanthropy in terms of monetarily smaller donations (or even donations of time) from the middle and lower classes. It looks, sounds, and sells better if the news advertises Bill Gates recent $5 million dollar donation to the program of his choice. Because of this sensationalization, philanthropy is often viewed as a field for the wealthy. Yes, many wealthy do donate large sums of money to charitable organizations, however, as Isabella noted, these donations are a minuscule portion of their wealth overall. It seems charitable giving has become a sort of tedious obligation the wealthy feel they must partake in. And all the while, the many lower class philanthropists are pushed under the radar and devoid of the credit they deserve, as they sacrifice more.
I do believe that compassion does drive people to give, and if one is immersed in a city or town plagued by poverty, hunger, and lack of opportunity, they will be more willing to try to combat these issues. Additionally, if someone has experienced these issues or may be on the verge of experiencing these problems, they may also feel more inclined to donate to these causes. It is more difficult for the wealthy especially to relate to these causes, as they are physically isolated from areas dealing with these problems as well as emotionally isolated. Many of the very wealthy have been wealthy all of their lives and associate only with other wealthy individuals. Without that understanding of what it means to be in living under the poverty line, or hungry, or homeless, how can we expect them to have compassion?
This would explain why, as Isabella hinted towards at the end of her post, the wealthy typically donate to universities, hospitals, or museums--these are institutions familiar to this particular group of people, and they understand what they are supporting, as they have had experiences or come in contact regularly with colleges (perhaps), or hospitals, or museums. Similarly, middle and lower classes are more likely to give to religious and social service charities, as they are more impacted by and come in contact more often with local churches and impoverished individuals.
I believe this is another scenario where head vs heart comes into play. The fact that social class and personal experiences directly affect where donations are funneled is a perfect example that without the heart, or feeling a personal understanding or connection to a particular issue area, one will not donate to an unfamiliar cause.
Here is an article from the Atlantic that discusses why the rich don't give more and why the rich and poor donate to different issue area causes:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
Hi Isabella
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your blog post because I significantly related to your ideas about philanthropy. I have always tried to be as charitable as I can be because of the values instilled by my grandpa. Since I can remember, he has always had the mantra: save a little, spend a little, and give to those who are in need. I think this is my grandpa’s most important philosophy and it stems from the core values that developed from his religion. I agree that compassion significantly plays a role in giving. My grandpa is the most giving and charitable person I know and I think compassion is the reason why. According to Oxford dictionary, compassion is the “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.” When you are compassionate, your essentially putting yourself in the other persons shoes. My grandpa grew up with nothing, so he is able to relate to other people who are impoverished and thus more compassionate to others in similar situations. This is a concept that I described in my own blog post and it was discussed in the Psychology Today article. Tribalism is when you are loyal to those in the same social group as you. As read in the articles, people with a lower income donate to social organizations that are familiar to them and people with higher income, either are less likely to donate, or donate to their own familiar organizations. To relate it to our own class, similar concepts can be indented. After the class voted for the top 5 organizations we wanted to donate to, none of the organizations to combat the opioid crisis were chosen. I found this a little shocking because as described in the opioid crisis presentation, this is a significant issue in the Broome county area. Maybe tribalism played a role here. Not to say that no one in the class has been affected by opioids, but maybe more of the class is focused on topics such as hunger and education, issues that are more relatable. As mentioned before, when an issue is more relatable, we are more compassionate towards it, and thus more likely to help solve it.