Hello this is Jeff Rutt, I recently came across this article published by a Canadian newspaper about a recent academic humanities conference. At the conference one of the most popular papers that was presented centered around the topic of charitable giving. According to the paper, charitable giving has become a trendy thing to do primarily in North American culture. Giving has become trendy not necessarily because people are passionate about the cause they are giving to, but because they want to appear as a certain kind of person to their friends. Many celebrities like Angelina Jolie have made it cool to give your time and money towards a cause. Many people can identify with that wanting to feel like they are someone who is a part of something bigger, or who cares about a cause. As the founder of an organization that relies heavily on charitable giving, I’m excited about the push in our culture for people to give back. However, I know that it takes more than a passing trend to create real change in the lives of those less fortunate. Making real and lasting change involves a commitment on the part of the giver and a passion to see a project through to the end. Although giving is almost always appreciated, the Bible states that the best giving is that done with a right heart and attitude. In Mark 12 Jesus tells his disciples that a woman who had given just a small gift had given the best gift because she gave out of a pure heart and gave all that she could. At HOPE we appreciate any donation that is given to us, but we it is our desire that those who give do so not because its trendy but out of a pure heart to serve others and make true and lasting change for the Kingdom.
(The following text is excerpted from: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/28/oh-the-humanities-does-a-donation-really-count-if-no-one-sees-you-giving/)
Oh, The Humanities!: Does a donation really count if no one sees you giving?
Donating money to charity has become highly fashionable, a status symbol that has been dubbed “conspicious giving,” and comes with the burden of social expectation and manipulation, according to a paper to be presented at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences conference on Wednesday.
University of Alberta instructor Margrit Talpalaru coined the “conspicious giving” term to describe the way corporations, charities and society at large have latched onto North Americans’ desire for the visibility that comes with donating time or money.
“In the rampantly consumerist Western society of the 21st century, conspicuous giving has become the true status marker,” writes Ms. Talpalaru, a English and film studies instructor. “Charitable donors, especially famous ones, have become modern-day heroes, while ordinary people are being judged by their giving.”
North Americans find role models in celebrities like Angelina Jolie, who has served as a United Nations special envoy for refugees and last week released a line of jewellery that will benefit children in Africa.
Canadian do-gooders Marc and Craig Kielburger’s social enterprise Me to We uses corporate strategies to boost their cause of improving life for children all over the world (you can buy a Pamoja Unity Bracelet on their website for only $49.99).
Ms. Talpalaru said 1985’s Live Aid concert for Ethiopia was a precursor. The expertly marketed Run for the Cure campaign for breast cancer research, with its ubiquitous pink ribbon, is another.
Corporate interest flooded in after billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates made The Giving Pledge in 2010, breathing life into the idea of “philanthrocapitalism.”
“You can see how celebrity culture, celebrity activism trickles down and puts these pressures on everyday people like you and I donating more time or money and to win stuff for charity,” she said. “The competition that is so prized by capitalism now has to be tinged with the moral value of giving to charity. It’s no longer good enough that you’re good at something, you’ve won something, you have to give at least part of it to charity.”
The new Global TV reality show Canada Sings gets workplace colleagues to form a glee club and compete on live television. Their winnings go to charity — an act that was once the sole domain of celebrities when they played TV game shows like Jeopardy or The Price is Right.
She’s also concerned corporate sponsors could take full control of charity fundraisers and research projects, with their money-making interests potentially overshadowing the social good. And she suggests that if individuals are more interested in funding good causes, the government may choose to do less of it.
She cautions the meteoric rise of doing good has also come with the burden of social expectation — if everyone else is taking donations for charity in lieu of gifts, why aren’t you? While this focus on giving is inherently good, Ms. Talpalaru is urging more thought and debate about the phenomena.
“The only pitfall is to follow blindly.”
Thanks again for reading, stay tuned for more articles and comments- Jeff Rutt
No comments:
Post a Comment