It wasn’t a shocker that one of the questions asked in our
philanthropy class was “do you consider yourself a philanthropist.” It makes
sense: if you’re taking a philanthropy class, wouldn’t you consider yourself a
philanthropist? But, to my surprise, most people didn’t see themselves as such;
and I can’t really blame them since the only time anyone ever talks about
philanthropy is when a large donation is made, or Andrew Carnegie is taught in
history classes. But there’s so much more to it. According to its etymological
meaning (thanks Wikipedia), philanthropy simply denotes “love of humanity”, it
is the “caring, nourishing, developing, and enhancing ‘what it is to be a human.’”
And this is a really interesting
concept, because what exactly does that mean?
In this really cool animated video by RSA, bestselling
author and political adviser Jeremy Rifkin explains our society as The
Empathetic Civilization. He makes a lot of really interesting points regarding
why we empathize and how it develops our society. As human beings, we all have
a soft wiring of mirror neurons in our brains that makes us feel whatever we
see others feeling. We feel other people’s embarrassment, anger, and even the
feeling of a spider crawling up your arm after seeing it happen to someone
else. And he portrays empathy as an invisible hand that stems from humans’
knowledge of mortality. Empathy is the opposite of heaven and utopia, in that
there is no suffering in heaven so there is no need for empathetic feelings. Rifkin
describes our empathic civilization as the manifestation of the celebration of
life and, because of mirror neurons, wanting other human beings to enjoy theirs
too.
And what does this have to do with being a philanthropist?
Well, philanthropy and empathy go hand in hand. Empathy is a form of solidarity
and connection between humans, and philanthropy is the art of augmenting this. So,
giving large sums of money isn’t the only way to become a philanthropist, but
acting upon the human’s natural impulse to care for someone else is. Any small
act in which you help out a fellow individual celebrate his or her life, even
if it’s just smiling at someone—and I know that when a baby smiles at me, I pretty
much die from happiness—it helps our society become a more civil one.
-Chelsea Desruisseaux
-Chelsea Desruisseaux
I'm really excited that you posted about this topic.
ReplyDelete"Would you consider yourself a philanthropist?" is one of the questions that I struggled the most with during class.
As most of us know, being a college student does not offer a whole lot of financial stability. Generally speaking, I have enough money to tend to my own basic needs and enjoy a little bit of my life afterwards. I've never felt as if I had enough of a surplus to go around giving my money to charitable causes. (I'm pretty sure that Singer would have something to say to me about this.) So, I'm counted out of being a philanthropist by nature of donating money.
We then discussed who in the class had volunteered during the past year. I will say, without, shame, that I was one of the people who had volunteered zero hours. I'm pretty busy with juggling school and a full-time job to pay for said schooling. Plenty of people have more than this on their plates, and that's awesome - but I don't feel like I can do it. Again, counted out as a philanthropist because I don't spend my free time volunteering for any cause.
While I don't give money, or volunteer, I DO consider myself an empathetic person. I spend a lot of my time at work simply listening to my clients - their concerns, their struggles, and their successes. I have listened to a mother, struggle with addiction, describe the heartbreak of not being able to have her infant daughter in her care. I have held and soothed a young boy, sobbing over the realization that his father is not coming to visit. I have seen the excitement in the face of a teenage girl who, after almost 2 years in a foster home, was just told that she is able to go home.
I feel that my job has allowed to me to celebrate life - the good AND the bad of it - through listening to my clients with an open heart and mind. In this way, I AM a philanthropist.
At first when I thought if I was a philanthropist I didn't think I was. I associated being a philanthropist with those who raise huge amounts of money and donate it. But you're absolutely right that its so much more than that. After watching the "I Am A Philanthropist" video on YouTube I realized that I am a philanthropist too. Doing the smallest thing that helps someone else, showing "love to humanity," or dedicating a little time of your day is so easy to do. There is an unlimited amount of ways that anyone can help someone in this world.
ReplyDeleteFor a year I was a Philanthropy chair in my organization. I had to consider what people can do with their free time so I had to create a variety of ways in which people could participate. Everyone played a role in doing something for the better. It was truly inspiring to see the number of people of wanted to be a part of giving back to humanity and the number of people who came out to support us and the time people put in.
Empathy plays a huge role in this. I believe that its natural human tendency to empathize and to care. When you hear about a natural disaster or a terrible tragedy I know my automatic reaction is to want to help those people. I feel for those people and I feel connected to them. That's where I realized that I am a philanthropist. When I see people struggling or hear about a disaster I think of ways that I can help. Whether its a local cause or somewhere far away every action counts. That's what people need to realize. That no matter what the action is it's helping humanity and (as cheesy as this sounds) makes the world a better place to live in. Knowing that other people feel the same way and contribute to the world does create solidarity. And thats definitely what we need in this world.
It's so funny that you said when a baby smiles at you, you die of happiness. To me I really believe its the little things in life that can make a difference and knowing that, I consider myself a philanthropist. And I will continue to be one.
One of my most favorite things that you said during this entry was "Any small act in which you help out a fellow individual celebrate his or her life". I think this should be added to everyone's definition of philanthropy. This is something that could be applied to every person's efforts of being a philanthropist.
ReplyDeleteI am still torn between considering myself a philanthropist and possibly not being one at all. I like that Chelsea adds that a small gesture such as smiling at someone can better one’s day, which in turn is philanthropic. The gesture of putting a smile on a person's face is very important and worthwhile in many ways, no matter the unfortunate situation that the person may be in, being able to do this also proves that one has empathy. I also really agree with Glady's comment that whether you're helping out a local cause or a cause far from home, every action counts. I believe that many people in this class (including myself) had previously thought that philanthropists were only those that donated generous monetary funds. After reading a few articles, and listening to other’s experiences and thoughts, my view of what a philanthropist has already began to change.
I would also like to share how much I enjoyed and agreed with Jeremy Rifkin's description of The Empathetic Civilization that Chelsea brought. I wish that more people could think this was and recognize the importance of having an empathetic civilization. Everyone should celebrate life and want others to enjoy their lives as well; this would better society as a whole.
I'd agree completely that philanthropy and empathy go hand in hand. This brings up the question of "Why do we give? Why are we charitable?"
ReplyDeleteI believe this all stems from empathy because why would someone give to a cause in which they feel no sense of obligation or the slightest bit of sadness or guilt? We are, by nature, empathetic and caring creatures (some having more empathy than others). We look out for one another and help out as much as we can because we can imagine putting ourselves into another's position. It is interesting to me, to see how far our empathy goes and where is that disconnect?
Singer brings up a very interesting scenario with the man and his Bugatti. The car is the man's prize possession and will get him through retirement. He then sees the child on the train tracks, unaware of the oncoming train. Near the man is a lever which would make the train switch rails and avoid the child, but smash right into his beautiful Bugatti. Many of us are quick to say "Obviously you pull the lever and save the child." and rightfully so. We pull the lever because we have a certain level of empathy for the child (the man in the story however, did not). If we were in the child's position, we would want someone to pull the lever too because what is more important a car or a life?
In saying that, Singer remarks on how many lives we could save with relatively low amounts of monetary donations. But where is the disconnect? Many of us do not donate (money) to charities because we simply don't have the money, but more so because we don't feel much empathy for those starving children, as bad as it sounds. They are so far away that it is difficult to have the empathy that is needed to not buy that extra water bottle and donate to a bigger cause. How far does our empathy go?
Chelsea, I found your post really uplifting. This video gave a great insight on the almost scientific backing to the feelings of empathy that we, as a species, experience everyday. Although I do appreciate the definition of philanthropy that you (or wikipedia, rather) have provided, I believe that the word has gained a social and modern meaning that is slightly more significant. Yes, by this definition we are all philanthropists, but isn't it counter-productive to donate that term to the majority of the human race? What is there to work for and aspire towards in terms of giving, if this formal definition gives you a reason to believe you have already reached the level of "philanthropist"? I do believe that society has influenced the less extravagant philanthropists to discredit their work by over-emphasizing the token philanthropists that we hear about everyday, but I also have an appreciation for the standard that this high level of esteem sets. In "A Life You Can Save", Singer discusses his expectations of humanity in terms of monetary donations. Compared to what I saw as "enough" money to give, Singer's exposition set a much higher standard. I believe that Singer would disapprove of this definition of philanthropy based on the fact that it has a negative effect on motivating people to live by the obligation for giving that he presents in his book. There are definitely people that are entitled to more credit than they receive, and highlighting this definition of philanthropy sheds light on that issue, but it could also have the effect of over-crediting people who could (an, in that case, should) be doing more.
ReplyDelete