I
want to talk about something that we haven’t discussed thus far in class. In the philanthropic realm, I’m certain large
portions of donations are made due to obligation. Let me explain. There always comes that time of year when a
co-worker, extended relative or friend turns to you to donate to a cause they are passionate about.
For
example, while not necessarily a donation, you are all very familiar with the
friendly neighbor knocking on your door to sell Girl Scout cookies. You don’t really want the cookies because
you’re on a diet but it would reflect poorly on your character if you don’t
participate. They are your neighbors after
all and they will be your neighbor for many days to come.
So
what do we make of the practice of using family and friends to generate
funds? The actions of these people are
certainly noteworthy, however, it seems obvious that they would not be nearly
as successful if they were calling upon strangers. This phenomenon and human nature may be
having repercussions on philanthropy.
My
biggest concern is that this takes away from the magic and the intrigue of a
philanthropic donation. In the long run,
the individuals called upon for donations may be discouraged from pursuing a
donation of their own accord. This is
due to the fact that their exposure to philanthropy thus far may be motivated
by the wrong reasons. They are largely
compelled to donate to the causes of family and friends to avoid feeling guilty
as opposed to feeling pride and pleasure (This goes back to the Girl Scout
scenario). Unless the donator is as
invested as their acquaintance, the experience will not be as rewarding. This is because the connection is to the
middleman, not the organization on the receiving end.
This
idea has shaped philanthropy considerably.
I recently read that America’s largest charities have not changed much
over the last 40 years because we consistently giving to the same familiar
brands. That includes charities that our
acquaintances annually support. Our
connection to our family and friends and our desire to avoid conflict, guilt
and displeasure have been the motivation for many donations.
Instead
of answering questions I propose, I want you all to imagine a world in which we
are completely removed from our emotion in these philanthropic decisions. How different would the charitable world
look? In particular, we would be able to
turn down the donation requests of friends and family in favor of our own
decisions without remorse?
On
a slightly unrelated note (I’m curious what you have to say), would we simply
not donate to any organization at all because we wouldn’t feel guilt?
This is very interesting topic and is similar to the ones about donations at the cash registers. Personally, I do always feel guilty not giving to friends and family, and so, I usually ends up giving something. Occasionally, you do care about the cause or get something out of it (Girl Scout cookies or pancake breakfasts), but there are many times that you give simply because you feel you have to. I agree with you, Kaitlin, that this does take away from the magic of philanthropy and creates a certain disconnect between donor and cause.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid, I rarely fundraised for this exact reason: my parents did not want me asking people I knew because they did not want them to feel obliged to give to my cause. I think that it is difficult for people to separate themselves from their emotions when it comes to philanthropic decisions, especially if the person asking for a donation is a friend or family member. If we lived in a world where we could completely separate our emotion from our decisions, I believe that people would be more inclined to give to causes of their own choosing. That being said, if a family member came asking for donations and the donor believed in the cause, then they would more than likely continue giving to that cause. But, people would take philanthropy into their own hands. Also, I believe that a world without emotional philanthropic decisions would have a greater impact on monetary donations than it would have on capitalist philanthropy decisions. This is because people like "stuff," especially if they are getting something rewarding out of donating.
A world without guilt would probably reduce philanthropic giving a little bit. However, I think that people are more likely to give out of wanting to help than out of guilt. People would make more diverse decisions and I believe that we would see a lot of charities fall into trouble because people would not feel inclined to give to the same charities over and over again. Overall, I believe that without emotion people will make more rational decisions and, therefore, the nonprofit sector would be better off.
Nick, I want to start by saying that the same thing happened to me as a kid. I rarely fundraised because my parents did not want me to pressure friends and family into contributing. I think this is a more prevalent phenomenon in families with young children. At a young age before kids become autonomous, these types of donation requests could seem like they originated within the adult. I guess it is just part of human nature for this scenario to be uncomfortable.
DeleteI think it is very interesting that you said monetary donations would suffer more than capital donations. After thinking about it, I agree with you to an extent. Individuals like “stuff” and would probably get a lot of recognition for a concrete, object donation. However, without emotion, we could also decide that a monetary donation would be more practical and have a greater impact. This, of course, depends on the nature of the capital donation and if is temporary or could last forever. Temporary capital donations may not be the best use of our resources.
I personally love this blog post Kaitlin, and your questions give the liberty to delve into an aspect not previously mentioned in this class.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I think it is common in human nature to want to be liked, so when somebody you know asks you for a donation, you are very likely to give to them, because you don't want them to think poorly of you. Is this any different from the organizations that try to guilt you by making a single victim for viewers to associate with? I don't think they are all that far apart. Both play on the emotion of guilt, even if a friend or family member does it unintentionally. Is this something that needs to be fixed or just a flaw in the system?
Now for the more fun part, if emotion was removed, there would certainly no problem of guilt, and we could focus just on reason based on how the organization performs. Firstly, how would we chose which one of the top organizations to chose from if we had absolutely no feelings towards any of the organizations? Would we simply just chose one of the top organizations at random, or would we split our donations evenly? Neither of these seem like viable options because random selection isn't rational, and giving to all the top organizations would spread funds too thin. Secondly, the bigger problem emerges of that philanthropy could be greatly reduced or abolished completely. If we take your situation, then there is no emotion, which could lead to rational giving, or it could lead to no giving at all. Without emotion, we would not see any reason to give to these organizations unless they benefited us in some way, and the benefit of personal joy is out of the question. I think that this result is much more likely in this situation, and it is fun to delve into this completely preposterous idea. How could you convince somebody to donate? There would have to be a rational argument to get somebody to donate, which may be hard to come up with, but maybe somebody else would like to address that!
The scariest part of this hypothetical situation would be what happens if without emotion, nobody had any drive to work at all, and we just all moved throughout the world as lifeless objects taking up space. Would our only goal be to survive long enough to produce offspring? This is crazy to think about and I love it. I encourage others to think as outside the box as possible!
DeleteI’m glad you enjoyed responding Ryan! In your comment, I like how you brought up how an individual would choose from the top organizations. The way the philanthropic world works today is that we gravitate towards organizations that resonate with us. However, if we have no feeling towards a particular cause, our job gets tricky. You and Nick both suggested that there might be a decrease in philanthropic giving and I do agree with that.
Yet, I also wonder if, as rational machines, we would solve some of the biggest problems facing our world today. For example, hunger seems to be the top cause that draws donations. If we all truly understood that this was the most pressing need, we might pool our efforts and resources to combat the problem to the full extent. If we take out our own personal preference and emotions, our goals might align better. The problem with this is that there would be a huge drop-off for all other causes. In our world today, philanthropy is divided between thousands of organizations, numerous causes and distinct human passions. In this scenario, philanthropy would converge to a single point and all other causes would suffer as a result.
I also want to touch on the last part of your second paragraph. I particularly like you’re your question, “How could you convince someone to donate?” I think you’re right; it comes down to rational argument. Data and statistics would become our best friends. I too would like to see if someone else could tackle this question!
I'd like to discuss this issue from the perspective of the organization rather than from the perspective of the donor. As I've mentioned before, my mom started her own non-profit, Big Learning, Inc., when I was in middle school. As is the case for many non-profits struggling to get off the ground, Big Learning had many grant applications rejected in favor of larger, more established organizations. As a result, my parents turned to people they knew for funding. This wasn't done maliciously; they really had no other choice. Until Big Learning got funding and established itself locally, the vast majority of funding would have to come from people my parents knew.
ReplyDeleteI talked with them about it this morning, and one thing they stressed is that they always aimed to give people more than just a good feeling in return for their donation. They did this by making their fundraising events a great experience for donors at a low cost. Similar to what Mom's House does, my parents got good food donated from local businesses, acquired interesting items to sell in a silent auction, and relied on a friend with expertise in interior decorating to create a beautiful space for their fundraisers. Because their fundraising events were valuable to the donors instead of just to Big Learning, my parents felt better about relying on their friends' donations.
The final reason they were ok with getting funding mainly from people they knew is that they believed that Big Learning was doing great work. They thought through a lot of the same things we have this semester: they identified providing hands-on education as a core value, and saw a huge community need in that area. From how hard I saw my parents work on developing Big Learning year after year, I can say without a doubt that they believed in its value to the community.
So what does this mean about the issue as a whole? To summarize, I illustrated an example in which the organization is ok with asking friends for funding for three reasons. First, new, small non-profits struggle to get the necessary funding through grants. Second, the organization worked as hard as they could to make the donation process fun and valuable to the community (they weren't just taking money from people they knew and giving a quick 'thank you'). Finally, the organization strongly believed that it was doing good work and filling a community need. I think that on the issue of obligatory donations, as is the case with most issues brought up in this class, we should look for a middle ground in terms of our opinion. I take no issue with what my parents did (although I'd be interested to hear if anyone else does), but I also agree that obligatory donations are sometimes a cause for concern. While it may be a little awkward, I would advise people to evaluate wherever they are being 'pressured' into donating too before they donate. If their donation will be used in satisfactory ways (the way Big Learning used the donations), then I don't see a problem. However, this may not always be the case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI must admit I was definitely guilty of using my friends/family/neighbors to raise money when I was a kid. In elementary school I participated in Hoops for Heart, a fundraiser for the American Heart Association. In order to get donations, I would send an envelope to work with my dad and many of his co-workers would donate. This method seems so impersonal (I wasn’t even there to advocate for the cause), but it was very successful! I almost always reached the highest goal.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I am not sure guilt played a big role, though. The envelope was simply left in a conference room next to a flyer explaining what Hoops for Heart was all about. If my father’s co-workers decided to donate, that was great! They left their cash/check in the envelope and that was it. If they chose not to donate, they didn’t have to face the disappointed gaze of an 8-year-old girl, they simply didn’t put anything in the envelope. No one kept track of the employees that chose to donate or those who abstained. Because of this, I believe donations were made because people wanted to support the American Cancer Society, not necessarily because they felt obligated. My way of fundraising, although not the most intimate, was effective and that is what mattered.
This idea reminds me of a discussion we had earlier in the semester debating whether or not it is wrong for people to give out of self-interest. I argued that as long as the donation was made, it didn’t matter what motivated the action. While it does seem more admirable to donate with no expectation of something in return, either way, the time/money is still donated and still makes a difference. Similarly, I believe that it doesn’t matter whether or not friends/family/neighbors donate simply because of guilt. Yes, it may take some of the “magic” out of philanthropy, but it is still philanthropy because guilt, an emotion, may lead you to give, but reason (not knowing much about the cause, not feeling personally connect, etc.) will most likely constrain you and keep you from donating a large sum of money.
Without emotion, I believe philanthropic donations would significantly decrease in every area. The driving force behind philanthropy, for me at least, is empathy. My compassion for people who are worse off than I am is what motivates me to help. Emotionless people would not feel guilty about not donating to causes their friend/family/neighbor advocates for, but they would also be disconnected from the suffering individuals throughout the world. If philanthropy is truly “emotion constrained by reason,” emotion MUST exist as the compelling force behind donations.
First I'd like to say you phrased the situation in such a way that I would assume we still have emotions, but when it comes to philanthropic acts we don't let them influence our choices. In this case I would assume the sort of guilt-driven giving or giving from a social pressure to fit in would decrease drastically, however new philanthropic acts might actually help the good organizations thrive. My theory would be that people can still feel for causes, and be driven to donate by emotions, but when it came to the donations itself, they aren't able to just go with a rash drive of emotion. If emotion were taken out of giving, girl scouts would have to argue for their cause and state what the funds from a box of cookies is supporting. PTA cookie dough sales or what not might falter, but only if the original cause can't find some logical appeal. I don't believe people would stop donating if they didn't let emotions drive their giving, instead I feel that people would be drawn towards philanthropy and then realize there are a lot of important choices to make. I think there would be a shift where people seek out means of deciphering which organizations are better at what they do, more efficient, or maybe even those that take on a more urgent issue. If we let logic dictate our giving over our hearts, I believe we would still donate, it just would take more time. But perhaps taking time to logically consider donations would lead to the better organizations thriving. In such a case, emotionless choosing of organizations is ideal! Instead of jars for small donations to causes you may have never heard of, sitting idly by a cash register, perhaps there would be a pamphlet talking about a cause that needs your help; it would have enough emotional stuff to start you thinking and want to donate, but follow up with information needed to help make a smart decision (and then, the logical person would probably seek out more information too). In a world where people are unwilling to give just because their heart aches from a video of needy children, it may be harder to earn a donation, but I believe logic would still bring people to donate to good causes - and perhaps donations would really become much more like the investments they are.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if emotions were removed entirely, I think that philanthropy wouldn't really exist. The only reason one would give, I think, would be for some sort of personal gain. As without sympathy for others, well, who cares?